- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 32,516
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
That has nothing to do with your continued misuse of the US Code Title 29, which specifically states: "When used in this subchapter ..." before it states the definitions for the subchapter. Your misuse of that reference is dishonest at best.
You have made the false assumption that only persons have any rights at all. As any overview of the law would show, you are wrong.
That has nothing to do with your continued misuse of the US Code Title 29, which specifically states: "When used in this subchapter ..." before it states the definitions for the subchapter. Your misuse of that reference is dishonest at best.
A person in the sense of the constitution? No.ok I will ask this simple question ...is a business a person...yes or no?
A person in the sense of the constitution? No.
A person has more rights than a business.is a business a person, which give it rights...yes or no?
A person in the sense of the constitution? No.
A business as you're using the term is a construct of a capitalist society as any sensible person should understand. A business does not now nor ever has equated to a person, if nothing else because it's not a biological entity - but there are a whole slew of other differences, some derivatives of biology, that even you should be able to grasp.
A person has more rights than a business.
a business is not flesh and blood this is true, but it has property, wealth, which is at risk by those who would seek to defraud or steal from it.
if a person or entity, such as a business, had no rights ...I could steal from it lawfully.......because again what is government there to secure ....if no rights exist for it.
I forgot with whom I was speaking. In your terms a business has no "natural rights" but we have granted it certain protections under the law.then you admit a business has rights then
Just for reference, if corporations are people, should they be treated as such in a court of law?
For example, if corporation X was proven guilty of running a sweatshop where the human and civil rights are violated - what should the punishment be for the people in charge of that corporation?
- Revocation of a business license.
- Fine.
- Jail time.
- Execution; if their actions proved deadly?
Another example: If corporation Y is proven guilty of having manufactured dangerous products causing the death of a certain number of people, what should the punishment?
- Revocation of a business license.
- Fine.
- Jail time.
---------
The hard reality is that corporations are trying to have it both ways and so are you. The ability to own property doesn't make you a person or entitle you to rights. A corporation isn't some sort of brain working in conjunction with board members. It's a fictional entity through and through that is allowed to own property by the state which gives it the license to even exist.
I have no problem with the law being used against business, to the full extend, if they violated rights of people
Only, that's not what I asked. If a corporation is found guilty of human rights violations and civil rights violations, should a guy working in accounting who was given some company stock be sent to jail? Is he responsible for those human rights violations? Who is responsible? The corporation? Okay, then how will they (they - being the arbitrary person you'll pick to take the the blame) be punished? Will they be punished like biological people? If they won't be punished as biological persons would, how can they possibly be called persons? Or does person hood only extend to that which you are given a license to own?
Surveyer basically pointed out the massive flaw in calling a corporation a "person" and believing they are entitled to rights as people are. If they are entitled the same way people are, then their punishments for breaking laws should be as harsh. However, they are not. If nothing else, this basically means we humans are second class citizens subjected to harsher penalties under the same law.
how can you punish individuals of a corporation which would be composed of many people, who would have nothing to do with and no knowledge of a crime the company they are working for is doing?
This is exactly where I wanted you.
If I commit a crime, I can't place culpability on an abstract idea I had and pass down punishment to it. The fault lays squarely on my head as a physical person. So how is it even possible to call a corporation a person, with the same responsibilities, rights and benefits as a person and then decree that if the corporation commits a crime, you can arbitrarily pick who within it will be guilty of said crime?
As I said, you're trying to have it both ways. If a corporation is a person then it should be treated as such in all aspects of the law and not those you arbitrarily pick.
More simply, this is how your argument ends:
1. A corporation is a person: Yes.
2. A corporation who commits a crime is punished like a person: No.
1. I am a person: Yes.
2. If I commit a crime, I am punished as a person: Yes.
-------
So which is it? Are corporations persons subject to EVERY aspect of the law as all other persons, or are they persons who aren't subject to the laws as all persons? If they aren't subject to the same laws and punishments as persons, then that effectively puts them above citizens.
The funniest part about this entire argument is that the founders pretty much warned against corporations being considered people because they didn't even satisfy the basic conditions for being persons.
The constitutional rights of business?!? :lamobut statutory laws....no... they don't override the constitutional law/ rights of people or business, unless the law could show what a person or business is doing could violate the rights of others
The constitutional rights of business?!? :lamo
Then you should be more clear in your posts.not what I said....but I will take it you think that is exactly what I meant.......
Then you should be more clear in your posts.
The constitution lists no rights for businesses. Again, I laugh at your false assumptions. :lol:i have been very clear..........a person or business has rights.
and government has no authority using statue laws, to take away those rights which are listed in the Constitution.
only criminal activity or activity which could damage a person physically or his property.....can ones rights be curtailed
government has no authority to curtail the rights of people, becuase they dont like......[which is an emotional feeling]...how they exercise them.
The constitution lists no rights for businesses. Again, I laugh at your false assumptions. :lol:
Regardless of your previous post on this line of discussion it seems I DID get your meaning right the first time and, considering this post, you should be ashamed at that previous response implying I was somehow misreading you.
I didn't say any of that, I simply stated it's not in the constitution. You're the one adding all the extra baggage here.so your saying a business, cannot be secure in its property or papers, and governments, even other people can go thru its books and use its property at will.
so your saying business has no right to voice it opinions of anything even politics of the government, that government can silence business and shut them up.
business have not right to a day in court, then they are guilty , whenever accused of wrong doing by anyone.
laugh?, no i look at you and see silliness of your part.
I didn't say any of that, I simply stated it's not in the constitution. You're the one adding all the extra baggage here.
Society has extended many protections to business but that doesn't mean, in YOUR vocabulary, that those protections are somehow "natural rights" - and, quit frankly, you continue to look silly trying to turn a business into a person since even on it's face that's a false argument. It's sad, really ...
So you think the rights in the constitution aren't "natural rights"? It's good to see some of you guys finally coming to your senses.i dont believe i have applied [natural] to business, like a corporation.
a single owner of a business has his natural rights over this property.
so again your wrong in your assessment.
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?