• 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!

Corporations Aren't People

Are the people that run the corporation people? Do they not have the right to use their property in the way they see fit, to associate with who they desire, and provide services in the way they see fit? Oh right, for some reason they are lesser beings. Funny how that works. I find liberals are entirely missing the point. In order to protect the rights of people businesses can not be the slaves of the population as a whole.

The individuals are individuals and may spend their personal money as they see fit. Public corporations are owned by many people, the shareholders. So saying that a public corp manned by a small board and that board making decisions for political spending is somewhat equivalent to the individual making similar decisions is a bit misleading.

In the end corporations are property and nothing more.
 
All businesses, clubs, groups, organizations, charities and churches all have different rights and obligations than individuals under the law. Which I think is appropriate for their existence, though corporations have too much control over regulations and legislation thru lobbying and campaign contributions.

Mega-Intl-Corporations have become a cover like the gov for their operators to do many misdeeds. They say they're fair and in the name of progress we can't live without them, when in truth they've become a cancer and leech. Anything too big to fail has too much power in our society.

All that they do could be done better by a handful of smaller companies competing for our business.

So the NLRB just came out and said it's OK for the UFCW to hand out $50 gift cards to anyone who protests Walmart. If the government is OK with allowing that to go on then shouldn't they also allow Walmart to spend money to present their side of the discussion?

Labor Relations Board OKs unions paying people to protest Walmart | WashingtonExaminer.com
 
Oops! Maybe I left out stockholders and what they receive once everything is paid.

You are ignoring/avoiding the fact that corporations pay income taxes. No, I'm not referring to taxes stockholders pay on their dividends or capital gains. No, I'm not referring to the taxes employees pay on their personal incomes. I'm talking about the corporate income tax, which is paid by the corporation, not individuals.

Gosh, why could you possibly be wanting to avoid that?
 
The individuals are individuals and may spend their personal money as they see fit. Public corporations are owned by many people, the shareholders. So saying that a public corp manned by a small board and that board making decisions for political spending is somewhat equivalent to the individual making similar decisions is a bit misleading.

In the end corporations are property and nothing more.

I suppose, but in that case it's still telling the shareholders how to run their business and their property or restricting their right to speak as a group. I don't think it changes anything really.
 
I found this opinion piece by Harold Meyerson to be spot on concerning corporations being brought in to the world of personhood.

Is it alright for corporations to speak for their employees on all matters as a collective? I don't think so.

Also consider this: Where does this corporations-are-people business start and stop? Note the excerpt from Meyerson's piece:

Harold Meyerson makes one think about personhood, don't you think? What about wars? People are drafted and go to wars, why not include corporations? Corporations get to itemize a lot of things on their taxes more than the average Joe or Jane. Why do they get to be a special person with extraordinary fiscal relationships with the state?

Yes, I think Scalia is looking to see how he is going to open this can of worms -- real carefully.

Corporations are made up of people. Under the 1st amendment you and other people have the right to peaceably assemble.Groups of people have the right to free speech,religion petition grievances and freedom of the press.Last I checked there is no one at a time in the first time clause in the first amendment.
 
Exactly Luther. Chances are even two people are not going to agree with each other, so why should one person automatically speak for the other? And even if they all agreed, I would still consider it a collective decision and not a decision of one.
The corporation is not technically speaking for you, it's speaking for the corporation.

Hersey's Corp. is fundamentally interested in politics, sugar policy, elected officials, because those decisions are tied directly to the company's business, it's survival. The union for Hersey's Corp. is interested in politics, worker policy, elected officials, because those decisions are tied directly to the union's business and it's survival. Those two corporations, Hersey's and its union, are allowed to make political statements and donations on behalf of their respective corporation personhoods, because it affects the interest of that corporation -- the collective group of those persons.

Same goes for religious organizations. Their religious beliefs and actions of the organization are generally protected, because it affects the interest of the religious organization.

What atheists like me try to do is say that, no, Hobby Lobby cannot refuse coverage for birth control for employees, because birth control has no effect upon its business. More importantly it violates the individual rights of the employees and has nothing to do with Hobby Lobby or its personhood. The owners of Hobby Lobby will have to first prove to the Supreme Court that somehow this birth control issue has any relevancy to the corporation.
 
The difference is that if you organize a group for a given purpose and appoint a spokesman for that group then it's assumed that all members of that group are a party to whatever message the group presents. Individual members of the group are free to disagree or disassociate themselves but they have still agreed to appoint the spokesman.
There again it depends on the rules of the collective.

Look. What I'm going to try to convey here is an analogy to the Hobby Lobby matter.

In a business there are many people with different viewpoints on things that have nothing to do with the business. (the way someone votes; what a person believes in from a religious perspective; etc; ) How can a business claim to say that it speaks for all it's employees on a religious matter when there will be plenty of people that would disagree with that employer?

And this employer wishes for that decision to be considered as an opinion from one human being? That's like two human beings with two different wants -- one wants to go bowling while the other wants to go fishing -- coming in to conflict. Now through some incredible means you were to merge those two human beings in to one, (think Sci-Fi here ;) ) you would have one entity not knowing if it wanted to pick-up a bowling ball or a fishing pole constantly, and that enity would never make it out the door.
 
What atheists like me try to do is say that, no, Hobby Lobby cannot refuse coverage for birth control for employees, because birth control has no effect upon its business. More importantly it violates the individual rights of the employees and has nothing to do with Hobby Lobby or its personhood. The owners of Hobby Lobby will have to first prove to the Supreme Court that somehow this birth control issue has any relevancy to the corporation.

