Decision 2012
Quote: 24Bingo- we've allowed corporations to form in such a way that their personhood can be called into question.
I don't know any people who have lived up to twice as long as the existence of the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies
Quote: Buzzard" BTW: Corporations ARE PEOPLE. If they are not, please explain what they are. " If they were people. we could put their asses in jail when they commit crimes !
Corporations can and have been found guilty of criminal acts. The people in the corporations can go to jail for such acts. In extreme cases, a corporation can lose its charter and effectively be 'put to death.'
Seriously, if they are not people, what are they? Who owns, runs, and works for them if not people?
Quote: Mosca
Corporations are corporations. People are people. If you need to know the difference I suggest you google for it.
I know what each is. Corporations are nothing but people. People pooling resources in legal way to acheive a goal they could not as individiuals. Stock so ownership may be entered and exited in an easier fashion. Who are IBM, Microsoft, and Ford? Just many people, all owning a business together.
Unless you are going to tell me an inanimate object owns the corporation, they are people.
Quote: AZDuffmanJust many people, all owning a business together.
Unless you are going to tell me an inanimate object owns the corporation, they are people.
I own my car. Is my car a person? more to the point you're trying to make, should I be able to donate to a political campaign on behalf of my car since it's ultimately owned by a person?
Quote: BuzzardNext the warranty on my car will be a person too, under that logic.
How could that be? A warranty is a contract of one person saying that what he is selling will perform to a certain standard over a period of time or use, and if what he sold fails he will make good in one way or another. What does that have to do with people forming a group to pool investment?
Quote: rdw4potusI own my car. Is my car a person? more to the point you're trying to make, should I be able to donate to a political campaign on behalf of my car since it's ultimately owned by a person?
How could a machine be a person? A machine is unable to do anything on its own, merely what is programed into it by the desigher.
Nice try, kids.
Quote: MoscaI disagree. Obama's policies are by and large those of a moderate Republican... either that, or Bush II was liberal, The Heritage Foundation is liberal, etc. Follow the link in my post. Now, if you disagree with the reasoning in the link, and believe that Bush I and The Heritage Foundation are liberal, then yes, from your point of view the Dems did double down on Liberalism. But Liberals don't think so.
So are you saying a moderate Republican would do the following:
-appoint a SCOTUS Justice who ruled skin color is more important than test scores for promotion
-sue states to block efforts for clean elections via asking people to show ID to vote
-sue Boeing for the sin of OPENING a new plant in North Carolina
-refuse to defend Federal Law in court because he did not like the Defense of Marrige Act, despite the law requiring him to do so
-redistribute ownership of GM and Chrysler from rightful owners to the UAW
-sign a law allowing employees to sue for pay issues that happened 20 years before
-shut down oil drilling in the Gulf and block the Keystone XL pipeline
-openly declare that he wants to bankrupt anyone opening a coal power plant
Is this what you are saying a moderate Republican would do? Because if you are, I do not see it. What I do not see is why liberals always hide from who they are and say their guy is governing like a moderate Republican would.
The Democrat Party has moved so far left that today JFK would be accused of being a rich guy who wants to give tax cuts to the rich.
Quote: rxwineI don't know any people who have lived up to twice as long as the existence of the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies
I don't see how that's relevant. It's been different people at the helm, but it's still been people at the helm over the centuries. Even if that weren't the case, why should being immortal exclude one from personhood?
No, the problem is that, by law, they have to act like sociopaths, often even against shareholders' wishes, and the punishment for their actions doesn't always rebound on those who were actually pulling the levers.
Quote: AZDuffmanA machine is unable to do anything on its own, merely what is programed into it by the desigher.
What do corporations do, other than what is dictated by their management teams? A corporation has no more self-determination than my car does. Absent the presence of real actual people, the corporation just stops.
Quote: AZDuffman....I do not see it.
That's OK with me.
Quote: rdw4potusWhat do corporations do, other than what is dictated by their management teams? A corporation has no more self-determination than my car does. Absent the presence of real actual people, the corporation just stops.
Thank you for making my point. The presence of actual people! That is what a corporation is. If the people leave, the corporation is no more. There may be a shell of paper, but nothing happens. Because things are happening indicates the corporation is "people."
The car cannot think on its own nor can it change the input on its own. The corporation can. Management can be, and are, fired all the time. The car cannot change who gives the input. The corporation can, via shareholders.
Unless you are making the argument that myself, my coworkers, and the stockholders where I work are somehow not human.....
Lets put it another way. Say you own a small store via a LLC. If I go in and shoplift some steaks, have I stolen from a person? I mean, the corporation owns the store.
Quote: rdw4potusWhat do corporations do, other than what is dictated by their management teams? A corporation has no more self-determination than my car does. Absent the presence of real actual people, the corporation just stops.
Stops? No. It ceases to exist. A car will just stop, and sit there, abandoned, until someone takes it or time breaks it down. The corporation won't even do that. No people, no corporation.
You see a corporation as a faceless brand, controlled by some hired hands, and that's what they tend to become, but not what they ultimately are. Someone's behind all that, and they don't merely control it, they are it. It's by their association that the corporation exists, and it is the corporation that is their association. This is plainly obvious with small businesses, and it doesn't cease to be true just because you cross a line that doesn't exist.
Quote: AZDuffmanThank you for making my point. The presence of actual people! That is what a corporation is. If the people leave, the corporation is no more. There may be a shell of paper, but nothing happens. Because things are happening indicates the corporation is "people."
The car cannot think on its own nor can it change the input on its own. The corporation can. Management can be, and are, fired all the time. The car cannot change who gives the input. The corporation can, via shareholders.
Unless you are making the argument that myself, my coworkers, and the stockholders where I work are somehow not human.....
Lets put it another way. Say you own a small store via a LLC. If I go in and shoplift some steaks, have I stolen from a person? I mean, the corporation owns the store.
Let's try this another way. I have a bowl full of gumballs on my desk. If you remove the gumballs, there's just a bowl. That doesn't indicate that the bowl is gumballs.
The corporation is full of people. It is not itself people or a person.
And in your theft scenario, you're stealing from a corporation. As you said, the corporation owns the store.
Quote: rdw4potusLet's try this another way. I have a bowl full of gumballs on my desk. If you remove the gumballs, there's just a bowl. That doesn't indicate that the bowl is gumballs.
The corporation is full of people. It is not itself people or a person.
And in your theft scenario, you're stealing from a corporation. As you said, the corporation owns the store.
No, the bowl is an inanimate object and this really does not compare. And the bowl just has the gumballs inside of it, if you are asking what the bowl is made of I would guess glass, wood, plastic, or whatever else it was made of.
The corporation "contains" things like land, factories, cash deposits, and other things. But it is made of people.
And I have to believe if you had a store and caught me shoplifting that when the cops came you would say I was stealing from your store, not the LLC. Because who owns the LLC?
Keep trying.
Quote: 24BingoStops? No. It ceases to exist. A car will just stop, and sit there, abandoned, until someone takes it or time breaks it down. The corporation won't even do that. No people, no corporation.
You see a corporation as a faceless brand, controlled by some hired hands, and that's what they tend to become, but not what they ultimately are. Someone's behind all that, and they don't merely control it, they are it. It's by their association that the corporation exists, and it is the corporation that is their association. This is plainly obvious with small businesses, and it doesn't cease to be true just because you cross a line that doesn't exist.
I chose my words and analogy pretty carefully there. The corporate charter and brand don't go away just because the corporation has no staff. Unless it is specifically ended by corporate action or a sunset clause in the articles of incorporation, the corporation also just sits there.
Why should the people who own a small business (or any business) get to count twice. The only way the corporations-are-people argument comes anywhere close to holding water is if the people who work at or own the corporation choose to ONLY identify with the corporation. Otherwise, I'm counted both as me and as the LLC that owns the shop where Duff stole my steaks.
Quote: AZDuffmanNo, the bowl is an inanimate object and this really does not compare.
corporations are animate?
Quote: rdw4potus
Why should the people who own a small business (or any business) get to count twice. The only way the corporations-are-people argument comes anywhere close to holding water is if the people who work at or own the corporation choose to ONLY identify with the corporation. Otherwise, I'm counted both as me and as the LLC that owns the shop where Duff stole my steaks.
Who is saying they "count twice?" Yet again, a corporation is a union of people, pooling their interests legally for a purpose. Just like a man and a woman can marry. Are they no longer "people?" If I steal a piece of real property titled to them as "a married couple" am I stealing from them or their "marrige?" Here in PA when you own your house as a married couple you own it as "Tenante by the Entirety." This means they do not own as individuals but as a married couple. Are they counted twice in this way?
Quote: rdw4potuscorporations are animate?
They are in that they are people. The corporate charter is the same as a birth certificate. Just because your birth certificate is a piece of paper you are no less a person than a corporation is.
Quote: AZDuffmanWho is saying they "count twice?" Yet again, a corporation is a union of people, pooling their interests legally for a purpose. Just like a man and a woman can marry. Are they no longer "people?" If I steal a piece of real property titled to them as "a married couple" am I stealing from them or their "marrige?" Here in PA when you own your house as a married couple you own it as "Tenante by the Entirety." This means they do not own as individuals but as a married couple. Are they counted twice in this way?
Of course the people entering the marriage are still people. However the marriage is not also a person. And of course the couple aren't counted twice. They aren't allowed to donate to political campaigns both as individuals and as the marriage.
Quote: rdw4potusWhat do corporations do, other than what is dictated by their management teams?
Change their management teams, for instance.
A corporation is a machine for producing profit. It is constructed in such a way as to exclude personalities from its control, the direct vertical hierarchy that a private company has. For one, a corporation doesn't have a direct leader - it is managed by chief executives, who are employed by the board of directors, who are elected by major shareholders, who in turn are removed from deciding how the company is to be run and the consequences of those decisions.
It's impossible for any particular person within a corporation to, for instance, unilaterally make it pursue altruistic, personal or otherwise non-financial ambitions, since the structure is constructed to ensure the removal of power from someone who goes counter to increasing stock prices or dividends. A major shareholder can't do it because he has no say in day-to-day operations, a CEO because he's just an employee, a director for both of those reasons.
With no one captain at the helm, there's little choice but to declare a corporation to be a legal person in itself.
Quote: 24BingoI don't see how that's relevant. It's been different people at the helm, but it's still been people at the helm over the centuries. Even if that weren't the case, why should being immortal exclude one from personhood?
.
It has no single corporeal body, you can slice it up into unequal pieces and it can live (like Ma Bell was split). It can live for centuries. Why doesn't the coporation have a vote if it's a person? One vote one person. It fails on mulitple areas. It technically doesn't really age like a person as it's cells interchange to keep it immortal.
Did you ever see the movie Alien?
Quote: rdw4potusI chose my words and analogy pretty carefully there. The corporate charter and brand don't go away just because the corporation has no staff. Unless it is specifically ended by corporate action or a sunset clause in the articles of incorporation, the corporation also just sits there.
Yes. This makes for some pretty nifty possibilities for post-apocalyptic, possibly semi-absurdist science fiction. I'm not sure if this scenario has ever been explored, probably yes, would be interested if someone could refer some examples.
With a sufficient (albeit not likely to ever happen) level of process automation, it's theoretically possible for corporations to exist without staff, as long as everyone's job description is fulfilled (not in AI way, but in default response way), and even an entire corporate economy.
Quote: rxwineIt has no single corporeal body, you can slice it up into unequal pieces and it can live (like Ma Bell was split). It can live for centuries. Why doesn't the coporation have a vote if it's a person? One vote one person. It fails on mulitple areas. It technically doesn't really age like a person as it's cells interchange to keep it immortal.
Maybe this shows the problem here.
Is a corporation "a person"---NO
Are corporations "people" --YES
Quote: rxwineIt has no single corporeal body, you can slice it up into unequal pieces and it can live (like Ma Bell was split).
Creating new entities in the process.
Quote: rxwineWhy doesn't the coporation have a vote if it's a person?
Why don't slaves, the poor, coloreds, women, immigrants and teenagers vote if they are persons?
Quote: rxwineIt technically doesn't really age like a person as it's cells interchange to keep it immortal.
So if we as a species find a way to hack aging out of our genome (and it's pretty clearly there on evolutionary purpose, so yes, it can be removed), will we no longer be persons?
Quote: AZDuffmanMaybe this shows the problem here.
Is a corporation "a person"---NO
Are corporations "people" --YES
Oh, no no. They're full of people.
Here's another example. Your argument is full of sh*t. That does not mean that you yourself are sh*t. sorry, couldn't resist:-)
Quote: rdw4potusOh, no no. They're full of people.
Here's another example. Your argument is full of sh*t. That does not mean that you yourself are sh*t. sorry, couldn't resist:-)
I don't walk into the tough bar not to mix it up a little bit :-)
But I do have Christmas Shopping to do, want to be done by Thanksgiving. So I am done here until you can show me how you do something to affect a corporation without afffecting people. Except to say that corporations do nothing but pool resources to provide goods or services people desire. The profit they make is just, yet attacked by looters who seem to think it is either ill-gotten or stolen. We are nearing a point where over 50% of the US Popualtion is comprised not of creators but of looters. At some point the creators will not make enough extra production to steal from them--at that time it will seem calling 2008 a "near depression" silly and it will seem boom times we want to return to.
Quote: BuzzardDoes a corporation have to register for a draft if one is re-instituted ?
Don't worry, Blackwater has already volunteered. The way things are going (and I'm not speaking in general, I'm speaking specific changes being made), it's just a matter of time before most wars are fought by hired PMC and state military is relegated to essentially national guard duty. PMC are cheaper already, can be further cheaper if using foreign mercs, they don't have to stand up to UCMJ, follow war conventions, maintain a "liberator" facade. Not a whole lot of time either.
And yes, it's pretty certain that they will be "drafted" should US ever come under external attack (the Hell will be long frozen).
Quote: BuzzardIf I sue a corporation , does it and all the share owner show up in court ?
Yes, the corporation does show up in court. As its representing lawyer.
Share owners don't show up in court exactly because a corporation is a person in itself, and not a collective of its shareholders. Thus they have no reason to go to court. If it was a private company and not a corporation, then they would have to bear responsibility together.
Quote: P90If it was a private company and not a corporation, then they would have to bear responsibility together.
Legitimate question, minimal snark: how does that work for an S corp?
Quote: rdw4potusLegitimate question, minimal snark: how does that work for an S corp?
AFAIK it doesn't depend on C or S form of taxation. Why would it? That's just a fiscal choice. But iAnal.
Corporations cannot love.
Corporations do not feel anything. People do.
You seem to be making your argument that because corporations are comprised of people, then they should have the same rights as individuals. I disagree with that premise. I'm not going to make a constitutional defense of my position on an internet gambling forum. You can draw out my position from the statements above.
Quote: P90AFAIK it doesn't depend on C or S form of taxation. Why would it? That's just a fiscal choice. But iAnal.
S corps are usually privately held, and at the very least have limited ownership. It's kind of the middle between your "corporation or private company" statement. So I was wondering how it'd work for them.
Quote: BuzzardDoes a corporation have to register for a draft if one is re-instituted?
Sure they do! IIRC this happened to the railroads during WWI. And in WWII virtually all manufacturing was pressed into one kind of service or another.
Quote: rdw4potusS corps are usually privately held, and at the very least have limited ownership. It's kind of the middle between your "corporation or private company" statement. So I was wondering how it'd work for them.
A corporation can be private or public, still a corporation and still people. It is just that when private not just anybody can buy shares. Both have advantages and disadvantages.
Every second blue moon.Quote: MoscaCorporations do not act altruistically, and are never motivated by altruism. But people can be, and sometimes are.
Nor can psychopaths.Quote: MoscaCorporations cannot love.
Except for possible terrorists and suspected insurgent sympathizers.Quote: MoscaCorporations do not feel anything. People do.
Well, that's a bad argument. The right argument is that because corporations are, by definition, persons, they should be evaluated as such. Persons; not humans.Quote: MoscaYou seem to be making your argument that because corporations are comprised of people, then they should have the same rights as individuals.
Quote: P90AFAIK it doesn't depend on C or S form of taxation. Why would it? That's just a fiscal choice. But iAnal.
S corps are usually privately held, and at the very least have limited ownership. It's kind of the middle between your "corporation or private company" statement. So I was wondering how it'd work for them.
Quote: rdw4potusS corps are usually privately held, and at the very least have limited ownership. It's kind of the middle between your "corporation or private company" statement. So I was wondering how it'd work for them.
The same way AFAIK. Corporation may be private, but public trade is not the defining quality. The defining quality is that a group of people collectively create a legal entity that holds legal personhood and operates, under the law, to bring profit on their investment.
more weasel words. It is a private company, just more owners. DUH
Quote: Buzzard' it was a private company and not a corporation, then they would have to bear responsibility together. "
more weasel words. It is a private company, just more owners. DUH
That it is privately or publicly held is meaningless. I don't even know that the state charter would have to be changed much if at all. In 1988 RJR-Nabisco was public, in 1989 it was private. In 2011 Facebook was private, in 2012 it was public. Biggest change is when you are public you have to report results anyone can see, privately you do not. After some number of different owners you must go public, though setting up shells may get you around this. Call a lawyer for details there.
Quote: Buzzardmore weasel words. It is a private company, just more owners. DUH
"Dura sex, sed lex". A corporation is a separate person from its shareholders. A general partnership and some other forms of enterprise ownership aren't. There can even be just one share with one holder, a single owner corporation, although it's too legally vulnerable; it's more practical to at least distribute shares within the family.
I personally think when the founders refer to people they refer to the vast group as individual people and their liberties, their speech etc.,
I think giving corporation values as a person is debasing humans.
But it's kind of an irrelevant objection, now that I think about it. I've just been hearing a lot of people talking about the Tea Party's use of the word "freedom." In any case, no, I don't think they'd make the distinction, but I think they'd have less reason to.
Quote: rxwineDo you think the founders would be more concerned with individual liberty and happiness versus corporate welfare, if they were weighing one against the other?
Seeing how even voting in the early days was contingent on wealth, definitely the latter.
Do you remember why US still has an electoral college? Originally these were non-elected, permanent positions, nothing like today.
Quote: rxwineDo you think the founders would be more concerned with individual liberty and happiness versus corporate welfare, if they were weighing one against the other?
I would like to hear your definition of "corporate welfare." Although there is some (Solyndra, GM) my guess is that what people consider corporate welfare varies wildly form an outright handout to Solyndra to just being allowed to write off investment costs, the later which is legitamite.
