View Poll Results: Do you believe in corporate personhood?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    3 8.82%
  • No

    26 76.47%
  • Other (Please explain)

    5 14.71%
Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 102

Thread: Corporate Personhood

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Don't be silly, corporations are not people. They can't vote, they can't join the army, they can't have sex or eat chocolate.

    Then again, people have every freedom under the First Amendment to form corporations and to direct those corporations to engage in lobbying activities promoting the causes the stockholders deem favorable to the goals of the corporation.

    It's pretty clear that the phrase "corporate personhood" is a silly propaganda term invented by people who do not wish others to use their brains and understand the basic issues being discussed, namely the basic constitutional freedoms of people in the United States to peaceably assemble and petition their congress. Those opposed to that incredibly basic freedom have to disguise their opposition as some kind of mystical "the rich are out to get us" conspiracy plot.

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by ElijahGalt View Post
    Is your neighborhood get-together a person? Is a union a person? Is an association a person? In the literal sense, of course not. However, these GROUPS of people are entitled to the exact same rights enumerated in the constitution, including the right to speak.
    AMAZING!

    Forty one posts before anyone mentions the fact that the whole foo-foraw over the Citizens United decision was that it placed groups of citizens who own corporate stock on an equal footing with people in unions, insofar as their political participation goes.

    Corporations clearly ARE NOT given immunity from prosecution. Ask Ken Lay about that.

    Corporations, or rather, the people that own them, are granted the same protections under the Bill of Rights against unwarranted search and seizure as any other person in the country. Does anyone seriously want to see those protections removed so the BATF/DEA/FBI can play more Branch Davidian games?

    Does anyone seriously think that the corporate officers should be held criminally liable and face jail time if Joe $15/hour dip-tank operator accidentally or even purposely drains a vat of silver nitrate into the city's waste water treatment system? No, they should only be held liable if it can be proven such a criminal act is done as part of corporate policy under orders.

    Holding a person criminally liable for an act requires, among other things, for that person to have intent. A corporation cannot have intent. Only it's officers can. The individual stockholders cannot be held criminally liable for a corporations criminal acts unless they're officers of the company. They can, of course, be held liable for their own actions, but merely choosing to purchase stock is not a criminal act. Gee, what happens if an investor buy's Joe's Blue Chip Mutual Fund and one of the fund's corporate holdings is deemed "criminally liable" for some act. From what Mayor Snorkum has read of some of the opinions here, those mutual fund share holders can liable, too.

    Which is nonsense.

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Count this left winger in with the libertarians on this. It is so intuitive to me that those that invest in an endeavor should be aware of and support the actions of the company and accept the consequences for their actions just like everyone else.
    So you're arguing that stockholders of corporations should be held personally liable for the actions of the corporation.

    This special protection is an invitation to unethical behavior. Enron and the recent wall street fiasco come to mind on a large scale.
    So you're arguing on the stockholders of Enron should be liable for the actions of the corporation that destroyed the value of the stock the stockholders held.

    Can you say "ouroboros"?

  4. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    EUSSR
    Last Seen
    03-24-14 @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,851

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    A corporation screws up (ok, the board of directors screws up). Stocks tumble. Workers lose their jobs. Equipment is sold out.
    Is it about personhood? Is a worker of that corporation liable?

  5. #55
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Canell View Post
    A corporation screws up (ok, the board of directors screws up). Stocks tumble. Workers lose their jobs. Equipment is sold out.
    Is it about personhood? Is a worker of that corporation liable?
    They should be, if they commit a tort.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  6. #56
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    So you're arguing that stockholders of corporations should be held personally liable for the actions of the corporation.
    [...]
    So you're arguing on the stockholders of Enron should be liable for the actions of the corporation that destroyed the value of the stock the stockholders held.

    Can you say "ouroboros"?
    Can you say respondeat superior?

  7. #57
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    That's not what is being suggested though.

    In the discovery process of tort, the guilty/negligent (however you want to word it) are identified and those individuals are sued for their shares of ownerships, down to personal holdings.

    If the business, as a group, decides to market an unsafe product then all those who knew and still went a long with it, are wholly liable.
    The main and most significant problem with limited liability is that those that commit the tort can shield their assets.
    I don't think anyone disputes that officers and employees should be held accountable for crimes they commit on the job. There are already provisions for that in our legal system. We're talking about investors, i.e. individual stockholders. It is totally impractical and ridiculous to hold an 18-year-old kid, with one share of stock he bought online, liable for the actions of the corporation.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 03-30-11 at 02:13 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #58
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Count this left winger in with the libertarians on this. It is so intuitive to me that those that invest in an endeavor should be aware of and support the actions of the company and accept the consequences for their actions just like everyone else. This special protection is an invitation to unethical behavior. Enron and the recent wall street fiasco come to mind on a large scale.
    So you think that someone who bought one share of Enron stock for $50 and then forgot about it should have lost their life savings? What if they bought an index fund which happened to invest in Enron, unbeknownst to them?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #59
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I don't think anyone disputes that officers and employees should be held accountable for crimes on the job. There are already provisions for that in our legal system. We're talking about investors, i.e. individual stockholders. It is totally impractical to hold an 18-year-old kid, with one share of stock he bought online, liable for the actions of the corporation.
    That's not really whats being suggested, as far as I'm concerned but with limited liability removed, the change in corporate structures would be drastic, in my opinion.

    You're going to have smaller organizations, with investment in those being more personal, but those who commit torts in the organization, shouldn't be able to shield their personal assets from forfeiture.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  10. #60
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    That's not really whats being suggested, as far as I'm concerned
    Maybe that's not what you were suggesting, but the person to whom I responded definitely suggested it. It sounded ridiculous to me too, which is why I asked for clarification if that was REALLY what he was suggesting. Apparently it is:

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Very few people would be willing to invest in stocks if they were personally responsible for the liabilities of the companies they own. Maybe that just means very few people should be investing in stocks
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    but with limited liability removed, the change in corporate structures would be drastic, in my opinion.

    You're going to have smaller organizations, with investment in those being more personal, but those who commit torts in the organization, shouldn't be able to shield their personal assets from forfeiture.
    You're going to have smaller AND fewer organizations, that are starving for investments, and workers who are terrified of having any responsibility whatsoever. A good recipe to destroy jobs and the economy in general.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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