Corporations are not people, but Citizens United isn't the problem

[Guy Incognito]

Hey everybody, I just saw a political ad for Al Franken that said, "Corporations are not people, help Al Franken overturn Citizens United."

Now, I agree that corporations are composed of people, they are not people themselves. Corporate personhood is a huge problem, and the root cause of all business corruption in this country. But it is not because of Citizens United! That's actually a good decision.

The problem is limited liability. Corporate entities are treated like people in the sense that they make business deals and take on liability on behalf of their constituent natural persons. If we didn't have corporate personhood, if a business indavertently dumped toxic waste into drinking water, the CEO would be personally responsible. That sounds like pretty good motivation for responsible behavior, right?

As it stands, an imaginary friend of the CEO named Business, Inc. takes on the liability for negligent toxic waste spills, completely eliminating the motivation for responsibility. So the problem with corporate personhood is not that businesses get free speech, they should have free speech! The problem with corporate personhood is that it is a corrupt protection racket between business and government designed to shield businessmen from liability for their wrongdoing.

 

[Master PO]

Hey everybody, I just saw a political ad for Al Franken that said, "Corporations are not people, help Al Franken overturn Citizens United."

Now, I agree that corporations are composed of people, they are not people themselves. Corporate personhood is a huge problem, and the root cause of all business corruption in this country. But it is not because of Citizens United! That's actually a good decision.

The problem is limited liability. Corporate entities are treated like people in the sense that they make business deals and take on liability on behalf of their constituent natural persons. If we didn't have corporate personhood, if a business indavertently dumped toxic waste into drinking water, the CEO would be personally responsible. That sounds like pretty good motivation for responsible behavior, right?

As it stands, an imaginary friend of the CEO named Business, Inc. takes on the liability for negligent toxic waste spills, completely eliminating the motivation for responsibility. So the problem with corporate personhood is not that businesses get free speech, they should have free speech! The problem with corporate personhood is that it is a corrupt protection racket between business and government designed to shield businessmen from liability for their wrongdoing.

although I don't believe corporations should be counted as people.

it is legal according to government...29 USC § 152

(1) The term “person” includes one or more individuals, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in cases under title 11, or receivers.

 

[Guy Incognito]

although I don't believe corporations should be counted as people.

it is legal according to government...its either in u.s. code 28 or 29

Well right, that's my point. We need to do away with the laws that give special protections to people who incorporate their businesses, rather than doing away with Citizens United, which simply expands the right of freedom of speech. Citizens United is , taken alone, a good thing. Anything that expands freedom of speech is a good thing. But Corporate Personhood is, in itself, a bad thing.

 

[Master PO]

Well right, that's my point. We need to do away with the laws that give special protections to people who incorporate their businesses, rather than doing away with Citizens United, which simply expands the right of freedom of speech. Citizens United is , taken alone, a good thing. Anything that expands freedom of speech is a good thing. But Corporate Personhood is, in itself, a bad thing.

true, but if the government does not want to follow the basics of the constitution which they take an oath to uphold, their are not going to drop the code, because they get lobbied by all of things list in that code.

 

[Guy Incognito]

true, but if the government does not want to follow the basics of the constitution which they take an oath to uphold, their are not going to drop the code, because they get lobbied by all of things list in that code.

Yeah, exactly. There is nothing that the corrupt business lobby wants less than for the members of a business to actually take on personal liability for their actions. That would mean being held responsible for the bad things they do, like some sort of plebeian!

 

[Master PO]

Yeah, exactly. There is nothing that the corrupt business lobby wants less than for the members of a business to actually take on personal liability for their actions. That would mean being held responsible for the bad things they do, like some sort of plebeian!

I would suggest to push for the repeal of the 17th amendment instead.

 

[Fisher]

Damn right. Let's find some little old granny whose mutual fund contains a share of BP stock and make her personally liable for the oil spill in the Gulf. Lock her saggy butt up--- That'll fix EVERYTHING.....

 

[Guy Incognito]

Damn right. Let's find some little old granny whose mutual fund contains a share of BP stock and make her personally liable for the oil spill in the Gulf. Lock her saggy butt up--- That'll fix EVERYTHING.....

If the law was the way it should be, and business owners were held personally liable for their actions, then mutual funds probably wouldn't exist the way they do today. You can leap to alarmist bull**** or you can actually think about what you're saying.

 

[Carleen]

Hey everybody, I just saw a political ad for Al Franken that said, "Corporations are not people, help Al Franken overturn Citizens United."

Now, I agree that corporations are composed of people, they are not people themselves. Corporate personhood is a huge problem, and the root cause of all business corruption in this country. But it is not because of Citizens United! That's actually a good decision.

The problem is limited liability. Corporate entities are treated like people in the sense that they make business deals and take on liability on behalf of their constituent natural persons. If we didn't have corporate personhood, if a business indavertently dumped toxic waste into drinking water, the CEO would be personally responsible. That sounds like pretty good motivation for responsible behavior, right?

As it stands, an imaginary friend of the CEO named Business, Inc. takes on the liability for negligent toxic waste spills, completely eliminating the motivation for responsibility. So the problem with corporate personhood is not that businesses get free speech, they should have free speech! The problem with corporate personhood is that it is a corrupt protection racket between business and government designed to shield businessmen from liability for their wrongdoing.

Citizens United was a failure in this election. Money didn't talk and the bs walked!

 

[Guy Incognito]

Citizens United was a failure in this election. Money didn't talk and the bs walked!

Do you find that mindless slogans are a good substitute for critical thought? Your post certainly indicates that this is the case.

 

[Fisher]

If the law was the way it should be, and business owners were held personally liable for their actions, then mutual funds probably wouldn't exist the way they do today. You can leap to alarmist bull**** or you can actually think about what you're saying.

As would you. For instance, the corporate liability shield does not prevent the prosecution of people for their own individual criminal acts, and once they are convicted, their personal assets are fair game.

 

[Guy Incognito]

As would you. For instance, the corporate liability shield does not prevent the prosecution of people for their own individual criminal acts, and once they are convicted, their personal assets are fair game.

You're making me a straw man. If you think I was talking about criminal action then you must not have read the op, you are again leaping to conclusions without thinking (your modus operandi, it seems). I'm not talking about criminal actions. People should be personally responsible for all their actions, even their business torts.

 

[Carleen]

Do you find that mindless slogans are a good substitute for critical thought? Your post certainly indicates that this is the case.

Just having some fun. Have you heard of it?

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Do you find that mindless slogans are a good substitute for critical thought? Your post certainly indicates that this is the case.

I like using the word "transformative"

 

[Guy Incognito]

Just having some fun. Have you heard of it?

Nope, I'm not into that.

 

[Fisher]

You're making me a straw man. If you think I was talking about criminal action then you must not have read the op, you are again leaping to conclusions without thinking (your modus operandi, it seems). I'm not talking about criminal actions. People should be personally responsible for all their actions, even their business torts.

Dumping toxic chemicals into the drinking water is a criminal act not protected by the liability shield. If a CEO orders it, the liability shields does not protect them. It is not that hard to pierce the shield against individual players, at least not in my state.

 

[Excon]

But Corporate Personhood is, in itself, a bad thing.

Well get to proving it. So far you have failed to do so.
Or are you just stating an opinion as fact?

As would you. For instance, the corporate liability shield does not prevent the prosecution of people for their own individual criminal acts, and once they are convicted, their personal assets are fair game.

You're making me a straw man. If you think I was talking about criminal action then you must not have read the op, you are again leaping to conclusions without thinking (your modus operandi, it seems). I'm not talking about criminal actions. People should be personally responsible for all their actions, even their business torts.

It seems to me that his reply is spot on.

You are rallying against Corporate Personhood because of "limited liability", yet he points out exactly why that argument fails.
Those who do wrong are held responsible.
Which makes sense because you do not hold everybody responsible for the wrong acts of one, or the few.

Under such, it can be seen why "limited liability" and "Corporate Personhood", is a good thing.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Well get to proving it. So far you have failed to do so.
Or are you just stating an opinion as fact?

Well, yeah it's an opinion. If you value personal responsibility, the corporate personhood is a bad thing because it protects the wrongdoer from personal responsibility thanks to a protection racket run by government.

If, on the other hand, you're a fascist who likes to see the government keep its thumb on the scales in all things, corporate personhood is just fine.

It's a matter of opinion, and like all opinions, there is a right one and a wrong one, and mine is right.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That sword cuts both ways. If employee Joe Littelguy grounds his supertanker in an Alsakan bay, or melts down a nuclear reactor in PA, then it is better to hold his employer (corporation) responsible for that "negligent" action of its employee, rather than to limit the disaster to Joe Littleguy's personal bad judgement and take away his personal assets and call it a day. You make it sound like the CEO personally trains and supervises all corporate employees and should somehow "take the fall" for any action, while obviously that is not the case. Better to attach the corporation's future earnings to settle a matter than to jail one poor slob and sell his condo, vaction home and a few prized personal assets.

 

[Excon]

Well, yeah it's an opinion. If you personal responsibility, the corporate personhood is a bad thing because it protects the wrongdoer from personal responsibility thanks to a protection racket run by government.

As shown by Fisher, that isn't true.
Those who do wrong are held responsible.

It's a matter of opinion, and like all opinions, there is a right one and a wrong one, and mine is right.

:thumbs:
Liked for your sense of humor.

 

[Fisher]

Well, yeah it's an opinion. If you value personal responsibility, the corporate personhood is a bad thing because it protects the wrongdoer from personal responsibility thanks to a protection racket run by government.

If, on the other hand, you're a fascist who likes to see the government keep its thumb on the scales in all things, corporate personhood is just fine.

It's a matter of opinion, and like all opinions, there is a right one and a wrong one, and mine is right.

Apparently your state has some pretty crappy business tort laws. In mine, you would just need to include the individuals involved in as defendants with the corporation as co-conspirators, throw in some mandatory verbiage, and your problem is solved.

 

[Guy Incognito]

As shown by Fisher, that isn't true.
Those who do wrong are held responsible.

No, Fisher didn't show that. He's being deliberately or inadvertently shallow-minded. Piercing the corporate veil is rare, it doesn't apply to everyday torts. If a company negligently dumps toxic waste in the water, the corporate entity is liable, but the people involved are not held personally liable. If there was no corporate entity, then the people would be held personally liable, meaning the court could take money from the personal bank accounts of the people responsible for the negligent dumping to compensate the victim. The only difference between these two scenarios is one where the company has kicked some money up to the mafia don government to get protection (limited liability) and the principals aren't held personally liable, and the other where the company hasn't and the principals are held personally liable.

 

[Guy Incognito]

That sword cuts both ways. If employee Joe Littelguy grounds his supertanker in an Alsakan bay, or melts down a nuclear reactor in PA, then it is better to hold his employer (corporation) responsible for that "negligent" action of its employee, rather than to limit the disaster to Joe Littleguy's personal bad judgement and take away his personal assets and call it a day. You make it sound like the CEO personally trains and supervises all corporate employees and should somehow "take the fall" for any action, while obviously that is not the case. Better to attach the corporation's future earnings to settle a matter than to jail one poor slob and sell his condo, vaction home and a few prized personal assets.

Cuts both ways? That's exactly right. Nobody should be shielded from personal responsibility. The sword can either cut the victim or it can cut the wrongdoer. It swings both ways but ONLY ONE WAY IS THE RIGHT WAY.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Cuts both ways? That's exactly right. Nobody should be shielded from personal responsibility. The sword can either cut the victim or it can cut the wrongdoer. It swings both ways but ONLY ONE WAY IS THE RIGHT WAY.

Perhaps you missed my point. Limiting responsibility to a single employee, regardless of their personal wealth, yet sparing the corporate entity of responsibilty allows for less, not more, assets to be subject to paying the damage claim to the victim.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Perhaps you missed my point. Limiting responsibility to a single employee, regardless of their personal wealth, yet sparing the corporate entity of respomsibilty allows for less, not more, assets to be subject to paying damage claim to the victim.

I didn't miss the point, I'm just more knowledgeable than you so I know your point is pointless. You don't seem to have ever heard of respondeat superior.

There is no reason to sue the little guy when you can sue his boss with deep pockets instead.