Don't Businesses have rights?

[ihopehefails]

Isn't a liberal suppose to be someone that advocates for maximum freedom yet they propose more restrictions on the freedom of entrepreneurs than any other political group. At one time (about a hundred years ago) the dreaded lazei-faire* philosophy was considered liberal since it allowed the individual to conduct their economic affairs as they wish.

I'm asking, don't businesses (and the dreaded corporations) get the same rights to conduct their existence that any other thing in a liberal society does?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Isn't a liberal suppose to be someone that advocates for maximum freedom yet they propose more restrictions on the freedom of entrepreneurs than any other political group. At one time (about a hundred years ago) the dreaded lazei-faire* philosophy was considered liberal since it allowed the individual to conduct their economic affairs as they wish.

I'm asking, don't businesses (and the dreaded corporations) get the same rights to conduct their existence that any other thing in a liberal society does?

Of course. What I'm against isn't corporations having rights, it's corporations artificially enhancing their rights through lobbyists and legislation. Isn't that against the whole idea of laissez faire anyway?

 

[ihopehefails]

Isn't a liberal suppose to be someone that advocates for maximum freedom yet they propose more restrictions on the freedom of entrepreneurs than any other political group. At one time (about a hundred years ago) the dreaded lazei-faire* philosophy was considered liberal since it allowed the individual to conduct their economic affairs as they wish.

I'm asking, don't businesses (and the dreaded corporations) get the same rights to conduct their existence that any other thing in a liberal society does?

Of course. What I'm against isn't corporations having rights, it's corporations artificially enhancing their rights through lobbyists and legislation. Isn't that against the whole idea of laissez faire anyway?

I'm opposed to it no more than unions, enviromental groups, or any other organization that does the same thing.

Why should the Sierra club have all the legal rights to lobby and businesses can't?

 

[Richard-H]

Isn't a liberal suppose to be someone that advocates for maximum freedom yet they propose more restrictions on the freedom of entrepreneurs than any other political group. At one time (about a hundred years ago) the dreaded lazei-faire* philosophy was considered liberal since it allowed the individual to conduct their economic affairs as they wish.

I'm asking, don't businesses (and the dreaded corporations) get the same rights to conduct their existence that any other thing in a liberal society does?

The idea that a business has inalienable rights in any way equal to an individual is not only contrary to the principles that founded this country, particularly those stated in the declaration of independance, but is just plain sick.

But what is more sickening is that in fact, in the United States, businesses have not equal rights, but greater rights than the individual - and greater political power.

 

[ihopehefails]

Isn't a liberal suppose to be someone that advocates for maximum freedom yet they propose more restrictions on the freedom of entrepreneurs than any other political group. At one time (about a hundred years ago) the dreaded lazei-faire* philosophy was considered liberal since it allowed the individual to conduct their economic affairs as they wish.

I'm asking, don't businesses (and the dreaded corporations) get the same rights to conduct their existence that any other thing in a liberal society does?

The idea that a business has inalienable rights in any way equal to an individual is not only contrary to the principles that founded this country, particularly those stated in the declaration of independance, but is just plain sick.

But what is more sickening is that in fact, in the United States, businesses have not equal rights, but greater rights than the individual - and greater political power.

A business does not have a right since it is person's way of earning a living. Its like saying a person's job has rights.

What does have rights is the business owner to conduct their affairs as they see fit.

 

[ihopehefails]

Isn't a liberal suppose to be someone that advocates for maximum freedom yet they propose more restrictions on the freedom of entrepreneurs than any other political group. At one time (about a hundred years ago) the dreaded lazei-faire* philosophy was considered liberal since it allowed the individual to conduct their economic affairs as they wish.

I'm asking, don't businesses (and the dreaded corporations) get the same rights to conduct their existence that any other thing in a liberal society does?

The idea that a business has inalienable rights in any way equal to an individual is not only contrary to the principles that founded this country, particularly those stated in the declaration of independance, but is just plain sick.

But what is more sickening is that in fact, in the United States, businesses have not equal rights, but greater rights than the individual - and greater political power.

You guys don't get the concept of inalienable rights do you? It is saying that they are a part of your being like how much a stone ways. You can't legislate that amount simply because it weight is affixed in nature.

 

[Richard-H]

Isn't a liberal suppose to be someone that advocates for maximum freedom yet they propose more restrictions on the freedom of entrepreneurs than any other political group. At one time (about a hundred years ago) the dreaded lazei-faire* philosophy was considered liberal since it allowed the individual to conduct their economic affairs as they wish.

I'm asking, don't businesses (and the dreaded corporations) get the same rights to conduct their existence that any other thing in a liberal society does?

The idea that a business has inalienable rights in any way equal to an individual is not only contrary to the principles that founded this country, particularly those stated in the declaration of independance, but is just plain sick.

But what is more sickening is that in fact, in the United States, businesses have not equal rights, but greater rights than the individual - and greater political power.

You guys don't get the concept of inalienable rights do you? It is saying that they are a part of your being like how much a stone ways. You can't legislate that amount simply because it weight is affixed in nature.

The principle of inalienable rights is an ideal upon which this country was founded. It is NOT a fact of nature by any means. It is the product of highly evolved human thought and is in CONTRADICTION to nature.

Natural law is that YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS EXECPT THE RIGHT TO DIE. That is reality.

If nature dictated that people had inalienable rights, then even the King of England could not have violated those rights and there never would have been a need for the American Revolution.

Choosing to believe and live with respect for the inalienable rights of others is a choice that few make.

Being a 'human being', in the highest sense of the word, is also another choice that few choose.

Sorry, but reality is harsh.

 

[rightwinger]

Where in the Constitution does it recognize the rights of businesses?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Don't Businesses have rights?

The day a corporation can go to jail for covering up a flaw that kills a child is the day that a 'business' can have "rights".

 

[WillowTree]

Isn't a liberal suppose to be someone that advocates for maximum freedom yet they propose more restrictions on the freedom of entrepreneurs than any other political group. At one time (about a hundred years ago) the dreaded lazei-faire* philosophy was considered liberal since it allowed the individual to conduct their economic affairs as they wish.

I'm asking, don't businesses (and the dreaded corporations) get the same rights to conduct their existence that any other thing in a liberal society does?

Of course. What I'm against isn't corporations having rights, it's corporations artificially enhancing their rights through lobbyists and legislation. Isn't that against the whole idea of laissez faire anyway?

so what do you propose to do about GE????

 

[AVG-JOE]

Isn't a liberal suppose to be someone that advocates for maximum freedom yet they propose more restrictions on the freedom of entrepreneurs than any other political group. At one time (about a hundred years ago) the dreaded lazei-faire* philosophy was considered liberal since it allowed the individual to conduct their economic affairs as they wish.

I'm asking, don't businesses (and the dreaded corporations) get the same rights to conduct their existence that any other thing in a liberal society does?

Of course. What I'm against isn't corporations having rights, it's corporations artificially enhancing their rights through lobbyists and legislation. Isn't that against the whole idea of laissez faire anyway?

I'm opposed to it no more than unions, enviromental groups, or any other organization that does the same thing.

Why should the Sierra club have all the legal rights to lobby and businesses can't?

The 'right' to lobby government is guaranteed to every average Joe and Jane, be they business Joe or blue-collar Jane..... it's the 'afford' to lobby government that separates the governed from those who govern here in the USA.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The idea that a business has inalienable rights in any way equal to an individual is not only contrary to the principles that founded this country, particularly those stated in the declaration of independance, but is just plain sick.

But what is more sickening is that in fact, in the United States, businesses have not equal rights, but greater rights than the individual - and greater political power.

You guys don't get the concept of inalienable rights do you? It is saying that they are a part of your being like how much a stone ways. You can't legislate that amount simply because it weight is affixed in nature.

The principle of inalienable rights is an ideal upon which this country was founded. It is NOT a fact of nature by any means. It is the product of highly evolved human thought and is in CONTRADICTION to nature.

Natural law is that YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS EXECPT THE RIGHT TO DIE. That is reality.

If nature dictated that people had inalienable rights, then even the King of England could not have violated those rights and there never would have been a need for the American Revolution.

Choosing to believe and live with respect for the inalienable rights of others is a choice that few make.

Being a 'human being', in the highest sense of the word, is also another choice that few choose.

Sorry, but reality is harsh.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Richard-H again.

Bummer!

 

[rightwinger]

Should foreign corporations now have the constitutional right to lobby US Politicians?

Do we want Saudi and Chinese corporations contributing heavilly to US political campaigns?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Should foreign corporations now have the constitutional right to lobby US Politicians?

Do we want Saudi and Chinese corporations contributing heavilly to US political campaigns?

Good questions.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to rightwinger again.

Bummer!

 

[Richard-H]

You guys don't get the concept of inalienable rights do you? It is saying that they are a part of your being like how much a stone ways. You can't legislate that amount simply because it weight is affixed in nature.

The principle of inalienable rights is an ideal upon which this country was founded. It is NOT a fact of nature by any means. It is the product of highly evolved human thought and is in CONTRADICTION to nature.

Natural law is that YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS EXECPT THE RIGHT TO DIE. That is reality.

If nature dictated that people had inalienable rights, then even the King of England could not have violated those rights and there never would have been a need for the American Revolution.

Choosing to believe and live with respect for the inalienable rights of others is a choice that few make.

Being a 'human being', in the highest sense of the word, is also another choice that few choose.

Sorry, but reality is harsh.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Richard-H again.

Bummer!

Well - Thanks anyway (I hope).....

 

[ihopehefails]

The idea that a business has inalienable rights in any way equal to an individual is not only contrary to the principles that founded this country, particularly those stated in the declaration of independance, but is just plain sick.

But what is more sickening is that in fact, in the United States, businesses have not equal rights, but greater rights than the individual - and greater political power.

You guys don't get the concept of inalienable rights do you? It is saying that they are a part of your being like how much a stone ways. You can't legislate that amount simply because it weight is affixed in nature.

The principle of inalienable rights is an ideal upon which this country was founded. It is NOT a fact of nature by any means. It is the product of highly evolved human thought and is in CONTRADICTION to nature.

Natural law is that YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS EXECPT THE RIGHT TO DIE. That is reality.

If nature dictated that people had inalienable rights, then even the King of England could not have violated those rights and there never would have been a need for the American Revolution.

Choosing to believe and live with respect for the inalienable rights of others is a choice that few make.

Being a 'human being', in the highest sense of the word, is also another choice that few choose.

Sorry, but reality is harsh.

Imagine a society of no government of any kind. A person would be free to do whatever they want. That would include thinks like speaking, communicating, and figuring out a way to earn a living. Assuming that this society can be maintained (which it can't) without any authority then how do these freedoms that I mentioned above exist?

They seem to exist as a part of the natural existence of your being.

Now a government comes along and creates laws for the stability of society. Some of those laws are going to interfere with your previous natural existence but you do it because you are afraid that your neighbor is psycopath so you need some authority to keep him under control.

Now we have a nice legal structure in place and one of the rights given to you is the right to a lawyer. That right is one that exist in government since it can't exist without the government. The other rights are different because they do exist without the government but legal rights (or procedurial rights) exist within the state itself.

 

[ihopehefails]

Of course. What I'm against isn't corporations having rights, it's corporations artificially enhancing their rights through lobbyists and legislation. Isn't that against the whole idea of laissez faire anyway?

I'm opposed to it no more than unions, enviromental groups, or any other organization that does the same thing.

Why should the Sierra club have all the legal rights to lobby and businesses can't?

The 'right' to lobby government is guaranteed to every average Joe and Jane, be they business Joe or blue-collar Jane..... it's the 'afford' to lobby government that separates the governed from those who govern here in the USA.

The problem with denying those that can 'afford' to lobby is that you are denying them the same right that others have simply because they can 'afford' to. Imagine if you had a cause and you could 'afford' to lobby. Now imagine someone saying that you can't lobby because you have to much money but now those that have less money can lobby.

Isn't the same right that you said exist for everyone being denied to you because you could 'afford'?