Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

- America and Corporations -

Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 8:40:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The government dealt the spirit of America a mortal wound in 1886.

In the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394, the Supreme Court recognized that corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.

When that happened we started walking a path that would lead to the destruction of what our nation was created to represent.

A corporation can't be punished as a person is punished. It can't be held accountable as a person is held accountable. It can't act as a person acts. Because corporations are not people. Yet corporations have the "rights" that people have in our constitution! We gave corporations far too much power. The funny thing is that what happened in 1886 was the kind of thing that our founding fathers never wanted to happen. Our nation was built on the born rights and freedoms of people! Not businesses and corporations!

We are becoming powerless slaves to the artificial entities that we call corporations.

It's time for America to wake up before we all seal our fate as slaves.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 8:43:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Corporations are made up of people who agree on something. Unlike democracies, which are made up of people who don't agree on anything. Since the people in them agree on that thing, they have the right to have it if no nonconsenting parties are affected.

What kind of socialist bull**** are you trying to sell as the "Spirit of America?"
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 8:44:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
And what's this vague "power" stuff you're talking about?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 8:55:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Corporations are indeed made up of people.. and those people have rights under the 14th amendment...

However, I agree with your noting that recognizing those rights Whilst allowing those people to shirk responsibility due to "Incorporating" is Bogus.

Instead of Restricting their rights... I'd see Accountability increased..

that is, if the corporation's special "corporation funds" run out... the owners shouldn't get out of debts scott-free by declaring the company bankrupt.. They should be held responsible for their portion of that debt.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 9:16:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The people can all be held accountable, as it should be. But a corporation should not have the "rights" of people A corporation is not a person.
Andromeda_Z
Posts: 4,151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 9:20:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 9:16:22 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
The people can all be held accountable, as it should be. But a corporation should not have the "rights" of people A corporation is not a person.

The way I read this, you are arguing that a corporation (people working together) should not have the same rights as people working independently, because the corporation is not a person. That doesn't make sense to me.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 9:20:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 9:16:22 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
The people can all be held accountable, as it should be. But a corporation should not have the "rights" of people A corporation is not a person.

A collective cannot have the same rights as an individual?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 9:28:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 9:16:22 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
The people can all be held accountable, as it should be. But a corporation should not have the "rights" of people A corporation is not a person.

Should people not be allowed to organize their (Rightful) actions in a manner they see fit?

"corporations" are groups of freely associated people who are organized in a particular way, and act Through that process of organization.

When the person bought in to the corporation they agreed to accepting Sharing Abilitiy to direct action of the company.. through the process in place.. and if they don't like the way the other people in the corporation make it act... then they can either try to get them to act differently.. Or they can sell their share..

at the end of the day, it's People who are acting.. People who are speaking.. People who lie behind the "corporation"..

They just choose to act in a complicated way.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 9:30:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Indeedly an ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 9:46:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Name a specific act you are worried about incorporation abolishing accountability for.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 9:50:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 9:30:04 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Indeedly an ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.

Exactly. That's why capitalists love it.

None of us individuals have to be held accountable because our "corporation" is a person! Our corporation should have the rights of a person! The corporation is the person responsible, not me! Shut it down... go ahead. I'll just build another one. I don't have to be transparent, because I am a person. I can hide information, because I have a right to personal privacy. I can stop the EPA and OSHA from making "surprise" visits, so I can hide my fowl play. I don't care if I hurt people or destroy the environment, because all I don't eat or breathe or have personal relations with people.

I have one main purpose...money...profit....power....control....more..more....MORE!

I am a corporation and I am a person.

What a crock of sh!t.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 10:24:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I can't actually think of any capitalists on this site who support the idea of corporations having limited accountability.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 4:16:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 10:24:07 PM, mongeese wrote:
I can't actually think of any capitalists on this site who support the idea of corporations having limited accountability.

Depends, do you mean contractual or toward third parties?

And sometimes what appears to be the latter is stuff the employees did that shouldn't be vicariously applied to the corporation in the first place. No rule of liability I ever heard of kept someone from being held liable just because they were employed by a private corporation, limited immunity is a type of shenanigan reserved for gummint employees.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 5:29:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 9:46:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Name a specific act you are worried about incorporation abolishing accountability for.

Donald trump paying contractors who build his buildings...

From what I understand.. He hasn't gone bankrupt near so much as His Companies have...
and when his companies go bankrupt.. He's off the hook for paying for all that wasted labor
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 3:15:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Tell me how corporations are people. It's quite impossible, because they are not. Any assertion made to support it are illogical assertions. Corporations are labels that are put on a collective group of people. The actions of a public group should be transparent. This is logical to protect society from any wrong doing that the group is doing. People have personal privacy and that is justified. Corporations are not people and do not have the right to manipulate or hide anything from the society/societies in which they reside. It is the right of the people to know what a corporation is doing. To know if the water is clean. To know if the food is healthy. To know if the disposal of toxic waste is being done correctly. To know that they are not paying off politicians or influencing political campaigns.

To know that they are held accountable for their actions and that those actions are not harmful towards the ecosystem or towards the society where they reside.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 4:41:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 3:15:44 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
People have personal privacy and that is justified.
Right, except when they get together, huh? Do you also support transparency in marriage? In homes? In...
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 5:01:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
They are deemed persons just as unions are deemed persons, and if you were to remove that status, and were to remove them from the ability to lobby, as was contested at the SJC last year, so too would unions. After that decision you heard less squawking about this issue.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 5:05:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 4:41:39 PM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 6/23/2011 3:15:44 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
People have personal privacy and that is justified.
Right, except when they get together, huh? Do you also support transparency in marriage? In homes? In...

No, what you speak of is the private life of a real person. A corporation is not a real person. Therefor it has no private life to keep private.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 5:07:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 5:01:47 PM, innomen wrote:
They are deemed persons just as unions are deemed persons, and if you were to remove that status, and were to remove them from the ability to lobby, as was contested at the SJC last year, so too would unions. After that decision you heard less squawking about this issue.

It is all the same a union is not a person either.

Also, just for fun Innomen... Can you show me where unions have the same rights as a person? I would like you or anyone else to show me how corporations and unions are equal in terms of legal rights.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 5:17:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 5:05:17 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/23/2011 4:41:39 PM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 6/23/2011 3:15:44 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
People have personal privacy and that is justified.
Right, except when they get together, huh? Do you also support transparency in marriage? In homes? In...

No, what you speak of is the private life of a real person. A corporation is not a real person. Therefor it has no private life to keep private.
I am talking about the persons that constitute the corporation. Are they not real persons with a right to privacy?
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 5:31:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 3:15:44 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
Tell me how corporations are people. It's quite impossible, because they are not. Any assertion made to support it are illogical assertions. Corporations are labels that are put on a collective group of people. The actions of a public group should be transparent. This is logical to protect society from any wrong doing that the group is doing. People have personal privacy and that is justified.

The actions of a private person should be transparent. This is logical to protect society from any wrong doing that the person is doing.

What makes this statement wrong and your statements correct?
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 6:07:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I probably disagree that corporations are people in the legal sense.

But I do agree corporations share certain rights individuals share. The First Amendment does not apply to a specific person or individual. It simple states the freedom of speech, religion, etc. shall not be infringed. There is no "Speaker" the freedoms are attached to. Therefore, corporations retain that right.

Some rights are specially for the "people", but this where the confusing part comes in. I am still researching the 1880s case as well as the recent 2010 Citizens United one.

I will respond later!
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 6:09:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, when you argue corporate personhood and the relevant cases pertaining to it are bad, you argue the decision was legally unfounded.

Arguing the impacts of the decision means nothing. It's not like the courts will roll back the decision, because people don't like it. Law is law.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 6:55:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 5:31:52 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 6/23/2011 3:15:44 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
Tell me how corporations are people. It's quite impossible, because they are not. Any assertion made to support it are illogical assertions. Corporations are labels that are put on a collective group of people. The actions of a public group should be transparent. This is logical to protect society from any wrong doing that the group is doing. People have personal privacy and that is justified.

The actions of a private person should be transparent. This is logical to protect society from any wrong doing that the person is doing.

Absolutely not. People have rights of privacy because they have private lives. Life has the right to privacy. Corporations are not alive, they do not have a private life. The protected private actions of a corporation are not the corporation's at all really, they are the actions of the people within the corporation. They are the hidden actions of people that hide under the veil of corporation's "rights" as a person.

A corporations can never be a person and therefor should never have the same rights as a person has. The claim of such is completely absurd.

What makes this statement wrong and your statements correct?

Because a corporation is not a person with a private life. People have the right of privacy, because they are actual living people with private lives. Corporations do not have private lives or any life at all. Corporations are not people. Corporations are just a collection of people's decisions. All people within a corporation should all be held accountable individually for any actions under question that they were a part of.

Yes, certain privacy laws should definitely apply to all businesses for their protection. But those laws should be different from being the legal equivalent of a person. Corporations should never be treated as a legal equivalent to an actual person.

Just imagine if you applied that kind of logic of law to all things that aren't really people. All computers should have the rights of a people. All refrigerators should have the rights of a people. All books should have the rights of a people.

It's absurd.

Corporations are not people. The only thing they could possibly have to hide, is the actions of the individual people with in.
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 7:31:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 8:40:20 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
We are becoming powerless slaves to the artificial entities that we call corporations.

Slaves aren't paid nor can slaves invest their money in what they are doing.

Just because you're working doesn't mean your a slave, it just means you aren't a bum.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 7:34:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 6:55:18 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/23/2011 5:31:52 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 6/23/2011 3:15:44 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
Tell me how corporations are people. It's quite impossible, because they are not. Any assertion made to support it are illogical assertions. Corporations are labels that are put on a collective group of people. The actions of a public group should be transparent. This is logical to protect society from any wrong doing that the group is doing. People have personal privacy and that is justified.

The actions of a private person should be transparent. This is logical to protect society from any wrong doing that the person is doing.

Absolutely not. People have rights of privacy because they have private lives. Life has the right to privacy. Corporations are not alive, they do not have a private life.

Actually, a corporation is composed of many people with many private lives, so one could say that it is more alive than an individual person.

The protected private actions of a corporation are not the corporation's at all really, they are the actions of the people within the corporation. They are the hidden actions of people that hide under the veil of corporation's "rights" as a person.

But are these actions not protected by their own individual rights as people? A transaction between Bob and Joe is protected by the combination of Bob's and Joe's rights to privacy.

A corporations can never be a person and therefor should never have the same rights as a person has. The claim of such is completely absurd.

However, it is a group of people, and should therefore have the rights of the individuals that make it up.

What makes this statement wrong and your statements correct?

Because a corporation is not a person with a private life. People have the right of privacy, because they are actual living people with private lives. Corporations do not have private lives or any life at all. Corporations are not people. Corporations are just a collection of people's decisions.

That's a repetition of the above.

All people within a corporation should all be held accountable individually for any actions under question that they were a part of.

Naturally.

Yes, certain privacy laws should definitely apply to all businesses for their protection. But those laws should be different from being the legal equivalent of a person. Corporations should never be treated as a legal equivalent to an actual person.

No, but they can be the legal equivalent of many people.

Just imagine if you applied that kind of logic of law to all things that aren't really people. All computers should have the rights of a people. All refrigerators should have the rights of a people. All books should have the rights of a people.

How many people make up a computer? None. What about a refrigerator? None. Or a book? None. But what about Google? 26,316.

It's absurd.

Google is absurd. Your point?

Corporations are not people. The only thing they could possibly have to hide, is the actions of the individual people with in.

Well, yeah. And that is what they hide.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 8:30:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 7:31:26 PM, askbob wrote:
At 6/22/2011 8:40:20 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
We are becoming powerless slaves to the artificial entities that we call corporations.

Slaves aren't paid nor can slaves invest their money in what they are doing.

Just because you're working doesn't mean your a slave, it just means you aren't a bum.

You seem to not know very much about slavery. Not all slaves were unpaid. Some slaves were paid. Some slaves could invest in eventually buy their freedom or other simple pleasures. Defining the label of degree towards someone being a slave, is directly related to the ability of defining the amount of control that someone has over their life.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 9:42:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 8:30:41 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:31:26 PM, askbob wrote:
At 6/22/2011 8:40:20 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
We are becoming powerless slaves to the artificial entities that we call corporations.

Slaves aren't paid nor can slaves invest their money in what they are doing.

Just because you're working doesn't mean your a slave, it just means you aren't a bum.

You seem to not know very much about slavery. Not all slaves were unpaid. Some slaves were paid. Some slaves could invest in eventually buy their freedom or other simple pleasures. Defining the label of degree towards someone being a slave, is directly related to the ability of defining the amount of control that someone has over their life.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Read the definition of slavery and then reread your post.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.