• 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!

People vs. Corporations

Which group should have control of government?

  • Total voters
    40
diz said:
In my experience corporations are controlled by people.
Click to expand...

Yup. Every day I get up, check my holdings, and act accordingly. On the other end I decide between Coke and Pepsi.

People also have choices in government. That's why we vote.
 
Dans La Lune said:
No, but the money generated from IBM can be used to leverage politicians into manipulating policy for their benefit over that of the American people.
Click to expand...

And the people who contribute no money can use their vote to do the same.
 
Dans La Lune said:
Except that the interest even of corporations rests heavily on the very top of the corporation, and not necessarily with the workers. Your statement almost implies that the interests of the employees is equal to that of the CEOs. It's flatly not. The interests of the shareholders and CEOs is often diametrically opposed to the vast majority of the employees. It's about squeezing money out of the employees, their wages, their benefits, their rights.

Why do you think GM workers have been striking?
Click to expand...

Of course, that works both ways: the workers don't much care what their wage/benefit demands do to sales (prices) since that is a management/owner problem - right?
 
Gaius46 said:
Take workers off the table for now. There are probably 20x more owners of GM than employees. Do they not get a voice in government and government policies that might affect their ownership stake in GM?
Click to expand...

As long as it doesn't extend beyond that of the average person, I have no problem with each individual owner using the same ability as the lowliest, most down-trodden American citizen.

Any rules you put in place to limit campaign contributions or speech by organizations would also necessary affects unions. Is that something you want to do?
Click to expand...

Yes, get union money out of politics, get 'George Soros bucks' out of politics. Get it all out.
 
Thread is nothing but an inept attempt at bashing corporations. Simple minded people often try to find boogie men to blame for their failings. The average corporate worker makes over 20K more than the average non corporate worker and has better benefits. If not for corporations, the standard of living we enjoy would be considerably less.

By the way, corporations are people.
 
Dans La Lune said:
Which group should have control of government?
Click to expand...

The 'corporations are people' argument is as patently absurd a non-sequitur and red herring as when Mitt Romney first popularized the phrase.

Corporations are legal constructs guided by a group of executives and officers typically meant to limit liability and help facilitate the organization and operation of an underlying enterprise, not people.

Even if you want to argue that the soul and direction of a corporation consists of people (i.e. said executives and officers), those people are, in practice, a tiny minority of typically wealthy and powerful individuals, and obviously they shouldn't have the vastly disproportionate sway and power versus the common voter that they obviously do.
 
diz said:
In my experience corporations are controlled by people.
Click to expand...
While true, the structure of the corporation to some extent dictates what type of people control it.
 
Dans La Lune said:
As long as it doesn't extend beyond that of the average person, I have no problem with each individual owner using the same ability as the lowliest, most down-trodden American citizen.



Yes, get union money out of politics, get 'George Soros bucks' out of politics. Get it all out.
Click to expand...

I disagree but I applaud your consistency. Not a lot of that around.
 
jet57 said:
The question should have been, "which group HAS control of government?"...
Click to expand...

Due to the legalized corruption in politics, not the people. Politicians have traditionally run on a platform that has been 'okayed' by their donors. Every few cycles, they're allowed to move incrementally forward because they can't hold the will of the people back completely. However, it should always be understood that the role of a candidate who is bankrolled by corporations is to sabotage and speed-bump progress. I challenge anyone to make contrary argument. And between Democrats and Republicans, ironically, Republicans are the honest ones. They have an agenda and move forward with it. Full steam. They are fully corrupt and run on corruption, sabotaging government, and empowering the rich. I almost respect that honesty.

Joe Biden to rich donors: "Nothing would fundamentally change" if he's elected | Salon.com

Buttigieg backed 'Medicare for All' in 2018 tweet - POLITICO
 
Aren't corporations made of people?
 
I voted other. Trade unions should be in control of government.
 
Dans La Lune said:
Due to the legalized corruption in politics, not the people. Politicians have traditionally run on a platform that has been 'okayed' by their donors. Every few cycles, they're allowed to move incrementally forward because they can't hold the will of the people back completely. However, it should always be understood that the role of a candidate who is bankrolled by corporations is to sabotage and speed-bump progress. I challenge anyone to make contrary argument. And between Democrats and Republicans, ironically, Republicans are the honest ones. They have an agenda and move forward with it. Full steam. They are fully corrupt and run on corruption, sabotaging government, and empowering the rich. I almost respect that honesty.

Joe Biden to rich donors: "Nothing would fundamentally change" if he's elected | Salon.com

Buttigieg backed 'Medicare for All' in 2018 tweet - POLITICO
Click to expand...

Interesting. If you see corporations as cows for government run by socialists to milk, then, of course, you object to corporations opposing such policies . If you buy into the famous mantra that the business of America is business and see corporations as the reason why the USA is so prosperous, then you have a different perspective
 
Other. False choice...corporations ARE people.

Duh.
 
Corporations aren't people as previously stated; they're legal constructs guided by a tiny minority of the population (major shareholders and senior corporate executives).

The question would be better phrased as, who should have control of the government: a tiny minority of major shareholders and senior corporate executives or the broader population?

I feel it's obvious that given the choice between the two, the latter should reign.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Other. Corporations, like people (who legally form them), are taxed. One of the factors, which helped to advance (transform or create?) this nation from a group of colonies into a group of states, was the objection to the concept of taxation without representation. So long as one is taxed it would seem to be illegal to tell them to STFU politically even if they are somehow not deemed to be part of "the people" for 1A (or other Constitutional rights) protection purposes.

If one wants corporations out of politics then step one should be to stop taxing them. Once that is accomplished (likely never) then we should decide if any non-profit (i.e. non-taxable) groups like unions, PACS, special interest (NRA, NAACP or La Raza) or business/trade associations should be able to run political "issue" ads and/or support candidates.

IMHO, if an entity can be sued or taxed then it should be able to offer its (members') opinion on matters of law (politics).
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS was wrong. People die, corporations don't. Corporations are not people. People vote, corporations don't. Corporations are not people.
 
Corporations and other associations should not have the franchise to vote, nor the freedom to spend money in order to influence how others vote. The notion that corporations are groups of people and therefore should vote is absurd because each of those members/employees of a corporation already have the right to vote if they are citizens and are of the age of majority. The notion that corporations pay taxes and therefore should have the right to vote is also absurd, because those corporations belong to shareholders and are directed by directors who already have the right to vote, again assuming they are citizens and of the age of majority. A corporation is simply a force-multiplier for amplifying the effects of money/capital and for risk-sharing, risk fire-walling and thus has no capacity to reason nor any stake in the outcome of elections. Only the shareholders do, so they vote in the corporations place.

Likewise unions should not have the power to vote or to spend money supporting external election campaigns (non-Union elections) and this should apply to other associations whose members have the right to vote already.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Corporations and other associations should not have the franchise to vote, nor the freedom to spend money in order to influence how others vote.
Click to expand...

How about news corporations? Should the NY Times - a corporation - be allowed to run an op-ed page to try to influence others how to vote?

And if you allow them, how about the movie studios? Should Lions Gate have been allowed to contract Michael Moore to create Fahrenheit 9/11? Should theaters - also corporations - been allowed to show it publicly? Seems like it was definitely intended to influence how people vote.

And if you're going to allow that, I'm not sure how you can also prevent Citizens United, a non-profit advocacy group, miniscule in size compared to the other corporations I've mentioned, to create their own advocacy film and distribute it in the same timeframe, even though it (gasp) mentioned a candidate by name and was (gasp) within 60 days of an election.
 
eman623 said:
How about news corporations? Should the NY Times - a corporation - be allowed to run an op-ed page to try to influence others how to vote?

And if you allow them, how about the movie studios? Should Lions Gate have been allowed to contract Michael Moore to create Fahrenheit 9/11? Should theaters - also corporations - been allowed to show it publicly? Seems like it was definitely intended to influence how people vote.

And if you're going to allow that, I'm not sure how you can also prevent Citizens United, a non-profit advocacy group, miniscule in size compared to the other corporations I've mentioned, to create their own advocacy film and distribute it in the same timeframe, even though it (gasp) mentioned a candidate by name and was (gasp) within 60 days of an election.
Click to expand...

eman623:

You make very good points. I reason it boils down to the degree of partisanship in the organisation. For example the NYT might run a pro-Democratic editorial on Monday but could run a pro-Republican editorial on Wednesday and a pro-independent editorial on Thursday. Lions Gate could release a Michael Moore picture one year and a right leaning film like Starship Troopets the next. The NYT and Lions Gate do not have as their primary objective as the influencing of a political race. They are profit making enterprises which cater to the public's appetite. So long as the NYT follows the fairness doctrine and gives a balanced editorial position from writers on all sides of the political process, then that is not interference in the electoral process. Likewise, so long as Lions Gate does not release a wholely partisan picture in the middle of an election campaign, then I see nothing wrong with releasing such films as works of art. The problem is that America has drifted into an almost three-year long election cycle, so it may be time to limit thee electoral process to a fixed period of time.

Citizens United was created as a vehicle to channel money specifically to influence elections. It is not a profit making enterprise which tangentially and secondarily impacts the electoral process but is rather a purpose-built driver and influencer of the political process. Therefore, in my opinion, Citizen United and similar organisations should not be allowed to fulfill such a purpose, be they left, centrist or right leaning organisation. Their purpose is to influence the election process, period.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Corporations may be made of people but they are not people nor do they act in the public interest. Corporations, unions, and any other organization should have as little influence as possible in Western democracy as they are not the people, the only the people themselves should have a say. Political parties should be funded exclusively by individual donations capped at a low amount (e.g. $100 like Quebec) to ensure a level playing field for all citizens.
 
diz said:
In my experience corporations are controlled by people.
Click to expand...

Corporations amplify individual power while shielding those people from harm.

Like a giant robot suit.

Functionally immortal as well.

Giant "weapons" in the quest for more wealth and power.

A guy with a gun is still just a person. But he enjoys a massive advantage over the guy without one.
 
What if...? said:
Corporations amplify individual power while shielding those people from harm.

Like a giant robot suit.

Functionally immortal as well.

Giant "weapons" in the quest for more wealth and power.

A guy with a gun is still just a person. But he enjoys a massive advantage over the guy without one.
Click to expand...

Well, for like a hundred bucks you can create one with yourself as the CEO.

Pretty cheap for a supersuit and immortality.

But I'm sure you knew this because in order for you to be acting consistently with your stated beliefs you must have already created one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom