Corporations - not natural persons = no natural rights

[SniperFire]

I'm not saying corporations should not have civil rights. They just have no natural rights because they are not natural humans.

We the People create these corporate entities - they serve at our pleasure. It is therefore our natural right to define their rights.

And what natural rights do they currently have that they should not?

The right to political free speech. There should be no such thing as a corporate "citizen" - they should not be considered "citizens".

The Founders specifically detailed non-citizen entities as enjoying protected speech. 'The press' is not a citizen.

More fail.

 

[SniperFire]

The press is multiple natural persons, yes.

It may surprise you to know that the press was not always owned by soulless corporate entities bound 0% to the truth and 100% to profit.

Just like unions and corporations.

Thread Fail.

Corporations are created by government though a charter. The press - as the collection of journalists (professional or otherwise) in the nation - does not exist because government creates it. That's because the press is simply a collection of individuals with natural rights. A corporation is an entity unto itself, owned by - but separate from - its shareholders.

This is why you can sue - or be sued by - a corporation - but you cannot sue "the press" or be sued by "the press" as a whole.

Does that clear up the distinction?

Everyone knows 'the press' means the media as an institution, not as individuals.

There would be no reason to draw a distinction in the First Amendment had this not been the case.

You have failed.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

I'm not saying corporations should not have civil rights. They just have no natural rights because they are not natural humans.

We the People create these corporate entities - they serve at our pleasure. It is therefore our natural right to define their rights.

And what natural rights do they currently have that they should not?

The right to political free speech. There should be no such thing as a corporate "citizen" - they should not be considered "citizens".

Very loose ground you're treading on.

First, who gets to decide what is "political" speech and what isn't? One simple twist on words, or a quote taken out of context, can turn non political speech into political speech. I especially don't trust our elected representatives to make such a distinction. Politicians will use any slimy tactic necessary to ensure their own reelection.

And when is an individual within a corporation allowed to exercise is their own personal freedom of speech? Could a CEO of BP put out a political ad with their personal money?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And what natural rights do they currently have that they should not?

The right to political free speech. There should be no such thing as a corporate "citizen" - they should not be considered "citizens".

The Founders specifically detailed non-citizen entities as enjoying protected speech. 'The press' is not a citizen.

More fail.

"The press" is the group of citizens engaging in the act of journalism, it is not a corporate entity. It in fact includes any American human who decides to engage in journalism and its use describes more an action than a group of people.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Just like unions and corporations.

Thread Fail.

Corporations are created by government though a charter. The press - as the collection of journalists (professional or otherwise) in the nation - does not exist because government creates it. That's because the press is simply a collection of individuals with natural rights. A corporation is an entity unto itself, owned by - but separate from - its shareholders.

This is why you can sue - or be sued by - a corporation - but you cannot sue "the press" or be sued by "the press" as a whole.

Does that clear up the distinction?

Everyone knows 'the press' means the media as an institution, not as individuals.

There would be no reason to draw a distinction in the First Amendment had this not been the case.

You have failed.

"The press" is not an entity created by government.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And what natural rights do they currently have that they should not?

The right to political free speech. There should be no such thing as a corporate "citizen" - they should not be considered "citizens".

Very loose ground you're treading on.

First, who gets to decide what is "political" speech and what isn't?

The same folks that get to decide what is "obscene speech" and what isn't. The legislatures and Congress would define it in as specific terms as they could - and it would be left to the Courts to decide any ambiguities - just like with every other law.

One simple twist on words, or a quote taken out of context, can turn non political speech into political speech. I especially don't trust our elected representatives to make such a distinction. Politicians will use any slimy tactic necessary to ensure their own reelection.

And when is an individual within a corporation allowed to exercise is their own personal freedom of speech? Could a CEO of BP put out a political ad with their personal money?

Individuals are not "within corporations". Individuals may own corporations, much the way an individual owns a truck or a house. Does your truck or car have the same rights as a natural human being? Nope. Does that mean you don't?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The New York Times Corporations is not.

Is 'the press' a natural person, asswipe?

The press is multiple natural persons, yes.

It may surprise you to know that the press was not always owned by soulless corporate entities bound 0% to the truth and 100% to profit.

Wrong. Ive built two corporations. They aren't soulless because I'm paying the employees salaries, matching 401k, workers comp, and medical. You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about..

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Is 'the press' a natural person, asswipe?

The press is multiple natural persons, yes.

It may surprise you to know that the press was not always owned by soulless corporate entities bound 0% to the truth and 100% to profit.

Wrong. Ive built two corporations. They aren't soulless because I'm paying the employees salaries, matching 401k, workers comp, and medical. You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about..

Corporate entities are not natural human beings so could not possibly have a soul. They are legally created entities without any tangible existence. They own tangible property but they are not tangible in and of themselves.

You're not seriously suggesting that government creates a soul when it charters a corporation, are you?

 

[SniperFire]

The right to political free speech. There should be no such thing as a corporate "citizen" - they should not be considered "citizens".

The Founders specifically detailed non-citizen entities as enjoying protected speech. 'The press' is not a citizen.

More fail.

"The press" is the group of citizens engaging in the act of journalism, it is not a corporate entity. It in fact includes any American human who decides to engage in journalism and its use describes more an action than a group of people.

WRONG. There would have been no reason to draw distinction between individuals and the 'entity' in the First Amendment had this been the case.

Logic and thread failure.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

The right to political free speech. There should be no such thing as a corporate "citizen" - they should not be considered "citizens".

Very loose ground you're treading on.

First, who gets to decide what is "political" speech and what isn't?

The same folks that get to decide what is "obscene speech" and what isn't. The legislatures and Congress would define it in as specific terms as they could - and it would be left to the Courts to decide any ambiguities - just like with every other law.

One simple twist on words, or a quote taken out of context, can turn non political speech into political speech. I especially don't trust our elected representatives to make such a distinction. Politicians will use any slimy tactic necessary to ensure their own reelection.

And when is an individual within a corporation allowed to exercise is their own personal freedom of speech? Could a CEO of BP put out a political ad with their personal money?

Individuals are not "within corporations". Individuals may own corporations, much the way an individual owns a truck or a house. Does your truck or car have the same rights as a natural human being? Nope. Does that mean you don't?

So you would leave the distinction up to politicians and lawyers? No thank you.

And you never answered my second question. Can the owner of a corporation use personal funds to purchase political ads?

 

[SniperFire]

The right to political free speech. There should be no such thing as a corporate "citizen" - they should not be considered "citizens".

Very loose ground you're treading on.

First, who gets to decide what is "political" speech and what isn't?

The same folks that get to decide what is "obscene speech" and what isn't. The legislatures and Congress would define it in as specific terms as they could - and it would be left to the Courts to decide any ambiguities - just like with every other law.

One simple twist on words, or a quote taken out of context, can turn non political speech into political speech. I especially don't trust our elected representatives to make such a distinction. Politicians will use any slimy tactic necessary to ensure their own reelection.

And when is an individual within a corporation allowed to exercise is their own personal freedom of speech? Could a CEO of BP put out a political ad with their personal money?

Individuals are not "within corporations". Individuals may own corporations, much the way an individual owns a truck or a house. Does your truck or car have the same rights as a natural human being? Nope. Does that mean you don't?

Sure they are. Just like they are within unions and the media.

In fact, they are all usually incorporated.

More Epic Fail.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Founders specifically detailed non-citizen entities as enjoying protected speech. 'The press' is not a citizen.

More fail.

"The press" is the group of citizens engaging in the act of journalism, it is not a corporate entity. It in fact includes any American human who decides to engage in journalism and its use describes more an action than a group of people.

WRONG. There would have been no reason to draw distinction between individuals and the 'entity' in the First Amendment had this been the case.

Logic and thread failure.

Who gets to define what "the press" is? How is it decided who is a member of "the press" and who isn't?

 

[SniperFire]

Very loose ground you're treading on.

First, who gets to decide what is "political" speech and what isn't?

The same folks that get to decide what is "obscene speech" and what isn't. The legislatures and Congress would define it in as specific terms as they could - and it would be left to the Courts to decide any ambiguities - just like with every other law.

One simple twist on words, or a quote taken out of context, can turn non political speech into political speech. I especially don't trust our elected representatives to make such a distinction. Politicians will use any slimy tactic necessary to ensure their own reelection.

And when is an individual within a corporation allowed to exercise is their own personal freedom of speech? Could a CEO of BP put out a political ad with their personal money?

Individuals are not "within corporations". Individuals may own corporations, much the way an individual owns a truck or a house. Does your truck or car have the same rights as a natural human being? Nope. Does that mean you don't?

So you would leave the distinction up to politicians and lawyers? No thank you.

And you never answered my second question. Can the owner of a corporation use personal funds to purchase political ads?

It does not even have to be personal funds. The owners of the corporation can use the corporation's money to run political ads if they want, and run it right thru the corporation. In fact, they do.

It is a free country and we have freedom of speech.

 

[SniperFire]

"The press" is the group of citizens engaging in the act of journalism, it is not a corporate entity. It in fact includes any American human who decides to engage in journalism and its use describes more an action than a group of people.

WRONG. There would have been no reason to draw distinction between individuals and the 'entity' in the First Amendment had this been the case.

Logic and thread failure.

Who gets to define what "the press" is? How is it decided who is a member of "the press" and who isn't?

There would have been no reason to draw distinction between individuals and the 'entity' in the First Amendment had your argument any validity.

Sorry, commie.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The press is multiple natural persons, yes.

It may surprise you to know that the press was not always owned by soulless corporate entities bound 0% to the truth and 100% to profit.

Wrong. Ive built two corporations. They aren't soulless because I'm paying the employees salaries, matching 401k, workers comp, and medical. You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about..

Corporate entities are not natural human beings so could not possibly have a soul. They are legally created entities without any tangible existence. They own tangible property but they are not tangible in and of themselves.

You're not seriously suggesting that government creates a soul when it charters a corporation, are you?

A corporation could not exist without you or I creating it. Govt doesnt create corporations.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Very loose ground you're treading on.

First, who gets to decide what is "political" speech and what isn't?

The same folks that get to decide what is "obscene speech" and what isn't. The legislatures and Congress would define it in as specific terms as they could - and it would be left to the Courts to decide any ambiguities - just like with every other law.

One simple twist on words, or a quote taken out of context, can turn non political speech into political speech. I especially don't trust our elected representatives to make such a distinction. Politicians will use any slimy tactic necessary to ensure their own reelection.

And when is an individual within a corporation allowed to exercise is their own personal freedom of speech? Could a CEO of BP put out a political ad with their personal money?

Individuals are not "within corporations". Individuals may own corporations, much the way an individual owns a truck or a house. Does your truck or car have the same rights as a natural human being? Nope. Does that mean you don't?

So you would leave the distinction up to politicians and lawyers? No thank you.

The rest of us are subject to law passed by politicians and interpreted by judges - why should corporations be exempt from that?

And you never answered my second question. Can the owner of a corporation use personal funds to purchase political ads?

Why not? I fail to see how defining a corporation as not being a natural human makes the owner of a corporation not a natural human. That's absurd and no one suggested it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

WRONG. There would have been no reason to draw distinction between individuals and the 'entity' in the First Amendment had this been the case.

Logic and thread failure.

Who gets to define what "the press" is? How is it decided who is a member of "the press" and who isn't?

There would have been no reason to draw distinction between individuals and the 'entity' in the First Amendment had your argument any validity.

Sorry, commie.

Huh?
Who gets to define what "the press" is? How is it decided who is a member of "the press" and who isn't? Do people who aren't members of the press have the right to do the same things as the press does?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Wrong. Ive built two corporations. They aren't soulless because I'm paying the employees salaries, matching 401k, workers comp, and medical. You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about..

Corporate entities are not natural human beings so could not possibly have a soul. They are legally created entities without any tangible existence. They own tangible property but they are not tangible in and of themselves.

You're not seriously suggesting that government creates a soul when it charters a corporation, are you?

A corporation could not exist without you or I creating it. Govt doesnt create corporations.

Corporations are defined by and charted by government, they would not exist without government.

 

[SniperFire]

Corporation is from the Latin corpus, which means literally body of PEOPLE.'

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Corporation is from the Latin corpus, which means literally body of PEOPLE.'

Corpus doesn't mean "body of people" in Latin you moron, it means just "body". Its the body of a single person - not of "people".

Can you define what "the press" is?