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.
All businesses, clubs, groups, organizations, charities and churches all have different rights and obligations than individuals under the law. Which I think is appropriate for their existence, though corporations have too much control over regulations and legislation thru lobbying and campaign contributions.
Mega-Intl-Corporations have become a cover like the gov for their operators to do many misdeeds. They say they're fair and in the name of progress we can't live without them, when in truth they've become a cancer and leech. Anything too big to fail has too much power in our society.
All that they do could be done better by a handful of smaller companies competing for our business.
Oops! Maybe I left out stockholders and what they receive once everything is paid.
The individuals are individuals and may spend their personal money as they see fit. Public corporations are owned by many people, the shareholders. So saying that a public corp manned by a small board and that board making decisions for political spending is somewhat equivalent to the individual making similar decisions is a bit misleading.
In the end corporations are property and nothing more.
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.
The corporation is not technically speaking for you, it's speaking for the corporation.Exactly Luther. Chances are even two people are not going to agree with each other, so why should one person automatically speak for the other? And even if they all agreed, I would still consider it a collective decision and not a decision of one.
There again it depends on the rules of the collective.The difference is that if you organize a group for a given purpose and appoint a spokesman for that group then it's assumed that all members of that group are a party to whatever message the group presents. Individual members of the group are free to disagree or disassociate themselves but they have still agreed to appoint the spokesman.
What atheists like me try to do is say that, no, Hobby Lobby cannot refuse coverage for birth control for employees, because birth control has no effect upon its business. More importantly it violates the individual rights of the employees and has nothing to do with Hobby Lobby or its personhood. The owners of Hobby Lobby will have to first prove to the Supreme Court that somehow this birth control issue has any relevancy to the corporation.
What you just described is a collective, not a person. You can't have it both ways.The corporation is not technically speaking for you, it's speaking for the corporation.
Hersey's Corp. is fundamentally interested in politics, sugar policy, elected officials, because those decisions are tied directly to the company's business, it's survival. The union for Hersey's Corp. is interested in politics, worker policy, elected officials, because those decisions are tied directly to the union's business and it's survival. Those two corporations, Hersey's and its union, are allowed to make political statements and donations on behalf of their respective corporation personhoods, because it affects the interest of that corporation -- the collective group of those persons.
Same goes for religious organizations. Their religious beliefs and actions of the organization are generally protected, because it affects the interest of the religious organization.
What atheists like me try to do is say that, no, Hobby Lobby cannot refuse coverage for birth control for employees, because birth control has no effect upon its business. More importantly it violates the individual rights of the employees and has nothing to do with Hobby Lobby or its personhood. The owners of Hobby Lobby will have to first prove to the Supreme Court that somehow this birth control issue has any relevancy to the corporation.
That's right -- people. Not as a person.Corporations are made up of people. Under the 1st amendment you and other people have the right to peaceably assemble.Groups of people have the right to free speech,religion petition grievances and freedom of the press.Last I checked there is no one at a time in the first time clause in the first amendment.
There again it depends on the rules of the collective.
Look. What I'm going to try to convey here is an analogy to the Hobby Lobby matter.
In a business there are many people with different viewpoints on things that have nothing to do with the business. (the way someone votes; what a person believes in from a religious perspective; etc; ) How can a business claim to say that it speaks for all it's employees on a religious matter when there will be plenty of people that would disagree with that employer?
And this employer wishes for that decision to be considered as an opinion from one human being? That's like two human beings with two different wants -- one wants to go bowling while the other wants to go fishing -- coming in to conflict. Now through some incredible means you were to merge those two human beings in to one, (think Sci-Fi here) you would have one entity not knowing if it wanted to pick-up a bowling ball or a fishing pole constantly, and that enity would never make it out the door.
That is collective. Businesses, if they are a person, can't be a collective and a person too.You are ignoring/avoiding the fact that corporations pay income taxes. No, I'm not referring to taxes stockholders pay on their dividends or capital gains. No, I'm not referring to the taxes employees pay on their personal incomes. I'm talking about the corporate income tax, which is paid by the corporation, not individuals.
Gosh, why could you possibly be wanting to avoid that?
What you just described is a collective, not a person. You can't have it both ways.
That is collective. Businesses, if they are a person, can't be a collective and a person too.
Since the Hobby Lobby incident.Since when does a corporation speak for anyone collectively?
Read the OP Harshaw. I used itemizing as an example. Companies get to itemize tremendously. If business is a person and I'm one too, how come I don't get to do that?WHAT is "collective"? I don't think you know what you're talking about.
And yes, that is exactly the point -- you want them to be treated as a "collective" and not a "person" for everything EXCEPT income taxes. For income taxes, you're perfectly OK with them being treated as individuals.
That's right -- people. Not as a person.
I never said that. I do not believe that any collective should be thought of as a person.So a collective of individuals have no right to a voice?
HObby Lobby is a privately held corporation. Each of the Hobby Lobby stores are privately owned/run as well. They don't speak for their employees, nor should their employees in any way feel that what their employer does is somehow a reflection of their beliefs.Since the Hobby Lobby incident.
Read the OP Harshaw. I used itemizing as an example. Companies get to itemize tremendously. If business is a person and I'm one too, how come I don't get to do that?
I never said that. I do not believe that any collective should be thought of as a person.
I can *maybe* see there being an argument for publicly-held corporations, but not for privately held ones. All a corporation is is a type of business structure. Nothing more.That is collective. Businesses, if they are a person, can't be a collective and a person too.
As long as the collective in Wal-Mart agrees to do that and they're not stating that all their employees believe this to be the right thing to do, and they're not saying that I kicked in money to assist them in this act, and it's their money, than yes.Let me refer you to post #52.
The UFCW is organizing "Black Friday" protests against Walmart and the NLRB has allowed them to hand out $50 gift cards to the protesters. If that's legit then allowing Walmart to spend money to voice their position must be equally legitimate.
A collective is a collective. :shrug:I can *maybe* see there being an argument for publicly-held corporations, but not for privately held ones. All a corporation is is a type of business structure. Nothing more.
Privately held corporations are not collectives.A collective is a collective. :shrug:
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?