Vermont Proposes Resolution To Ban ‘Corporate Personhood’

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not going to mince word, we are a Constitutional Republic, meaning we elect representatives to represent us and have a document that is the law of the land.

We are not a Democracy if you go be the literal definition. If we were a literal Democracy everyone would be voting on every major issue.

The only true Democracy ever to have existed was in Athens, Greece. Yes, some of the principles between Republics and Democracies are the same, but there are differences as well.

I'm actually kind of neutral, however we shouldn't allow one special interest group to donate money to campaigns (i.e. unions) and not allow another special interest group (i.e. corporation) to donate money.

I would actually be in favor of both disclosing what they donated, if it wasn't for the fact that left wing groups would promptly target anyone sending money to a conservative campaign.

"Elect representatives to represent us" is the definition of representative democracy, NOT republic. Republic has a much broader meaning which you are obviously ignorant of. I should not be surprised, given your overall weak understanding of history.

Right-wingers do the same. I remember one of my high school teachers telling us how his wife forbade him to shop at a hardware store that donated money to Planned Parenthood.

Uh and this includes Death Threats?

There have been plenty of death threats against pro-choice politicians. Representative Bart Stupak (D), who ironically has probably been more effective than any other single Congressman in advancing the pro-life cause, received untold numbers of death threats from right-wingers after one of his colleagues shouted "Baby killer!" at him. Previously obscure individuals who Glenn Beck listed as part of the "intelligent minority" that allegedly secretly controls the world have received death threats. President Obama receives more than 400% as many death threats as President Bush ever did.

More seriously than that, there have been a number of people who made good on their threats and killed (or attempted to kill) abortion providers. When was the last time someone was assassinated for their pro-life stance?

More seriously than that, there have been a number of people who made good on their threats and killed (or attempted to kill) abortion providers. When was the last time someone was assassinated for their pro-life stance?

The numbers don't match up; the overwhelming majority of the violence between pro-lifers and pro-choicers has gone in the other direction.

But in any case, your initial point has been disproved. Right-wingers issue death threats to their political opponents on a regular basis, significantly more frequently than left-wingers.

First you claim that Left wingers don't use violence and I debunk that, now you're claiming that you've proven me wrong. The fact that the MSM only chooses to report one side doesn't mean it isn't happening on the other side.

Or are you saying that it's okay for Pro-abortion parties to shoot people and/or beat people with clubs.

You really can't read. You claimed that the left would target corporations that contribute to the right, I pointed out that the right does so to the left, you denied that, I proved you wrong.

No. Please refrain from making false statements about my position. Violence is the wrong way to do things.

This is cheap politics, essentially unnecessary potentially dangerous.

Corporate personality is, along with limited liability, an essential component of our legal and economic system.

Limited liability corporations allow individuals to invest in business activity without exposing themselves to risk beyond their investment. I put $1000 into ABC Corp., and the most I stand to lose is my $1000 investment if the company liquidates. If I going into partnership with the same investors, then my assets are available to the business' creditors to satisfy the business' debts. Meanwhile, corporate personality allows a corporation to make contracts, to sue and to be sued. These are similarly essential features of a capitalist system.

The idia in the Common Law that corporations are "legal persons" dates back to the foundation of the original corporations in the 17th century. It is not some new or novel idea. To throw it out entirely would create the potential for corporations to be able to exempt themselves from accountability unless each and every statute was examined for the implication of a change in the word, "person."

Now, if there are abuses (and I don't deny that there are) the english language is perfectly capable of distinguishment. Corporations are "legal persons" but they are not, "natural persons." Neither are they "individuals." So, in Canada, for example, the Charter of Rights confers certain rights on "individuals" that are clearly not enjoyed by corporations. Similarly, corporations are banned from making political contributions, unlike natural persons. The law is perfectly capable of accommodating these distinctions.