Under the law, corporations and humans have long had different standards of responsibility. If corporations are treated as people, so that they are free to spend money in election campaigns and to invoke their religious beliefs to deny a kind of health coverage to their workers, are they to be treated as people in other regards? Corporations are legal entities whose owners are not personally liable for the company’s debts, whereas actual people are liable for their own. Both people and corporations can discharge their debts through bankruptcy, but there are several kinds of bankruptcy, and the conditions placed on people are generally far more onerous than those placed on corporations. If corporations are people, why aren’t they subject to the same bankruptcy laws that people are? Why aren’t the owners liable for corporate debts as people are for their own?
If corporations are going to be given the freedoms that people enjoy, they should be subjected to people’s obligations and restrictions too. I’m not sure how many corporations would think that’s such a good deal.
I found this opinion piece by Harold Meyerson to be spot on concerning corporations being brought in to the world of personhood.
Is it alright for corporations to speak for their employees on all matters as a collective? I don't think so.
Also consider this: Where does this corporations-are-people business start and stop? Note the excerpt from Meyerson's piece:
Harold Meyerson makes one think about personhood, don't you think? What about wars? People are drafted and go to wars, why not include corporations? Corporations get to itemize a lot of things on their taxes more than the average Joe or Jane. Why do they get to be a special person with extraordinary fiscal relationships with the state?
Yes, I think Scalia is looking to see how he is going to open this can of worms -- real carefully.
I found this opinion piece by Harold Meyerson to be spot on concerning corporations being brought in to the world of personhood.
Is it alright for corporations to speak for their employees on all matters as a collective? I don't think so.
Also consider this: Where does this corporations-are-people business start and stop? Note the excerpt from Meyerson's piece:
Harold Meyerson makes one think about personhood, don't you think? What about wars? People are drafted and go to wars, why not include corporations? Corporations get to itemize a lot of things on their taxes more than the average Joe or Jane. Why do they get to be a special person with extraordinary fiscal relationships with the state?
Yes, I think Scalia is looking to see how he is going to open this can of worms -- real carefully.
You're missing the point. Corporations do not have the right to speak for me collectively and say that it is a person -- a unit of one. If the owner wants to come out and say what he/she believes than fine -- just don't include the business as a whole because there will be dissent somewhere. :shrug:Are the people that run the corporation people? Do they not have the right to use their property in the way they see fit, to associate with who they desire, and provide services in the way they see fit? Oh right, for some reason they are lesser beings. Funny how that works. I find liberals are entirely missing the point. In order to protect the rights of people businesses can not be the slaves of the population as a whole.
You're missing the point. Corporations do not have the right to speak for me collectively and say that it is a person -- a unit of one. If the owner wants to come out and say what he/she believes than fine -- just don't include the business as a whole because there will be dissent somewhere. :shrug:
You're missing the point. Corporations do not have the right to speak for me collectively and say that it is a person -- a unit of one. If the owner wants to come out and say what he/she believes than fine -- just don't include the business as a whole because there will be dissent somewhere. :shrug:
Not when it comes to my personal religious point of view and he adds it to as his opinion to the business as a whole he doesn't.He owns the business and the property it rests upon. It is his say on what happens with it.
I have no idea as to what you're talking about. I never said that businesses were not subject to income taxes.Which "obligations and restrictions" are corporations not subject to?
Do you also argue that because corporations aren't people, they shouldn't be subject to an income tax, like people? (Whoops -- is that a "can of worms" you don't want to open?)
(And again, all of this stems from people actually having no idea whatsoever what the rulings in Citizens United actually were.)
Not when it comes to my personal religious point of view and he adds it to as his opinion to the business as a whole he doesn't.
Yes. But their decision will affect a whole lot of things in the near future, IMO -- especially with this thing with Hobby LobbyWell, the United States Supreme Court disagrees with you.
I don't care if he personally disagrees with me. Just speak for himself and do not include me and others as his personal convictions on any given subject. Be one human being -- do not do it collectively.No, your religious demands on him mean nothing here. If he doesn't want your religious beliefs impeding his walls that is his right to not allow it.
Yes. But their decision will affect a whole lot of things in the near future, IMO -- especially with this thing with Hobby Lobby
You're missing the point. Corporations do not have the right to speak for me collectively and say that it is a person -- a unit of one. If the owner wants to come out and say what he/she believes than fine -- just don't include the business as a whole because there will be dissent somewhere. :shrug:
As people? Yes. But not as a person.Do you think Foundations and Trusts should be treated as "people"? How about Associations?
Be one human being -- do not do it collectively.
I have no idea as to what you're talking about. I never said that businesses were not subject to income taxes.
As people? Yes. But not as a person.
....Is it alright for corporations to speak for their employees on all matters as a collective? I don't think so.....
This argument seriously hacks me off, because it's a purely semantics argument of which dumb partisans, more left that right, routinely take advantage.Harold Meyerson makes one think about personhood, don't you think? What about wars? People are drafted and go to wars, why not include corporations? Corporations get to itemize a lot of things on their taxes more than the average Joe or Jane. Why do they get to be a special person with extraordinary fiscal relationships with the state?
Yes, I think Scalia is looking to see how he is going to open this can of worms -- real carefully.
Harold Meyerson is an idiot. It's "personhood" in a legal fiction sense. That's why it's called corporate personhood. Or, if you prefer, "corporate legal-fiction-entity-ization-hood."Harold Meyerson makes one think about personhood, don't you think? What about wars? People are drafted and go to wars, why not include corporations? Corporations get to itemize a lot of things on their taxes more than the average Joe or Jane. Why do they get to be a special person with extraordinary fiscal relationships with the state?
You're missing the point. Corporations do not have the right to speak for me collectively and say that it is a person -- a unit of one. If the owner wants to come out and say what he/she believes than fine -- just don't include the business as a whole because there will be dissent somewhere. :shrug:
I think you're being willfully obtuse with this question.I have no idea as to what you're talking about. I never said that businesses were not subject to income taxes.
I'm under no obligation to quit; the owner(s) are obligated to quit using me or other workers to form one opinion or belief.If you don't own the actual business, or enough stock in it for your voice to matter, and you don't like the position a business takes on a particular policy, then you can always quit.
As long as it does not include trying to change my beliefs than go ahead.I think you're being pretty unreasonable if you expect a business to consult with each and every employee on every decision the leadership of the business makes.
That has nothing to do with trying to change my beliefs or putting words in to my mouth, so go ahead.If a business decides it's going to open a production facility in China that's sort of a "political" decision in so far as it's going to result in either the off-shoring of American jobs or the creation of new jobs, that might otherwise have been created in America, in China.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?