| Why does a corporation even HAVE rights? Can a corporation send their child off to war? Can a corporation be sent to jail? If not, then why in the world do they think they have the same rights a CITIZEN has? The problem stems from the simple fact that we treat the corporation as a person, instead of a legal entity. A non-moral, non-ethical artificial person having the same rights as a REAL person, means that the artificial person, by definition, will NOT follow the same rules and morals that the rest of society follows, because it can't
--
Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so. |
|
| said by karlmarx:Why does a corporation even HAVE rights? Because the United States Supreme Court said they do:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clar···Railroad
The case is most notable for the obiter dictum statement that corporations are entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
For its opinion, the Court consolidated three separate cases:
* Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company
* California v. Central Pacific Railroad Company
* California v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company
"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
|
|
| I didn't realize that a corporation had the ability to vote. |
|
| reply to karlmarx
Thats really a silly argument. And it's not really helpful to an adult dialogue regarding the future regulations of the industry. Second of all, are you talking about the rules and morals that Stalin, Castro, Mao followed as your name suggests?
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
 badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | said by S_engineer:Thats really a silly argument. And it's not really helpful to an adult dialogue regarding the future regulations of the industry. Second of all, are you talking about the rules and morals that Stalin, Castro, Mao followed as your name suggests? Strawman much?
I think it's a valid argument...the question did go all the way to the supreme court so others felt it was valid enough to address as well. |
|
1 edit | The question was about revenue, not the obligations that bind the citizenry. And those obligations cost far less millions of deaths in the West than they did under Marxist societies.
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Uncle Paul
They can't vote as such, but they are allowed to donate money and services and favors, which is even more deadly.
Most all of the rights, but none of the responsibilities. Recipe for abuse, every time.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to Uncle Paul
The members of that corporation DO have the right to vote.. and the people that are engaged in that corporation have something to win or loose.. so, yes, I do agree that they do, in a way, have a right to vote..
This so-called "war against corporations" is a little out of hand.. there has to be BALANCE in everything we do.. if the corps don't have some rights, then who is going to want to run any of them or be engaged, or invest.. ? then, when they start to fall or shrink, are you going to cry when you're out of a job becuase there is no where for you to get one?
Really.. PLEASE think about more than just yourselves.. |
|
badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | reply to S_engineer
I see nothing about revenue in the quote:
"The First Amendment's language is plain: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." ISPs possess free speech rights just like newspapers, magazines, cable operators, movie and CD producers - and the man preaching on a soapbox. They are all speakers for First Amendment purposes. And under traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, it is as much a free speech violation to compel a speaker to convey information that the speaker does not wish to convey as it is to prevent a speaker from transmitting information it wishes to make available."
Seems more akin to obligations that bind citizenry to me. Except the above quote also makes no allusion to obligations either --instead he alludes to the benefits of citizenry. The question is STILL valid.
Marxism pertains to this topic about as much as Wile E. Coyote does. Keep your strawman at home.
Or should I infer from your avatar that your engineering skills are about on par with Wile E.'s?
|
|
badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy:The members of that corporation DO have the right to vote.. and the people that are engaged in that corporation have something to win or loose.. so, yes, I do agree that they do, in a way, have a right to vote.. I agree. I far as I know, I've never seen any law saying members of a corporation can't vote. There is a huge difference between a corporation and the people who are engaged in the corporation.
There are many fine corporations out there. I work for one. And I agree there has to be a balance. Right now, the balance is tipped a bit too far in the corporation's interest IMO. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
But, as always, in your twisted world view, you fail to make the FULL reading of the text...
"legal person, also called juridical person or juristic person, is a legal entity through which the law allows a group of natural persons to act as if they were a single composite individual for certain purposes, or in some jurisdictions, for a single person to have a separate legal personality other than their own. This legal fiction does not mean these entities are human beings, but rather means that the law allows them to act as persons for certain limited purposes—most commonly lawsuits, property ownership, and contracts. This concept is separate from and should not be confused with limited liability or the joint stock principle. Also note that basic rights (like the rights to free speech and due process of law) do not necessarily follow from legal personhood"
--
Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so. |
|
| reply to badtrip
If your going to source the Supreme Court, when maybe....just maybe...you should find out the context of the actual court case. So once again.... the question "Why does a corporation even HAVE rights?" is irrelevant for this topic.
Although, I'll just excuse your ignorance on the inferred BadTrip on Daffy Duck Blotter.
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | said by S_engineer:If your going to source the Supreme Court, when maybe....just maybe...you should find out the context of the actual court case. So once again.... the question "Why does a corporation even HAVE rights?" is irrelevant for this topic. Although, I'll just excuse your ignorance on the inferred BadTrip on Daffy Duck Blotter. So you feel that an argument questioning the rights of corporations has no place in a topic discussing the rights of corporations? How very Stalin, Castro and/or Mao of you, comrade!
And I'll have you know that the inferred bad trip was on peace sign blotter. Or maybe it references an old UT handle. Or maybe both...or neither.
Either way you're wrong on both counts. |
|
