Corporate Personhood
0
This goes back more than a century, to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case in 1886, where the Supreme Court ruled that the equal protection clause(14th amendment) granted constitutional protections to corporations as well as to natural persons.
More recent example is the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case where the Supreme Court ruled that corporations(and unions) are subjects to First amendment and their funded broadcasts are not to be censored by the federal government.
State legislatures and Congress are "forced" to treat metaphysical persons, that is to say corporations, the same as natural persons for purposes of contracting and rights to property. Where is the line drawn?
I personally don't think that corporate personhood should end, it's the reason corporations are held accountable. But corporations don't have to be treated exactly the same as natural persons, they are metaphysical persons, and it's time the law starts reflecting accordingly.
What's your take on this?
More recent example is the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case where the Supreme Court ruled that corporations(and unions) are subjects to First amendment and their funded broadcasts are not to be censored by the federal government.
Spoiler:
State legislatures and Congress are "forced" to treat metaphysical persons, that is to say corporations, the same as natural persons for purposes of contracting and rights to property. Where is the line drawn?
I personally don't think that corporate personhood should end, it's the reason corporations are held accountable. But corporations don't have to be treated exactly the same as natural persons, they are metaphysical persons, and it's time the law starts reflecting accordingly.
What's your take on this?
0
I've always believed that all rights only apply to natural persons and personally debate if they extends to other "living" entities such as animals.
I think money from groups (corporations, Unions, Special interest groups like P.E.T.A., etc) drown out the voices of the American people. These people can't spend millions of dollars to buy a politician so it skews the results. In other words, money corrupts politics.
As far as campaigns are concerned. If you declare the money on your 1040 or your 1099. Then you can use it however you choose (it's your property, your right) otherwise it stays out of politics.
I think money from groups (corporations, Unions, Special interest groups like P.E.T.A., etc) drown out the voices of the American people. These people can't spend millions of dollars to buy a politician so it skews the results. In other words, money corrupts politics.
As far as campaigns are concerned. If you declare the money on your 1040 or your 1099. Then you can use it however you choose (it's your property, your right) otherwise it stays out of politics.
0
I believe that the concept of corporation became outmoded with the invention of the electric calculator.
These entities should be treated as they are, a mass of stockholders. Private citizens, who pool their money to achieve a common goal.
As such, they can be taxed, limited, and imprisoned as any other group of conspirators.
These entities should be treated as they are, a mass of stockholders. Private citizens, who pool their money to achieve a common goal.
As such, they can be taxed, limited, and imprisoned as any other group of conspirators.
0
Aud1o Blood wrote...
As such, they can be taxed, limited, and imprisoned as any other group of conspirators.I'm anti-corporation too but, even I find the word "conspirators" to be overly harsh.
0
Aud1o Blood wrote...
I believe that the concept of corporation became outmoded with the invention of the electric calculator.These entities should be treated as they are, a mass of stockholders. Private citizens, who pool their money to achieve a common goal.
As such, they can be taxed, limited, and imprisoned as any other group of conspirators.
Err. So you don't own ANY stocks?
0
Is there another word for people who meet, plan, and co-operate an act?
Conspirator simply has a negative connotation. If you and I exchange emails, planning a lunch, than we become conspirators.
------
In technicality, I do not own any stock. However, if I was a shareholder, equal taxation and liability would cause me to more closely examine the companies I invest in.
What I'm proposing simply strengthens the rule of law. When a corporation does something unsavory, like unjustly terminating unionizers, releasing products that haven't been properly tested, or creating instability through excessive speculation; not only do the minor investors bear the weight, through financial risk, but larger ones could face potential jail time.
It strengthens the moral fiber of the country, and makes for a more stable economy.
------
I also don't believe in unlimited growth, and think that the US should strive for closed loop potential. But, that's a different thread of discussion entirely.
Conspirator simply has a negative connotation. If you and I exchange emails, planning a lunch, than we become conspirators.
------
In technicality, I do not own any stock. However, if I was a shareholder, equal taxation and liability would cause me to more closely examine the companies I invest in.
What I'm proposing simply strengthens the rule of law. When a corporation does something unsavory, like unjustly terminating unionizers, releasing products that haven't been properly tested, or creating instability through excessive speculation; not only do the minor investors bear the weight, through financial risk, but larger ones could face potential jail time.
It strengthens the moral fiber of the country, and makes for a more stable economy.
------
I also don't believe in unlimited growth, and think that the US should strive for closed loop potential. But, that's a different thread of discussion entirely.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
This is not what is broken in companies. Shouldn't try to fix what isn't broken.
0
Aud1o Blood wrote...
Is there another word for people who meet, plan, and co-operate an act?Conspirator simply has a negative connotation. If you and I exchange emails, planning a lunch, than we become conspirators.
------
In technicality, I do not own any stock. However, if I was a shareholder, equal taxation and liability would cause me to more closely examine the companies I invest in.
What I'm proposing simply strengthens the rule of law. When a corporation does something unsavory, like unjustly terminating unionizers, releasing products that haven't been properly tested, or creating instability through excessive speculation; not only do the minor investors bear the weight, through financial risk, but larger ones could face potential jail time.
It strengthens the moral fiber of the country, and makes for a more stable economy.
------
I also don't believe in unlimited growth, and think that the US should strive for closed loop potential. But, that's a different thread of discussion entirely.
What you're proposing is to essentially get rid of the financial system, which would mean that we wouldn't be able to distribute capital efficiently.
Stockholders shouldn't be accountable for wrong doing on the part of management or employees. To make them responsible is simply ridiculous and the costs of supervision are way too high compared to the benefits of doing so.
Imagine what would happen if you wanted to invest in a diversified portfolio of Coke, Pepsi, IBM, Microsoft, etc. Are you saying that the stockholder should be responsible for monitoring all those companies? And let's remember how fucking huge and intricate a corporation's operations are and how there's things that aren't disclosed (for example, Apple doesn't reveal its R&D even to its stock holders). What you're saying is moralistic and grandiose BULLSHIT.
If we banned corporations and stocks, money would just sit in the bank. And money sitting in the bank is simply paper.
0
Red Vodka wrote...
Stockholders shouldn't be accountable for wrong doing on the part of management or employees. To make them responsible is simply ridiculous and the costs of supervision are way too high compared to the benefits of doing so.I understand audio's logic here. Investors pressure the company into risky behavior to satisfy their demand for profits.
If we banned corporations and stocks, money would just sit in the bank. And money sitting in the bank is simply paper.
That is the logic behind progressive tax system. The high tax rates would push the rich into saving their money in a bank which would then loan the money out to middle class individuals who want to open their own businesses.
Beyond that, all I hear is "eat the rich".