So the very fact that hobby lobby disagrees with the notion of providing healthcare coverage for birth control is of no material to you because it has no effect on their business? In what way does that makes sense? Do they not have to provide the service to their employees? How does that not have a direct effect on their business?

I don't even know what you mean by individual rights of the employees since i can't even begin to imagine what rights would be on the table for them.
 
The corporation is not technically speaking for you, it's speaking for the corporation.

Hersey's Corp. is fundamentally interested in politics, sugar policy, elected officials, because those decisions are tied directly to the company's business, it's survival. The union for Hersey's Corp. is interested in politics, worker policy, elected officials, because those decisions are tied directly to the union's business and it's survival. Those two corporations, Hersey's and its union, are allowed to make political statements and donations on behalf of their respective corporation personhoods, because it affects the interest of that corporation -- the collective group of those persons.

Same goes for religious organizations. Their religious beliefs and actions of the organization are generally protected, because it affects the interest of the religious organization.

What atheists like me try to do is say that, no, Hobby Lobby cannot refuse coverage for birth control for employees, because birth control has no effect upon its business. More importantly it violates the individual rights of the employees and has nothing to do with Hobby Lobby or its personhood. The owners of Hobby Lobby will have to first prove to the Supreme Court that somehow this birth control issue has any relevancy to the corporation.
What you just described is a collective, not a person. You can't have it both ways.
 
Corporations are made up of people. Under the 1st amendment you and other people have the right to peaceably assemble.Groups of people have the right to free speech,religion petition grievances and freedom of the press.Last I checked there is no one at a time in the first time clause in the first amendment.
That's right -- people. Not as a person.
 
There again it depends on the rules of the collective.

Look. What I'm going to try to convey here is an analogy to the Hobby Lobby matter.

In a business there are many people with different viewpoints on things that have nothing to do with the business. (the way someone votes; what a person believes in from a religious perspective; etc; ) How can a business claim to say that it speaks for all it's employees on a religious matter when there will be plenty of people that would disagree with that employer?

And this employer wishes for that decision to be considered as an opinion from one human being? That's like two human beings with two different wants -- one wants to go bowling while the other wants to go fishing -- coming in to conflict. Now through some incredible means you were to merge those two human beings in to one, (think Sci-Fi here ;) ) you would have one entity not knowing if it wanted to pick-up a bowling ball or a fishing pole constantly, and that enity would never make it out the door.

Let me refer you to post #52.

The UFCW is organizing "Black Friday" protests against Walmart and the NLRB has allowed them to hand out $50 gift cards to the protesters. If that's legit then allowing Walmart to spend money to voice their position must be equally legitimate.
 
You are ignoring/avoiding the fact that corporations pay income taxes. No, I'm not referring to taxes stockholders pay on their dividends or capital gains. No, I'm not referring to the taxes employees pay on their personal incomes. I'm talking about the corporate income tax, which is paid by the corporation, not individuals.

Gosh, why could you possibly be wanting to avoid that?
That is collective. Businesses, if they are a person, can't be a collective and a person too.
 
What you just described is a collective, not a person. You can't have it both ways.

So a collective of individuals have no right to a voice?
 
That is collective. Businesses, if they are a person, can't be a collective and a person too.

WHAT is "collective"? I don't think you know what you're talking about.

And yes, that is exactly the point -- you want them to be treated as a "collective" and not a "person" for everything EXCEPT income taxes. For income taxes, you're perfectly OK with them being treated as individuals.
 
WHAT is "collective"? I don't think you know what you're talking about.

And yes, that is exactly the point -- you want them to be treated as a "collective" and not a "person" for everything EXCEPT income taxes. For income taxes, you're perfectly OK with them being treated as individuals.
Read the OP Harshaw. I used itemizing as an example. Companies get to itemize tremendously. If business is a person and I'm one too, how come I don't get to do that?
 
That's right -- people. Not as a person.

And people can protest,make political contributions, petition grievances, freedom of the press and so on.
 
So a collective of individuals have no right to a voice?
I never said that. I do not believe that any collective should be thought of as a person.
 
Since the Hobby Lobby incident.
HObby Lobby is a privately held corporation. Each of the Hobby Lobby stores are privately owned/run as well. They don't speak for their employees, nor should their employees in any way feel that what their employer does is somehow a reflection of their beliefs.
 
Read the OP Harshaw. I used itemizing as an example. Companies get to itemize tremendously. If business is a person and I'm one too, how come I don't get to do that?

Like WHAT? What don't you get to itemize that they do? Things having to do with running a business?
 
I never said that. I do not believe that any collective should be thought of as a person.

Except when they're taxed like one.
 
That is collective. Businesses, if they are a person, can't be a collective and a person too.
I can *maybe* see there being an argument for publicly-held corporations, but not for privately held ones. All a corporation is is a type of business structure. Nothing more.
 
Let me refer you to post #52.

The UFCW is organizing "Black Friday" protests against Walmart and the NLRB has allowed them to hand out $50 gift cards to the protesters. If that's legit then allowing Walmart to spend money to voice their position must be equally legitimate.
As long as the collective in Wal-Mart agrees to do that and they're not stating that all their employees believe this to be the right thing to do, and they're not saying that I kicked in money to assist them in this act, and it's their money, than yes.

Look, I don't care how they run their business just do not speak for me or others when others do not wish to be spoke for and include that as one human being's decision.
 
I can *maybe* see there being an argument for publicly-held corporations, but not for privately held ones. All a corporation is is a type of business structure. Nothing more.
A collective is a collective. :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom