What are "corporations" if not people?

[bripat9643]

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.

Yep. Holder should be put on trial for murder.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Nope. Libturds only get incensed when associations of people that return a profit use their First Amendment rights.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

That rule also applies to the Sierra Club and NBC News.

 

[Truthmatters]

becuase corporations dont place country first they place profit first

 

[ClosedCaption]

It's True: Corporations Are People
What else could they be?
Buildings don't hire people.
Buildings don't design cars that run on electricity or discover drug therapies to defeat cancer.

Elizabeth Warren introduced President Obama at a big fundraiser in Boston:
"Mitt Romney tells us, in his own words, he believes corporations are people. No, Mitt, corporations are NOT people," she pronounced. "People have hearts. They have kids. They get jobs. They get sick. They love and they cry and they dance. They live and they die. Learn the difference." The audience went wild.
Jack Welch and Suzy Welch: It's True—Corporations Are People - WSJ.com

Ms. Warren.. who makes corporate decisions? Computers? Buildings? Oil wells?
Seriously .. what else but "people" make those decisions? NOT corporations!

This post would make Mary Lou Retton jealous.

 

[bripat9643]

Corporations are organizations that provide investors limited liability. They are an artificial construct to pool peoples money and limit their risk. Those constructs don't eat, breath, nor sleep.

Congress is an "artificial construct."

 

[Truthmatters]

For profit entities dont have the countrys best interest in heart.

They place profit over country.

churches place church over county.


Unions have ONLY one purpose and that is to protect workers.


I dont think you can rationally say Unions place anything but people over country.

since the country was designed as being of , for and by the people that is NOT a conflict of interst is it.



organizations of people who only seek advocacy for the sake of Americans and NOT for the sake of the organization shouLd be allowed to participate.


they are in fact protected in the constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

If a corporation is a person, then everyone in the corporation becomes part of that one person, and the corporation, as a person, should get 1 vote on election day. The parts of the corporation, i.e., the shareholders, etc., should get no other vote.

You can't be 2 people at once.

No one said a corporation is a person, dipstick. They said corporations are people. They are associations of people, just like the United Auto Workers or the Sierra Club.

 

[bripat9643]

They are still both, unions and corporations, artificial constructs, with different rights, liabilities, and privileges from individuals. I supported McCain/Feingold, as I thought it was good public law, in spite of it effecting both..

Apparently you think "good public law" is the kind that shits on the Constitution.

The fact remains there is illogic in the premise of this thread, as there were in Robert's decision regarding Citizens. Corporations are not people. Any individual of associated with any organization, has the right to speak as they wish. No one has tried to stop them. The decision of Citizens, and the now secret donations to even tax exempt corporations, means that unknown money is having greater power over our the future our Republic. That sucks.

But secret donations to leftwing organizations are OK?

 

[konradv]

OK, they're people, but we're just wondering when ONE of those people comes clean about his business activities, taxes and off-shore accounts. How long do the American people have to wait and how much patience does he think we have?

 

[bripat9643]

Why should they be protected from loss? Is that not socialism? I thought they wanted to be free and responsible.

Responsible doesn't seem to have much appeal in the corporate world.

So you believe that If you buy one share of stock in a corporation, your entire net worth should be at stake if the corporation gets sued?

 

[healthmyths]

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?

This is exactly right. Everyone is free to join a political association to amplify their voice. The NRA, a labor union, Greenpeace, etc.

Since the people we elect write laws which affect corporations, then those corporations have a right to defend themselves. It is as simple as that.

If the left had its way, corporations would be stripped defenseless in the public square so their means of production could be placed into the hands of the government.

Greenpeace is a california corporation..

Note.. there are people that signed the incorporation papers!!!

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/binaries/2010/4/gp-fund-articles-of-incorporat.pdf

 

[bripat9643]

already answered you fool

No it wasn't, fool. The tobacco companies never killed anyone.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

there are huge differences between corporations and other groups of citizens

Yep. They make money, so libturds despise them. That's the extent of the difference.

 

[JakeStarkey]

By the same logic, governments and unions are persons and should have the same rights as corporations.

It's True: Corporations Are People
What else could they be?
Buildings don't hire people.
Buildings don't design cars that run on electricity or discover drug therapies to defeat cancer.

Elizabeth Warren introduced President Obama at a big fundraiser in Boston:
"Mitt Romney tells us, in his own words, he believes corporations are people. No, Mitt, corporations are NOT people," she pronounced. "People have hearts. They have kids. They get jobs. They get sick. They love and they cry and they dance. They live and they die. Learn the difference." The audience went wild.
Jack Welch and Suzy Welch: It's True—Corporations Are People - WSJ.com

Ms. Warren.. who makes corporate decisions? Computers? Buildings? Oil wells?
Seriously .. what else but "people" make those decisions? NOT corporations!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Citizens, United and Citizens United: The Future of Labor Speech Rights? - Charlotte Garden

The Legal Workshop: William and Mary Law Review

Citizens United is first and foremost a case about the First Amendment rights of corporations, and the archetypal corporation is a profit-seeking enterprise. Nonetheless, the Court spent a great deal of time talking about the rights of non-profit advocacy organizations like the Sierra Club, the National Rifle Association, and the American Civil Liberties Union. Like Citizens United, these associations were affected by BCRA because they accepted funding from corporations and unions. Also like Citizens United—and unlike for-profit corporations—they exist primarily to engage in advocacy.

The distinction between corporations created primarily to engage in advocacy—though in part with contributions from corporations and unions—and corporations created primarily to make a profit might have propelled the Court’s analysis, resulting in a relatively narrow decision. Notably, that approach had precedent in an earlier case, FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (MCFL), in which the Court struck down restrictions on electioneering speech by pure advocacy organizations that accepted no money from unions or corporations.2 However, rather than extending MCFL to cover organizations that, like Citizens United, received only a small amount of corporate funding, the Court reversed the course it set in MCFL and held that an organization’s purpose—whether to engage in advocacy or to make money—is irrelevant to the First Amendment analysis.

 

[bripat9643]

She's right. Corporations are not people. The Supreme Court ruled incorrectly.

Are unions people? Is the Sierra club people?

They are corporations.

What liberals believe is too stupid for words to describe.

I don't think it's necessarily stupid. Just a different way of looking at it. The reality is 'corporate personhood' is a really bad metaphor and gets twisted whichever you want to twist it. Corporations are just businesses that operate under an explicit charter with special rules applied to them. They're not individual 'people', but they are owned and operated by people. Rather that debating the true meaning of a bad metaphor, we'd be better served discussing the specific rules that apply to corporations and considering whether they are warranted or not.

That's all true, but liberals are deliberately using the metaphore and distorting it for their malevolent purporses. No one in this discussion has said a corporation is a person. They have said corporations are people, which is 100% accurate, just as saying the United Auto Workers is people is 100% accurate. Liberals want to demonise the former group of people and strip it of its rights while elevating the later group and giving it special rights.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Are unions people? Is the Sierra club people?

They are corporations.

What liberals believe is too stupid for words to describe.

I don't think it's necessarily stupid. Just a different way of looking at it. The reality is 'corporate personhood' is a really bad metaphor and gets twisted whichever you want to twist it. Corporations are just businesses that operate under an explicit charter with special rules applied to them. They're not individual 'people', but they are owned and operated by people. Rather that debating the true meaning of a bad metaphor, we'd be better served discussing the specific rules that apply to corporations and considering whether they are warranted or not.

That's all true, but liberals are deliberately using the metaphore and distorting for their malevolent purporses. No one in this discussion has said a corporation is a person. They have said corporations are people, which is 100% accurate, just as saying the United Auto Workers is people is 100% accurate. Liberals want to demonise the former group of people and strip it of its rights while elevating the later group and giving it special rights.

Nope. The law says corporations are persons not people.

 

[bripat9643]

Can you give us an example of a corporation killing people?

A Perth crane company has been found guilty of causing the death of a worker by failing to provide and maintain a safe workplace.

please get a life?

So if you roof drains onto your drive way, and the runoff freezes and turns it into a skating rink, you have killed someone if they slip on it and smash their skull open? Should you be tried for murder?

 

[Too Tall]

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.

Tell that to the millions of people that directly draw a paycheck from corporations and those that provide goods and services to corporations for a living.