[Athens]

We have had some broad topic debates over the last few weeks on a few subjects. I want to narrow it down to something very specific from one of the debates. For this one its Personhood for corporations. Should a company be treated like a person with the same rights or should they be treated as property with no rights.

My opinion on this is a company isn't a person and that local regional governments can and should dictate the rules of operation. Federal laws dictate min working standards, provincial and state laws dictate additional working standards and environmental standards. Companies should not be allowed to buy each other out or merge. If a company fails all assets are sold off to pay off the business liabilities. Brands are auctioned off to another company which has 24 months to make use of the brand with a shipping product. Otherwise the brand becomes public domain. Companies should not be allowed to sue each other or people in the traditional sense. Companies are not allowed any political donations of any kind. Officers of a company are liable personally and criminally for any actions that is taken which results in criminal charges as long as evidence shows the officer had a direct role in the crime. IE if a clerk signs off on the dumping of toxic chemicals in the lake and the paper trail leads to her, she gets the legal problems related to it. Not her manager unless her manager was also aware of the activity.

I feel that the people of a community should and does have the right to under a democratic vote the ability to kick a business out of a community if the business isn't wanted.

[OAW]

"Corporate Personhood" for business purposes makes sense. I have no issue with that. However, I vehemently disagree with "corporate personhood" in the political realm. The Citizens vs. United Supreme Court decision was a travesty that IMO threatens the foundation of democracy itself in our country. If a company can't vote for a political candidate then it should NOT be able to make unlimited political contributions towards the support or defeat of a political candidate. And to be fair ... I don't care if this is a Labor Union or a Corporation. The same principle applies. If the judicial system insists upon allowing companies to donate to political campaigns then at a minimum it should hold "legal persons" to the same campaign contribution limits as "natural persons".

OAW

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Sigh...you just don't know very much about this subject, do you.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Sigh...you just don't know very much about this subject, do you.

Past. How would he know. Don't disturb his ignorance-fest.

-t

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Sigh...you just don't know very much about this subject, do you.

Why, because I don't agree with the system how it is now?

How do I ask this question with out getting a strawman thrown at me.... it, i'll take the chance

The way it comes across with you is this. If you agree with how something is done your knowledgable in it. If you disagree with how something is done you don't know very much about it. It seems like having a opposing opinion on a subject while knowing lots about it isn't a option.

Ok toss the strawman line at me.

So enlighten us why you like how the system is now. Counter some of the stuff i've said with why it is good that way.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Federal laws dictate min working standards, provincial and state laws dictate additional working standards and environmental standards. Companies should not be allowed to buy each other out or merge. If a company fails all assets are sold off to pay off the business liabilities. Brands are auctioned off to another company which has 24 months to make use of the brand with a shipping product. Otherwise the brand becomes public domain. Companies should not be allowed to sue each other or people in the traditional sense. Companies are not allowed any political donations of any kind. Officers of a company are liable personally and criminally for any actions that is taken which results in criminal charges as long as evidence shows the officer had a direct role in the crime. IE if a clerk signs off on the dumping of toxic chemicals in the lake and the paper trail leads to her, she gets the legal problems related to it. Not her manager unless her manager was also aware of the activity.

I feel that the people of a community should and does have the right to under a democratic vote the ability to kick a business out of a community if the business isn't wanted.

WTF does that have to do with the thread topic ?

This is just the same drivel as in the other thread. Why did you even bother to start a new one...

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Why, because I don't agree with the system how it is now?

No, it's because you don't appear to know why the system is how it is now, nor make any effort to find out or guess.

Most of the world today isn't just a random "first try," it actually arrived at this point through hundreds or thousands of years of trial and error. If you first assume that there at least is some form of reason behind the status quo, and make an attempt to deduce what that reason might be, and then address that reason in your opposition, then you might make some sense now and again. You can't just pull a new system out of your behindus, you have to also account for what the old system provides, based on what we've learned from history. If you have no idea what happened in history, you could consider asking first (or you know, do your homework and find out yourself).

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Should a company be treated like a person with the same rights or should they be treated as property with no rights.

No a company shouldn't be treated like a person. Because they can't feel pain so naturally they can't be punished or held accountable for their actions.

Companies aren't just treated like people they're treated like kings. They have all the rights of a person; none of the responsibility, therefore they always try to push/violate the limits of the law until government intervenes... never having to worry about consequences since all they are is a bank account and a stack of paperwork defining a mob of people who run the company in a mob fashion. ie everyone who works for a company is always "just doing their job" in the name of self advancement when accused of wrong doing... nobody takes blame. I hate the excuse "just doing my job"; its what people working for Halliburton say, Monsanto and Philip Morris.

My opinion on this is a company isn't a person and that local regional governments can and should dictate the rules of operation. Federal laws dictate min working standards, provincial and state laws dictate additional working standards and environmental standards. Companies should not be allowed to buy each other out or merge. If a company fails all assets are sold off to pay off the business liabilities. Brands are auctioned off to another company which has 24 months to make use of the brand with a shipping product. Otherwise the brand becomes public domain. Companies should not be allowed to sue each other or people in the traditional sense. Companies are not allowed any political donations of any kind. Officers of a company are liable personally and criminally for any actions that is taken which results in criminal charges as long as evidence shows the officer had a direct role in the crime. IE if a clerk signs off on the dumping of toxic chemicals in the lake and the paper trail leads to her, she gets the legal problems related to it. Not her manager unless her manager was also aware of the activity.

I feel that the people of a community should and does have the right to under a democratic vote the ability to kick a business out of a community if the business isn't wanted.

I disagree with most the rest.
Let me give a scenario: Say I own a sort of recycling center and I was out in the country when I started my business but the town expanded and neighborhoods moved right up to my door.... Now they're trying to vote me out.. nobody wants to be by an industrial complex. And it's working so far; the corrupt local governments are good at revoking permits and fining for bogus reasons.

There should be different rules for multibillion $ companies than there is for small ones; I can see having more regulations on the big ones. The problem is these same regulations and permit fees apply to smaller business who just cant compete.

As a side note I think local governments are worthless. I would abolish their authority to make new laws and regulations. The federal government places enough restrictions on everyone as it is. Local governments job should only be to enforce federal laws. As it stands city laws contradict state laws in many cases and the bureaucrats dont even realize it or know how to fix it...or care.. unless you offer them a whole bunch of money. You have to petition everything with local government when starting any kind of business, other than home businesses, and its seriously like


Oh and the system is the way it is because of 100s of years of corruption compounding corruption. Corporations now have more power than the average national government; they elect politicians and politicians in turn must set the system up in their favor. Anyone who thinks it's set up because of some logical reason in their favor is just another brainwashed fool.

[The Final Dakar]

Should have been a poll.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Should have been a poll.

Should have used a condom.

[Athens]

Well thats not the case. I've read up on a lot of things related to anything I speak about and my opinions are usually formed after ive gained knowledge in the subject. Something being status quo isn't always because it was the best possible option.

Example, companies in the 1800s generally had been sole ownership or partnership. The owner or partners where liable for financial debts of the business. When Limited LIability was introduced or became more popular since Limited liability is pretty old dating back to I believe the 1700s in the UK, it resulted in a situation where a company could fault on debts and not be held accountable. The personhood factor for a company was introduced to correct this situation so people could sue a company to have a legal option to recover debts. By limiting the liability of share holders and investors to only what was invested into a company stimulates increased investment because if a share holder was personally liable for debt beyond the investment it would add risk limiting investment. So I know the reasons, I understand the reasons and I think in theory they are good reasons but in practice additional steps need to be created. IE, continue to use limited liability for share holders in regards to debt. But also allow for personal liability in debts and criminal matters for directors and share holders who have direct involvement with incidents and a penalty option for those not involved of a personal nature to all controlling parties. IE, Company Y causes 6 million dollars in environmental damage. Penalty: Company required to pay 6 Million dollars, secondary penalty to Directors and Controlling share holders of 10 000 personally non reimbursable by corporation. If evidence is produceable that it was intentionally known the damage would result those directly involved be it directors, employees, share holders are legally accountable and jail-able. So say communications are discovered between a forklift driver with his manager and a general manager showing discussion of what would lead to the 6 million dollars of environmental damage, those people directly involved should be criminally held liable.

Net result if every employee knows that a illegal act can lead to criminal personal charged and jail, and every director knows they can be held personally liable for what other directors do in the sum of a fine not necessarily the actual cost of damage and share holders know that every cent of what ever damage is done will have to be paid back you will find that directors will do a better job keeping each other honest, employees will do a better job reporting something to remove liability, and investors more concerned with the impact of business. The reason I would LIMIT liability to parties not directly involved to a small amount like 10 000 is because you would not want to scare away investment being fully liable. 6 Million dollar spill divided up between 20 directors of a company would make it to risky to be a director. 10 000 fine not so bad. Currently if a company risks a spill using a Cost Analyst of Savings vs Penalty, if the savings are large enough they will risk it for 2 reasons. 1 they have to get caught, 2 the fine is cheaper then the cost of not taking the risk. Part of the penalty to any company should be a calculation to make sure the fine is always based on being more then the potential savings of risking people and environment. Standard set fines are useless. If the fine for illegal dumping is $20 000 if caught, its easy to factor in that number to the savings. If it saves $40 000 a year to dump and the penalty is $20 000 then its worth the risk and damage because your still ahead even after being fined. Now if punitive damages was calculated based on how a company profited by illegal dumping, the fine would be $80 000, double the savings potential. Now the risk is always to great because of a punitive damage amount always exceeding any possible savings.

So lets put this into perspective. Company called Jarko Industrials deals with manufacturing. They have 6 directors and 200 employees. They produce a lot of waste products. To recycle properly it costs $50 000 a year. To dump it costs $5000 a year but is illegal. Damage done costs $500 000 to clean up. Those directly involved in choosing to dump it are only 4 people. 3 Employees and one director. Current system, company is caught and is fined $10 000 and a employee is blamed and fired. State wants company to pay for clean up but company fights it through the courts for years. The gamble paid off. What I proposed above under the same example. Company is found to have benefited by saving $45 000 so first the company is charged $500 000 for cleanup costs, Punitive fine is double what it benefited so $90 000 in punitive costs, the 3 Employees and 1 Directory are personally find $10 000 each, and 1 Employee and 1 Director convicted of a criminal offence and both get 2 years probation and a criminal record. Additional the other 5 directors are also fined $10 000 each and the controlling investors in the company are fined $10 000 each personally.

You can bet companies will take greater care of how they do business. The fines are not large enough to scare away investment but large enough to keep people honest or at least attentive to what is going on. This is still limited liability because nothing beyond this would affect any one personally such as a successful lawsuit of damages which would have damages awarded in the Millions. Limit the liability in the amount of personal responsibility is involved but keep personal responsibility involved. If people ended up being fully liable then investment would be risky and it would reduce it.

Its changes and tweaks like this that I seek. The slight loss of some investment in my opinion is well worth the good some personal liability will bring. If you look at it only in a dollars amount that no amount of lost investment is worth it then changes like this would be a absolute no no. If the idea that some lost investment is ok to achieve more corporate responsibility which is better for every one then its good. Some bleeding heart idiots would want to take things so far that they would want 100% accountability and would be willing to risk a lot of investment and business to get it, Im not one of those. We need investment, we need work. We dont need it at all costs. We need balance. Im willing to risk a little for good gains in other areas. Im not willing to risk a lot of loss for absolute protection. Im also not willing to risk everything to ensure every possible job and investment possibility takes fruit.

Do you understand my position more now? We don't need more red tape, we could do with less red tape but smarter red tape that gets the results we want while providing a good business environment.

[Athens]

Let me give you another example of how my thinking process works. The example is unrelated to business because I think it will illustrate better my position on most things in life.

Recent gang war violence involved gangsters using body armour to protect themselves. Reactionary solution by politicians and nieve public is to ban the sale of body armour. My point on this. Useless law because criminals are not law abiding in the first place. This solution just takes away a option of a night clerk or a hunter who wants to protect themselves while criminals will still access and use body armour. In-fact it just created a new profitable underground market for it allowing people to get rich off the prohibition.

My solution would have been this. Any one in possession of body armour while committing any crime, will get a mandatory 4 year prison sentence in addition to what ever justice is handed out. So something as simple as possession of weed which would at best result in 1 year probation if anything at all now becomes a mandatory 4 year prison sentence even if the judgement was probation. In addition any violent crime committed with possession of body armour would automatically double any sentence and parole time. A armed robbery here usually results in 3-6 years of actual prison. With such changes that would be 6 - 12 years plus 4 years in the sentence making a 16 year sentence possible. Even if the judge only sentenced a person to 1 year jail and 2 years probation they would still be looking at 5 years of actual jail. A drug dealer selling a dime bag in body armour which normally wouldn't lead to anything but a fine and a few months probation would turn into a 4 year prison sentence. Would also mandate that all body armour sold would include a copy of the law so criminals where informed.

Such a solution would get more body armour out of criminal hands then just making them illegal. While still allowing the law abiding public the option of using it for legitimate lawful purposes. No I would not require any registry like that stupid gun register we already have. It serves no purpose for law abiding people and criminals wouldn't register illegal weapons or weapons intended for illegal activity.

So thats the way my mind thinks. Drugs shouldn't be illegal, the use should be controlled. Prostitution shouldn't be illegal, just highly regulated.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

WTF does that have to do with the thread topic ?

This is just the same drivel as in the other thread. Why did you even bother to start a new one...

-t

It has everything to do with the thread. The thread is about companies and being considered persons. Persons in this case companies have legal options and protections preventing much of what I listed below. With large companies having access to more money then entire state budgets its impossible for any state or towns to actually control a business in a way it wants to. If Pepsi wants to come into town, drill into underground water supplies which also feed the towns water system to bottle it up and sell it all over the state. A town generally cant stop them due to the power the company has with the courts from being a PERSON and the constitutional protections that come with it. Add into it the near unlimited resources a company has to fight for its rights and you have uncontrollable business.

Oh and why did I start a new one???? Because I wanted to focus on PersonHood. This includes what it allows, what it prevents, what it means overall to society. ITs a more focused topic on one subject. Don't have anything to contribute to it then GO AWAY...

[Uncle Skeleton]

Tl;dr

[Athens]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

No a company shouldn't be treated like a person. Because they can't feel pain so naturally they can't be punished or held accountable for their actions.

Companies aren't just treated like people they're treated like kings. They have all the rights of a person; none of the responsibility, therefore they always try to push/violate the limits of the law until government intervenes... never having to worry about consequences since all they are is a bank account and a stack of paperwork defining a mob of people who run the company in a mob fashion. ie everyone who works for a company is always "just doing their job" in the name of self advancement when accused of wrong doing... nobody takes blame. I hate the excuse "just doing my job"; its what people working for Halliburton say, Monsanto and Philip Morris.

In fearness to some people its not just about doing there job but protecting themselves as well. Some situations can be very dangerous for a person who knows right from wrong but is scared to act because there isnt any protections in place for them. But otherwise well said.

I disagree with most the rest.
Let me give a scenario: Say I own a sort of recycling center and I was out in the country when I started my business but the town expanded and neighborhoods moved right up to my door.... Now they're trying to vote me out.. nobody wants to be by an industrial complex. And it's working so far; the corrupt local governments are good at revoking permits and fining for bogus reasons.

In this example I wouldn't call it a corrupt local government but a good one. A government that listens to its people. That is the way its supposed to work. A corrupt government in this example would be one taking vote money and not trying to shut down the recycling center.

Now how does a business protect itself from this?
Option 1) Buy up the land around the recycling property at above value to move out remove the people who have a problem with it.
Option 2) If profitable and been making profits for years, Relocate the business some place else. Puts profits sitting in a bank account doing nothing back into the economy. Its a cost to the business and it is unfair to this business but its the cost of doing business. If the business was not profitable it would have already gone under. If the business was only around for a few years when this situation occurred that tells me there was bad planning from the start to pick a location close enough that this could happen.
Option 3) Negotiate with City to appease the cities concerns with modifications of the business to allow continued operation. If retrofitting addresses the concerns of the city its a win win for every one involved. If it means putting up a wall around some parts of the business to deal with cosmetic concerns, if it means moving part of the operation that was out doors indoors to address noise or small issues to continue to stay in business. I would consider these to be acceptable. After all 100 years ago we could just allow raw pollution into the rivers, then environmental laws forced treatment and alternative methods to deal with waste on every one. Laws and requirements change and adaptation has always been required. If the recycling is done on behalf of the city, these changes be it relocation or modifications would just result in changes in prices to cover the new costs of doing business. In the end if the city is firm on shutting down the business or forcing it out, it sucks but thats what should happen. Now this is only a situation in a corporation setup. If it was a sol owner or partnership the owners could as people personally sue the city for compensation for damages they as people will suffer form it. I also don't see any problem with employees losing their jobs in such a situation suing for compensation individually either.

There should be different rules for multibillion $ companies than there is for small ones; I can see having more regulations on the big ones. The problem is these same regulations and permit fees apply to smaller business who just cant compete.

I don't think different rules based on how big the company is or where its from is the best solution. It would just add more complication. Removing personhood from corporations does a pretty good job levelling the playing field and bringing a corporation down to the same level as a small business. Not being able to politically or legally interfere takes away much of a large corporations power. They can definitely absorb more costs from examples like this. Big company owns 2000 recycling depots, 4 towns decide to kick them out, is no where near as damaging as a sol business man with 3 recycling companies in 3 cities with one of them being shut down. But the sol owner has additional legal options for compensation as a person the big corporation does not.

As a side note I think local governments are worthless. I would abolish their authority to make new laws and regulations. The federal government places enough restrictions on everyone as it is. Local governments job should only be to enforce federal laws. As it stands city laws contradict state laws in many cases and the bureaucrats dont even realize it or know how to fix it...or care.. unless you offer them a whole bunch of money. You have to petition everything with local government when starting any kind of business, other than home businesses, and its seriously like

I think the power should be in the people who are directly affected. Why should people of LA, a population of 10 million+ with a lot of voting power vote for state laws that solves a problem for them but creates a new issue for a town of a few thousand people with a different issue. Local government, local laws are more fair in the general scheme of things. If a city government is ineffective its the people who voted them in at fault. With that said if companies could not contribute to campaigns and affect governments at all levels we might end up with more effective governments anyways. What I see of US politics, interference from lobby groups, special interest and corporations create most of the problems with ineffective governments.

Oh and the system is the way it is because of 100s of years of corruption compounding corruption. Corporations now have more power than the average national government; they elect politicians and politicians in turn must set the system up in their favor. Anyone who thinks it's set up because of some logical reason in their favor is just another brainwashed fool.

Yup.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Your example about producing waste products is completely ignorant and deficient. Officers and/or employees can already be liable if they are held to have or ought to have knowledge. The company is responsible for the damage as per legislative provisions - cleanup can be ordered, fines imposed, etc. - and would be liable in tort to those third parties who were negatively affected by the waste products.

The rough cost/benefit analysis you've done is also irrelevant - that's a question of legislative provisions and imposed liabilities surrounding the matter of environmental dumping, not a question of whether a corporation should be considered a person. If a company is a sole proprietorship and it would make 100k dumping toxins and only be liable $5000 if caught, then it would do the same thing. There's all kinds of areas where this is the case.

Like I said: you don't know very much about this topic. But you'll talk about it anyway, of course, and also throw every other component of the kitchen sink at the wall to see if the shit sticks.

Painful.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Like I said: you don't know very much about this topic. But you'll talk about it anyway, of course, and also throw every other component of the kitchen sink at the wall to see if the shit sticks.

Painful.

To add to your point, corporations do not have the Fifth Amendment protections.

I got to the whole; "I feel that the people of a community should and does have the right to under a democratic vote the ability to kick a business out of a community if the business isn't wanted." and in realizing all the potential abuses of such an ideal decided this was really about Wal-Mart the whole time anyway.

*hint, if you don't want a business in your community (To the degree that a majority of the community would actually vote against said business in a "democratic vote"), vote with your pocketbook, don't patronize the business, it will fail, pack up, and leave. If this isn't working it's because you're alone in your frustration.

People have rights and corporations are managed by... well they're not PEOPLE! They're all cigar-chomping rich subhumans all the time who always screw the little guy! RUN 'EM OUT!!!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

No a company shouldn't be treated like a person. Because they can't feel pain so naturally they can't be punished or held accountable for their actions.

They most certainly can, will, and do get held accountable for their actions all day long.

Companies aren't just treated like people they're treated like kings. They have all the rights of a person;

BZZZZT! They don't have Fifth Amendment protections off the bat. That's a biggie no?

none of the responsibility, therefore they always try to push/violate the limits of the law until government intervenes... never having to worry about consequences since all they are is a bank account and a stack of paperwork defining a mob of people who run the company in a mob fashion. ie everyone who works for a company is always "just doing their job" in the name of self advancement when accused of wrong doing... nobody takes blame. I hate the excuse "just doing my job"; its what people working for Halliburton say, Monsanto and Philip Morris.

Halliburton?

• none of the responsibility
• always try to push/violate the limits
• all they are is a bank account
• mob of people who run the company in a mob fashion
• everyone who works for a company is always...
• nobody takes the blame

You're not much for nuance are ya?

Oh and the system is the way it is because of 100s of years of corruption compounding corruption. Corporations now have more power than the average national government; they elect politicians and politicians in turn must set the system up in their favor. Anyone who thinks it's set up because of some logical reason in their favor is just another brainwashed fool.

Brainwashed fools who put their ignorance on display you mean? Otherwise, people have rights and Corporations are owned and managed by people in spite of your sweeping, ignorant generalizations to the contrary; individuals who are held to account for their actions based on their investment/involvement/contribution to the illegality or Corporation.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To add to your point, corporations do not have the Fifth Amendment protections.

They have been trying. Since the 70's its been argued in court many times. Its only a matter of time before a judge grants it and the game changes again.

I got to the whole; "I feel that the people of a community should and does have the right to under a democratic vote the ability to kick a business out of a community if the business isn't wanted." and in realizing all the potential abuses of such an ideal decided this was really about Wal-Mart the whole time anyway.

Oh Wal-Mart is a good example actually. Vancouver city council refused to allow Wal-Mart to setup in a location in one part of the city a few years ago because city council determined location was not suitable due to the already existing traffic problems in the area. Council recommended 4 other locations in the city that would be more suitable, locations zoned for big box store development. Wal-Mart tied up the cities legal resources for 2 years trying to force its self in a spot it wasn't allowed.

*hint, if you don't want a business in your community (To the degree that a majority of the community would actually vote against said business in a "democratic vote"), vote with your pocketbook, don't patronize the business, it will fail, pack up, and leave. If this isn't working it's because you're alone in your frustration.

So your saying a business should have more power then a city government. What makes a business special that it can ignore all the democratic rules imposed by a governance body. Explain this to me. What makes a business so special it can ignore rules that every one else has to follow. Explain it.

People have rights and corporations are managed by... well they're not PEOPLE! They're all cigar-chomping rich subhumans all the time who always screw the little guy! RUN 'EM OUT!!!

YES PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS, you got it. A business is a artificial entity not a person. The rights of the people should be first before the Artificial entity. Maybe you should start a Save the CRT TV Campaign to fight for the rights of all those TVs being treated unfairly by being tossed out while still in good working order. Those big glass and plastic boxes have feelings too, and because they are artificial they have more rights then flesh in blood, or should... "Save the TV from inhuman treatment" Dam the fleshy's for cruel treatment of something Artificial.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Like I said: you don't know very much about this topic. But you'll talk about it anyway, of course, and also throw every other component of the kitchen sink at the wall to see if the shit sticks.

Painful.

Could MacNN have a bot immediately post this after each Athens post? My current theory is that Athens is actually a bot created by MacNN to increase ad views.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

So your saying a business should have more power then a city government. What makes a business special that it can ignore all the democratic rules imposed by a governance body. Explain this to me. What makes a business so special it can ignore rules that every one else has to follow. Explain it.

Are you really this thick?

How does anything he said mean that a business can "ignore rules"? A business follows the law just like everyone else - if it has a complaint, it can take legal action, and if someone has a complaint against it, they can take legal action.

YES PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS, you got it. A business is a artificial entity not a person. The rights of the people should be first before the Artificial entity.

Are you saying that if a corporation loans money to a person, it should not be able to take legal action if the person refuses to pay it back? That if a person steals from a corporation, it cannot sue them? That if a person does any legal wrong against a corporation, it cannot take any legal action to address the wrong?

You make absolutely no sense. Zero. None. You don't know anything about this topic, and what logic you do attempt to display is so badly flawed I don't even know where to start.

You, sir, need an education. Go back to school and learn how to read, think, and prepare an argument in a coherent fashion. It would do you a world of good.

greg

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They most certainly can, will, and do get held accountable for their actions all day long.

Show some then

BZZZZT! They don't have Fifth Amendment protections off the bat. That's a biggie no?

They are trying 1st Circuit: No corporate right to 5th amendment privileges

Halliburton?

What about Halliburton, which case are you referring to. Charing the US tax payer 50-80 bucks a hour for labour which only cost them 6 bucks a hour or the gulf oil spill. You cant just spit out a company name and not some information....

Brainwashed fools who put their ignorance on display you mean? Otherwise, people have rights and Corporations are owned and managed by people in spite of your sweeping, ignorant generalizations to the contrary; individuals who are held to account for their actions based on their investment/involvement/contribution to the illegality or Corporation.

Its still a artificial entity. Being owned and run by people does not make it any more human then a toaster oven.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Are you really this thick?

How does anything he said mean that a business can "ignore rules"? A business follows the law just like everyone else - if it has a complaint, it can take legal action, and if someone has a complaint against it, they can take legal action.

And your calling me thick... Give me a day I can find 100 examples to prove otherwise. Everything from ignoring environmental laws, civic laws, tax laws. A small city has to resort to taking a paper mill to court to get owed taxes because the company felt it was being charged to much in taxes and refused to pay all taxes. A hardware company continues to allow chemicals to leak into a river despite 2 court cases the town filed against it both times only being fined $5000 dollars for tens of thousands of dollars in environmental damage. The US banking sector committed mass amounts of fraud and not only did they not get penalized for it, they got billions in hand outs to save them. Your living in a box. A nice safe sheltered box.

Are you saying that if a corporation loans money to a person, it should not be able to take legal action if the person refuses to pay it back?

Send it to Collections, report it to there credit file. Don't loan to high risk people or people that cant pay. Its criminal when a Credit Card company extends $40 000 in credit over a verity of different cards to a disabled person on fixed income or a college student who just left home neither with a credit history or means to backup such a offer. If a Company provides credit to a credit unworthy person, it was there gamble to take.

That if a person steals from a corporation, it cannot sue them?

No the corporation informs law enforcement so the person can be dealt with.

That if a person does any legal wrong against a corporation, it cannot take any legal action to address the wrong?

See above about law enforcement.

You make absolutely no sense. Zero. None. You don't know anything about this topic, and what logic you do attempt to display is so badly flawed I don't even know where to start.

You, sir, need an education. Go back to school and learn how to read, think, and prepare an argument in a coherent fashion. It would do you a world of good.

greg

I know more then you. You live in a isolated box. Your one of those conformist that accepts everything as is and refuses to look beyond well orchestrated fronts. Your the kid with the balloons running and hopping through a grass filled green field with a smile going la la la, its such a perfect world. Truth hurts and you cant accept that. Its less painful living in a fantasy that everything is ok and wonderful.

When hotels started a policy to not wash towels every day they projected a feel good reason to save the environment, to use less energy. You take that hook line and sinker. Oh this company cares about the environment, that makes them good. The truth is that it saves them money. Money made the decision then they attached a feel good cover over it to help market it. You see a environmentally sound and responsible company. I see a business and economic decision that was marketable because it also lead to something desirable. Its why environmental choices that actually cost money don't get implemented. No amount of feel good marketing makes up for wasted money, lost revenues.

I think the problem here is I know more about it then you do and thats why you can't see beyond your perfect garden.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Your example about producing waste products is completely ignorant and deficient. Officers and/or employees can already be liable if they are held to have or ought to have knowledge. The company is responsible for the damage as per legislative provisions - cleanup can be ordered, fines imposed, etc. - and would be liable in tort to those third parties who were negatively affected by the waste products.

The rough cost/benefit analysis you've done is also irrelevant - that's a question of legislative provisions and imposed liabilities surrounding the matter of environmental dumping, not a question of whether a corporation should be considered a person. If a company is a sole proprietorship and it would make 100k dumping toxins and only be liable $5000 if caught, then it would do the same thing. There's all kinds of areas where this is the case.

Please address my post.

Thanks

[BadKosh]

If corporations/businesses are taxed at the same rate as people then yes. But in the US they are taxed and regulated far differently than people are. I don't think business entities should be able to contribute or be involved in politics. Same for unions.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

They have been trying. Since the 70's its been argued in court many times. Its only a matter of time before a judge grants it and the game changes again.

Wait a minute. There is actually over 30 years of precedent AGAINST your alarmism, and you think this supports it?

So your saying a business should have more power then a city government. What makes a business special that it can ignore all the democratic rules imposed by a governance body. Explain this to me. What makes a business so special it can ignore rules that every one else has to follow. Explain it.

Simple, if the business represents more people than the city, that's how. Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work? That more voices can hold more weight than fewer? Why don't you explain why a minority should get to bully around a majority?

Also what was the outcome of that battle? Did Walmart build the store there, or did the city ultimately win?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Athens 

And your calling me thick... Give me a day I can find 100 examples to prove otherwise. Everything from ignoring environmental laws, civic laws, tax laws.

There are many many things you appear to be lacking (common sense, intelligence, coherence, proper grammar, just to name a few), but "free time" doesn't appear to be one of them.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

When hotels started a policy to not wash towels every day they projected a feel good reason to save the environment, to use less energy. You take that hook line and sinker. Oh this company cares about the environment, that makes them good. The truth is that it saves them money. Money made the decision then they attached a feel good cover over it to help market it. You see a environmentally sound and responsible company. I see a business and economic decision that was marketable because it also lead to something desirable. Its why environmental choices that actually cost money don't get implemented. No amount of feel good marketing makes up for wasted money, lost revenues.

So you'd rather reject a victory because you prefer to think of it as a defeat. Proud of you™.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Everything from ignoring environmental laws, civic laws, tax laws. A small city has to resort to taking a paper mill to court to get owed taxes because the company felt it was being charged to much in taxes and refused to pay all taxes. A hardware company continues to allow chemicals to leak into a river despite 2 court cases the town filed against it both times only being fined $5000 dollars for tens of thousands of dollars in environmental damage. The US banking sector committed mass amounts of fraud and not only did they not get penalized for it, they got billions in hand outs to save them.

Annnnnnnnnnd...all these things are applicable to "people" as well as "corporations." People refuse to pay taxes they feel are unfair, people pollute, people commit fraud, etc.

You don't seem to understand that you have to have, you know, a logical reason for arbitrarily not allowing these corporations to do what a sole proprietorship could do. Just pointing out that they "do these things" doesn't mean they shouldn't.

Send it to Collections, report it to there credit file. Don't loan to high risk people or people that cant pay.

You clearly don't understand the basis behind how most of the business world works. Let me give you a pro tip: it's called "contract law." Contract law happens when one party makes a contract with another.

Your suggestion effectively means that corporations would not be able to enforce any contracts they make with people. Want to give me $500,000 to do some R&D for you? Too bad, I'll take the money and run - you'll have to put it on my credit bureau sucka!

If you really think that a corporation "lending money" is about personal credit cards, then you're only proving your complete ignorance about this subject.

When hotels started a policy to not wash towels every day they projected a feel good reason to save the environment, to use less energy. You take that hook line and sinker. Oh this company cares about the environment, that makes them good. The truth is that it saves them money. Money made the decision then they attached a feel good cover over it to help market it. You see a environmentally sound and responsible company. I see a business and economic decision that was marketable because it also lead to something desirable.

For the love of all that is Holy and Good, what the **** does this have to do with your topic?

I think the problem here is I know more about it then you do

For a living, I deal with the incorporation of companies and the legal aspect of transactions between corporations/businesses and people.

What do you do? Since, you know, you "know more about" this topic than I do.

greg

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I know more then you. You live in a isolated box. Your one of those conformist that accepts everything as is and refuses to look beyond well orchestrated fronts. Your the kid with the balloons running and hopping through a grass filled green field with a smile going la la la, its such a perfect world. Truth hurts and you cant accept that. Its less painful living in a fantasy that everything is ok and wonderful.

Quoted for posterity. I stopped counting the grammar and spelling errors. LULZ.

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

Repeated incorrect use of the concept of "verity" and "strawman" is also humorous. Keep them coming, Athenz!

[The Final Dakar]

Should Athens be considered a person?

[olePigeon]

Should a company be considered a person?

Only if their name is Anakin.

[olePigeon]

I want to see BadKosh and Athens argue each other.

[osiris]

I'm a person that's considered a company. Too many money leeches to not be, but the right offs are fantastic - plus I pay a dividend to myself and a bonus if I'm particularly good to myself. I may go offshore to avoid taxes altogether, but then I'd have to learn how to swim better. If I do an IPO I'll let you guys know ahead of time, but you'll have to keep it secret because the SEC is already on my ass for a lot of other stuff. Oh, I misread the thread title. Nevermind.

[The Final Dakar]

So, this is how you fund you henching.

[osiris]

Indeed.

[Athens]

Ok I spent 30 minutes getting all my points in order, and a couple hours writing this so far lets see how this goes...

I want to start off with a famous quote

“Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”

Sounds like todays world but its not when this was written. It very well could have been when you consider that we live in a world of Enron, massive corporations busted with cooked books aided by their auditors and Wall Street executives get rich at the expensive of their employees and shareholders. Corporate lobbyists and special interest groups often have their way despite being at odds with the interests of the voters and public. Federal reserve numbers show that the top 1 percent of US homes controls 38% of the nations wealth. So again I repeat that quote easily represents todays world. IT was written by Abraham Lincoln in 1864.

The main issue is how far corporate power is spreading and how fast. And this issue isn't exactly news worthy by the corporate owned media outlets. Its true that corporations have spear headed unprecedented prosperity over generations. We owe our good living standards to this, but they have also overpowered Government. Government of the People, For the People, by the People which I believe was also from Lincoln. Corporate power over the government is the root of many different issues affecting society today. Globalization, environmental damage, the gap between rich and poor all stems from this issue.

Any force, foreign or domestic that can over power democracy is a threat. Its a threat to the political system. Its a threat to human freedoms. Democracy is the heart of collective will of citizens. Write or wrong where democracy leads us, its how our system of government is designed to function.

Corporations are designed as a collective, consider the Borg in star trek with but one goal and thats profits for shareholders. The legal system or framework, what ever you want to call it is fiduciary responsibility which limits corporations to that single goal of profits. No other legal frame work is in place to offer corporations other values or goals. Profit is the driving force and the legal requirement. I don't know if amoral is a real word but according to the spell check it is so I will continue. A company is neither moral or unmoral but in the middle not caring either way. By their nature despite images and advertisements portraying corporate citizenship and values, they by their nature in structure by law only exist to express earnings per share.

Corporations do not deserve the title and privileges the same as people because of their size, form and and the character or lack of character they have. People which includes executives, employees and shareholders have worth and value, corporations in and of themselves do not.

The larger the corporation gets the more power and influence they have to influence governments. As a amoral entity with the sole purpose outlined by law, fiduciary duty and lack of consciences, character, dignity a company becomes a very powerful force.

To put some perspective on how powerful companies have gotten. The biggest ones as of 2001 represented 53 of the worlds 100 largest economies. The other 47 represented by countries. The annual sales of Wal-Mart in 2001 exceeded the GDP of Sweeden. And they continue to grow and I wonder what the 2010 numbers would be. If we look back by 5 years we see that only 51 of the biggest economies in 1996 where Corporations meaning by 2001 to nations got bumped off the list of the top 100.

Another way to look at it, using 2001 numbers. The combined revenues of the 50 largest American corporations is larger then the budgets of the Federal US Government, the 50 States and thousands of local governments by half. This means you would have to double the budgets of every single level of government in the United States to match the revenue of the 50 largest American Corporations.

This concludes Part 1, I have much more in my outline to put in words but I've been at this post for half the day already.

I will continue on later with how first corporations where non profit with a dedicated function.
In addition how Corporations violated early laws with political influence and the long history of political interference.
I want to cover the Industrrial Revolution which breed the new generation of business which we see today.
The sneaky court battle in 1886 to provide corporations "personhood".
The killer victory for corporations with the 4th Amendment in the 1970s.
The limited powers of the Clean Air Act, Occupational Safety Health Act, and Consumer Product Safety Acts because of the 4th Amendment.
The court battles to win First Amendment rights for political interference and speech.
The millions spent lobbying and the millions donated to campaigns to sway Government to Corporations favors.
The money and resources allow corporations to exercise more rights then a person could even if they dont yet have all the same rights.
Jim Crow laws which added oppression to Black Americans while Corporations tied up the courts with 14th Amendment cases, the Amendment which was intended to give Slaves personhood.
How teh 14th Amendment was the first major political interference to free corporations from state control.
Was never really for the blacks.
The Tariffs and Trade agreements which gives more power to the WTO then local federal governments in trade matters.
The GTO battles in Trade between US corporations and Europes ban them. The damage deregulations has cause and the weaking of Antitrust laws.
All forms of news is owned by large corporations.
Last a look at how to fix the relationship between market freedom with Democracy

[Laminar]

tl;dr

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So you'd rather reject a victory because you prefer to think of it as a defeat. Proud of you™.

Now whos using strawman.

I dont reject a victory or see defeat. I see it for what it really is. A business choice sparked by the ability to save money and to look good doing it.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

tl;dr

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I dont reject a victory or see defeat. I see it for what it really is. A business choice sparked by the ability to save money and to look good doing it.

As usual, you've missed a key component: the ability to save money, look good doing it, and help the environment all at the same time.

Not once did you point out that fact. It's significant.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

The key to good communication is brevity.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Now whos using strawman.

I dont reject a victory or see defeat. I see it for what it really is. A business choice sparked by the ability to save money and to look good doing it.

It really sounds like what you're saying is that you prefer a win-lose to a win-win. Do you? Have you ever heard of Sun Tzu?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

They have been trying. Since the 70's its been argued in court many times. Its only a matter of time before a judge grants it and the game changes again.

BZZZT!
My point: Corporations do not have the Fifth Amendment protections.
Your point: But they're trying. It's only a matter of time.
Conclusion: non-argument. Corporations do not have the Fifth Amendment protections.

Oh Wal-Mart is a good example actually. Vancouver city council refused to allow Wal-Mart to setup in a location in one part of the city a few years ago because city council determined location was not suitable due to the already existing traffic problems in the area. Council recommended 4 other locations in the city that would be more suitable, locations zoned for big box store development. Wal-Mart tied up the cities legal resources for 2 years trying to force its self in a spot it wasn't allowed.

BZZZT!
In your scenario Wal-Mart is actually a horrible example. First, Wal-Mart was not already in the community in context of your wish to be able to vote them out. Remember? Second, they're trying to get into the community and can't because the city council won't let them for the zoning reasons you cited above. This is actually an example of the system working as you would have it. If the city insisted on listening to Wal-Mart's appeals for two years, Wal-Mart either had worthy appeals or there's a failure at the judicial level in your city. Write your council members. Either way, at least try to follow along your own train of thought here. This is silliness.

So your saying a business should have more power then a city government. What makes a business special that it can ignore all the democratic rules imposed by a governance body. Explain this to me. What makes a business so special it can ignore rules that every one else has to follow. Explain it.

BZZZT!
What did I tell you about straw man arguments Athens? I never said or even implied that a business should have more power than a city government. For one thing, you said the people in the community should be able to vote a company out, then you shifted to "city government". Again, try to follow your own train of thought here.

A business is an extension of people with rights that comprise it. That's why businesses have rights. For example, let's say there's a city council comprised of red-necked white people and they don't want that black-owned business in their district, should they be able to just vote it out? No? Why not?!? What makes that business so special? Explain this to me.

YES PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS, you got it. A business is a artificial entity not a person.

Not unlike the government itself right? It's an artificial entity, not a person. What gives one artificial entity authority over another? Based on the rights of its people? Which people? The people comprising the business or the people comprising the government or the people of the city?

Let's say instead of the Vancouver city council making the decision to oppose Wal-Mart, they put it up to a vote of the people of Vancouver city and they supported the Wal-Mart; should the rights of the Council members trump those of the people of Vancouver city and the people of Wal-Mart?

The rights of the people should be first before the Artificial entity. Maybe you should start a Save the CRT TV Campaign to fight for the rights of all those TVs being treated unfairly by being tossed out while still in good working order. Those big glass and plastic boxes have feelings too, and because they are artificial they have more rights then flesh in blood, or should... "Save the TV from inhuman treatment" Dam the fleshy's for cruel treatment of something Artificial.

You can't even formulate sarcasm effectively. CRT TVs are artificial? Do you know what artificial means?

Maybe you should try to take up the whole "GOVERNMENT IS AN ARTIFICIAL ENTITY!" argument with your council members who obviously can't exist because... well they're artificial I suppose. Like Max Headroom on your CRT TV.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The key to good communication is brevity.

Ya well I make a attempt and instantly get shot down so

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It really sounds like what you're saying is that you prefer a win-lose to a win-win. Do you? Have you ever heard of Sun Tzu?

Prefer what? I called it for what it is. So its nether a preference for a win-lose or win-win. Its a sound business choice. If it had a cost involved it wouldn't be done. Not all good deeds will save money, but then thats why we don't see many good deeds with a cost attached, only a savings.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Prefer what? I called it for what it is. So its nether a preference for a win-lose or win-win.

You belittle someone for "buying it hook line and sinker" (your words). That sounds like a preference to me.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Ya well I make a attempt and instantly get shot down so

Because you're doing it wrong

 

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

BZZZT!
My point: Corporations do not have the Fifth Amendment protections.
Your point: But they're trying. It's only a matter of time.
Conclusion: non-argument. Corporations do not have the Fifth Amendment protections.

No but they have the 1st, 4th and 14th and are working hard to get the 5th. The 4th was won in the 70s and it took 20 or so years to get that. Its only a matter of time the 5th will be added to the list.

BZZZT!
In your scenario Wal-Mart is actually a horrible example. First, Wal-Mart was not already in the community in context of your wish to be able to vote them out. Remember? Second, they're trying to get into the community and can't because the city council won't let them for the zoning reasons you cited above. This is actually an example of the system working as you would have it. If the city insisted on listening to Wal-Mart's appeals for two years, Wal-Mart either had worthy appeals or there's a failure at the judicial level in your city. Write your council members. Either way, at least try to follow along your own train of thought here. This is silliness.

Well system didn't work to good, Wal-Mart setup shop 3 km east on the same road just outside of city limits. And the city didn't chose to listen to appeals. Wal-Mart took it to the Supreme Court of British Columbia which forced the city to spend city tax payers money on defending its decision in court and provincial tax money dealing with it in court plus valuable court time which could have been used for something more important then a business crying over a decision from a democratically elected body. Its also a good example why not allowing corporations to buy votes through the political process is effective in keeping the democratic system functioning. Had it been a US city of course City council would have allowed it even if the location isn't suitable and even subsidized it with tax incentives. Its a perfect example of the arrogance of a corporation.

BZZZT!
What did I tell you about straw man arguments Athens? I never said or even implied that a business should have more power than a city government. For one thing, you said the people in the community should be able to vote a company out, then you shifted to "city government". Again, try to follow your own train of thought here.

You implied, if you didn't mean to imply then do a better job with what you write. Cry Cry !Strawman Strawman! Sniffle Sniffle that word has no meaning any more you have over used it

A business is an extension of people with rights that comprise it. That's why businesses have rights.

The majority of people that comprise a business have only the rights provided to them by state and federal laws that governs how the company as a whole treats its workers. The majority of the people comprising a business are pawns for the business doing tasks defined in there employment agreement. I have no power at the company I work for beyond what is defined to me with the job position. We as individuals in the company hold no votes to steer the company in a direction. When a employee gets out of line the employee is replaced. Give the employees full power to decide on what a company does then maybe I will accept the idea of a company having rights. If a employee has no rights in the company why should the company have any rights in society.

For example, let's say there's a city council comprised of red-necked white people and they don't want that black-owned business in their district, should they be able to just vote it out? No? Why not?!? What makes that business so special? Explain this to me.

Um, im surprised I have to explain this one to you but such a attempt would go against federal and state laws and the constitution or charter of rights. No lower government is above any of those. That was a poor example, im shocked. Normally you do better then that. How about a example of a city council deciding to closed down all porn shops in the city including ones doing business with no problems for 30 years. That would have been a much better example. Porn entrepreneur says he'll fight Surrey over decision to refuse him business licence

Not unlike the government itself right? It's an artificial entity, not a person. What gives one artificial entity authority over another? Based on the rights of its people? Which people? The people comprising the business or the people comprising the government or the people of the city?

Democracy. The government is a extension of the people through a democratic process. The people elect the members of government in power with the expectation of doing the peoples will. When you become part of a company you have no say in how it runs, who your boss is. You are hired as a tool not a equal to share in the company. A slave, paid to do a job and compensated. Step out of line, you are replaced.

Let's say instead of the Vancouver city council making the decision to oppose Wal-Mart, they put it up to a vote of the people of Vancouver city and they supported the Wal-Mart; should the rights of the Council members trump those of the people of Vancouver city and the people of Wal-Mart?

Yup, we elect people to lead and run things. Some times they have to take the risk of doing whats no popular and hope in the end it works out or they wont be re-elected. But at times they do put things to a city wide vote when its pretty major which a Wal-Mart isn't. City of Vancouver: Olympic Vote - February 22, 2003

You can't even formulate sarcasm effectively. CRT TVs are artificial? Do you know what artificial means?

Your getting pretty bad at this.

artificial (comparative more artificial, superlative most artificial)
Man-made; of artifice.
The flowers were artificial, and he thought them rather tacky.
False, misleading.
Her manner was somewhat artificial.
Unnatural.

Last time I checked a TV didn't grow out from the ground like a Tree so im pretty sure its Man-Made, artificial.

Maybe you should try to take up the whole "GOVERNMENT IS AN ARTIFICIAL ENTITY!" argument with your council members who obviously can't exist because... well they're artificial I suppose. Like Max Headroom on your CRT TV.

Government of the people, by the people, for the people. Last time I checked I didn't have to apply to a city to live in it, get told what im doing and had a boss to report to for being part of the city and risk being kicked out of the city if my work was not up to par.

BTW Public bodies live by different rules from Corporate Bodies as well. And Government is accountable to the people and business should be to as well.