Corporations Ain't People: Top 10 Responses

thenation.com



This is just the first five. These points are humorous, but they point to serious issues that will inevitably arise from the recent Supreme Court decision.

SCOTUS has just passed what is probably the worst decision ever, with the possible exception of the Dred Scott case.

8) "If corporations have the same rights as people, we need to shut down Wall St., as we shouldn't be buying & selling them." --@Geofutures

That's a double edged sword, if I've ever seen one. Shut down wall street now! End Corporate slavery!

[edit on 1-27-2010 by rogerstigers]

reply to post by Sestias


Corporations are IMORTAL ... 5 of the 9 Traitors from the Supreme Court have given America to the "Antichrist", The Magic Muslim as a consolation prize! You are now competing for your very survival against Imortal Beings. Sharpen up your wooden stakes mates.

2nd line ... sizzle sizzle, pop pop, sizzle pop ...

From a commenter on the article you posted.

1988's "Operation: Mindcrime" by the Seattle metal outfit, Queensrÿche: Fighting fire with empty words While the banks get fat And the poor stay poor And the rich get rich And the cops get paid To look away As the one percent rules America

All of the cries of foul play are pretty much summed up right here.

Forget the fact that it is totally TREASONOUS. ANY FORGEIGN company can now "legally" throw as much cash behind a candidate as it wants. Including Iranian, Israeli, Russian, or North Korean corps.

reply to post by dashen

I agree. Multi-nationals, which care not at all about America, can easily end up owning the United States.

Will that affect their tax bracket? I would have thought that an individual/person who earned that much money would pay very huge amounts of tax.

If they are 'a person' then they cannot write off a lot of the stuff they do. Any travel expenses to more than one location on any given day would be an impossibility, and therefore fraud.

The arguments against corporate personhood, sort of fall apart when you look at a simple case - a partnership. Why should an individual's right to private property evaporate as soon as he forms a business agreement with a close friend, insofar as the revenues from that property are shared between them via a partnership? What about his right to free speech, and so forth?

Ultimately corporations are legal constructs owned and operated by individuals. Why should property and speech of individuals be protected, but property and speech of groups of investors not be?

Originally posted by bob135

Ultimately corporations are legal constructs owned and operated by individuals. Why should property and speech of individuals be protected, but property and speech of groups of investors not be?

Because, when individuals join together to form a "legal construct" (by definition, an artificial entity, as opposed to a living being), they do so ostensibly, to indemnify themselves from direct, personal, liability resulting from the activities the entity engages in.


In other words, the whole idea, the "reason d'etre", for such a construct in the first place, is to provide a separation between the entity, and its actions, and the individuals who formed the entity.


If we then grant rights, equivalent to personhood, to that entity, we have effectively granted supercessionary rights to the forming individuals. They, by default, become imbued with "Special Rights" beyond, and supercessionary to the rights of individuals not a part of the entity's constructors.




As per "Animal Farm", we'll have thusly established, under the cover of Law, that


"All animals (people) are equal. Some animals (people) are MORE Equal than others."

reply to post by Bhadhidar


You can set up unlimited liability companies, which I'd imagine would still enjoy corporate personhood.

Anyway, the issue of limited liability is separate. We give corporations some rights shared by persons to protect the shareholders from the same kind of tyranny governments have exercised against individuals - theft of property, lack of due process, right to sue, etc.

How does giving a company the right to free speech give shareholders any extra rights not enjoyed by non shareholders? They had free speech before, and now the company they own has free speech too. What do they have now? Still free speech, same as everyone else.

Does a shareholder get more due process than a non shareholder because he owns stock in a company entitled to due process?

reply to post by bob135


The Supreme Court decision gives the right of freedom of speech not only to Americans but also to non-Americans in the form of multi-national corporations.

Corporations do not give a fig for the welfare of Americans or ordinary citizens. They only care about the bottom line.

Conceivably, the Chinese could buy our entire electoral process if they poured unlimited money into propaganda campaigns and then into their elected legislators. And hey, they have more money to spend than our whole country. Are they entitled to the same free political speech as, say, I have? And in a contest between a Chinese multinational and my one little vote and meager ability to contribute, who do you think is likely to win?

Corporations control too much of our political process as it is, without giving them carte blanche to spend worthy candidates into oblivion.

reply to post by Sestias


I don't see anything wrong with non-Americans having rights. They're people too.

Corporations in competitive industries care about citizens' welfare precisely because they care about their bottom line. Companies don't offer lower prices because they are feeling charitable, but because they benefit, and so do American consumers.

Just like any other American, you aren't compelled to vote for the candidate who has more money. If all it took to win were money, Michael Bloomberg would probably be our current president. Why settle for mayor of New York?

Do you think the US should routinely deny foreign visitors due process, freedom of religion, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, etc?

Originally posted by bob135
reply to post by Sestias

 

Do you think the US should routinely deny foreign visitors due process, freedom of religion, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, etc?

Of course not. Nor should we deny foreign visitors the individual right of free speech. But, as the title of my OP says, "Corporations Ain't People." We should not extend to multi-nationals the right to buy our political process through massive infusions of cash into their chosen candidates' coffers. Campaign finance reforms should remain in place. The Supreme Court ruling should be overturned or severely restricted by Congress.

It's hard enough to keep our own domestic corporate behemoths from buying candidates and elections through huge, carefully crafted ad campaigns, without bringing in the multi-nationals.

Those who are arguing in favor of corporations being considered individuals no doubt believe that corporations will always represent their best interests. That's ideology. But what would you do if China and the Soviet Union and other left-leaning corporate giants managed to put communists in charge of the country? (That's not necessarily a terrible outcome; just saying)

I have never been too much worried about a "New World Order" taking over the planet, such as is spoken of often on ATS. But if there were to be a N.W. O. it would surely be spear-headed by multi-national corporations.



[edit on 9-2-2010 by Sestias]

reply to post by Sestias


Should it be constitutional/legal for lawmakers to prevent corporations from advertising because they dislike a corporation's product, political orientation, or anything else? I don't see why it should be the government's business to tell corporations that they can't advertise smoking, because of the bad consequences it leads to. Here people seem to want to do the same thing. They are preventing corporations from exercising free speech because they dislike the consequences.

Should the government be allowed to restrict the speech of charities, PACs, etc, simply because they are legal entities, not individual people? Where do you draw the line between corporations and non corporate legal entities in terms of free speech rights?

I guess there's also the question of whether campaign contributions count as free speech. I would say that they do, since they are a tool you use to express your views.

reply to post by bob135


"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" ~ Lord Acton

SOURCE


[edit on 12-2-2010 by Sestias]

First, as another poster pointed out, corporations do protect their owners from liability for the corporations actions. Many corporations commit horrible crimes to the local inhabitants resulting in death, cancer, destruction of ecosystems, etc and have no legal liability.

Secondly massive accumulations of capital in the hands of the few completely destabilizes democracy. If you truly dont realize that the candidates with the most financial backing get elected, you are somewhat naive. The corporations have the dollars that largely control airtime, and THIS is what gets politicians elected....corporate politicians. Further, with our current lobbying system, corporations are able, and regularly bribe congress to push legislation that is against the best interest of the majority of americans, and that the majority largely oppose.

People now think of corporations as regular things. Originally corporation status was only given to groups doing state work, and was rescinded after said work was done. Now it is a loophole to allow business to price fix, to dodge taxes, and to usurp rights that many citizens dont even have. In many cities using traffic cameras, corporate vehicles are even given exemption from traffic tickets. It is NOT a fair and balanced system. Corporations use their influence to keep competitors from gaining a foothold. Pharma corporations use money and leverage to discredit needed and useful natural medicines, Agro corporations use leverage and money to make it hard for small farmers to compete. Pharmeceutical corporations use money and leverage to get congress to give up our right to negotiate prices on drugs. Health insurance corporations use money and leverage to mandate healthcare where they intentionally offer the least amount of care possible for the highest premiums, and take billions of healthcare dollars for themselves while contributing nothing, absolutely nothing, to the healthcare process. Oil corporations use money and leverage to send our country to war to regulate oil costs, and arms corporations use money and leverage to send us to war to enrich the arms sales industry, as well as forcing many countries that we give "foreign aid" to, to use a large percentage of that "aid" to purchase US arms. Its basically ways to funnel tax payers dollars to themselves. For these reasons and more, corporate protections and rights are an abomination and a detriment to our society.

O my god, it is amazing that you can deem a word, a person.

Corporation is just a word used to describe a huge foundation of control of a certain item,business, or PEOPLE.

A corporation is not a person, and it goes to show how smart our Supreme Court is.