What are "corporations" if not people?

[dblack]

If corporations are people then they are people who continually shirk their responsibilities, easily over ride the interests of actual people, cause damage to society and the environment far in excess of what a single person could do and are practically impossible to punish for their wrong doings. If a person such as that lived next door you would hate their stinking guts.

BOY are YOU so on target! YES EVERY DAY ALL Corporations are :
1) killing their consumers!
2) Destroying ALL PROPERTY!

YES these CORPORATIONS are like the BORG!!!
"RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!!

EVERY CORPORATION STEALS from EVERYONE ALL the time!

YES we need to destroy CORPORATIONS and life will be 100% better!!!

Let us all return to the time BEFORE corporations and their MASSIVE DESTRUCTION!
Return to when Life expectancy was less then 40 years!
Return to when letters took 20 days to go 100 miles!
Return to when there was NO Rice Crispies.. NO KFC! YES LET's DESTROY them before these evil corporations ORDER their cars to KILL all their drivers!

Isn't that totally STUPID... much like YOUR comment!!!

The problem is that the owners of corporations aren't held fully accountable for what their companies do in the name of earning them a profit. So stockholders feel relatively free to hire 'gunslinger' CEOs who will do whatever is necessary to bring in the dough. They pay them exorbitant salaries to be, essentially, fall guys who will do the dirty work and take the hit if caught. The worst case scenario (from an investor's POV) will be the crooked CEOs getting busted and the company losing some money.

If owners of a privately held company did this, if they hired unscrupulous thugs and told them to do whatever it took to earn a profit, they would be culpable. At the very least, they'd be liable for lawsuits resulting from the actions of their company. They could lose everything they own, not just the money invested in the business. My question is, why should corporate investors be shielded from this kind of responsibility?

 

[Truthmatters]

A corporation is a legal status designed so the real people in it are protected personally from being sued for wrong doing.

It is designed to keep people safe from a devastating legal entanglement.


That is not a person.


a corporation is run by people.

those people already have rights as people

 

[NYcarbineer]

I want haliburton tried and executed for the death of 11 rig workers in the gulf spill

If you owned shares in HAL, that makes you part of that corporation, but as a shareholder you can't be held criminally liable for those deaths.

That's why your corporation is not a person.

 

[healthmyths]

It just seems like equivocation from all sides on the 'corporations as people' issue. Saying 'corporations are people' is about like saying 'teams are people'. It's true to an extent, but corporations are a specific type of organization that gets special rights granted to it be its corporate charter. That's what we need to be discussing. Are those rights justified and valid? Should they be changed?

I certainly don't see how people should have LESS rights because they are part of a corporation.

Evidently YOU"VE never formed a "corporation".
A "corporation" just doesn't spring into existence.. i.e. people decide to the term is:
"incorporate".. that is a group or individual wants to for example which MOST people do is to protect those personal assets from risk of loss.

Most corporations are formed to protect individuals rights!

 

[Truthmatters]

protect their rights from what?


the people IN the incorporation already have full human rights

 

[Wiseacre]

Are unions people? How about schools, churches, your favorite sports team? What about the NAACP, or the USMB? C'mon guys, all these things, including companies and corporations, are organizations of PEOPLE. The argument that organizations are not people is a shallow one; it is nothing more than a political device used by the left to demagogue organizations they don't like without offending other organizations they do like, or those who support them.

 

[Truthmatters]

I want haliburton tried and executed for the death of 11 rig workers in the gulf spill

If you owned shares in HAL, that makes you part of that corporation, but as a shareholder you can't be held criminally liable for those deaths.

That's why your corporation is not a person.

and if it was a person we the people should be able to put it to death for such actions.


that was my point.


I know that a corporation is not a person.

its a legal filing between real people who as people already have full rights

 

[uscitizen]

It just seems like equivocation from all sides on the 'corporations as people' issue. Saying 'corporations are people' is about like saying 'teams are people'. It's true to an extent, but corporations are a specific type of organization that gets special rights granted to it be its corporate charter. That's what we need to be discussing. Are those rights justified and valid? Should they be changed?

I certainly don't see how people should have LESS rights because they are part of a corporation.

Evidently YOU"VE never formed a "corporation".
A "corporation" just doesn't spring into existence.. i.e. people decide to the term is:
"incorporate".. that is a group or individual wants to for example which MOST people do is to protect those personal assets from risk of loss.

Most corporations are formed to protect individuals rights!

correct it is a protection umbrella for persons, but not a person itself.

 

[dblack]

It just seems like equivocation from all sides on the 'corporations as people' issue. Saying 'corporations are people' is about like saying 'teams are people'. It's true to an extent, but corporations are a specific type of organization that gets special rights granted to it be its corporate charter. That's what we need to be discussing. Are those rights justified and valid? Should they be changed?

I certainly don't see how people should have LESS rights because they are part of a corporation.

Evidently YOU"VE never formed a "corporation".
A "corporation" just doesn't spring into existence.. i.e. people decide to the term is:
"incorporate".. that is a group or individual wants to for example which MOST people do is to protect those personal assets from risk of loss.

Most corporations are formed to protect individuals rights!

It sounds like what you mean to say is that corporations are formed to minimize personal responsibility. That's what I'm questioning about the corporate charter. That doesn't seem right to me.

 

[Truthmatters]

are unions people? How about schools, churches, your favorite sports team? What about the naacp, or the usmb? C'mon guys, all these things, including companies and corporations, are organizations of people. The argument that organizations are not people is a shallow one; it is nothing more than a political device used by the left to demagogue organizations they don't like without offending other organizations they do like, or those who support them.

great point!

 

[Katzndogz]

Corporations have a legal personage. This means that a corporation can be sued in court and can defend themselves. Corporate activity can be regulated. Corporations pay taxes, and when the money is distributed, the people who receive it must also pay taxes which is corporate double taxation.

If corporations had no legal rights, they would not have any legal obligations either. There would be no corporate legal obligation not to pollute a waterway for instance. No one could sue a corporation. A corporation could not commit a criminal act. Most importantly, they could not be taxed at all. None of the profits made in foreign countries would be subject to a cent of tax.

It doesn't give the people in corporations rights extra rights. They have the same rights as everyone else, one of which is to be able to sue a corporation for wrongdoing without actually having to identify who, in that corporation, did anything wrong.

 

[Truthmatters]

a corporation is NOT a person

 

[tjvh]

a corporation is NOT a person

What is it then...a Robot?

 

[amrchaos]

If corporations are people how is it fair those people get to have the rights as people and the rights as corporations too?


that gives the "people" who are the corporations extra rights non corporation people dont get.


dont you get that

Actually--corporations do not have full citizenship
They can contribute to a campaign, but they cannot vote.
Who is the corporation is a more trying question.

Is it the owners, the Ceo and the managaing board--does it include all persons that either work or own part of the corporation? Who in the corp decides who to contribute to and why?

I find the above questions interesting but not problematic in terms of corporations contributing to a campaign if all people concerned are american citizens themselves.

I find it no different than Unions contributiiong to campaigns. The difference I see is that one entity is for-profit, and the other supposed to be non-profit. You have to tell us why a for-profit organization should be barred from contributing to a campaign. Not explain how corps are different from individual citizens.

In many ways, the argument you pose about Corps can be levied at Unions and other non-profiorgs--should they also be banned from contributiing?

 

[amrchaos]

a corporation is NOT a person

What is it then...a Robot?

Is an organization with certain purposes, that is all.

 

[occupied]

The main problem with corporations as people is that they apparently have free speech too but they are the ones who get to use a megaphone. They get to be the squeakiest wheel in all cases, even the ones that do not directly effect them.

 

[Wiseacre]

dblack: " It sounds like what you mean to say is that corporations are formed to minimize personal responsibility. That's what I'm questioning about the corporate charter. That doesn't seem right to me. "

Doesn't seem right to me either. Just because a person creates or joins a business entity should not exempt them from prosecution if they engage in illegal activities or unfair business practices. I think with the big bucks should also go big responsibilities. If you are the CEO, like John Corzine, and your company loses millions and billions of investor money, then you should be held accountable. "I didn't know" is not an acceptable answer, you're supposed to know and you're still culpable either way. Same deal in gov't, like Holder and Fast and Furious, you're responsible to know what's going on under your watch, and even if you ain't guilty you should be charged for malfeasance as the CEO, or AG.

 

[dblack]

The main problem with corporations as people is that they apparently have free speech too but they are the ones who get to use a megaphone. They get to be the squeakiest wheel in all cases, even the ones that do not directly effect them.

But couldn't you make the same claim about any group of people who pool their money for political action? Are you opposed to people combining their efforts for political change in general? Or just when those people share ownership of a business? Should individual business owners be silenced as well?

 

[occupied]

The main problem with corporations as people is that they apparently have free speech too but they are the ones who get to use a megaphone. They get to be the squeakiest wheel in all cases, even the ones that do not directly effect them.

But couldn't you make the same claim about any group of people who pool their money for political action? Are you opposed to people combining their efforts for political change in general? Or just when those people share ownership of a business? Should individual business owners be silenced as well?

I have no problem with any group of Americans joining their voices for political action but corporate political giving is not strictly a group any larger than the board of directors who can outshout thousands with their cash and media connections. Narrow interests are damaging to our national political discourse, especially when it is the only voice being heard.

 

[amrchaos]

The main problem with corporations as people is that they apparently have free speech too but they are the ones who get to use a megaphone. They get to be the squeakiest wheel in all cases, even the ones that do not directly effect them.

If you form an organization that has a large supporter base, that organization gains a political megaphone.

Also, I think you are perceiving that corps will always have a large megaphone that will influence the majority of people--not so! The reputation of the corp also comes into play in terms of politics. For instance, Starbucks may have pull with many coffee drinkers and may get them to vote for their candidates. While a company like Monsanto will cause many people to run from their slate of endorsed candidates due to the questions surrounding GMO and their policies of dumping it onto unsuspecting consumers.

Finally--this argument about how corps are viewed in couret, not relevant to the discussion, and the perception of the trustworthiness of the corp can be traced back to the judge preciding. In other words, your view about corps in court cases is biased.