• 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

Bob N said:
A collective is a collective. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Then how does a union rightfully speak for all of its workers when dealing with management?
 
Bob N said:
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.
Click to expand...

IMO its a mistake that will be fixed eventually.
 
Henrin said:
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.
Click to expand...
For the sole reason that it's against Hobby Lobby's religious views.

Bob N said:
What you just described is a collective, not a person. You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
No, you're starting to understand it. The corporate person represents the collective. The collective is the corporate personhood. They are one in the same.
 
brothern said:
No, you're starting to understand it. The corporate person represents the collective. The collective is the corporate personhood. They are one in the same.
Click to expand...
The law now says that they're a person, not a corporate person. Just a fancy way of getting out of being refereed to as collective. Anyways...should be interesting to see how Scalia deals with this; he is going to have to consider all future implications on this matter.
 
Harshaw said:
Except when they're taxed like one.
Click to expand...
... and all other matters as well. When I say "contract creation," what I'm saying is "buying and selling goods."

Corporations can buy and sell goods, just like people, because they're considered a personhood. They have the ability to own and trade property. They enter and leave contracts.

If corporation were not legal personhood; who's going to buy, own and eventually sell the $30 million dollar piece of equipment used to manufacture the widgets?
What, Joe Schmoe in Sales? No, he's entitled to act on behalf of the corporation, who purchases and then owns the equipment.

Then when that equipment accidentally takes off someone's arm ... is Joe Schmoe the Sales Guy is going to be the one who is held legally responsible and sued?
No, the corporate person will.
 
Last edited:
AGENT J said:
IMO its a mistake that will be fixed eventually.
Click to expand...
Indeed, Agent. Just consider all rights to a person here. Business will never be the same if Scalia sides with Hobby Lobby. ;)
 
Bob N said:
The law now says that they're a person, not a corporate person.
Click to expand...

Show me the "law" which makes this distinction. Specific language.
 
Henrin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I will agree that corporations are people just as soon as Rick Perry executes one of them. :mrgreen:
 
brothern said:
... and all other matters as well. When I say "contract creation," what I'm saying is "buying and selling goods."

Corporations can buy and sell goods, just like people, because they're considered a personhood. They have the ability to own and trade property.

If corporation were not legal personhood; who's going to buy, own and eventually sell the $30 million dollar piece of equipment used to manufacture widget?
What, Joe Schmoe in Sales? No, he's entitled to act on behalf of the corporation, who purchases and then owns the equipment.

Then when that equipment accidentally takes off someone's arm ... is Joe Schmoe the Sales Guy is going to be the one who is held legally responsible and sued?
No, the corporate person will.
Click to expand...

You don't have to convince me. It's Bob N who doesn't want them considered "people" until tax time.
 
danarhea said:
I will agree that corporations are people just as soon as Rick Perry executes one of them. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Rick Perry has never executed anyone.
 
danarhea said:
In Texas, the Governor is the one who signs the death warrants.
Click to expand...

As, and only when, ordered by the judicial system of Texas.
 
When Bob says this about corporations, he means corporations he doesn't like (like Chick-Fil-A and such). He doesn't mean this about Amazon or Google or companies with a known liberal bent.
 
Gipper said:
When Bob says this about corporations, he means corporations he doesn't like (like Chick-Fil-A and such). He doesn't mean this about Amazon or Google or companies with a known liberal bent.
Click to expand...
And this folks has been one of the things that I have been trying to convey in this thread: Gipper never asked me about this whatsoever, so what is he doing? Putting words in another person's mouth -- in other words representing me without my consent. Part of the collective that I didn't agree to. :roll:
 
Bob N said:
SCOTUS thinks they are. :shrug:
Click to expand...

No. You just think SCOTUS said something it didn't.

There are a LOT of people who think the rulings in Citizens United were something other than what they are (everyone who parrots that that the ruling was "corporations are people."). You are not alone in that. You are the first one I've seen, though, so say something so ludicrously specific as:

Bob N said:
The law now says that they're a person, not a corporate person.
Click to expand...

Which is pulled entirely out of your ass.
 
Bob N said:
And this folks has been one of the things that I have been trying to convey in this thread: Gipper never asked me about this whatsoever, so what is he doing? Putting words in another person's mouth -- in other words representing me without my consent. Part of the collective that I didn't agree to. :roll:
Click to expand...

You're a partisan hack. I know how partisan hacks operate. You're nothing special.

I know the "butthurt" posting position. You weren't the first. You won't be the last.
 
Gipper said:
You're a partisan hack. I know how partisan hacks operate. You're nothing special.

I know the "butthurt" posting position. You weren't the first. You won't be the last.
Click to expand...
Whatever Gipper. Go write a book about it if you want to -- just don't write a forward to it and say that I wrote it.
 
Bob N said:
Great analogy.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. It's a dumb joke which doesn't stand up the slightest bit of actual scrutiny. danarhea, I think, actually understands that. You don't seem to.
 
Bob N said:
And this folks has been one of the things that I have been trying to convey in this thread: Gipper never asked me about this whatsoever, so what is he doing? Putting words in another person's mouth -- in other words representing me without my consent. Part of the collective that I didn't agree to. :roll:
Click to expand...

I find it ironic that you keep mentioning collectives you never consented to.
 
Bob N said:
The law now says that they're a person, not a corporate person. Just a fancy way of getting out of being refereed to as collective. Anyways...should be interesting to see how Scalia deals with this; he is going to have to consider all future implications on this matter.
Click to expand...
Yes. It's a legal fiction.

legal fiction: A fact assumed or created by courts which is then used in order to apply a legal rule which was not necessarily designed to be used in that way.

Since according to our laws, only persons can be taxed, or buy and sell goods, be held liable or be sued; the courts therefore made corporations into legal persons.

They were not saying corporations are literally people. Only that the courts wanted to make it so that the US could legally tax corporations and sue them, without having to completely rewrite the US Constitution.

It's an argument about semantics, that the left (and right) describes incorrectly in order to earn votes.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
No. You just think SCOTUS said something it didn't.

There are a LOT of people who think the rulings in Citizens United were something other than what they are (everyone who parrots that that the ruling was "corporations are people."). You are not alone in that. You are the first one I've seen, though, so say something so ludicrously specific as:



Which is pulled entirely out of your ass.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I say SCOTUS ruled them as a person. :peace
 
Bob N said:
I disagree. I say SCOTUS ruled them as a person. :peace
Click to expand...

You can "disagree" until the sun goes red giant; it won't make you correct.

If they did so, cite the language. Until you can do that, you're talking out of your aforementioned rectal orifice.
 
brothern said:
Yes. It's a legal fiction.

legal fiction: A fact assumed or created by courts which is then used in order to apply a legal rule which was not necessarily designed to be used in that way.

Since according to our laws, only persons can be taxed, or buy and sell goods, be held liable or be sued; therefore the courts made corporations into legal persons. They're were not saying corporations are literally people. The courts wanted to make it so that the US could legally tax corporations and sue them, without having to completely rewrite the US Constitution.
Click to expand...
I sure wish that when it came to my fiscal relationship with the state they would make me fiction too; that sure would make me feel like a person. ;) ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom