• 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
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

pugetsoundwa said:
sigh....Democracy isn't the issue.
Click to expand...

I was responding to this: "What concerns me is the obvious perversion of democracy that has resulted from the flow of money into the process." So yeah, it's the issue.

How could it not be?
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

misterman said:
I was responding to this: "What concerns me is the obvious perversion of democracy that has resulted from the flow of money into the process." So yeah, it's the issue.

How could it not be?
Click to expand...

Its not Democracy thats the problem...its the PERVERSION of it. Not it itself..:doh:doh
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

pugetsoundwa said:
Its not Democracy thats the problem...its the PERVERSION of it. Not it itself..:doh:doh
Click to expand...

Honestly -- do you think "democracy" is some pristine Platonic form of being defined by the universe itself and those pesky people mess it up?

Is that really what you think?
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

pugetsoundwa said:
Its not Democracy thats the problem...its the PERVERSION of it. Not it itself..:doh:doh
Click to expand...

Perversion how? What's perverting it?
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

misterman said:
Perversion how? What's perverting it?
Click to expand...

People.

:mrgreen:
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

The Mark said:
People.

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Yeah, people are always messing things up.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

The Mark said:
People.

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

exactly, democracy is made by the people, and people are unique, some corrupt, some corruptable, and others honest good-intentioned peoples, everyone seems to think democracy is that white knight on a pristine mount with a glimmering shield and sharp-edged lance,

well its not, purely because a democracy can never be balanced, it will always be a tug-of-war between people with seperating ideals. in a tyrancy, everyone is FORCED to follow one ideal, in a democracy, everyone must agree that something is good, well that will never happen, because our inherant sense of morality clearly changes based upon the societal norms and influences of each UNIQUE person
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

Harshaw said:
How can a corporation do that when, according to you, corporations can't do anything, and only people can?
Click to expand...

misterman said:
Yeah, and how can lawyers do anything for corporations if they have no legal rights anyway?
Click to expand...

You two are amusing with your silly banter that amounts to, I have no argument left.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I guess I just don't know enough about this to say whether they should have "personhood" or whether what the SCOTUS actually addressed this specifically in the latest ruling. Seems they made something that already existed consistent throughout the US.
 
What is there to wonder about? The Constitution was written for the people of the United States. Some might even go so far as to say it was written for the Citizens of the United States. Nothing in the Constitution mentions corporations while it does specifically name religion, the people, and the Press. All of those are named in the 1st amendment. There is also the word "naturalized citizen" and person.

The word "people" can be found 8 times, the word "person" 12 times, but not one mention of corporations. Therefore, in our corporatocracy, the SCOTUS has given rights to corporations that the Constitution shows no intent to cover.

The argument opponents of this make are - it doesn't not say corporations can't be considered people - and - The SCOTUS has given corporations some of those rights which proves the Constitution meant to cover them.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

NoJingoLingo said:
You two are amusing with your silly banter that amounts to, I have no argument left.
Click to expand...

Your self-contradiction is entirely your own.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
What is there to wonder about? The Constitution was written for the people of the United States. Some might even go so far as to say it was written for the Citizens of the United States. Nothing in the Constitution mentions corporations while it does specifically name religion, the people, and the Press. All of those are named in the 1st amendment. There is also the word "naturalized citizen" and person.

The word "people" can be found 8 times, the word "person" 12 times, but not one mention of corporations. Therefore, in our corporatocracy, the SCOTUS has given rights to corporations that the Constitution shows no intent to cover.

The argument opponents of this make are - it doesn't not say corporations can't be considered people - and - The SCOTUS has given corporations some of those rights which proves the Constitution meant to cover them.
Click to expand...

Also note that all parties involved in writing the Constitutions were basically businessmen. You seriously think they wouldn't have covered Corps if they wanted human rights bestowed on a non living thing.

I still can't believe that people think a Corp deserves the same rights as a person...
 
NoJingoLingo said:
What is there to wonder about? The Constitution was written for the people of the United States. Some might even go so far as to say it was written for the Citizens of the United States. Nothing in the Constitution mentions corporations while it does specifically name religion, the people, and the Press. All of those are named in the 1st amendment. There is also the word "naturalized citizen" and person.
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous. Corporations are just bank accounts created by people. Get over it.

The argument opponents of this make are - it doesn't not say corporations can't be considered people - and - The SCOTUS has given corporations some of those rights which proves the Constitution meant to cover them.
Click to expand...

The First Amendment doesn't protect people, or corporation, it protects speech.
 
misterman said:
This is ridiculous. Corporations are just bank accounts created by people. Get over it.
Click to expand...
Even when being dismissive you're wrong. Corporations are liability shields and nothing more.

The First Amendment doesn't protect people, or corporation, it protects speech.
Click to expand...
You keep saying it without any proof. The first amendment protects the rights of the people just like all the rest of the Constitution. That's what the BoR is, protection of the rights of the people from the government. It specifically mentions two other ideals, religion and the press.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
You keep saying it without any proof. The first amendment protects the rights of the people just like all the rest of the Constitution. That's what the BoR is, protection of the rights of the people from the government. It specifically mentions two other ideals, religion and the press.
Click to expand...
I am curious.

If you, NoJingoLingo (or whatever your real name is), were part of writing a new constitution for the USA, what type of free speech protections would you place in it?

Screw what the founders think, would think, or whatever, what would YOU do?
 
RightinNYC said:
And how would that be enforced?

Again, you can't just make broad pronouncements about what sounds cool if you don't understand how campaign finance has failed so miserably over the past 4 decades.
Click to expand...
I think it would be quite easy to change the system if there was the will to do it.

But why would members of either party vote for something that might undermine their power when the people in this country are too thoroughly indoctrinated to notice that their representatives are not representing their interests.
 
Cassandra said:
I think it would be quite easy to change the system if there was the will to do it.
Click to expand...

How? Throw out some proposals. I've seen a lot of rhetoric but absolutely no concrete ideas.

But why would members of either party vote for something that might undermine their power when the people in this country are too thoroughly indoctrinated to notice that their representatives are not representing their interests..
Click to expand...

So why did they vote for the creation of the FEC in the first place? Or the 91 restrictions? Or BRCA?
 
Cassandra said:
But why would members of either party vote for something that might undermine their power when the people in this country are too thoroughly indoctrinated to notice that their representatives are not representing their interests.
Click to expand...

They're indoctrinated? So you need to save them from themselves? Do you realize just how arrogant and scary that is?
 
misterman said:
They're indoctrinated? So you need to save them from themselves? Do you realize just how arrogant and scary that is?
Click to expand...
Not at all. It is fanciful or naive to assume that you can have some voices carry a megaphone while contrary voices are able to whisper, only, and expect voters to hear a diversity of views and form informed decisions. Add to the outsized influence of well heeled interest groups is the fact that the media has been allowed to concentrate into ever fewer large corporate hands. (and Clinton got that ball rolling) If not for the internet, the situation would be quite hopeless.

Are you asserting that the mere ability to put a mark on a ballot proves that people have had the fullness of informed choice for representation?
 
Cassandra said:
Not at all. It is fanciful or naive to assume that you can have some voices carry a megaphone while contrary voices are able to whisper, only, and expect voters to hear a diversity of views and form informed decisions.
Click to expand...

You can speak all you want. You aren't forced to whisper. The analogy is silly.

You want to ration speech. The First Amendment doesn't allow that.

Are you asserting that the mere ability to put a mark on a ballot proves that people have had the fullness of informed choice for representation?
Click to expand...

Dear God - do you listen to yourself before you post? You think you need to fix what the voters see and hear because they don't get the information you think they need?

This is exactly the kind of thinking that the First Amendment is designed to prevent.
 
Correct. People who want to be the arbiters of what's "fair" speech and what's not are themselves hostile to actual free speech.

Never mind that it's incumbent upon each and every citizen to keep themselves well-informed.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
What is there to wonder about? The Constitution was written for the people of the United States. Some might even go so far as to say it was written for the Citizens of the United States. Nothing in the Constitution mentions corporations while it does specifically name religion, the people, and the Press. All of those are named in the 1st amendment. There is also the word "naturalized citizen" and person.

The word "people" can be found 8 times, the word "person" 12 times, but not one mention of corporations. Therefore, in our corporatocracy, the SCOTUS has given rights to corporations that the Constitution shows no intent to cover.

The argument opponents of this make are - it doesn't not say corporations can't be considered people - and - The SCOTUS has given corporations some of those rights which proves the Constitution meant to cover them.
Click to expand...
The idea of the corporation did not exist in the late 18th century. It's an invention of the mid-to-late 19th century. They did have what were called "combinations" of various kinds that involved both capital and labor (what today have developed into corporations and labor unions). It's interesting that the the people at the time of writing the Constitution, in both North America and Britain, eyed these combinations with suspicion, since they used their advantages to enrich small groups of people at the expense of the common weal.
 
Harshaw said:
Correct. People who want to be the arbiters of what's "fair" speech and what's not are themselves hostile to actual free speech.

Never mind that it's incumbent upon each and every citizen to keep themselves well-informed.
Click to expand...

Oh nonsense. I made it quite clear that I am talking about quantity not type of advertisements ("speech" if you can really call it that). We are talking about drowning the T.V. viewing audience with advertisements representing one point of view- the point of view of corporations.
 
Cassandra said:
Oh nonsense. I made it quite clear that I am talking about quantity not type of advertisements ("speech" if you can really call it that). We are talking about drowning the T.V. viewing audience with advertisements representing one point of view- the point of view of corporations.
Click to expand...

And as evidence has shown, corporations are absolutely uniform in their views and would never end up competing against each other for space, like they do already.

OpenSecrets
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom