• 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

Should Corproations have "personhood" rights?

  • Yes, corporations are just like a person

    Votes: 6 9.4%

  • No, corporations are not just like a person

    Votes: 58 90.6%
  • Total voters
    64
Harry Guerrilla said:
They have all the right to speak as individuals.
Being a group does not change this.

If they wish to speak as individuals in consensus, they are still individuals.
Click to expand...

You're splitting hairs, really.


The main problem with corporate personhood is deferring liability to a non existent person.

The individuals who make bad decisions for their business should be personally liable.
Click to expand...

This is a different sphere.
 
Harshaw said:
You're splitting hairs, really.
Click to expand...

Not really, I'm not particularly fond of group lobbying.
Collectivization of lobbying power has had negative effects on our system of government.

How AARP can totally out lobby me, it defies the intent of a republic.
Majority rule but not at the expense of the minority.

Harshaw said:
This is a different sphere.
Click to expand...

It's part of the many problems with corporate personhood.

Liability should not be deferred to corporations when individuals within it make the choices.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
What is it protecting?

A corporation is just a group of people.
Groups don't have rights, individuals do.
Click to expand...

Groups don't have rights? Really?

Businesses, associations, churches, political parties, clubs, etc have no legal rights? Hmm.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Not really, I'm not particularly fond of group lobbying.
Collectivization of lobbying power has had negative effects on our system of government.
Click to expand...

Seriously, dude. Do I have to pick out a few things you like? The civil rights movement, environmental protection, etc?

How AARP can totally out lobby me, it defies the intent of a republic.
Majority rule but not at the expense of the minority.
Click to expand...

Lobbyists have no power, only influence. Voters still have all the power.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Not really, I'm not particularly fond of group lobbying.
Collectivization of lobbying power has had negative effects on our system of government.

How AARP can totally out lobby me, it defies the intent of a republic.
Majority rule but not at the expense of the minority.
Click to expand...

Whether or not you're fond of it doesn't really matter; it's still a distinction with no real difference.


It's part of the many problems with corporate personhood.

Liability should not be deferred to corporations when individuals within it make the choices.
Click to expand...

Certainly you understand why such limited liability exists (and it's not absolute, either).
 
Even though I believe that corporations shouldn't have the same rights as people, i want to play the other side a little bit because there doesn't seem to be much back and forth on this issue now.


I have wondered that if we do get rid of the personhood of corporations then that will vastly harm the confidence that stockholders have to invest in corporations.

My point is that especially with this economy, I wish there was some way to value the drop in the stock market and the effects of even less investments in corporations. Those secondly effects of less protections for corporations would be even worse now with the poor economy as it is.
 
misterman said:
Seriously, dude. Do I have to pick out a few things you like? The civil rights movement, environmental protection, etc?
Click to expand...

I do not automatically agree with all those things.

misterman said:
Lobbyists have no power, only influence. Voters still have all the power.
Click to expand...

Well, all I can say is that when bills are crafted, politicians listen to lobbyists more about what should be in a bill than what voters want.

See health care debate for further info.
 
Harshaw said:
Whether or not you're fond of it doesn't really matter; it's still a distinction with no real difference.
Click to expand...

It certainly has a distinction.

AARP can speak, generally, for 30 million people.
They can directly lobby government.

I as an individual am crowded out by those groups.
I have no access.

The Majority is effectively ruling while the minority is excluded.
That is not how things are supposed to operate.

Harshaw said:
Certainly you understand why such limited liability exists (and it's not absolute, either).
Click to expand...

I do understand why but I don't agree with it.

Businesses are owned and run by individuals.
The corporation itself does not do anything and does not make any decisions but they are treated like they do.

If Monsanto dumps 30 tons of toxic sludge into a river, the people who authorized such a thing should be jailed and their personal estates should be fined.

The corporation should not shield them from prosecution.
 
nerv14 said:
Even though I believe that corporations shouldn't have the same rights as people, i want to play the other side a little bit because there doesn't seem to be much back and forth on this issue now.


I have wondered that if we do get rid of the personhood of corporations then that will vastly harm the confidence that stockholders have to invest in corporations.

My point is that especially with this economy, I wish there was some way to value the drop in the stock market and the effects of even less investments in corporations. Those secondly effects of less protections for corporations would be even worse now with the poor economy as it is.
Click to expand...

It's a double edge sword.

In my mind, giantness of corporations is worse than the devaluation of shares in the market.
Small businesses are greater than large corporations but then I'm a decentralist when it comes to economics.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It certainly has a distinction.

AARP can speak, generally, for 30 million people.
They can directly lobby government.

I as an individual am crowded out by those groups.
I have no access.

The Majority is effectively ruling while the minority is excluded.
That is not how things are supposed to operate.
Click to expand...

No, distinguishing the people from the group is no real difference. The group doesn't have a mind of its own distinct from the people in it.



I do understand why but I don't agree with it.

Businesses are owned and run by individuals.
The corporation itself does not do anything and does not make any decisions but they are treated like they do.

If Monsanto dumps 30 tons of toxic sludge into a river, the people who authorized such a thing should be jailed and their personal estates should be fined.

The corporation should not shield them from prosecution.
Click to expand...

I never argued for or against that.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's a double edge sword.

In my mind, giantness of corporations is worse than the devaluation of shares in the market.
Small businesses are greater than large corporations but then I'm a decentralist when it comes to economics.
Click to expand...

I agree that the protections that corporations have is worse then the harm to our economy, but if anything, I am supportive of corporations because they are much more efficient for so many industries.

Wholesalers is the best example, but for that industry large corporations are needed because of the very, very large economics of scale for industry.

If those industries get too harmed from removing the corporation protection then it could get very costly, even in the long run because large corporations are needed for those industries.
 
misterman said:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/images/smilies/eusa_doh.gif
Yes, I did.

Is the press a person? Is a newspaper or TV station a person?



Yes. Congress is also forbidden from passing laws restricting the free speech rights of trucks. If you ever need to protect that right, call the ACLU.
Click to expand...

No however, our ForeFathers NEVER could have dreamt a day of TV NEWS, Internet NEWs and such. The press in their days often relied on the PEOPLE to send letters to the PRESS to publish in their paper. Thus freedom of the PRESS meant the Freedom for ME to question the GOVT, write a letter to my local newspaper and having it PRINTED for all to see.
 
Harshaw said:
No, distinguishing the people from the group is no real difference. The group doesn't have a mind of its own distinct from the people in it.
Click to expand...

That is exactly why groups don't have rights.

Groups are not anything but a collaboration of individuals but they do not form a whole new person and thus cannot have rights as a group but as individuals.

A group such as AARP should not be able to lobby the government but individuals should be able to.

Harshaw said:
I never argued for or against that.
Click to expand...

I understand but that is all part of it.

In a lot of instances corporate protections shield people from what would normally be criminal and personal liability.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I do not automatically agree with all those things.
Click to expand...

But I could find something you do. For every issue, there are lobbyists on BOTH sides.

Well, all I can say is that when bills are crafted, politicians listen to lobbyists more about what should be in a bill than what voters want.

See health care debate for further info.
Click to expand...

Really? While the Republicans are crowing about their victory in Massachusetts?

If the people re-elect someone, it means they approve of the job someone is doing. Nobody stays in Washington long without facing the voters again. The voters have 100% of the power.
 
nerv14 said:
I agree that the protections that corporations have is worse then the harm to our economy, but if anything, I am supportive of corporations because they are much more efficient for so many industries.

Wholesalers is the best example, but for that industry large corporations are needed because of the very, very large economics of scale for industry.

If those industries get too harmed from removing the corporation protection then it could get very costly, even in the long run because large corporations are needed for those industries.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with corporations existing out of normal circumstances.

If a wholesale group can exist in the same way whether or not they had the shield of corporate personhood, then so be it.

This recession has taught me a lot about businesses, specifically the business I work for has consolidated production facilities as well as outsource transportation to third parties and it has increased efficiency.

It went from a large cap company to a mid cap.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That is exactly why groups don't have rights.

Groups are not anything but a collaboration of individuals but they do not form a whole new person and thus cannot have rights as a group but as individuals.

A group such as AARP should not be able to lobby the government but individuals should be able to.
Click to expand...

What if more than one person signs a letter? Do they lose their free speech rights because they are a group? Come on.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If Monsanto dumps 30 tons of toxic sludge into a river, the people who authorized such a thing should be jailed and their personal estates should be fined.

The corporation should not shield them from prosecution.
Click to expand...

If it is a criminal act, the people will go to jail.

On the other hand, if a corporation is bound by the law instead of the individuals, shouldn't the corporation have rights like individuals? Why should corporations have the burden of following the law but no protection of the law?
 
misterman said:
But I could find something you do. For every issue, there are lobbyists on BOTH sides.
Click to expand...

Maybe single issues but not all encompassing issues.

My beliefs are very different from what most hold dear and can't be summarized by a single political lobbying group.

misterman said:
Really? While the Republicans are crowing about their victory in Massachusetts?

If the people re-elect someone, it means they approve of the job someone is doing. Nobody stays in Washington long without facing the voters again. The voters have 100% of the power.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in popular democracy because most people who vote don't have enough information to make informed decisions on candidates and issues.

Voters only retain power when they have good information, otherwise it's just political propaganda.
 
pugetsoundwa said:
No however, our ForeFathers NEVER could have dreamt a day of TV NEWS, Internet NEWs and such.
Click to expand...

Are you saying TV and internet broadcasters have no rights too?

The press in their days often relied on the PEOPLE to send letters to the PRESS to publish in their paper. Thus freedom of the PRESS meant the Freedom for ME to question the GOVT, write a letter to my local newspaper and having it PRINTED for all to see.
Click to expand...

I think the founding fathers were smart enough to know that technology would change and we wouldn't be so literal and inflexible that we'd go to such ridiculous extremes. By your logic, only old-fashioned printing presses are protected, and newspapers that use computers and laser printers have no right to a "free press."
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't believe in popular democracy because most people who vote don't have enough information to make informed decisions on candidates and issues.

Voters only retain power when they have good information, otherwise it's just political propaganda.
Click to expand...

Right. So you don't believe in democracy or free speech. You should have just said so in the first place.
 
misterman said:
What if more than one person signs a letter? Do they lose their free speech rights because they are a group? Come on.
Click to expand...

If they both agree on the issue in said letter then they are each expressing their individual beliefs.

It may seem like splitting hairs but to many people who rely on groups also get faulty information which in turn has negative consequences for others who are not part of the group.

misterman said:
If it is a criminal act, the people will go to jail.

On the other hand, if a corporation is bound by the law instead of the individuals, shouldn't the corporation have rights like individuals? Why should corporations have the burden of following the law but no protection of the law?
Click to expand...

Not always true, a lot of environmental laws that are broken are merely met with fines when it comes to corporations.
On the other hand if I as an individual were to do it, I could and most likely would be jailed.

Individuals within a corporation should be held to the law and not the corporation itself.

If the CEO of X corporation approves of something illegal, then he/she and all the participants should have to pay the price.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If they both agree on the issue in said letter then they are each expressing their individual beliefs.
Click to expand...

What's the difference between that and a group of thousands, or millions?

It may seem like splitting hairs but to many people who rely on groups also get faulty information which in turn has negative consequences for others who are not part of the group.
Click to expand...

It's not your place to decide that, nor the government's.
 
misterman said:
Right. So you don't believe in democracy or free speech. You should have just said so in the first place.
Click to expand...

Democracy is an extremist belief, the exact opposite as a dictatorship.
Mob rule is no better than a single ruler.
Sometimes a dictator can be a better decision maker.

I don't have a problem with individual free speech.
 
misterman said:
What's the difference between that and a group of thousands, or millions?
Click to expand...

Two people are more likely to agree on something in an exact manner than 1000's or millions.

misterman said:
It's not your place to decide that, nor the government's.
Click to expand...

It is my place if it positively hurts me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom