What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
218 Comments
- novenator, on 09/23/2009, -6/+124Corporations are not people.
- inactive, on 09/23/2009, -2/+69Then they should pay "personal income tax" at the full going rate for a person making a few billion.
Personhood of corporations is great for them though they can do any crime they like and nobody who works there has to take any responsibility. things that you or i would go to jail for are punished with a tiny slap on the wrist. - untreadatom, on 09/23/2009, -3/+62The problem with the personhood of corporations (in this case in particular) is that they are granted the right to free speech. They will argue that a corporation can speak freely through the use of money. The problem here is that these corporations are going to be able to spend as much as they want on the candidates they want and will virtually be able to out spend any john q on the street. The votes of the corporation will be worth more than any actual person which reduces our actual degree of democracy.
- publiclurker, on 09/23/2009, -1/+43It also allows them to commit acts that, if committed by actual people, would result in lengthy prison sentences. unfortunately, they haven't figured out how to jail a corporation yet, so the corporation is at most levied a fine which does not affect toe people who made the decisions at all.
- jsffive, on 09/23/2009, -5/+47This issue isn't about corporations having "rights"... because a corporation is not an individual, but rather, a ROOM FULL of share holders, who want ADVANTAGES over others.
- mmx2000, on 09/23/2009, -2/+40The corporatization of America will one day be its downfall. Just look at Halliburton, Enron, Arthur Anderson; the amount of power and corruption present in these entities is beyond anything imagined at the drafting of the constitution. No company since the East Indies Trading Company has ever had more political influence than the corporations of today. Corporations should not be allowed to "buy" public policy the way the insurance/telecom/energy/etc. companies are doing right now.
- uncoveror, on 09/23/2009, -4/+32Corporate personhood is an abomination. Corporations are things. John Roberts refuses to see this because he is an evil bastard. Funny how "strict constructionists" freely wipe their asses with the Constitution when it suits them.
- FearlessFreep, on 09/23/2009, -1/+26That could be accomplished without granting 'personhood' to corporations
- PlasticHotDog, on 09/23/2009, -2/+26If corporations ever gain the right to contribute to federal political campaigns then we are ***** screwed.
- JHW539, on 09/23/2009, -2/+25Uh, you realize that the "full going rate for a person making a few billion" is the same as for a person making about $300k/yr, right? Actually, it's significantly lower if you consider payroll taxes (social security and medicare) and capital gains taxes (the bulk of income for the very wealth, capital gains are excluded from your income tax bracket and taxed at a rate lower than under Reagan currently).
After thirty years of cutting taxes - started by Reagan eliminating the higher 'millionaire' tax brackets entirely - taxes in the US are at their lowest point since the 1920's 'robber barons' era. Many people have fallen off the national income tax rolls altogether (started again by Reagan, with his earned income credits). We're a first world nation being funded like a second world state. When our credit finally runs out, people are going to have to either chose to BE a second world state or actually pay taxes at a level somewhat approaching all the other first world nations in existence. - robinthehood, on 09/23/2009, -1/+18sigh.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FA50FBC214 ...
For all the people that haven't already seen it, which will probably be the majority here (sad, I know). PLEASE WATCH THIS!
It's "The Corporation"
IMDB here - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/
Wiki here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation
If you're on the fence thinking, well it doesn't affect me personally think of this. Corporations have trademarked almost 100% of human DNA. Which is to say, in broad terms, they own you. - rkthoadan, on 09/23/2009, -1/+18If we can figure out how to make soylent green out of them I'd make an exception.
- untreadatom, on 09/23/2009, -0/+17They will be voting with money. If you can have an unlimited amount of money to flood the airwaves with whatever mindless drivel, will distract people from the actual debates it doesn't matter that the corporation doesn't actually fill out a ballot. And the idea that it won't guarantee victory is *****. In any local arena where corporations definitely have interests like the rest of us, they will be able to be more effective than on a national level. If they get the right to spend money and call it free speech- democracy is dead.
- malex, on 09/23/2009, -1/+17And do you have a counterargument to contribute, Arbiter13, or are you just being snotty?
- publiclurker, on 09/23/2009, -5/+20The constitution also states who has rights and money grubbing collections of morally bankrupt individuals are not listed as having any sort of collective rights.
- BoneheadFarker, on 09/23/2009, -1/+16/s <---- I think you dropped this...
- joculator, on 09/23/2009, -0/+13Yeah...I wonder how Alito is going to see that one.
- Tehrab, on 09/23/2009, -1/+13Speaking of failing in the first sentence: "The Constitution was not written to guarantee rights."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of ... - jerbaker, on 09/23/2009, -2/+14They are, but for some reason they aren't treated that way under the law. There's a law against the Teamsters going on strike to support the United Auto Workers, for instance. How come there's no law stopping Safeway from locking out their union employees just because that same union is striking against another grocery chain? The laws and taxes in the United States are heavily slanted to businesses favor.
- jerbaker, on 09/23/2009, -0/+12If money doesn't influence the outcome of elections, why do corporations even bother to donate? Seriously. Think about what you're saying for a minute.
- FearlessFreep, on 09/23/2009, -2/+14There is a difference between 'granting rights' and 'restricting the government from infringing upon assumed rights'. The government, nor the constitution, grant rights, the constitution limits the ability of the government to take away rights
- gobbleplex, on 09/23/2009, -0/+11They do not 'vote' at polling stations, but here is what they do instead:
Donate money to election campaigns for all candidates and remind them that if those candidates are not fully at the corporation's beck and call, they will not be so generous in the future.
Require that their employees write letters to congresspeople to show 'support' for whatever law or bill is under consideration that might benefit the company, and to do the reverse for laws or bills that the company percieves will undermine its ability to make a profit in the upcoming quarter.
Send lobbyists out to woo legislators on a continual basis with gifts and donations.
Fund advertising campaigns to drum up support for their interests.
These things are arguably far more powerful and influential than mere votes at a polling station, and they are all easily done by corporate 'persons.' Not so much by non-corporate real-people. - jerbaker, on 09/23/2009, -1/+12I want the shareholders to be liable for the percentage they own. If you own a 10% stake in Enron, you're 10% liable for the actions of Enron.
- jerbaker, on 09/23/2009, -1/+12We just need a Constitutional amendment that specifies that the rights enumerated in the Constitution refer to natural born persons only.
- angryfirelord, on 09/23/2009, -0/+11They already do and it's called lobbying. Remember the $43 million number from AT&T?
- malex, on 09/23/2009, -2/+12Okay, so film and entertainment corporations should not have personhood either. Are you saying you agree with the content of the editorial, or are you just trying to change the subject?
- jerbaker, on 09/23/2009, -0/+10"You realize that's essentially how it works right now, don't you?"
You're a Libertarian. You know how I know? Your entire view of life is in terms of money. You don't even consider things unrelated to making or losing money.
Show me a shareholder that has served jail time for a criminal act of the corporation they own. You can't, because it doesn't happen. How about a shareholder being forced to liquidate some personal assets (like their house) to pay off the creditors of their corporation when it files for bankruptcy. The way it works is that the shareholders get to keep all of the profits they earned by doing nothing other than owning stock, and when a bankruptcy comes the employees get stuck with no retirement, creditors get stuck with unpaid bills, and the public gets stuck with the costs of any environmental cleanup. Socialism for corporations and capitalism for workers. That's the United States. - obrien317, on 09/23/2009, -0/+10Correctly said, and people fail to understand or even be aware of the ramifications of this.
Basically, if a corporation is a person, they can use unlimited money towards any politically motivated PR/advertisement under the protection of free speech (that a person has). That means big business can have unlimited free speech and get anyone they dang well please elected - merely by throwing a few hundred million dollars at it. Complete business control of the government. The top 2% already make over half of the money in this country and this gap would widen with control over elected officials.
There should be a law against excessive contributions or motivations of any one specific entity in order to ensure free speech equality. - jefree, on 09/23/2009, -1/+11Good insightful statement. I had not thought if it this way, but you are right; people create corporations to get advantages over others and these people do not want regulation of that advantage and giving a corporation the rights like a person helps advance share holder power over others.
- diggduggDOOM, on 09/23/2009, -0/+9What rights does a family have beyond the rights of the individual members of that family?
(using the proper meaning of rights that you mention) - wissler, on 09/23/2009, -0/+9"What rights does a family have beyond the rights of the individual members of that family?"
None--all aggregations of human beings have only those rights that the individuals do. Rights can only be delegated, they can't be created anew. Thus corporations have those rights that their owners have delegated to them, no more, and certainly no less. The same holds true for governments. - DubWainwright, on 09/23/2009, -0/+9Tim:
You should really register for the NYTimes. It's free. Like many of the good articles on the internet, you are required to register to read it. Don't let your laziness prevent you from expanding your mind.
And seriously, if you didn't read it, you have no basis upon which to comment upon it. Thanks for your honesty, though. - inactive, on 09/23/2009, -5/+14***** conservatives, corporations should have no rights. they are a form of business and that doesnt equal the same thing as a real person.
figures republitards would want to give businesses the same rights as real citizens. complete bullcrap. - Nerys, on 09/23/2009, -1/+10Thats easy. PEOPLE have rights. Corporations are not people.
this is why they had to pass a law GRANTING corporations personhood. Without it they can not have rights.
They can only have privileges.
THIS is why I am apposed to corporations having personhood. what we have today is largely a result of that fateful decision. - PlasticHotDog, on 09/23/2009, -0/+9Finally, someone who understands that you can't just eliminate all taxes and expect the government to function properly.
- jerbaker, on 09/23/2009, -0/+9Nonsense. The rich want a nation with the infrastructure to ship the goods their companies produce, laws to protect their intellectual property and trademarks, courts to enforce those protections, police to arrest shoplifters and investigate fraud, fire departments to protect their capital infrastructure, public transit to get their minimum wage employees to and from their job, public health benefits to keep their employees alive without having to actually pay for the health care themselves. Oh ya, and they don't think they should have to pay higher taxes than the middle class.
- jsffive, on 09/23/2009, -2/+10Our government doesn't have "rights". It only has privileges granted to it by the people.
Or at least, that's supposed to be the idea...
But the very LAST thing that we should do, is allow a GOVERNMENT ENTITY, like the Supreme Court, make rulings about THEIR ABILITIES and power.
We shouldn't be surprised that it's turned out the way it has. - diptheria, on 09/23/2009, -2/+10TimtheTaxMan - RTFA. Your post is redundant. Your argument and points are not in question. Please, don't tell us you didn't read the article and then STILL decided to post your opinion on it. You waste everyone's time because you lack an understanding of the discussion. Again, RTFA.
- Nerys, on 09/23/2009, -0/+8Typically when people say corporation they really means ANY orginization.
the point is only PEOPLE can have rights (at least thats how its supposed to be)
For example the government has NO RIGHTS. it has "powers" but not "rights"
The PTA should not have rights.
Unions should not have rights
governments should not have rights
churches should not have rights
businesses should not have rights
green peace should not have rights.
The Republican and Democratic parties should not have rights.
etc.. etc.. etc..
ONLY PEOPLE should have rights. and only sentient beings should be granted personhood. - Myztry, on 09/23/2009, -0/+8When Corporations can be incarcerated and deprived on their liberties for crimes, then I'd even support them getting to vote.
Just the one vote per entity off course... - Libertaire, on 09/23/2009, -3/+11This is so *****, I don't even know what to say.
- Nerys, on 09/23/2009, -0/+7NO it needs certain privileges or powers.
RIGHTS are the sole pervue of people. at least they should be. - greevar, on 09/23/2009, -0/+7The difference is that rich people would have to dip into their own pockets to buy influence. Whereas a CEO can dip into the corporate coffers, buy off a politician, and not have to spend one dime of his own money.
"So newspapers (organized in corporate form) shouldn't have the right to free speech? "
No, they shouldn't. It's painfully obvious that the corporate media uses their communication powers to influence debates and other political functions during election years. They try to restrict which candidates you know about so they can keep your focus on the candidate they want you to favor. - Nerys, on 09/23/2009, -0/+7Not guarentee SOME rights but to EXPLICITLY PROTECT some rights from violation.
BIG difference.
a right can not be GRANTED. it simply IS. if it can be "granted" then its not a right its a privilege or a power. - untreadatom, on 09/23/2009, -0/+7"This fear over corporate influence is more a commentary on one's perception of the intelligence of people than the morality of "corporations"."-
@arbiter- dude you are outside your mind. It's not my perception of the intelligence of people but rather my understanding of power politics.
Lets take the swift boaters for example. These people got enough money to flood the airwaves and call into question a mans war record (he had 3 purple hearts) while his opponents war record wasn't even brought up (good thing cause he didn't have one). Its completely absurd how this ***** works but you can't deny that it does. And corporations will have much more money to spend than the 527's. - Nerys, on 09/23/2009, -0/+6NO they should not. The individual who WRITES the article retain the right to free speech NOT the corporate entity.
- buckrogers1965, on 09/23/2009, -1/+7We need to make limited liability mean that if the corporation messes up then we go after the shareholders directly, for upto the amount of money they have invested in a corporation.
So if a corporation breaks the law, people not only risk they money they have invested in that corporation, but an equal amount of their own money. Right now investors are too isolated from directing their companies breaking the law.
If a corporations kills people, then we need to lock up the largest 5 shareholders and the board for a few years. - Ghostalker, on 09/23/2009, -2/+8Corporation - Noun:
An ingenious device to allow for personal wealth without personal responsibility. - Wetzilla, on 09/23/2009, -0/+6I'm not registered for the New York Times and I could read the article just fine.
- deathandtaverns, on 09/23/2009, -0/+6corporations can do worse things than going bankrupt
-
Show 51 - 100 of 224 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is