Login | Register

Nerd Paradise

It's Omni's fault.
The Forum > Politics and Current Events > On the idea that corporations are people
So,

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled today that corporations are people with first amendment rights to free speech. So they can now buy and sell politicians far more freely than they have been doing.

Bad idea or Worst idea?
[Quote] [Link]
But what about the other groups that are people? Mobs are people. Governments are people. Universities are people.

*gasp*

CHURCHES are people! This trend must stop!

In all seriousness, where do they get these ideas? "Oh, hey, let's name this group of people a person so that that group can do more stuff. Because obviously the people that make up that group of people are incapable of voicing their opinions themselves, they must do it as a group."
[Quote] [Link]
Well corporations are owned by people, and those people are free to express themselves with their property as much as any other person.
[Quote] [Link]
So,

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled today that corporations are people with first amendment rights to free speech. So they can now buy and sell politicians far more freely than they have been doing.

Bad idea or Worst idea?

WORST idea....this throws a wrench into my plan to pressurize News Corporation
[Quote] [Link]
I think we need a new word for badness to encompass just how incredibly bad of an idea this is.

icu said:
Well corporations are owned by people, and those people are free to express themselves with their property as much as any other person.


Well that sort of glosses over the fact that corporations are composed of individuals that more often than not have no say in the way a corporation is run. Honestly the more you think about it this is about allowing double dipping (or more) in influence by the upper class. Color me surprised.
[Quote] [Link]
Census 2010 will now count corporations, too, then? And Google could be elected to Congress? At least Boeing can't run off to Argentina...
[Quote] [Link]
Let's all write in Google for the next presidential election.
[Quote] [Link]
kirin said:
I think we need a new word for badness to encompass just how incredibly bad of an idea this is.

icu said:
Well corporations are owned by people, and those people are free to express themselves with their property as much as any other person.


Well that sort of glosses over the fact that corporations are composed of individuals that more often than not have no say in the way a corporation is run. Honestly the more you think about it this is about allowing double dipping (or more) in influence by the upper class. Color me surprised.


Composition is not ownership. My house is composed of wood, concrete and other things, but if I want to paint my house a different color there is not a referendum with the walls. Shareholders can divest themselves if their company does something they do not like or work in the company to change things.

Buying politicians would not be a problem if there was nothing to sell i.e. the government left business to businesses, and could not hand out favors and lay down regulation.
[Quote] [Link]
icu said:

Composition is not ownership. My house is composed of wood, concrete and other things, but if I want to paint my house a different color there is not a referendum with the walls. Shareholders can divest themselves if their company does something they do not like or work in the company to change things.


You are essentially making my argument for me here in that you are exactly right that composition is not ownership. Therefore the more influence we grant to corporations the less the citizenship has comparatively.

icu said:

Buying politicians would not be a problem if there was nothing to sell i.e. the government left business to businesses, and could not hand out favors and lay down regulation.


Let's say for the sake of argument that the government had a hands off approach to businesses but corporations could still spend their money in political influence if they so wanted.

Now it would probably be a good strategic investment if a business could somehow leverage laws in their favor but with this system they're prohibited from doing so, but what prohibits them from doing so? The way that the laws are written prohibit them. Well why not spend the money to help get someone elected who would work for the businesses' interest? Here is where the problem lies, even in a system that is supposed to prohibit this the laws can always be changed.

Either way though I think the neighborhood would be nicer if we did ask the walls what color they would like to be painted.
[Quote] [Link]
Let's all write in Google for the next presidential election.

For the Anti-Copyright Party,Google and Napster! Yay!
[Quote] [Link]
kirin said:
icu said:

Composition is not ownership. My house is composed of wood, concrete and other things, but if I want to paint my house a different color there is not a referendum with the walls. Shareholders can divest themselves if their company does something they do not like or work in the company to change things.


You are essentially making my argument for me here in that you are exactly right that composition is not ownership. Therefore the more influence we grant to corporations the less the citizenship has comparatively.



Your point as I understood it was that the corporations go against the individuals that comprise it.

kirin said:

Let's say for the sake of argument that the government had a hands off approach to businesses but corporations could still spend their money in political influence if they so wanted.

Now it would probably be a good strategic investment if a business could somehow leverage laws in their favor but with this system they're prohibited from doing so, but what prohibits them from doing so? The way that the laws are written prohibit them. Well why not spend the money to help get someone elected who would work for the businesses' interest? Here is where the problem lies, even in a system that is supposed to prohibit this the laws can always be changed.


What stops them? The Constitution did, but we stopped paying attention to that and allowed the Supreme Court (the Warren Court especially) to shred it. A farmer growing grain on his own land for his own use qualifies as interstate commerce? I beg to differ. States' Rights had already been severely weakened by the example of the Civil War so they provided little resistance to expanding Federal authority. So it ultimately falls on the citizens to keep their government in line. When people fear their government, there is tyranny. When government fears their people, there is liberty.
[Quote] [Link]
icu said:
The Constitution did, but we stopped paying attention to that and allowed the Supreme Court (the Warren Court especially) to shred it.

...
[Quote] [Link]
icu said:

Your point as I understood it was that the corporations go against the individuals that comprise it.


That is my point exactly. I pointed out that individuals that compose a business often have no say in the direction of the organization. You then used an analogy comparing the individuals that worked for a business to inanimate construction materials composing a house to make the point that being part of a construct does not necessarily imply any control of it. That is exactly what I am trying to point out; if the individuals, the citizens that make up a business do not have a say in how it is run why should the business have any sort of say in how the government should be run?

icu said:

What stops them? The Constitution did, but we stopped paying attention to that and allowed the Supreme Court...


Justices to the Supreme Court are appointed by the President and approved by our elected officials, so no matter how you feel about a particular set of Justices they got to their positions through the people we elect. This is why I think allowing corporations to participate in elections is bad idea as it allows them influence in the internal mechanisms of our democracy.

icu said:
...(the Warren Court especially) to shred it. A farmer growing grain on his own land for his own use qualifies as interstate commerce? I beg to differ. States' Rights had already been severely weakened by the example of the Civil War so they provided little resistance to expanding Federal authority.


I'm curious how do you view the Warren Court as shredding the Constitution? History isn't my strongest point so I did a bit of skimming on the Warren Court and nothing really jumped out at me as shredding it, perhaps you could point me to those decisions? Also I couldn't find information on the case you were referring to, could you point me to the information about it as well?

icu said:

So it ultimately falls on the citizens to keep their government in line. When people fear their government, there is tyranny. When government fears their people, there is liberty.


I don't think anyone would argue that the government shouldn't be beholden to it's citizens but giving influence to entities that aren't people could be seen as a conflict of interest.
[Quote] [Link]
Terrible idea!

The whole idea of a corporation as a "person" was a bad idea to start with - this just amplifies the error.
[Quote] [Link]
This is a travesty.

The idea of corporations as people is malformed; it grants them the rights of citizenship without requiring the responsibilities. Piecemeal attempts to add responsibilities (such as Sarbanes-Oxley) have backfired, so the obvious solution is to overturn this ruling.
[Quote] [Link]
Big Brother is watching you...
[Quote] [Link]
The Forum > Politics and Current Events > On the idea that corporations are people
Current Date: 14 Vigeo 5:2Current Time: 14.17.1Join us in IRC...
Server: irc.esper.net
Channel: #nerdparadise
Your IP: 54.161.192.135Browser: UnknownBrowser Version: 0