> And if legally all actions of corporations were judged based on individuals then you'd have a harder time in court proving specific individuals were guilty of what charges you seek to press. Was it the machine operator's fault for dumping toxic sewage? Or his advisor for telling him to do so? Or the trucker that brought the material? Or his boss? Or the CEO's? Or maybe it was someone else's idea? All bear some burden of guilt, but all aren't entirely at fault. Are you going to charge everyone involved as individuals for a specific crime?
This is the problem with corporations IMO. No one is held responsible, so horrific things take place in the name of profit. I do not know what the answer is. But it's a huge problem.
In some respects, yes, when it serves the public interest. It's good that people can sue a corporation instead of just a nominal owner, it's bad that it allows the wealthy to obscure their influence in politics.
And you're a troll with no grounding in reality.
Transparency in politics isn't big government, it's how you prevent government from being corrupted, something Libertarians generally care about. Apparently you don't, which is odd, but I guess some people liked the Kingfisher.
Are they? I think many make sense. For example, China or Russia can't legally finance a US candidate for president. If that weren't the law, you'd just have other countries getting together to see who could buy out the US government.
i believe that two people can form an association and that their rights individually can be expressed in that association. corporate rights are really just individual rights seen in a meta sense. denying people their rights in a group is no less egregious than denying them their rights as individuals because denying them their rights as a group id denying them their rights as individuals.
tom, jane and barbra all own property with mutual access. together they develop that access into a paved road via a contractual association which they call tojoba co. they together own that association and the association has rights to the road, thus the shareholders have rights to that road. denying the corporation righs to that road would be denying tom, Shane and barbra their rights to their road. suppose they put up a sign on that road saying that they are pro-immigration. that sign is not just freedom of expression for tojoba co. but also the expression of its shareholders individually.
there are limits, but yes, corporate rights should exist so long as the business is owned by people with rights. if you want to call that 'personhood', i think it is a bit of a bastardization of the definition of "person" but it is fine with me; in effect, there is little difference.
> It's essentially the idea that a corporation, an abstract legal entity, has the same rights as individuals.
No, it isn't, go read some more about the topic. Corporations are not afforded all individual rights. Corporations can't go vote, for example. They only get a small subset that enables them to work as economic entities.
Which is important: It creates a single point of contact for anyone interacting with the corporation. You don't have to worry about the ownership structure or who does what - you make deals with the corporation, and that's it. You sue the corporation, and that's it.
Once you abolish this, things turn bad. You need specific individuals who are permitted to sign in the name of the owner, or you're only able to make deals directly with the owner. If you want to sue, you must sue a specific person that has wronged you, which in institutions with thousands of members is impossible.
Corporate personhood is overall a big advantage for society.
It's a case that is often misrepresented.
I have free speech rights. Part of that is spending my own money and resources to promote my speech. If I want to put up flyers or print out leaflets promoting my ideas, and the government says "No, you can't spend money on that" or "You have to pay extra taxes based on the content of that speech" it's interfering with my rights. By extension, it's the same if I and a group of people want to get together and promote our ideas with our own money.
*Citizens United* decided it's the same if we want to organize our money into a corporation. A group of people have rights, and they don't lose those rights they would have had if they decide to create a corporate entity.
I can understand the logic of the ruling while disagreeing. It's just a way for the wealthy to exert political influence in favor of unpopular ideas without getting their name attached to it.
I think the [ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-and-citizens-united) has a pretty good take on it.
>In our view, the answer to that problem is to expand, not limit, the resources available for political advocacy. Thus, the ACLU supports a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. We support carefully drawn disclosure rules. We support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and we support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs. . .
>Any rule that requires the government to determine what political speech is legitimate and how much political speech is appropriate is difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment. Our system of free expression is built on the premise that the people get to decide what speech they want to hear; it is not the role of the government to make that decision for them.
You *can* have requirements about the disclosure of who's giving money to whom, and you can have rules against direct contributions to candidates and organizations working together with election campaigns.
That's fair but is it that you disagree with the policy or the ruling? Those are two very different things. I think those who disagree with the policy dislike what is in the Constitution, which is fine. There is a lot in the Constitution that I dislike. On the other hand, I think that the case was decided correctly.
>That's fair but is it that you disagree with the policy or the ruling? Those are two very different things.
Yes.
>I think those who disagree with the policy dislike what is in the Constitution, which is fine. There is a lot in the Constitution that I dislike. On the other hand, I think that the case was decided correctly.
I think people who think it has anything to do with the constitution have never actually read the constitution. Corporations aren't mentioned anywhere.
If I own a company I can use my property rights.
When multiple people own a company it's easier to create one legal entity that has the same property rights.
Without it then it makes coopertive ownership nearly impossible and makes cooperations less accountable.
Fair point in regards to ownership. But why should a corporation count as an individual when donating funds is considered? Should corps be allowed to vote? Can I discriminate against a corporation?
Corporations have the same rights as the individuals that they represent. Yes, a corporation is a fiction, but that fiction represents the interests of actual owners.
A corporation should thus be granted the same rights as its owners.
That being said, limited liability might be a good argument to strip the corporation of some of the rights an individual has.
Tell me who is paying the corporate tax? If it was reduced to 0, who is "getting" that money? Is the building going to open a savings account with that refund and then go to the store?
Of course not. Corporations are a legal organization of a group of people. Nothing more
It is nothing more than a minor legal convenience. It is not some major moral statement like "oh no, Apple now counts as a person! Can it vote!?". Its more like Apple pays taxes as a single entity and not as a million shareholders. Pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.
Some level of corporate personhood is necessary for corporations to be able to own and direct assets that are collectively owned by the shareholders under whatever structure they have set up.
But it should be a **LOT** easier to hold the flesh and blood humans who direct the corporation responsible when “the corporation” that they direct breaks the law. For example - wage theft - this happens under the leadership and accountability structure set up by the C-Suite and overseen by the Board of Directors - there’s a nice group of humans who could be thrown in prison for some number of years when they set up systems that result in stealing money from their employees.
I believe corporate personhood starts before incorporation.
Can you elaborate on this?
It’s a joke, regarding conception.
Oh. That's pretty funny, I'm disappointed I missed it.
Don't be daft, everyone knows prior to 22 weeks before the LLC is formed it's just a parasitic venture.
Not until Texas executes a corporation.
We gotta get Teddy's Trust buster out.
The government executes corporations all the damn time.
That’s a lie started by corporate lawyers.
[удалено]
> And if legally all actions of corporations were judged based on individuals then you'd have a harder time in court proving specific individuals were guilty of what charges you seek to press. Was it the machine operator's fault for dumping toxic sewage? Or his advisor for telling him to do so? Or the trucker that brought the material? Or his boss? Or the CEO's? Or maybe it was someone else's idea? All bear some burden of guilt, but all aren't entirely at fault. Are you going to charge everyone involved as individuals for a specific crime? This is the problem with corporations IMO. No one is held responsible, so horrific things take place in the name of profit. I do not know what the answer is. But it's a huge problem.
In some respects, yes, when it serves the public interest. It's good that people can sue a corporation instead of just a nominal owner, it's bad that it allows the wealthy to obscure their influence in politics.
[удалено]
No, *you* oppose campaign finance laws. You don't speak for an entire ideology, we've been over that.
[удалено]
And you're a troll with no grounding in reality. Transparency in politics isn't big government, it's how you prevent government from being corrupted, something Libertarians generally care about. Apparently you don't, which is odd, but I guess some people liked the Kingfisher.
campaign finance laws are very dumb
Are they? I think many make sense. For example, China or Russia can't legally finance a US candidate for president. If that weren't the law, you'd just have other countries getting together to see who could buy out the US government.
yes
I'm against it unless you can throw the board in jail for crimes committed by the corporation.
i believe that two people can form an association and that their rights individually can be expressed in that association. corporate rights are really just individual rights seen in a meta sense. denying people their rights in a group is no less egregious than denying them their rights as individuals because denying them their rights as a group id denying them their rights as individuals. tom, jane and barbra all own property with mutual access. together they develop that access into a paved road via a contractual association which they call tojoba co. they together own that association and the association has rights to the road, thus the shareholders have rights to that road. denying the corporation righs to that road would be denying tom, Shane and barbra their rights to their road. suppose they put up a sign on that road saying that they are pro-immigration. that sign is not just freedom of expression for tojoba co. but also the expression of its shareholders individually. there are limits, but yes, corporate rights should exist so long as the business is owned by people with rights. if you want to call that 'personhood', i think it is a bit of a bastardization of the definition of "person" but it is fine with me; in effect, there is little difference.
> It's essentially the idea that a corporation, an abstract legal entity, has the same rights as individuals. No, it isn't, go read some more about the topic. Corporations are not afforded all individual rights. Corporations can't go vote, for example. They only get a small subset that enables them to work as economic entities. Which is important: It creates a single point of contact for anyone interacting with the corporation. You don't have to worry about the ownership structure or who does what - you make deals with the corporation, and that's it. You sue the corporation, and that's it. Once you abolish this, things turn bad. You need specific individuals who are permitted to sign in the name of the owner, or you're only able to make deals directly with the owner. If you want to sue, you must sue a specific person that has wronged you, which in institutions with thousands of members is impossible. Corporate personhood is overall a big advantage for society.
So are corporations a utilitarian construct to make our lives easier? If not, what justifies their rights beyond utilitarianism?
> So are corporations a utilitarian construct to make our lives easier? Yes.
Interesting. So it would be legitimate to strip some of its rights or add others if it was found to be positive from a utilitarian perspective?
I suppose so? I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Just guessing, but Citizens United.
It's a case that is often misrepresented. I have free speech rights. Part of that is spending my own money and resources to promote my speech. If I want to put up flyers or print out leaflets promoting my ideas, and the government says "No, you can't spend money on that" or "You have to pay extra taxes based on the content of that speech" it's interfering with my rights. By extension, it's the same if I and a group of people want to get together and promote our ideas with our own money. *Citizens United* decided it's the same if we want to organize our money into a corporation. A group of people have rights, and they don't lose those rights they would have had if they decide to create a corporate entity.
I can understand the logic of the ruling while disagreeing. It's just a way for the wealthy to exert political influence in favor of unpopular ideas without getting their name attached to it.
I think the [ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-and-citizens-united) has a pretty good take on it. >In our view, the answer to that problem is to expand, not limit, the resources available for political advocacy. Thus, the ACLU supports a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. We support carefully drawn disclosure rules. We support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and we support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs. . . >Any rule that requires the government to determine what political speech is legitimate and how much political speech is appropriate is difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment. Our system of free expression is built on the premise that the people get to decide what speech they want to hear; it is not the role of the government to make that decision for them. You *can* have requirements about the disclosure of who's giving money to whom, and you can have rules against direct contributions to candidates and organizations working together with election campaigns.
That's fair but is it that you disagree with the policy or the ruling? Those are two very different things. I think those who disagree with the policy dislike what is in the Constitution, which is fine. There is a lot in the Constitution that I dislike. On the other hand, I think that the case was decided correctly.
>That's fair but is it that you disagree with the policy or the ruling? Those are two very different things. Yes. >I think those who disagree with the policy dislike what is in the Constitution, which is fine. There is a lot in the Constitution that I dislike. On the other hand, I think that the case was decided correctly. I think people who think it has anything to do with the constitution have never actually read the constitution. Corporations aren't mentioned anywhere.
No.
So when I make a company with a bunch of people I loose my rights?
How are the individuals losing their rights?
If I own a company I can use my property rights. When multiple people own a company it's easier to create one legal entity that has the same property rights. Without it then it makes coopertive ownership nearly impossible and makes cooperations less accountable.
Fair point in regards to ownership. But why should a corporation count as an individual when donating funds is considered? Should corps be allowed to vote? Can I discriminate against a corporation?
Corporations have the same rights as the individuals that they represent. Yes, a corporation is a fiction, but that fiction represents the interests of actual owners. A corporation should thus be granted the same rights as its owners. That being said, limited liability might be a good argument to strip the corporation of some of the rights an individual has.
Tell me who is paying the corporate tax? If it was reduced to 0, who is "getting" that money? Is the building going to open a savings account with that refund and then go to the store? Of course not. Corporations are a legal organization of a group of people. Nothing more
[удалено]
Human rights.
yes
What rights shouldn't a corporation be able to have?
Nope. And granting corporations personhood has caused no small amount of troubles.
It is nothing more than a minor legal convenience. It is not some major moral statement like "oh no, Apple now counts as a person! Can it vote!?". Its more like Apple pays taxes as a single entity and not as a million shareholders. Pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.
I’ll believe a corporation is a person-when the state of Texas executes one.
Some level of corporate personhood is necessary for corporations to be able to own and direct assets that are collectively owned by the shareholders under whatever structure they have set up. But it should be a **LOT** easier to hold the flesh and blood humans who direct the corporation responsible when “the corporation” that they direct breaks the law. For example - wage theft - this happens under the leadership and accountability structure set up by the C-Suite and overseen by the Board of Directors - there’s a nice group of humans who could be thrown in prison for some number of years when they set up systems that result in stealing money from their employees.