• 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

Mr. Invisible

A Man Without A Country
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
5,517
Reaction score
3,927
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I just want to know, how many of you think corporations are people and if so, please, tell me exactly what makes up a corporation and why it is deserving of personhood.

Personally, I think that coporations should not be considered people. A corporation is nothing but a thing. It has no soul, cannot breath, and in general portrays little to no qualities that a person has.
 
I just want to know, how many of you think corporations are people and if so, please, tell me exactly what makes up a corporation and why it is deserving of personhood.

Personally, I think that coporations should not be considered people. A corporation is nothing but a thing. It has no soul, cannot breath, and in general portrays little to no qualities that a person has.

Corporate personhood and limited liability are problematic in my opinion as it seperates consequences from illegal activities. The owners and managers would be a lot more proactive and more likely to do the right thing if it was their ass on the line.
 
Corporate personhood and limited liability are problematic in my opinion as it seperates consequences from illegal activities. The owners and managers would be a lot more proactive and more likely to do the right thing if it was their ass on the line.

That's a very good point. I agree. I also think we're going to see some changes in government's rights to "pierce the corporate veil." And we should, in my opinion -- for exactly the reason you point out.

As to the OP, corporate personhood has been around for 200 years in the US. Could a barstool enter into a contract with a bartender? No. Silly. But could the corporation that owns the barstool do so? Yes. So in that way, legally, a corporation is treated as an individual. It's not magic. It's a legal convenience.

Where problems can and will come up as we go forward is when courts are asked to determine, for example, does a corporation (as a person) have the legal right to cite the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination? That would be devastating!

I think SCOTUS will continue to be challenged in determining just how far this personhood extends as evidenced by the 2011 ruling that corporations do not have the same right to privacy as natural persons when it comes to the FOIA. (FCC v AT&T)

Corporate personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Corporate personhood is absolute BS. A corporation is not a person, it does not have rights; treating as such is just a way for the aristocracy to avoid consequence of their action. The Board of Directors and CEOs should always be on the line for the performance of the company.
 
Corporate personhood is absolute BS. A corporation is not a person, it does not have rights; treating as such is just a way for the aristocracy to avoid consequence of their action. The Board of Directors and CEOs should always be on the line for the performance of the company.

Then you favor dissolving every contract any corporation has entered into. Nope. It is not just a way to avoid consequences. It is a way for a corporation to own property, enter into union contracts, purchase machinery, hire/fire, etc., etc., etc., etc..

What you are objecting to is the corporate veil. That should be tested-tested-tested because I suspect more of us than ever find it wrong that individuals can limit their peresonal liability by hiding behind it.
 
As to the OP, corporate personhood has been around for 200 years in the US. Could a barstool enter into a contract with a bartender? No. Silly. But could the corporation that owns the barstool do so? Yes. So in that way, legally, a corporation is treated as an individual. It's not magic. It's a legal convenience.

I disagree. Look at what is happening when a "corporation" enters into a contract. Duties and obligations arise in any contract formation.

The corporation is a group of people. Normally when a group of people in a business partnership form a contract with Person A, all those people in the group are held liable. If there is a breach of contract then anybody in the business group can be sued for the damages incurred Person A because of a breach by the group. Person A can sue anybody in the group jointly and severally, meaning he can sue one member of the group for 100% of his loses and the court will uphold the judgment. This means Person A can sue any group member for their personal assets to satisfy damages incurred from that breached contract with the business group. Person A is not limited to the group's business assets, but can actually reach into the individual group members' pockets to get what he is owed.

This is where corporate liability shields enter the picture. A corpration is just a business group like the one we just described, bu with special government-granted protections. When a corporation breaches the contract it made with Person A, Person A is limited by government fiat to only the business assets of the corporation. This means Person A no longer has the option of reaching into the individual corporation member's pockets to satisfy their debts. There is a "shield" blocking Person A from what would otherwise be a legal means of compensation. This is true even when the corporation goes bankrupt, in which case Person A has no means to get what he is owed, even though the individual people who breached his contract might have plenty of money.

That's why corporation liability shield are illegitimate from a libertarian perspective.
 
Last edited:
But most corporations are not owned in the same sense that a sole proprietorship is owned. If I own a few shares of stock in a company that goes bankrupt, should people have the right to sue me personally for their debts? Of course not. I should lose the value of my investment, and no more. Unless I am personally implicated in wrongdoing, it would be impractical to do otherwise. That would lead to a situation where people were afraid to invest in stocks and the American economy would grind to a halt.

I reject some of the more ridiculous applications of corporate personhood, but limited liability definitely has its uses.
 
I just want to know, how many of you think corporations are people and if so, please, tell me exactly what makes up a corporation and why it is deserving of personhood.

Personally, I think that coporations should not be considered people. A corporation is nothing but a thing. It has no soul, cannot breath, and in general portrays little to no qualities that a person has.

I believe in limited corporate personhood.

Large corporation and businesses get a lot of criticism for how they use corporate personhood to engage in corrupt practices. However, small and medium businesses relies on corporate personhood as a liability shield. Those small and medium businesses need that liability shield in order to operate. Without it, they wouldn't be able to operate in a way that competes with larger businesses.

I'd have to think about which issues businesses should be considered a person and which they shouldn't.
 
I reject some of the more ridiculous applications of corporate personhood, but limited liability definitely has its uses.

The only use of limited liability is to interfere with personal responsibility.
 
The only use of limited liability is to interfere with personal responsibility.

So you believe that individual investors should be held accountable for the actions of the corporations in which they hold stock, even if they had nothing to do with the actions?
 
I disagree. Look at what is happening when a "corporation" enters into a contract. Duties and obligations arise in any contract formation.

The corporation is a group of people. Normally when a group of people in a business partnership form a contract with Person A, all those people in the group are held liable. If there is a breach of contract then anybody in the business group can be sued for the damages incurred Person A because of a breach by the group. Person A can sue anybody in the group jointly and severally, meaning he can sue one member of the group for 100% of his loses and the court will uphold the judgment. This means Person A can sue any group member for their personal assets to satisfy damages incurred from that breached contract with the business group. Person A is not limited to the group's business assets, but can actually reach into the individual group members' pockets to get what he is owed.

This is where corporate liability shields enter the picture. A corpration is just a business group like the one we just described, bu with special government-granted protections. When a corporation breaches the contract it made with Person A, Person A is limited by government fiat to only the business assets of the corporation. This means Person A no longer has the option of reaching into the individual corporation member's pockets to satisfy their debts. There is a "shield" blocking Person A from what would otherwise be a legal means of compensation. This is true even when the corporation goes bankrupt, in which case Person A has no means to get what he is owed, even though the individual people who breached his contract might have plenty of money.

That's why corporation liability shield are illegitimate from a libertarian perspective.

The corporate liability shield is invaluable. Business would grind to a halt without it. Imagine that a corporation goes bankrupt. Do you honestly believe that every single stockholder should be held jointly and severally liable for its debts?? Boy! I hope Warren Buffet owns a few shares. Ha!

I believe that the corporate veil should be easily pierced in cases of illegal activities, bad faith decisions, etc., but, beyond that, the corporate veil should be sacrosanct.
 
I just want to know, how many of you think corporations are people and if so, please, tell me exactly what makes up a corporation and why it is deserving of personhood.

Personally, I think that coporations should not be considered people. A corporation is nothing but a thing. It has no soul, cannot breath, and in general portrays little to no qualities that a person has.

Corporations are not people, just the people who make up that corporation are people. And as such they are still entitled to constitutional rights just like any other group of people or individuals.
 
Then you favor dissolving every contract any corporation has entered into. Nope. It is not just a way to avoid consequences. It is a way for a corporation to own property, enter into union contracts, purchase machinery, hire/fire, etc., etc., etc., etc..

What you are objecting to is the corporate veil. That should be tested-tested-tested because I suspect more of us than ever find it wrong that individuals can limit their peresonal liability by hiding behind it.

Corporations don't need personhood to retain property.
The ownership is divided among the partners of the business, with the large to smallest going by a prearrangement contract.
 
So you believe that individual investors should be held accountable for the actions of the corporations in which they hold stock, even if they had nothing to do with the actions?

That's an incoherent statement. Investors by definition have something to do with the actions of their business. Namely they have joint and several liability.

All I'm saying is we should hold investors to the same standard as any other group of people.
 
Business would grind to a halt without it.

I highly doubt that. In fact, it would probably cause businesspeople to be more cautious in their transactions. Personal accountability in business cannot be a bad thing.
 
Corporations are not people, just the people who make up that corporation are people. And as such they are still entitled to constitutional rights just like any other group of people or individuals.

This is true, but you are drawing a non sequitur conclusion from it. Corporations are not treated like any other group of people, they are given special government protections that unincorporated groups of people are not given.
 
Do you honestly believe that every single stockholder should be held jointly and severally liable for its debts??

Why not? Every partner in a partnership is jointly and severally liable. Why do shareholders in a corporation get special treatment? This only simply wordplay, not a meaningful distinction.
 
Corporations don't need personhood to retain property.
The ownership is divided among the partners of the business, with the large to smallest going by a prearrangement contract.

Okay. On your theory, how would General Motors vast amount of property be held? Who would own it? How would the deeds read?

That's an incoherent statement. Investors by definition have something to do with the actions of their business. Namely they have joint and several liability.

All I'm saying is we should hold investors to the same standard as any other group of people.

No, that's not quite true. There are "investors" and there are "passive investors." Stockholders in a corporation are the perfect examples of passive investors. Just because I own 100 shares of GM does not mean that I have any active role in the business, nor does it mean that I should have any liability for any of GMs actions. As it should be.

Why not? Every partner in a partnership is jointly and severally liable. Why do shareholders in a corporation get special treatment? This only simply wordplay, not a meaningful distinction.

A partnership is one form of ownership that has benefits and liabilities. People who choose that form of ownership are free to do so. One assumes that the benefits in their particular situation outweigh the disadvantages.

It's not wordplay. It's the law. And it most certainly is a meaningful distinction....unless, of course, you plan to unravel several hundred years of practiced law.
 
Last edited:
Okay. On your theory, how would General Motors vast amount of property be held? Who would own it? How would the deeds read?

Held in commons by the investors.

Deeds can't read they're just pieces of paper. :mrgreen:
But seriously the deed could say, held in commons detailed by the investment agreement.
 
No, that's not quite true. There are "investors" and there are "passive investors." Stockholders in a corporation are the perfect examples of passive investors. Just because I own 100 shares of GM does not mean that I have any active role in the business, nor does it mean that I should have any liability for any of GMs actions. As it should be.

If you purchased 100 shares of an unincorporated business, on same facts as your describe, you would be legally liable. Your distinction between "investors" and "passive investors" does not exist under the law, nor should it. If you engage in an activity you ought to be personally accountable for the consequences of the activity, just as the law is applied to everyone else.
 
Absolutely not. In a truly free market, there is no place for corporations to have the same rights as individuals, especially if they are protected by a government.
 
unless, of course, you plan to unravel several hundred years of practiced law.

Essentially, yes, the just course of action is to unravel hundreds of years worth of corporation law. I'm not sure why you think this constitutes an argument in your favor. Similarly, when slavery was abolished, hundreds of years worth of slave law was "unraveled." It was a good thing.
 
Last edited:
But seriously the deed could say, held in commons detailed by the investment agreement.

That is exactly correct. The legal fiction of corporate personhood is not necessary for businesses concerns to hold property. This is covered by the common law of property and contracts.
 
Essentially, yes, the just course of action is to unravel hundreds of years worth of corporation law. I'm not sure why you think this constitutes an argument in your favor. Similarly, when slavery was abolished, hundred of years worth of slave law were "unraveled." It was a good thing.

Only 1 thing here, I'd like to quibble over.

It really wasn't hundred of years of corporate law, this is a fairly new concept.
Before hand, most if not all businesses were held as sole proprietorship or partnerships.

They existed but not that widely (as they are now), if I remember correctly.
 
That's an incoherent statement. Investors by definition have something to do with the actions of their business. Namely they have joint and several liability.

All I'm saying is we should hold investors to the same standard as any other group of people.

That isn't very practical. That would result in amateur stockpickers, who own a few shares of stock in companies that they like, facing huge legal bills when they were personally sued for the actions of the business. Most smalltime stockholders have little knowledge of the inner workings of the company. Hell, some people don't even know that they own stock in certain companies, especially if they just own an index fund.

They should be liable for the amount of their investment, and no more. Very few people would be willing to invest in stocks if they were risking their entire life savings every time they plunked down $100 to buy a few shares of some corporate stock.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom