Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Are corporations people ? Should they be ?

Page 2 of 4 [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Chipshorter
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 477
Location: The Georgian Quarter of The Pool of Life, The Centre of The Creative Universe

12 Apr 2012, 11:56 pm

Kjas wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
They should be held to the same standards as an actual person. It should also be recognized that in the US at least, they as "persons" are the largest beneficiaries of welfare when you consider the bailouts etc


I would disagree. I think they should be held to higher standards than an actual person since many of them hold quite a bit of power and have the capability to do a lot of good or a lot of evil.

A corporation doing a lot of evil inevitability causes a lot more harm than one actual person can, on average. That should be kept in mind when it comes to the law.

This is particularly important when you consider that many corporations actually form a large part of the base of the economy for many economies in the western world.


A corporation's sole objective is profit making, they have no moral responsibility. Corporative social responsibility is just a tool for a corporation in achieving its sole objective. So it begs the question is corporative social responsibility a fallacy? The corporative organisation is amoral made up of moral &/or immoral human beings.

Oh while I think on I'll talk about organisational metaphors, the organizational theorist Gareth Morgan in Images of Organization pointed that there are 8 archetypal metaphors to describe organisations:

  • Machines
  • Organisms
  • Brains
  • Cultures
  • Political systems
  • Psychic prisons
  • Flux and transformation
  • Instruments of domination


_________________
Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. --Potter Stewart
Corruption is authority plus monopoly minus transparency. --Unknown


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

12 Apr 2012, 11:58 pm

Chipshorter wrote:
Kjas wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
They should be held to the same standards as an actual person. It should also be recognized that in the US at least, they as "persons" are the largest beneficiaries of welfare when you consider the bailouts etc


I would disagree. I think they should be held to higher standards than an actual person since many of them hold quite a bit of power and have the capability to do a lot of good or a lot of evil.

A corporation doing a lot of evil inevitability causes a lot more harm than one actual person can, on average. That should be kept in mind when it comes to the law.

This is particularly important when you consider that many corporations actually form a large part of the base of the economy for many economies in the western world.


A corporation's sole objective is profit making, they have no moral responsibility. Corporative social responsibility is just a tool for a corporation in achieving its sole objective. So it begs the question is corporative social responsibility a fallacy? The corporative organisation is amoral made up of moral &/or immoral human beings.

Oh while I think on I'll talk about organisational metaphors, the organizational theorist Gareth Morgan in Images of Organization pointed that there are 8 archetypal metaphors to describe organisations:

  • Machines
  • Organisms
  • Brains
  • Cultures
  • Political systems
  • Psychic prisons
  • Flux and transformation
  • Instruments of domination


Pretty much this (^)



Rocky
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 May 2008
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,074
Location: Uhhh...Not Remulak

13 Apr 2012, 12:27 am

No, and no! Our elected officials are already overly influenced by campaign spending. Real individuals can not compete with corporations when it comes to buying elected officials. A government by the corporations, of the corporations, and for the corporations, is not what the founding fathers had in mind.



Last edited by Rocky on 13 Apr 2012, 4:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

13 Apr 2012, 12:40 am

I just think that the CEO and the board of directors should be held personally responsible for the actions of those who work at their behest. And by that i mean that they should personally stand trial as individuals or as a group of defendants rather than the company as a whole.

And if that scares them, they should hire an army of auditors to find out what the people who work on their behest are doing.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 90
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Apr 2012, 5:06 am

Vigilans wrote:
They should be held to the same standards as an actual person. It should also be recognized that in the US at least, they as "persons" are the largest beneficiaries of welfare when you consider the bailouts etc


In the case of a tort action should the stockholders of a corporation be assessed damages in proportion to their ownership? If that were the case no one would invest in a corporation. It does make some sense to hold the principal officers of a corporation legally accountable for both criminal actions and torts (civil wrongs). The officers make the decisions and they should be held accountable for what their subordinates do pursuant to their orders.

ruveyn



pete1061
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,766
Location: Portland, OR

13 Apr 2012, 8:57 am

Treating corporations as "people" removes responsibility from the real people who run them.

NO, there should be no legal "personhood" for corporations, it's an idea that is bringing our society to ruin.


_________________
Your Aspie score: 172 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 35 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Diagnosed in 2005


Oldout
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,539
Location: Reading, PA

13 Apr 2012, 9:51 am

The concept of legal personhood for corporations is one of those situations where when it benefits the corporation its a person, but when its not beneficial their a corporation(income taxes). They then become a chamelion. (excuse spelling)



Chipshorter
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 477
Location: The Georgian Quarter of The Pool of Life, The Centre of The Creative Universe

13 Apr 2012, 1:09 pm

Oldout wrote:
The concept of legal personhood for corporations is one of those situations where when it benefits the corporation its a person, but when its not beneficial their a corporation(income taxes). They then become a chamelion. (excuse spelling)


The "lizard people" that are corporations do pay less tax compared to real people. In the UK corporation tax is at lower rates compared to income tax. Also not forgetting corporations benefit from the practices of tax avoidance and evasion, as they can easier get away it it compared to human beings .


_________________
Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. --Potter Stewart
Corruption is authority plus monopoly minus transparency. --Unknown


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

13 Apr 2012, 1:48 pm

Chipshorter wrote:
Oldout wrote:
The concept of legal personhood for corporations is one of those situations where when it benefits the corporation its a person, but when its not beneficial their a corporation(income taxes). They then become a chamelion. (excuse spelling)


The "lizard people" that are corporations do pay less tax compared to real people. In the UK corporation tax is at lower rates compared to income tax. Also not forgetting corporations benefit from the practices of tax avoidance and evasion, as they can easier get away it it compared to human beings .


Once again agree with him I am starting to beccome a fan.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 90
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Apr 2012, 4:45 pm

pete1061 wrote:
Treating corporations as "people" removes responsibility from the real people who run them.

NO, there should be no legal "personhood" for corporations, it's an idea that is bringing our society to ruin.


I agree. There are surely other ways of limiting liability usefully. For example we can limit liability in a stock company up to the asset value of the stock owned by the stock holder. Those who own only a few shares would pay very little in tort damage settlements.

ruveyn



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

13 Apr 2012, 5:12 pm

Corporations are people, or groups of them anyway.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

13 Apr 2012, 5:30 pm

I'd like to see the DNA test.


_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

13 Apr 2012, 6:42 pm

Limited liability and legal status of corporations isn't the real issue. The real issue is whether the right to unlimited bribery is protected under "free speech".



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

13 Apr 2012, 6:51 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Corporations are people, or groups of them anyway.


groups are not people and they behave markedly different.
so different that we have whole faculties working on understanding the issues involved in group behavior.

besides there are plenty of ways to punish the actual people for their wrongs instead of their pseudo-people placebos,
that way they might actually learn something.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

13 Apr 2012, 7:01 pm

Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. Corporations do not have responsibilities, so they do not deserve rights.



Kjas
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,059
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore

13 Apr 2012, 10:39 pm

Declension wrote:
Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. Corporations do not have responsibilities, so they do not deserve rights.


+1


_________________
Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html