|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 18, 2012 20:15:16 GMT -5
Occupy goes berserk... thecitysquare.blogspot.com/OccupyFail: Corporations as people The Citizens United Supreme Court decision affirming that corporations have free speech rights continues to rankle the left. At last Thursday night's Obama fundraiser protest in San Francisco, I saw this sign held by a man from Occupy San Jose: I'll believe Corp's are people when [San Jose] City Hall evicts one" I explained to the protester that corporations are evicted if they don't pay their rent. That was news to him. On the same theme, there is this sign from Occupy San Francisco (photo taken last October): I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one! -- I am the 99%" Of course, corporations are executed, mercilessly, all the time: it is called Chapter 7 (liquidation). At times, when dealing with people, logic is just irrelevant. In this case, in my opinion, the Occupy crowd is not expressing a legal theory about corporations; they are expressing emotional frustration with life. If conservatives/libertarians are going to respond effectively to their points, we need to address the emotion and not the logic.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 5:00:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2012 20:16:52 GMT -5
LOL. It is funny. Logically, I am not sure how anyone could think a piece of paper was a person...
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 18, 2012 20:20:33 GMT -5
LOL. It is funny. Logically, I am not sure how anyone could think a piece if paper was a person... Supreme Court disagrees with you. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhoodorporate personhood is the "status" to which the terms is coined as a result of rulings by the United States Supreme Court (mentioned below), that were conferred upon corporations, which purpots the allowance of corporations to have rights and responsibilities similar to those of a natural person. There is a question about which subset of rights afforded to natural persons should also be afforded to corporations as legal persons. The Supreme Court of the United States (Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819), recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the Supreme Court recognized corporations as persons for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a headnote—not part of the opinion—the reporter noted that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "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."[1] Click for rest.... Where is my wad of Benjamins...??
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 5:00:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2012 20:22:08 GMT -5
LOL. It is funny. Logically, I am not sure how anyone could think a piece if paper was a person... Supreme Court disagrees with you. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhoodorporate personhood is the "status" to which the terms is coined as a result of rulings by the United States Supreme Court (mentioned below), that were conferred upon corporations, which purpots the allowance of corporations to have rights and responsibilities similar to those of a natural person. There is a question about which subset of rights afforded to natural persons should also be afforded to corporations as legal persons. The Supreme Court of the United States (Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819), recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the Supreme Court recognized corporations as persons for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a headnote—not part of the opinion—the reporter noted that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "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."[1] Click for rest.... Where is my wad of Benjamins...?? The supreme court is a bunch of right wing lunatics.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 18, 2012 20:23:17 GMT -5
The supreme court is a bunch of right wing lunatics. Hey, did you see my thread on the Wind industry imploding?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 5:00:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2012 20:24:46 GMT -5
The supreme court is a bunch of right wing lunatics. Hey, did you see my thread on the Wind industry imploding? Yes. I posted in on it. Awaiting your comment.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 5:00:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2012 20:25:07 GMT -5
The supreme court is a bunch of right wing lunatics. Hey, did you see my thread on the Wind industry imploding? Yes. I posted in on it. Awaiting your comment.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 18, 2012 20:26:25 GMT -5
The supreme court is a bunch of right wing lunatics. Hey, did you see my thread on the Wind industry imploding? Yes. I posted in on it. Awaiting your comment. Not too much hot air lately...with the restrictions...and what not...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 5:00:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2012 20:27:46 GMT -5
ROFL. Just another lefty trying to control the environment.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 5:00:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2012 20:49:58 GMT -5
Did you see the Stewart/Colbert Romney is a Seriel Killer bit.... I mean, if corporations are people... I also still wonder when a corporation's life begins... if its at conception... well, there are some serious consequences I can imagine...
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,562
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 18, 2012 20:58:46 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 5:00:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2012 20:59:59 GMT -5
I see corporations out on the street all the time... combing the dumpsters... sleeping under bridges...
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,690
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 18, 2012 21:04:57 GMT -5
I see corporations out on the street all the time... combing the dumpsters... sleeping under bridges... Should I pass on the box lunches served at business meetings?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 5:00:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2012 21:12:12 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you mean?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,690
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 18, 2012 22:34:02 GMT -5
Oped-Did my complimentary corporate meeting boxed lunch come from the dumpster?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 5:00:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2012 22:43:07 GMT -5
Did your complimentary boxed lunch arrive after the corporation was evicted?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,297
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2012 22:53:06 GMT -5
the irony of using the freed slave statute to make immortal "persons" out of what are essentially amoral and sociopathic institutions is quite deep. Jefferson would have been horrified.
but what the SCOTUS decides, they can also overturn. so there is always hope.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Feb 19, 2012 0:20:22 GMT -5
Jefferson would have been horrified. Indeed. Any self-respecting Virginian would be. but what the SCOTUS decides, they can also overturn. so there is always hope. Pfffffft. I'm sure you know what Jefferson thought about the assclowns known as SCOTUS. Nullification FTW.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 5:00:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2012 13:25:38 GMT -5
LOL. Great OP. Once again, I'd give you some karma if my computer wasn't screwed up. All I get is "error on page" when I click exalt. Perhaps there is a NMSNM standard for exaltation that I just don't meet.... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Only a soulless piece of pond scum can equal human homelessness and the "eviction" of a corporation from some office complex." Bill--Lighten up. I don't think anyone did. Except maybe the Occupy nuts. And half of them are probably homeless, anyway. So just like Blacks can use the "N" word, the homeless can make fun of themselves....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 5:00:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2012 13:26:17 GMT -5
dj--You're a business owner. Would you want your freedom to speak on behalf of your business to be infringed?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,297
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 19, 2012 13:29:02 GMT -5
dj--You're a business owner. Would you want your freedom to speak on behalf of your business to be infringed? my business doesn't need a voice. i can speak for it.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,562
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 19, 2012 13:34:24 GMT -5
... Bill--Lighten up. I don't think anyone did. ... I explained to the protester that corporations are evicted if they don't pay their rent. (from the article quoted in the OP) I would recommend thinking again.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 5:00:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2012 13:45:46 GMT -5
"my business doesn't need a voice. i can speak for it." Even with the , I'm not 100% sure what you mean. You and your business are one in the same. If it doesn't have the freedom of speech, you don't have the right to speak for it. So I think you of all people would agree that businesses should have free speech. Or maybe we're not disagreeing. Like I said, you're intent didn't come across so clear. Maybe if you'd pick and animated emoticon next time? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill--Sorry, I misunderstood. Although I was also trying to just make a joke in the spirit of the thread. But I guess if I have to explain it, it wasn't a very good joke....
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,297
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 19, 2012 13:52:00 GMT -5
"my business doesn't need a voice. i can speak for it." Even with the , I'm not 100% sure what you mean. You and your business are one in the same. If it doesn't have the freedom of speech, you don't have the right to speak for it. why not?So I think you of all people would agree that businesses should have free speech. i think my business does have free speech. mine. is there something puzzling about that?Or maybe we're not disagreeing. Like I said, you're intent didn't come across so clear. Maybe if you'd pick and animated emoticon next time? hard to tell if this is disagreement or misunderstanding. corporations are basically their ownership. i see no reason for them to speak in one voice, when it is far more democratic for the individual owners to speak for themselves, as evoked by the 1st amendment.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 5:00:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2012 13:57:46 GMT -5
"i think my business does have free speech. mine. is there something puzzling about that?"
No, of course it has free speech. Why would I suggest otherwise? I said as a business owner, you probably wouldn't want to have to give that up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "i see no reason for them to speak in one voice, when it is far more democratic for the individual owners to speak for themselves, as evoked by the 1st amendment"
Makes sense. What if all the owners (or management) agree with eachother and want to say something as one voice?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,297
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 19, 2012 14:02:04 GMT -5
"i think my business does have free speech. mine. is there something puzzling about that?" No, of course it has free speech. Why would I suggest otherwise? I said as a business owner, you probably wouldn't want to have to give that up. nobody is talking about me giving up my free speech, tho, right?----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "i see no reason for them to speak in one voice, when it is far more democratic for the individual owners to speak for themselves, as evoked by the 1st amendment" Makes sense. What if all the owners (or management) agree with eachother and want to say something as one voice? then they can form a committee, and do it that way.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,562
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 19, 2012 14:11:23 GMT -5
I exist as a human being independent of government. A corporation. not a "business" or a "partnership", a corporation exists only through using the power of government to provide and protect its status. For this creation of government to turn around and claim itself to be of the same status as I is an absurdity.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Feb 19, 2012 14:12:52 GMT -5
"i think my business does have free speech. mine. is there something puzzling about that?" No, of course it has free speech. Why would I suggest otherwise? I said as a business owner, you probably wouldn't want to have to give that up. nobody is talking about me giving up my free speech, tho, right?----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "i see no reason for them to speak in one voice, when it is far more democratic for the individual owners to speak for themselves, as evoked by the 1st amendment" Makes sense. What if all the owners (or management) agree with eachother and want to say something as one voice? then they can form a committee, and do it that way. Corporations being equated to individuals is the Collectivist side of the Republicans. I don't see much difference in the outcome between corporatism and any other collectivist movement on the Democratic side. Two sides of the same coin, n'est pas? My, how totalitarian this country has become. The fascists and the socialists duking it out over telling me what I should eat for breakfast, LOL.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,297
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 19, 2012 14:18:30 GMT -5
then they can form a committee, and do it that way. Corporations being equated to individuals is the Collectivist side of the Republicans. I don't see much difference in the outcome between corporatism and any other collectivist movement on the Democratic side. Two sides of the same coin, n'est pas? My, how totalitarian this country has become. The fascists and the socialists duking it out over telling me what I should eat for breakfast, LOL. you remember how Mussolini described fascism, right?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,297
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 19, 2012 14:21:12 GMT -5
I exist as a human being independent of government. A corporation. not a "business" or a "partnership", a corporation exists only through using the power of government to provide and protect its status. For this creation of government to turn around and claim itself to be of the same status as I is an absurdity. my opinion on this subject is evolving, to paraphrase Obama. i used to be able to see the line of reasoning, but now it seems like double voting to me. i have my own voice. if my corporation ALSO has a voice, given that i am a majority partner, i have two voices. that seems kindof unfair in a democracy. i feel the same way about money in politics. if i have $10 i can send to a candidate, i have a voice. but that voice is very small compared to someone who has $10k to send to a candidate. the system seems really wrong to me, from a democratic perspective. wrong, and corrupt.
|
|