View Poll Results: Do you believe in corporate personhood?

34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    3 8.82%
  • No

    26 76.47%
  • Other (Please explain)

    5 14.71%
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 102 of 102

Thread: Corporate Personhood

  1. #101
    mpg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Milford, CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:37 AM

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    A corporation is a group of people, just like a labor union. If it was a lifeless entity, it couldn't spend money on campaign ads whether it was legal or not.
    If you expect people to be rational, you aren't being rational.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 06:26 PM

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    They aren't in on all the decisions and books and information. They go by what the company says its doing.
    Ya think maybe that's why the liability of the average shareholder is limited to the value of the stock held and he is not held criminally liable for actions taken by the company he owns a small share of?

    Just maybe, perhaps?

    If this were more educated decision making process, I would maybe be more inclined to agree. But as it stands, stock holders have relatively no influence but if a company does bad, or cooks its books, or uses some form of government privilege to look better and then fails; who pays the price? The stock holders loose out on that money, but the ones in charge feel no negative repercussions for having performed badly in the business world.
    Welcome to the real world. So what're you saying that the stockholders should pay more because the officers of the company are allowed to skate? You must be aware that you're arguing both sides of the coin, aren't you? The stockholder's liability is limited to the shares they hold. Mayor Snorkum could be amenable to certain laws regulating the construction of golden parachutes, but those limitations must only be applicable in criminal circumstances. Otherwise you're demanding the government interfere with the strictly private workings of private enterprises.

    If you think this sort of government subsidy and bail outs are part of "free market" policy, I'd have to question your understanding of what free market it.



    Mayor Snorkum NEVER supports any subsidies. If a farmer can't run his business at a profit, he can go bankrupt and move to the city like everyone else. If ADM can't make corn-based ethanol profitable without money stolen from taxpayers, then they shouldn't be in the corn likker business. Laissez-faire is oppostion to subsidies as much as it is opposition to regulations.

    You would do well to keep this in mind.

    In the end, free market economy is a very wonderful thing where people can succeed or fail by their own ability and luck. What we have now is not free market economy, however. It is entangle government corporate economy; which is well different than the free market.
    Agreed. Making it less free won't make it more free.


Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts