Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A corporation is the combined will of a group of people. It derives its rights from the people that make it up. A corporation cannot exist without owners.

biccat wrote:Do natural persons have any responsibilities that must be fulfilled as a condition of receiving Constitutional rights?

If I was a dude, I'd have to sign up for selective service too (and I have stated my support of expanding that women in the past). And I have to obey the laws of the state and federal governments and pay their various taxes.

These are things I am legally obligated to do as a person in the United States. I would think that, being an American (I assume you are given your flag emblem), you would know this without me saying it.

For obvious reasons it's impossible for corporations to be signed up for selective service (Because they technically are not actually people even if they are legally), But even then, businesses are constantly pushing to be exempted from both parts of the latter (taxes and laws that apply to non-corporate entities).

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Does the Constitution apply to chickens and rocks too?

Are you asking whether chickens or rocks have a free speech right? I suppose that any law that attempted to limit the free speech rights of chickens and rocks could be invalidated under the First Amendment. I'm not sure how you could determine that a chicken or rock is engaged in protected speech, however.

Any law that required, for example, all chickens to be baptized, or all chickens to perform the Hajj would likewise be unconstitutional.

Exactly, because the government is not allowed to pass laws to establish religion (to paraphrase).

biccat wrote: Do natural persons have any responsibilities that must be fulfilled as a condition of receiving Constitutional rights?

Loyalty to the United States where loyalty is defined as "Do not commit treason."

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote: Do natural persons have any responsibilities that must be fulfilled as a condition of receiving Constitutional rights?

Loyalty to the United States where loyalty is defined as "Do not commit treason."

That candy bar is looking pretty treasonous. Better sentence it to capital punishment, just to be sure. NOM NOM NOM!

Easy E wrote:Is it a free speech right for a rock to flings itself at a Riot cop?

If it were free speech for a person to fling oneself at a riot cop, it's free speech for a rock to fling itself at a riot cop.

Easy E wrote:You would think it is self-evident that that The Bill of Rights does not grant personhood to things that are inanimate. I guess the Founders probably thought that was common sense and didn't need to put in the whole "natural person" part. Their mistake.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Where's the part where a "natural person" distinction would fit (aside from peaceably assemble, I'm pretty sure corporations can't do that anyway)?

Melissia wrote:If I was a dude, I'd have to sign up for selective service too (and I have stated my support of expanding that women in the past). And I have to obey the laws of the state and federal governments and pay their various taxes.

So obeying the law is a requirement for constitutional rights to attach? How do the various due process rights even attach?

If I violate the rule to sign up for selective service I don't lose my free speech rights. If I don't obey the laws of the state I don't lose my right to an attorney, or the right to a trial by jury.

Melissia wrote:These are things I am legally obligated to do as a person in the United States. I would think that, being an American (I assume you are given your flag emblem), you would know this without me saying it.

I do know that. However, the consequence of not doing these things does not result in a revocation of your Constitutional rights.

Your argument seems to be that since legislatures grant groups of people certain rights (limited liability) then they could require those groups to forfeit their free speech. But it's quite well established that Congress can't require waiver of fundamental rights in order to receive benefits.

Melissia wrote:businesses are constantly pushing to be exempted from both parts of the latter (taxes and laws that apply to non-corporate entities).

People lobby for all sorts of things, I don't see why corporations should be any different.

I feel dirty in taht I have to state the obvious but... Biccat, one is usually punished when one breaks the law.

Melissia wrote:I feel dirty in taht I have to state the obvious but... Biccat, one is usually punished when one breaks the law.

You don't have a Constitutional right not to be punished for breaking the law.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:I feel dirty in taht I have to state the obvious but... Biccat, one is usually punished when one breaks the law.

You don't have a Constitutional right not to be punished for breaking the law.

Well actually the 1st, 4th, and 5th might disagree.

Frazzled wrote:

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:I feel dirty in taht I have to state the obvious but... Biccat, one is usually punished when one breaks the law.

You don't have a Constitutional right not to be punished for breaking the law.

Well actually the 1st, 4th, and 5th might disagree.

...that's not quite what those mean.

If a cruel punishment was typical, would it be allowed in that the bill of rights only prohibits cruel and unusual punishments, not cruel or unusual punishments?

If we waterboarded everyone, would that be okay?

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:These are things I am legally obligated to do as a person in the United States. I would think that, being an American (I assume you are given your flag emblem), you would know this without me saying it.

I do know that. However, the consequence of not doing these things does not result in a revocation of your Constitutional rights.

Your argument seems to be that since legislatures grant groups of people certain rights (limited liability) then they could require those groups to forfeit their free speech. But it's quite well established that Congress can't require waiver of fundamental rights in order to receive benefits.

I think you've got this a bit backwards. It's not about forfeiting your rights. I think it's more about a human being having certain liabilities and vulnerabilites and limits which a corporation does not. If I break a law, engage in dishonest and/or disreputable practices, or otherwise misbehave, I can be imprisoned, or have my license to practice a given trade revoked, and/or have my professional reputation ruined. I also have a finite amount of lifespan in which to gather capital, exercise influence, and clear my name/recover my reputation if I mess up. A corporation is not so limited. It cannot be imprisoned, it has no limit to its lifespan, and even if dissolved, the same people can start a new business all over again, at least somewhat if not entirely insulated from the consequences of their actions. It is the people who have any personal responsibility and liability, and the people who have (or should have) rights.

It'd be funny if we COULD imprison corporations.

Shut down ALL business operations and lcok up all of their properties for the duration of their sentence. None of this "blame the employee, not the company" crap.

Especially the one you work for right?

AustonT wrote:Especially the one you work for right?

Not sure what sort of thing you're asking lol... Ican read this numerous ways.

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:Especially the one you work for right?

Not sure what sort of thing you're asking lol... Ican read this numerous ways.

Why don't you list the numerous ways and I will pick one

AustonT wrote:

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:Especially the one you work for right?

Not sure what sort of thing you're asking lol... Ican read this numerous ways.

Why don't you list the numerous ways and I will pick one

For example, reading it with the insinuation that I wouldn't want to be held liable myself. Or with the insinuation that I would do so viciously if I disliked my company (which I could believe, if I disliked it hard enough, such as Wal-Mart). Or that you're insinuating double standards.

I'll pick double standards. Since it's close enough to "I believe in this until it affects me"
I'm also sure that Walgreens should close all of it's stores nationwide by your hypothetical incarceration due to corporate responsibility in a malpractice case in Timbucktoo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Its the only way to be sure

I don't think it's usually useful to shut down a whole corporation because of malfeasance. Significant jail time for management personnel directly responsible might be a more effective deterrant, without costing everyone else their jobs. Kind of related to the undocumented worker problem. If it wasn't so profitable companies here wouldn't hire them. If the fines were massive enough, or the managers responsible had to serve time for it, we might actually be able to curb the demand.

Mannahnin wrote:I don't think it's usually useful to shut down a whole corporation because of malfeasance. Significant jail time for management personnel directly responsible might be a more effective deterrant, without costing everyone else their jobs. Kind of related to the undocumented worker problem. If it wasn't so profitable companies here wouldn't hire them. If the fines were massive enough, or the managers responsible had to serve time for it, we might actually be able to curb the demand.

Hey if it works in China, why not here?

EDIT: If its a criminal offense then I'm all for it. Locking people up for noncriminal offenses should be a no no, unless they tick me off of course.

We already have a system in place to fine corporations for being bad. The issue is just that it's too easy to get away from and the fines are too low.

Look at the Exxon Valdez for instance. They dragged their feet for decades on paying the fines and settlements and finally were able to argue them down again and again until they were paying a tiny fraction. That's not how this is supposed to work.

Corporations also choose to be taxed doubly.

It might be the best choice out of a bunch of bad ones, but double taxation is only required in corporations that are publically traded or have more than 100 shareholders (with each family counting as a single shareholder) or, IIRC, foriegn shareholders.

Check out "S" Corporations some time. Or LLCs.

Also, corporate taxes are very dissimilar to individual taxes. They are only taxed on profits, which means after all legititimate (but not necessarily wise) business expenses. Individuals are taxed on all income, aside from relatively small exemptions and deductions.

Polonius wrote:Corporations also choose to be taxed doubly.

It might be the best choice out of a bunch of bad ones, but double taxation is only required in corporations that are publically traded or have more than 100 shareholders (with each family counting as a single shareholder) or, IIRC, foriegn shareholders.

Which is why, outside of large or publicly traded corporations, nobody uses the corporate form. LLCs and S-corps are the way to go.

For some reason my firm is an LLP. I'm not sure why or how this makes sense.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:Corporations also choose to be taxed doubly.

It might be the best choice out of a bunch of bad ones, but double taxation is only required in corporations that are publically traded or have more than 100 shareholders (with each family counting as a single shareholder) or, IIRC, foriegn shareholders.

Which is why, outside of large or publicly traded corporations, nobody uses the corporate form. LLCs and S-corps are the way to go.

For some reason my firm is an LLP. I'm not sure why or how this makes sense.

C corps are corps.
there are lots of nonpublic corporations. I'm not certain what you're talking about.

How did a discussion about an opinion piece that's half a step away from, "We should return to the way things were when only property owners were allowed to vote!" turn into a debate about the, "Corporations are people, too!" lunacy?

Seaward wrote:How did a discussion about an opinion piece that's half a step away from, "We should return to the way things were when only property owners were allowed to vote!" turn into a debate about the, "Corporations are people, too!" lunacy?

Duh, the Dakka OT!

Frazzled wrote:

Seaward wrote:How did a discussion about an opinion piece that's half a step away from, "We should return to the way things were when only property owners were allowed to vote!" turn into a debate about the, "Corporations are people, too!" lunacy?

Duh, the Dakka OT!

Never a dull moment eh?

Seaward wrote:How did a discussion about an opinion piece that's half a step away from, "We should return to the way things were when only property owners were allowed to vote!" turn into a debate about the, "Corporations are people, too!" lunacy?

Welcome to the interwebz.

Seaward wrote:How did a discussion about an opinion piece that's half a step away from, "We should return to the way things were when only property owners were allowed to vote!" turn into a debate about the, "Corporations are people, too!" lunacy?

Income disparity got us to warren buffet. Warren buffet got us to the perceived double taxation on the rich. Double taxation on the rich got us to the difference between corporate taxes and personal taxes and that got us to corporate personhood.

Rented Tritium wrote:
Income disparity got us to warren buffet. Warren buffet got us to the perceived double taxation on the rich. Double taxation on the rich got us to the difference between corporate taxes and personal taxes and that got us to corporate personhood.

The problem is, the piece isn't really about income disparity. It's about how people who don't pay income taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote.