abolish corporate personhood

Discussion in 'Politics' started by lovenuts50, Jan 19, 2009.

  1. lovenuts50

    lovenuts50 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    389
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    183
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    san franciso
    corporations are person according to our misguided legal system. to level the playing field 'corporate personhood' must be abolished!

    check this out:

    the doctrine of granting constitutional rights to corporations gives a thing illegitimate privilege and power that undermines our freedom and authority as citizens.

    we're being screwed!
     
  2. D_season 5

    D_season 5 Account Disabled

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    11
    thanks for validating how queen Nancy pelosi got elected...amazing there are so many whacked people in on city...just amazing.
     
    #2 D_season 5, Jan 19, 2009
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2009
  3. str821

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    156
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    321
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    near DC
    Verified:
    Photo
    I hope that lovenuts is not serious. There is no answer to this suggestion because there is no coherent support for it.
     
  4. transformer_99

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,466
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    I always thought the opposite, far too many corporations have been created and exist to protect individuals in anonymity. Everyone is able to incorporate these days, not only that, they become instantaneously a CEO. I think for a lot of them, it's just a clever way of laundering money. Transfer it thru enough entities and the mess that's created probably produces what we see going on in the economy right now ?
     
  5. sparky11point5

    sparky11point5 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston
    Actually, this is a serious issue that is as old as the Republic.

    Corporate personhood debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Recently, this has been pushed as a way to justify 'free speech' for corporations and for other rights given to 'individuals'. For example, some suits have tried to protect companies from any 'infringement' on this right for health, safety, or other concerns.

    This is much more likely to be pushed by the Cato Institute and crony capitalists than Nancy Pelosi.

    Bad idea, in my opinion.
     
  6. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,585
    Likes Received:
    872
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    The idea of Corporate person-hood was originally meant to make Corporations MORE accountable.

    The idea being that, if you were injured due to the actions of a corporation, you would have to FIND and Sue the specific individual responsible... With no legal means to subpoena corporate documents, it could take years or decades to find the culpable party...and when the culpable party turns out to be a whole groups of men... none of whom even work for the corporation any longer, it became nearly impossible to hold corporations liable for any action.

    Corporate personhood means that the corporation Itself, remains responsible for the actions of the corporation regardless of CEO's or other management dying or moving on to other positions.

    Therefore, corporate personhood, while certainly shielding the actions of their CEO's, DOES make the corporations responisble for the damage they do, and does result in MORE reclaimable damages.

    IT also means that, if you are a small businessman and you own a store and some customer slips and falls in your parking lot, that they can not take your private home in some damage claim... Since the vast majority of corporation in the US are small businesses, the corporate shield of private assets is crucial to keeping small business viable.


    On the other hand... large scale malfeasance by big time CEO's SHOULD be a crime and should be vigorously prosecuted.

    Had Enron survived Ken Lay... Enron, as a corporate person, could have sued Ken Lay for his actions as CEO...
    Its just the the board of these kinds of companies is set up to make the board members rich.. and they are unlikely to go after former CEOs, especially when the other members of the board itself are in collusion.

    Just because a corporation is a legal individual does not mean that we can not pass laws to prosecute and seize ill gotten gains from corporate officers...

    But in the long haul... it is far better for us to have a multinational corporation on the hook for bail out debt... than to try and assign that debt to men who will not live long enough to pay it back.
     
  7. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,453
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    what the duece? sorry bro, I ran out of meds... forever ago... re-explain.
     
  8. rbkwp

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    29,276
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,920
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Auckland (AUK, NZ)
    WoW' .. anything Corporate..and i immeaditely think of the Devil & $$ .. as in the assholes who rip off others..esp the elderly
    ggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

    NZs Largest Corp FONTERRA was involved in that China Milk Powder (Melamine scandal)
    originally it was mentioned on NZ Radio re there invlolvement..then for a good 6 weeks not a fckn mention ...
    . of them being responsible as well as the San Lu people
    Guts of it is..the 3 directors finally acknowledged such...there first words in a press statement
    We lost 123 million (whatever figure it was)...
    and 3rdly..we are Sorry for the Deaths of the Babies
    Bastards
    They invested in San Lu...(owned 40% i think)..no one can tell me they never took there rigorous tests to that product...DAILY...and not know what was going on
    Very simply put..but i followed it as it was played out
    Not one to place Facts n Figures sorry..but the Truth is all there
    Those 3 directors should have been charged as much as the San Lu crowd
    enz
    (and if they got the Bullett i would not have shed a tear')
     
  9. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,453
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    why would you live in a country with a government that let a corporation knowingly let their product poison children. reeks of hypocrites who stay in the US thinking the gov't purposely killed thousands of ppl under the guise of being a terrorist attack.

    unless you aren't being serious...
     
  10. rbkwp

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    29,276
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,920
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Auckland (AUK, NZ)
    why would you live in a country with a government that let a corporation knowingly let their product poison children. reeks of hypocrites who stay in the US thinking the gov't purposely killed thousands of ppl under the guise of being a terrorist attack.

    unless you aren't being serious...

    NOT interested in Shit Talk
    believe what you want
    do you think i would type that out if i was not serious
    END of discussion.. with you
    enz
     
  11. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    you forgot the pinkos & reds at ACLU
     
  12. Gl3nn

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Somewhere in the universe
    If you want to sue a company, you can't possibly expect every single person of that company to go to court. Therefor they made them 'persons'. This way one or a couple of people can represent the whole company in court. This is much cheaper and easier.
     
  13. sparky11point5

    sparky11point5 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston
    Phil --

    I think you are over-emphasizing the ability to sue. Corporations have acquired certain rights of 'natural persons', but this is not really necessary to be a defendant of a lawsuit.

    Here is a definition:

    Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The defining feature of a corporation is its legal independence from the people who create it. If a corporation fails, shareholders normally only stand to lose their investment (and possibly, in the unusual case where the shares are not fully paid up, any amount outstanding on them - and not even that in the case of a No liability company), and employees will lose their jobs, but neither will be further liable for debts that remain owing to the corporation's creditors unless they have separately varied this, e.g. with personal guarantees. This rule is called limited liability, and it is why the names of corporations in the UK end with "Ltd." (or some variant like "Inc." and "plc").

    From the wikipedia article linked above:
    ...
    Proponents of corporate personhood believe that corporations, as representatives of their shareholders, were intended by the founders and framers to enjoy many, if not all, of the same rights as natural persons, for example, the right against self-incrimination, right to privacy and the right to lobby the government.
    ...
    The stronger concept of corporate personhood, in which (for example) First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been asserted by corporations, is often traced to the 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (118 U.S. 394).
    ...

    The problem is how broadly this is being applied now -- protections normally given to persons such as free speech, self-incrimination, equality. Corporations can be legal entities, but should not have the liberties provided for individuals. (Well, at least liberties we have when not under a Republican administration.)
     
  14. rbkwp

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    29,276
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,920
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Auckland (AUK, NZ)
    Convicted Sanlu boss blames Fonterra
    The chairwoman of the Chinese dairy company that sold fatally contaminated infant milk formula says she acted on information supplied by Fonterra. Former Sanlu chairwoman Tian Wenhua, 66, sentencedÂ… More

    Convicted Sanlu boss blames Fonterra - National - NZ Herald News

    NO further comment..cant be fckd with to-ing and fro-ing of posts with further personal opinions meaning nothing anyway?
    We dont know the facts and never will..but we can have our opinions and beliefs huh?
    enz
    Re posts #8 #9
    -and i would not at all be surprized if the NZ govt was in with the China Govt over it ALL..after all they JUSt 6 months previous signed a Wonderful?? Free Trade Agreement???
    you dont have to be no intellectual to read between the lines...
     
  15. gymfresh

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,659
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rodinia
    Verified:
    Photo
    Originally, the idea of "corporations" arose to allow a coop of individuals (such as formed the Dutch East India Company) to conduct business with limited liability in exchange for strict limitations:

    1. Project of clearly spelled-out purpose
    2. Corporate existence for limited duration
    3. Specified budget

    Once the goal(s) had been met, there was to be automatic extinguishment of the "corporation". This worked pretty well in the US and elsewhere until the US Supreme Court ruled in the late 19th century that, as "persons", corporations enjoyed constitutional protection from arbitrary limits on their growth.

    A wild stretch, if you ask me, which did much more to upend rather than level the playing field. It put business in direct competition with government for control of citizens' lives, rather than a better ruling which might have more properly balanced the key societal needs of family, commerce and government.

    The movie The Corporation is a thorough, if a tad breathless and urgent, summary of what the "problem" is. I agree with about 70% of its points.
     
  16. D_Cyprius Slapwilly

    D_Cyprius Slapwilly New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd bet that syndicalists or anarchists would be more likely to oppose it than either of them.
     
  17. B_spiker067

    B_spiker067 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,189
    Likes Received:
    0
    What you really want to do is make sure that the board is elected by all the stockholders and not picked by the CEO which is too often done. It is the reason for ridiculous salaries, golden parachutes, and poor board oversight.

    Elect the board. Board hires CEO. The company maintains 'personhood' in order to best incorporate these entities into the legal system.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted