• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Corporate Personhood

Do you believe in corporate personhood?

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 6.5%

  • No

    Votes: 24 77.4%

  • Other (Please explain)

    Votes: 5 16.1%
  • Total voters
    31
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.
 
Ikari said:
They aren't in on all the decisions and books and information. They go by what the company says its doing.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Hello?

?

...?

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.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Making it less free won't make it more free.

F.T.I.W
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom