Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Corporations Are People Debate

Seido
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 10:42:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I recently partook in a debate with @Mike_10-4 about whether or not corporations can be considered people, and if they should be granted the same rights are people. Please read it and vote on it! Thanks!

http://www.debate.org...
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 10:46:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 10:42:53 PM, Seido wrote:
I recently partook in a debate with @Mike_10-4 about whether or not corporations can be considered people, and if they should be granted the same rights are people. Please read it and vote on it! Thanks!

http://www.debate.org...

per-son : a human being regarded as an individual.

cor-po-ra-tion : a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

"Person" /= "Corporation"

I win.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 6:26:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 10:46:57 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:42:53 PM, Seido wrote:
I recently partook in a debate with @Mike_10-4 about whether or not corporations can be considered people, and if they should be granted the same rights are people. Please read it and vote on it! Thanks!

http://www.debate.org...

per-son : a human being regarded as an individual.

cor-po-ra-tion : a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

"Person" /= "Corporation"

I win.

The key word is considered.

I would have taken this debate, but I did not like the resolution.
Granting corporations the power to vote is not something I agree with, and I don't know many, if any, who do.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 6:34:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 10:42:53 PM, Seido wrote:
I recently partook in a debate with @Mike_10-4 about whether or not corporations can be considered people, and if they should be granted the same rights are people. Please read it and vote on it! Thanks!

http://www.debate.org...

This debate was sad.
A quick browse, it seems like you were being too literal, and not speaking in legal concepts; which is exactly why I didn't take the debate.

I'll debate you if you want, on the topic "On matters of law, corporations are people". Nothing about rights, as I am not going to discuss why corporations should or should not be able to vote, hold office, or testify against themselves.
My work here is, finally, done.
Seido
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 11:59:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 6:34:26 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:42:53 PM, Seido wrote:
I recently partook in a debate with @Mike_10-4 about whether or not corporations can be considered people, and if they should be granted the same rights are people. Please read it and vote on it! Thanks!

http://www.debate.org...

This debate was sad.
A quick browse, it seems like you were being too literal, and not speaking in legal concepts; which is exactly why I didn't take the debate.

I'll debate you if you want, on the topic "On matters of law, corporations are people". Nothing about rights, as I am not going to discuss why corporations should or should not be able to vote, hold office, or testify against themselves.

The debate was primarily supposed to be about the legality of called a corporation a "person" under our current definitions of those terms, and the phrasing of our constitution.

If you'd like to debate me about this topic, but in an altered fashion, I'd like to see the exact changes that you had in mind before making it or accepting a debate request.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 3:33:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 11:59:44 AM, Seido wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:34:26 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:42:53 PM, Seido wrote:
I recently partook in a debate with @Mike_10-4 about whether or not corporations can be considered people, and if they should be granted the same rights are people. Please read it and vote on it! Thanks!

http://www.debate.org...

This debate was sad.
A quick browse, it seems like you were being too literal, and not speaking in legal concepts; which is exactly why I didn't take the debate.

I'll debate you if you want, on the topic "On matters of law, corporations are people". Nothing about rights, as I am not going to discuss why corporations should or should not be able to vote, hold office, or testify against themselves.



The debate was primarily supposed to be about the legality of called a corporation a "person" under our current definitions of those terms, and the phrasing of our constitution.

http://www.amlegal.com...

http://thelawdictionary.org...
You lose :)
Odd that neither of you seemed to use legal definitions.
My work here is, finally, done.
Seido
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 3:36:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 3:33:03 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 11:59:44 AM, Seido wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:34:26 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:42:53 PM, Seido wrote:
I recently partook in a debate with @Mike_10-4 about whether or not corporations can be considered people, and if they should be granted the same rights are people. Please read it and vote on it! Thanks!

http://www.debate.org...


I fail to see how either of those debunk the points that I made in the debate. The first one didn't link to any specific definitions, and the second one clearly stated that a person is a human.
This debate was sad.
A quick browse, it seems like you were being too literal, and not speaking in legal concepts; which is exactly why I didn't take the debate.

I'll debate you if you want, on the topic "On matters of law, corporations are people". Nothing about rights, as I am not going to discuss why corporations should or should not be able to vote, hold office, or testify against themselves.



The debate was primarily supposed to be about the legality of called a corporation a "person" under our current definitions of those terms, and the phrasing of our constitution.


http://www.amlegal.com...

http://thelawdictionary.org...
You lose :)
Odd that neither of you seemed to use legal definitions.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 4:38:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 3:36:02 PM, Seido wrote:
At 7/5/2014 3:33:03 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 11:59:44 AM, Seido wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:34:26 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:42:53 PM, Seido wrote:
I recently partook in a debate with @Mike_10-4 about whether or not corporations can be considered people, and if they should be granted the same rights are people. Please read it and vote on it! Thanks!

http://www.debate.org...


I fail to see how either of those debunk the points that I made in the debate. The first one didn't link to any specific definitions, and the second one clearly stated that a person is a human.

From the first:
PERSON. Extends to and includes an individual, person, persons, firm, corporation, copartnership, trustee, lessee, or receiver. Whenever used in any clause prescribing and imposing a penalty, the terms PERSON or WHOEVER as applied to any unincorporated entity shall mean the partners or members thereof, and as applied to corporations, the officers or agents thereof.

The second states in part "A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties", which clearly implies ownership and responsibilities. Which leads to this definition:
http://thelawdictionary.org...

Your debate seemed to be arguing both ways, that definitions do not change, yet, the definition of man sure did, since slaves were property, like animals.

Tell me, if I am a server at a restaurant, and I spill coffee on you, ruining your $2,000 suit, who do you sue? Who do you name as the guilty party, the defendant? Is it me?

No. And why is that? Because I am the representative of the company? I represent a non-living thing with no rights? Then, who is to enforce my representative actions?

This whole notion began in 1819, when corporations were ruled to have the same rights as natural persons, at least when it came to entering and enforcing contracts.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://thelawdictionary.org...
You lose :)
Odd that neither of you seemed to use legal definitions.
My work here is, finally, done.
Seido
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 6:09:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 4:38:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 3:36:02 PM, Seido wrote:
At 7/5/2014 3:33:03 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 11:59:44 AM, Seido wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:34:26 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:42:53 PM, Seido wrote:
I recently partook in a debate with @Mike_10-4 about whether or not corporations can be considered people, and if they should be granted the same rights are people. Please read it and vote on it! Thanks!

http://www.debate.org...


I fail to see how either of those debunk the points that I made in the debate. The first one didn't link to any specific definitions, and the second one clearly stated that a person is a human.

From the first:
PERSON. Extends to and includes an individual, person, persons, firm, corporation, copartnership, trustee, lessee, or receiver. Whenever used in any clause prescribing and imposing a penalty, the terms PERSON or WHOEVER as applied to any unincorporated entity shall mean the partners or members thereof, and as applied to corporations, the officers or agents thereof.

The second states in part "A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties", which clearly implies ownership and responsibilities. Which leads to this definition:
http://thelawdictionary.org...

Your debate seemed to be arguing both ways, that definitions do not change, yet, the definition of man sure did, since slaves were property, like animals.

Tell me, if I am a server at a restaurant, and I spill coffee on you, ruining your $2,000 suit, who do you sue? Who do you name as the guilty party, the defendant? Is it me?

No. And why is that? Because I am the representative of the company? I represent a non-living thing with no rights? Then, who is to enforce my representative actions?

This whole notion began in 1819, when corporations were ruled to have the same rights as natural persons, at least when it came to entering and enforcing contracts.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://thelawdictionary.org...
You lose :)
Odd that neither of you seemed to use legal definitions.

Please link me to the page from the first one that actually says that, because I can't seem to find it.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 6:41:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 6:09:45 PM, Seido wrote:

Please link me to the page from the first one that actually says that, because I can't seem to find it.

http://www.amlegal.com...
Click on Title I: General Provisions on the left.
Click on the blue "10" on the right.
Click on "10.4 Definitions".
Scroll down to Person.

These are city ordinances.
If corporations aren't people, then surely they shouldn't have to comply with such ordinances. I mean, how does a non-person commit a crime?
My work here is, finally, done.
Seido
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 6:51:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 6:41:38 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:09:45 PM, Seido wrote:

Please link me to the page from the first one that actually says that, because I can't seem to find it.

http://www.amlegal.com...
Click on Title I: General Provisions on the left.
Click on the blue "10" on the right.
Click on "10.4 Definitions".
Scroll down to Person.

These are city ordinances.
If corporations aren't people, then surely they shouldn't have to comply with such ordinances. I mean, how does a non-person commit a crime?

I stand corrected, at least in regard to that particular source, about the legality of their person-hood.

Nonetheless, if they are to be considered people, then why are they only held with limited liability? How is it that, as people, they have no lifespan and can last infinitely? If we are to consider them as "people", then we must give them full equality, should we not? Full liability must be held for all issues. Corporations should be able to serve time in jail, run for office, and so forth. This is America, after-all, where we consider all people to be equal under the law.

The idea of considering a legal fiction as a person is just dumb, when there are clearly so many differences between an individual person, and a corporation.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 7:01:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 6:51:27 PM, Seido wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:41:38 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:09:45 PM, Seido wrote:

Please link me to the page from the first one that actually says that, because I can't seem to find it.

http://www.amlegal.com...
Click on Title I: General Provisions on the left.
Click on the blue "10" on the right.
Click on "10.4 Definitions".
Scroll down to Person.

These are city ordinances.
If corporations aren't people, then surely they shouldn't have to comply with such ordinances. I mean, how does a non-person commit a crime?

I stand corrected, at least in regard to that particular source, about the legality of their person-hood.

Nonetheless, if they are to be considered people, then why are they only held with limited liability? How is it that, as people, they have no lifespan and can last infinitely? If we are to consider them as "people", then we must give them full equality, should we not? Full liability must be held for all issues. Corporations should be able to serve time in jail, run for office, and so forth. This is America, after-all, where we consider all people to be equal under the law.

The idea of considering a legal fiction as a person is just dumb, when there are clearly so many differences between an individual person, and a corporation.

By this logic, children are not people, since they do not have the rights of actual people.
By this logic, senile and/or retarded people are not people.

Corporations are people in the sense they have certain rights/obligations. They can enter contracts, they have someone speak on their behalf, they pay taxes, they can be sued.
Think of how many times you personify a company. They have a culture, they have responsibility, they can be negligent, they can be represented (how else do they appear in court?).

Limited liability is for the owners, not the company. You can't sue the owner of the corporation (i.e. the shareholders).
You can sue Partner X because of what Partner Y did. (this is why partnerships are very risky)
You can take my home in a lawsuit for suing my sole proprietorship.
My work here is, finally, done.
Seido
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 8:30:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 7:01:18 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:51:27 PM, Seido wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:41:38 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:09:45 PM, Seido wrote:

Please link me to the page from the first one that actually says that, because I can't seem to find it.

http://www.amlegal.com...
Click on Title I: General Provisions on the left.
Click on the blue "10" on the right.
Click on "10.4 Definitions".
Scroll down to Person.

These are city ordinances.
If corporations aren't people, then surely they shouldn't have to comply with such ordinances. I mean, how does a non-person commit a crime?

I stand corrected, at least in regard to that particular source, about the legality of their person-hood.

Nonetheless, if they are to be considered people, then why are they only held with limited liability? How is it that, as people, they have no lifespan and can last infinitely? If we are to consider them as "people", then we must give them full equality, should we not? Full liability must be held for all issues. Corporations should be able to serve time in jail, run for office, and so forth. This is America, after-all, where we consider all people to be equal under the law.

The idea of considering a legal fiction as a person is just dumb, when there are clearly so many differences between an individual person, and a corporation.

By this logic, children are not people, since they do not have the rights of actual people.
By this logic, senile and/or retarded people are not people.

Corporations are people in the sense they have certain rights/obligations. They can enter contracts, they have someone speak on their behalf, they pay taxes, they can be sued.
Think of how many times you personify a company. They have a culture, they have responsibility, they can be negligent, they can be represented (how else do they appear in court?).

Limited liability is for the owners, not the company. You can't sue the owner of the corporation (i.e. the shareholders).
You can sue Partner X because of what Partner Y did. (this is why partnerships are very risky)
You can take my home in a lawsuit for suing my sole proprietorship.

Few things:

As for the Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward case of 1819, the Supreme Court recognized corporations as humans for writing contracts. This right extended no farther.

As for committing crimes, we have granted them certain responsibilities and rights that humans posses, but those similarities do not make them humans. Saying so would mean that animals must be equated to humans because they can be put to sleep for killing other animals or hurting other humans as requested by courts of law.

Another thing, your comparison of children and mentally disabled people to corporations is a false comparison, a fallacy of thought. Children and the mentally disabled are not given full human rights because, even as humans, they do not posses the mental ability to use their rights fully. Children will eventually develop the mental facilities to be granted the rights of a full human. The mentally disabled could endanger the general populace, and if they are found to be doing so, lose their rights entirely for the safety of the general populous. A corporation, on the other hand, is not given the same rights or the same responsibilities as humans because they are fundamentally different than humans for obvious reasons.

For some purposes, corporations are considered humans and are therefore given some of the same responsibilities and rights as humans. They are not, however, considered under the law as people for all purposes, and have not yet been granted all of the same rights as humans. If this was the case, surely the recent Supreme Court cases would have been much simpler and without controversy.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 6:04:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 8:30:09 PM, Seido wrote:
At 7/5/2014 7:01:18 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:51:27 PM, Seido wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:41:38 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:09:45 PM, Seido wrote:

Please link me to the page from the first one that actually says that, because I can't seem to find it.

http://www.amlegal.com...
Click on Title I: General Provisions on the left.
Click on the blue "10" on the right.
Click on "10.4 Definitions".
Scroll down to Person.

These are city ordinances.
If corporations aren't people, then surely they shouldn't have to comply with such ordinances. I mean, how does a non-person commit a crime?

I stand corrected, at least in regard to that particular source, about the legality of their person-hood.

Nonetheless, if they are to be considered people, then why are they only held with limited liability? How is it that, as people, they have no lifespan and can last infinitely? If we are to consider them as "people", then we must give them full equality, should we not? Full liability must be held for all issues. Corporations should be able to serve time in jail, run for office, and so forth. This is America, after-all, where we consider all people to be equal under the law.

The idea of considering a legal fiction as a person is just dumb, when there are clearly so many differences between an individual person, and a corporation.

By this logic, children are not people, since they do not have the rights of actual people.
By this logic, senile and/or retarded people are not people.

Corporations are people in the sense they have certain rights/obligations. They can enter contracts, they have someone speak on their behalf, they pay taxes, they can be sued.
Think of how many times you personify a company. They have a culture, they have responsibility, they can be negligent, they can be represented (how else do they appear in court?).

Limited liability is for the owners, not the company. You can't sue the owner of the corporation (i.e. the shareholders).
You can sue Partner X because of what Partner Y did. (this is why partnerships are very risky)
You can take my home in a lawsuit for suing my sole proprietorship.

Few things:

As for the Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward case of 1819, the Supreme Court recognized corporations as humans for writing contracts. This right extended no farther.
Yes, and over time, it expanded, as it should have.
So, if you want to take issue with corporate personhood, tell me why a company must honor a contract made by CEO X, if CEO Y replaced him, because of said contract.

As for committing crimes, we have granted them certain responsibilities and rights that humans posses, but those similarities do not make them humans. Saying so would mean that animals must be equated to humans because they can be put to sleep for killing other animals or hurting other humans as requested by courts of law.
Not at all the same.
Animals are property, and if your property is hurting others and you are negligent, then it is destroyed, in either animals or banning a product.
Negligent pet owners lose their property, just as negligent business owners due (fines).
The difference in punishment, is that businesses are given trials. Animals are not.

Another thing, your comparison of children and mentally disabled people to corporations is a false comparison, a fallacy of thought. Children and the mentally disabled are not given full human rights because, even as humans, they do not posses the mental ability to use their rights fully. Children will eventually develop the mental facilities to be granted the rights of a full human. The mentally disabled could endanger the general populace, and if they are found to be doing so, lose their rights entirely for the safety of the general populous. A corporation, on the other hand, is not given the same rights or the same responsibilities as humans because they are fundamentally different than humans for obvious reasons.

Children are not given rights due to mental reasons, even though all men are equal? That is the contradiction you impose.

But, if an exception is made for children or the infirm due to mental reasons, then why is it necessary for businesses to have all the same rights, when they like the physical ability to do so?

For some purposes, corporations are considered humans and are therefore given some of the same responsibilities and rights as humans. They are not, however, considered under the law as people for all purposes, and have not yet been granted all of the same rights as humans. If this was the case, surely the recent Supreme Court cases would have been much simpler and without controversy.

Nor will they.
And this is exactly why I didn't except your debate, as your contention is an all or none, even though you recognize, and seemingly support, differences in treatment of persons.

What is the fundamental difference between a church being exempted for X, but I as a sole owner of a business, cannot be exempted for X, when I operate my business/life in the same manner of said church?
What is the fundamental difference between a sole proprietor using his money to donate to a political cause, but not a corporation? In both cases, profits are being used.
What is the fundamental difference between advertising and funding a political ad aimed at influencing voters on a policy?
My work here is, finally, done.