Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Corporate Personhood & The American Workforce

AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 3:58:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What are your thoughts on increased corporate personhood? And what affects do you think it would have on american society and its workforce?

Do you feel that these rights can lead to corporations having the ability to discriminate legally under the law?

Corporations have the right to sew each other legally under the law and sign legally binding contracts, among other things. This can be good for liability.

What do you think would happen if corporations had more rights of a person like the right to bear arms? Or if corporations had the right to vote?

What are your thoughts on corporations new found right to be exempt from a law its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest?

Do note that this is limited to closely-held corporations.

"Closely held" corporations are defined by the Internal Revenue Service as those which a) have more than 50% of the value of their outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year; and b) are not personal service corporations. By this definition, approximately 90% of U.S. corporations are "closely held", and approximately 52% of the U.S. workforce is employed by "closely held" corporations.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 10:11:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 9:54:14 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Citizens United needs to be overturned. Corporations are not people.

So, should a union contract signed by an ousted CEO be honored by the incoming one?
Don't give me this representative garbage, because you can't represent the interests of a non-person.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 10:17:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 3:58:17 PM, AFism wrote:
What are your thoughts on increased corporate personhood? And what affects do you think it would have on american society and its workforce?
I don't think it will have too much effect, and I am fine with it.
Generally, the issues arise with smaller companies, and rarely are owners on the same page on everything.

Do you feel that these rights can lead to corporations having the ability to discriminate legally under the law?
I'd be fine if they did, but I don't think they really do.

Corporations have the right to sew each other legally under the law and sign legally binding contracts, among other things. This can be good for liability.

What do you think would happen if corporations had more rights of a person like the right to bear arms? Or if corporations had the right to vote?
This doesn't make sense. They are not people, they are persons.
It's like saying the NRA can bear arms. It cannot, as it has no arms with which to bear arms.

What are your thoughts on corporations new found right to be exempt from a law its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest?
I wish it was broader, but it may be a start in the right direction.

Do note that this is limited to closely-held corporations.

"Closely held" corporations are defined by the Internal Revenue Service as those which a) have more than 50% of the value of their outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year; and b) are not personal service corporations. By this definition, approximately 90% of U.S. corporations are "closely held", and approximately 52% of the U.S. workforce is employed by "closely held" corporations.

Do you think this is a fair definition?
Not the definition per se, but the source - the IRS.
For example, just because the IRS deems my business a "hobby", does not mean I am somehow immune to laws regulating businesses.
My work here is, finally, done.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 10:32:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 10:11:06 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/4/2015 9:54:14 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Citizens United needs to be overturned. Corporations are not people.

So, should a union contract signed by an ousted CEO be honored by the incoming one?

No

Don't give me this representative garbage, because you can't represent the interests of a non-person.
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 10:33:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 9:54:14 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Citizens United needs to be overturned. Corporations are not people.

I think we should just publicly fund campaigns
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 10:34:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 10:32:02 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 4/4/2015 10:11:06 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/4/2015 9:54:14 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Citizens United needs to be overturned. Corporations are not people.

So, should a union contract signed by an ousted CEO be honored by the incoming one?

No
Really?!? This amazes me.
Why not? How can a business make contracts, if the contracts depend on only the person who signs them? Does it mean that the CEO should be directly sued for defective goods, instead of the company?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 10:35:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 10:33:25 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/4/2015 9:54:14 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Citizens United needs to be overturned. Corporations are not people.

I think we should just publicly fund campaigns

Does that really address the issue of Citizens United, though?
My work here is, finally, done.
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 10:36:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 10:35:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/4/2015 10:33:25 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/4/2015 9:54:14 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Citizens United needs to be overturned. Corporations are not people.

I think we should just publicly fund campaigns

Does that really address the issue of Citizens United, though?

If you passed a constitutional amendment publicly funding them and banning all kinds of other funding, it would.

I'm normally not in favor of expanding government power, but this is an exceptional case. Money *needs* to get out of politics.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 10:38:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 10:36:59 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/4/2015 10:35:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/4/2015 10:33:25 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/4/2015 9:54:14 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Citizens United needs to be overturned. Corporations are not people.

I think we should just publicly fund campaigns

Does that really address the issue of Citizens United, though?

If you passed a constitutional amendment publicly funding them and banning all kinds of other funding, it would.

I'm normally not in favor of expanding government power, but this is an exceptional case. Money *needs* to get out of politics.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 10:46:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 10:36:59 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/4/2015 10:35:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/4/2015 10:33:25 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/4/2015 9:54:14 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Citizens United needs to be overturned. Corporations are not people.

I think we should just publicly fund campaigns

Does that really address the issue of Citizens United, though?

If you passed a constitutional amendment publicly funding them and banning all kinds of other funding, it would.
So, in this case, a business (for simplicity, let's say a teacher union) cannot spend money on advertising to promote a pro-teacher candidate, attack an anti-teacher candidate, or even address an issue they deem important, like freezing teacher pay?

What is the difference if the union does it or I do it myself?

I'm normally not in favor of expanding government power, but this is an exceptional case. Money *needs* to get out of politics.
I don't think it is as corrupt as people make it out to be. Does the mill in town that employs half the town need to give money to the candidates to curry favor? Under your system, the threat of the mill not getting its way is still present, whether it is money for elections or threats to close down the plant.

Also, in our state's most recent election, it didn't seem that money mattered with votes.
My work here is, finally, done.
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 10:59:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 10:46:13 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/4/2015 10:36:59 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/4/2015 10:35:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/4/2015 10:33:25 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/4/2015 9:54:14 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Citizens United needs to be overturned. Corporations are not people.

I think we should just publicly fund campaigns

Does that really address the issue of Citizens United, though?

If you passed a constitutional amendment publicly funding them and banning all kinds of other funding, it would.
So, in this case, a business (for simplicity, let's say a teacher union) cannot spend money on advertising to promote a pro-teacher candidate, attack an anti-teacher candidate, or even address an issue they deem important, like freezing teacher pay?

What is the difference if the union does it or I do it myself?

I mean, you definitely raise a compelling point. There's a reason that this is a tough issue but I think, on the whole, the negative impact of money in politics outweighs.

Unions can be pretty corrupt, too, and a lot of members are really unhappy about the Union taking their money and then donating it to candidates that they don't support. I know my father would rather have his money than have it donated to a bunch of democratic candidates who had no chance of winning...but as far as unions go, his is probably one of the worst.


I'm normally not in favor of expanding government power, but this is an exceptional case. Money *needs* to get out of politics.
I don't think it is as corrupt as people make it out to be. Does the mill in town that employs half the town need to give money to the candidates to curry favor? Under your system, the threat of the mill not getting its way is still present, whether it is money for elections or threats to close down the plant.

I disagree. There absolutely is a structural, governmental advantage that big business has in this country, although not all or even most of this comes from the election process (read: regulations). It's pretty hard to deny that the government is buddies with big business and while the business would still have some recourse to get its way, shutting down your mill to influence a policy is a much bigger cost than donating a couple thousand dollars to an incumbent so that he'll scratch your back.


Also, in our state's most recent election, it didn't seem that money mattered with votes.

I'm not convinced that Citizens United really did all that much. We had to debate the topic in high school, and there really wasn't much evidence that it did much to change the system. But here's the thing: The system was already bad. While the candidate with the most money doesn't always win. But I guarantee you that a new candidate who refused to take any corporate money would have absolutely zero chance of getting elected. You have to buddy up with business in order to get elected, and that's inherently a problem.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 8:42:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 10:59:46 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/4/2015 10:46:13 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/4/2015 10:36:59 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/4/2015 10:35:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/4/2015 10:33:25 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/4/2015 9:54:14 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Citizens United needs to be overturned. Corporations are not people.

I think we should just publicly fund campaigns

Does that really address the issue of Citizens United, though?

If you passed a constitutional amendment publicly funding them and banning all kinds of other funding, it would.
So, in this case, a business (for simplicity, let's say a teacher union) cannot spend money on advertising to promote a pro-teacher candidate, attack an anti-teacher candidate, or even address an issue they deem important, like freezing teacher pay?

What is the difference if the union does it or I do it myself?

I mean, you definitely raise a compelling point. There's a reason that this is a tough issue but I think, on the whole, the negative impact of money in politics outweighs.

But, the core issue of Citizens United, I thought, was saying that money used to influence election/policy/sway public opinion unaffiliated with a campaign, is not campaign financing (i.e. not subject to limits of donation). Ergo, if only public money was used for elections, does that mean I cannot attempt to sway others' votes on a person/topic via other means? Can a company not say that raising the minimum would be bad? Can I say that raising the minimum wage is bad, so vote no on Prop 12?

Unions can be pretty corrupt, too, and a lot of members are really unhappy about the Union taking their money and then donating it to candidates that they don't support. I know my father would rather have his money than have it donated to a bunch of democratic candidates who had no chance of winning...but as far as unions go, his is probably one of the worst.
Agreed, but it was just an example.


I'm normally not in favor of expanding government power, but this is an exceptional case. Money *needs* to get out of politics.
I don't think it is as corrupt as people make it out to be. Does the mill in town that employs half the town need to give money to the candidates to curry favor? Under your system, the threat of the mill not getting its way is still present, whether it is money for elections or threats to close down the plant.

I disagree. There absolutely is a structural, governmental advantage that big business has in this country, although not all or even most of this comes from the election process (read: regulations). It's pretty hard to deny that the government is buddies with big business and while the business would still have some recourse to get its way, shutting down your mill to influence a policy is a much bigger cost than donating a couple thousand dollars to an incumbent so that he'll scratch your back.


Also, in our state's most recent election, it didn't seem that money mattered with votes.

I'm not convinced that Citizens United really did all that much. We had to debate the topic in high school, and there really wasn't much evidence that it did much to change the system. But here's the thing: The system was already bad. While the candidate with the most money doesn't always win. But I guarantee you that a new candidate who refused to take any corporate money would have absolutely zero chance of getting elected. You have to buddy up with business in order to get elected, and that's inherently a problem.

If by business, you mean a party, then I'd agree (yeah, party politics!!). I do think it depends on the level of office. But, again, generally businesses play both fields anyway, because they don't want blowback, so I am not really certain there would be any effect anyway, in terms of shady corruption BS.
Remember, if all the rich people move, there goes your tax base, so, at some point, you need to appease them. Same goes with businesses. You don't want them to move their headquarters...
My work here is, finally, done.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 8:59:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 10:38:31 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I'm normally not in favor of expanding government power, but this is an exceptional case. Money *needs* to get out of politics.

Then I suppose you are against government kickbacks of any type, such as the power of the government to grant exemptions, often with the bloated crony tax code. Arbitrary competition killing grants to 'favored' business, unnecessary licensures and permits and the waivers thereof....

That would go a long way to stop the money flow, Get rid of the prostitutes, not the Johns.
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 9:24:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 3:58:17 PM, AFism wrote:
What are your thoughts on increased corporate personhood? And what affects do you think it would have on american society and its workforce?

I think it causes the government to be less a representative of its citizens and more a representative of its corporations. So, I'm not a big fan...

Do you feel that these rights can lead to corporations having the ability to discriminate legally under the law?

Corporations have the right to sew each other legally under the law and sign legally binding contracts, among other things. This can be good for liability.

What do you think would happen if corporations had more rights of a person like the right to bear arms? Or if corporations had the right to vote?

What are your thoughts on corporations new found right to be exempt from a law its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest?

I think it can be a slippery slope. See, the religious objections do not need to have any bearing on reality in order to have legal standing, according to the Supreme Court. Also, it serves as a way for a private company to offload costs onto the taxpayer via religious objections-- not quite fair to the taxpayer, and not quite fair to the companies with no such "objections."

Probably too many cans of worms for one thread, really...

Do note that this is limited to closely-held corporations.

"Closely held" corporations are defined by the Internal Revenue Service as those which a) have more than 50% of the value of their outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year; and b) are not personal service corporations. By this definition, approximately 90% of U.S. corporations are "closely held", and approximately 52% of the U.S. workforce is employed by "closely held" corporations.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 10:52:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 8:59:39 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/4/2015 10:38:31 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I'm normally not in favor of expanding government power, but this is an exceptional case. Money *needs* to get out of politics.

Then I suppose you are against government kickbacks of any type, such as the power of the government to grant exemptions, often with the bloated crony tax code. Arbitrary competition killing grants to 'favored' business, unnecessary licensures and permits and the waivers thereof....

This sounds dangerously close to telling the government what businesses it can and cannot work with.

That would go a long way to stop the money flow, Get rid of the prostitutes, not the Johns.

I'd rather have corporations out of elections so we don't become a plutocracy first.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 11:13:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 10:52:15 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:59:39 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/4/2015 10:38:31 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I'm normally not in favor of expanding government power, but this is an exceptional case. Money *needs* to get out of politics.

Then I suppose you are against government kickbacks of any type, such as the power of the government to grant exemptions, often with the bloated crony tax code. Arbitrary competition killing grants to 'favored' business, unnecessary licensures and permits and the waivers thereof....

This sounds dangerously close to telling the government what businesses it can and cannot work with.

Oh yes, it's a very dangerous idea to take the governments mob boss powers away.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 11:15:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 11:13:24 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/5/2015 10:52:15 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:59:39 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/4/2015 10:38:31 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I'm normally not in favor of expanding government power, but this is an exceptional case. Money *needs* to get out of politics.

Then I suppose you are against government kickbacks of any type, such as the power of the government to grant exemptions, often with the bloated crony tax code. Arbitrary competition killing grants to 'favored' business, unnecessary licensures and permits and the waivers thereof....

This sounds dangerously close to telling the government what businesses it can and cannot work with.

Oh yes, it's a very dangerous idea to take the governments mob boss powers away.

Mob boss, lol. My parents work for GSA. Contract procurement and management. They help the government work with small businesses to get the best deal possible, just like any market consumer.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 11:15:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 10:52:15 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:

I'd rather have corporations out of elections so we don't become a plutocracy first.

Then take the government off the streets. No one is going to grease the palm of a powerless politician.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 11:18:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 11:15:44 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/5/2015 10:52:15 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:

I'd rather have corporations out of elections so we don't become a plutocracy first.

Then take the government off the streets. No one is going to grease the palm of a powerless politician.

No one should be greasing politician's palms, full stop.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 11:19:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 11:15:22 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:13:24 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/5/2015 10:52:15 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:59:39 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/4/2015 10:38:31 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I'm normally not in favor of expanding government power, but this is an exceptional case. Money *needs* to get out of politics.

Then I suppose you are against government kickbacks of any type, such as the power of the government to grant exemptions, often with the bloated crony tax code. Arbitrary competition killing grants to 'favored' business, unnecessary licensures and permits and the waivers thereof....

This sounds dangerously close to telling the government what businesses it can and cannot work with.

Oh yes, it's a very dangerous idea to take the governments mob boss powers away.

Mob boss, lol. My parents work for GSA. Contract procurement and management. They help the government work with small businesses to get the best deal possible, just like any market consumer.

Wrong...SOME select businesses, not all of them. that's a plutocracy, we already have that- thanks to our bloated crony government and it's arbitrary aid to it's select businesses. The free market is not nearly as arbitrary as the government.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 11:20:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 11:18:04 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:15:44 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/5/2015 10:52:15 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:

I'd rather have corporations out of elections so we don't become a plutocracy first.

Then take the government off the streets. No one is going to grease the palm of a powerless politician.

No one should be greasing politician's palms, full stop.

We shouldn't have a black market, but you can't enforce demand.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 11:24:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 11:19:35 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:15:22 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:13:24 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/5/2015 10:52:15 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:59:39 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/4/2015 10:38:31 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I'm normally not in favor of expanding government power, but this is an exceptional case. Money *needs* to get out of politics.

Then I suppose you are against government kickbacks of any type, such as the power of the government to grant exemptions, often with the bloated crony tax code. Arbitrary competition killing grants to 'favored' business, unnecessary licensures and permits and the waivers thereof....

This sounds dangerously close to telling the government what businesses it can and cannot work with.

Oh yes, it's a very dangerous idea to take the governments mob boss powers away.

Mob boss, lol. My parents work for GSA. Contract procurement and management. They help the government work with small businesses to get the best deal possible, just like any market consumer.

Wrong...SOME select businesses, not all of them. that's a plutocracy, we already have that- thanks to our bloated crony government and it's arbitrary aid to it's select businesses. The free market is not nearly as arbitrary as the government.

You realize the government doesn't bailout its favorites but the ones that would wreck the market if they failed (whether or not it should is another matter). Oh, no, of course not, you're too busy pretending the government is evil and doesn't care about you. Funnily enough, that describes the market pretty well.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 11:27:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 11:24:55 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:19:35 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:15:22 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:13:24 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/5/2015 10:52:15 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:59:39 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/4/2015 10:38:31 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I'm normally not in favor of expanding government power, but this is an exceptional case. Money *needs* to get out of politics.

Then I suppose you are against government kickbacks of any type, such as the power of the government to grant exemptions, often with the bloated crony tax code. Arbitrary competition killing grants to 'favored' business, unnecessary licensures and permits and the waivers thereof....

This sounds dangerously close to telling the government what businesses it can and cannot work with.

Oh yes, it's a very dangerous idea to take the governments mob boss powers away.

Mob boss, lol. My parents work for GSA. Contract procurement and management. They help the government work with small businesses to get the best deal possible, just like any market consumer.

Wrong...SOME select businesses, not all of them. that's a plutocracy, we already have that- thanks to our bloated crony government and it's arbitrary aid to it's select businesses. The free market is not nearly as arbitrary as the government.

You realize the government doesn't bailout its favorites but the ones that would wreck the market if they failed (whether or not it should is another matter). Oh, no, of course not, you're too busy pretending the government is evil and doesn't care about you. Funnily enough, that describes the market pretty well.

You are pretending pork barrel does not exist or is a major problem and a draw for corruption and corporate bribery.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 11:30:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 11:27:17 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:24:55 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:19:35 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:15:22 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:13:24 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/5/2015 10:52:15 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:59:39 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/4/2015 10:38:31 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I'm normally not in favor of expanding government power, but this is an exceptional case. Money *needs* to get out of politics.

Then I suppose you are against government kickbacks of any type, such as the power of the government to grant exemptions, often with the bloated crony tax code. Arbitrary competition killing grants to 'favored' business, unnecessary licensures and permits and the waivers thereof....

This sounds dangerously close to telling the government what businesses it can and cannot work with.

Oh yes, it's a very dangerous idea to take the governments mob boss powers away.

Mob boss, lol. My parents work for GSA. Contract procurement and management. They help the government work with small businesses to get the best deal possible, just like any market consumer.

Wrong...SOME select businesses, not all of them. that's a plutocracy, we already have that- thanks to our bloated crony government and it's arbitrary aid to it's select businesses. The free market is not nearly as arbitrary as the government.

You realize the government doesn't bailout its favorites but the ones that would wreck the market if they failed (whether or not it should is another matter). Oh, no, of course not, you're too busy pretending the government is evil and doesn't care about you. Funnily enough, that describes the market pretty well.

You are pretending pork barrel does not exist or is a major problem and a draw for corruption and corporate bribery.

Nah, pork exists. Especially around Christmas Tree bills. But that's less to do with corruption and money and more to do with re electioneering and misappropriation of funds (not in law, but in ethics).
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 11:37:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here is the real problem between the free market and the government when evaluating who really has the best interests at heart.

The free market seeks to maximize profits and thus strives for 100% approval.

The government needs but 50% approval. Therefore, the government is only half as invested in the welfare of the people.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 11:43:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 3:58:17 PM, AFism wrote:
What are your thoughts on increased corporate personhood? And what affects do you think it would have on american society and its workforce?

Do you feel that these rights can lead to corporations having the ability to discriminate legally under the law?

Corporations have the right to sew each other legally under the law and sign legally binding contracts, among other things. This can be good for liability.

What do you think would happen if corporations had more rights of a person like the right to bear arms? Or if corporations had the right to vote?
What? :O :O :O Are these really being suggested in the US?

Corporate personhood is important for the limited liability company, on which modern capitalism is very reliant. You can't have separation of ownership and management if you get into legal troubles for holding the stock of some corporation engaging in illegal activity, for example. However, I fail to see any justification for expanding the current rights (holding and disposing of property, entering contracts, suing and being sued, etc.) to bearing arms and voting...
What are your thoughts on corporations new found right to be exempt from a law its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest?
Why does corporate personhood exempt them from laws? (I need to know why that's happening to form an informed opinion of it...)
Do note that this is limited to closely-held corporations.

"Closely held" corporations are defined by the Internal Revenue Service as those which a) have more than 50% of the value of their outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year; and b) are not personal service corporations. By this definition, approximately 90% of U.S. corporations are "closely held", and approximately 52% of the U.S. workforce is employed by "closely held" corporations.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 12:20:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 11:37:23 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Here is the real problem between the free market and the government when evaluating who really has the best interests at heart.

The free market seeks to maximize profits and thus strives for 100% approval.

The government needs but 50% approval. Therefore, the government is only half as invested in the welfare of the people.

This could be in the running for the "Greatest oversimplification of the year" award...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 12:44:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 12:20:57 PM, Fly wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:37:23 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Here is the real problem between the free market and the government when evaluating who really has the best interests at heart.

The free market seeks to maximize profits and thus strives for 100% approval.

The government needs but 50% approval. Therefore, the government is only half as invested in the welfare of the people.

This could be in the running for the "Greatest oversimplification of the year" award...

I agree that's an extreme oversimplification, but a reason nonetheless to put a limit on government favoritism and nepotism buy taking away it's mob boss powers.
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 1:09:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 12:44:04 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:20:57 PM, Fly wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:37:23 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Here is the real problem between the free market and the government when evaluating who really has the best interests at heart.

The free market seeks to maximize profits and thus strives for 100% approval.

The government needs but 50% approval. Therefore, the government is only half as invested in the welfare of the people.

This could be in the running for the "Greatest oversimplification of the year" award...

I agree that's an extreme oversimplification, but a reason nonetheless to put a limit on government favoritism and nepotism buy taking away it's mob boss powers.

How do the people take away those powers when there is a wealthy, vested interest in it retaining those powers?
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz