Are corporations people ? Should they be ?

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

Previous topic | Next topic

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

14 Apr 2012, 2:45 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.

Higher standards would be ideal. To begin with I would at least like them to be held accountable in the same way an individual is. As a group of individuals with significant power and influence they should have a higher standard to meet. Particularly I would like to see more impetus put on protecting stakeholders and not just shareholders

_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

14 Apr 2012, 4:33 pm

Declension wrote:

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

Maybe that's next. They'll get the vote and be compelled to show up for jury duty. Maybe Ronald McDonald will have to register for the draft.

Attorneys in a class action lawsuit will have to work hard (or not) to keep corporations like McDonalds and Apple from sending reps to stock the jury.

Chipshorter
Velociraptor

Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 477
Location: The Georgian Quarter of The Pool of Life, The Centre of The Creative Universe

14 Apr 2012, 9:15 pm

Vigilans wrote:

I agree tho practically speaking its an idealist idea. Theres a number of issues then need to be addressed before it can happen IMO.
Shareholders are a subset of stakeholders, so what safeguards can be put in place to stop stakeholder inequalities?

With that factor of globalisation, some corporations as "people" have multiple nationalities so if one nation places theres higher standards then what's to stop theres artificial people from migrating there morals to a country with lower standards, a bit like offshoring.

An understanding of Corporate social responsibility will give you an good idea into the pitfalls of corporate moral self-regulation.
On a socio-political level globalisation as aided multinational corporations to be "cults of capitalism", what is needed as an economic and political separation of church(corporation) and state.

_________________
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

Kjas
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,059
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore

15 Apr 2012, 12:05 am

Issues may have to be addressed, but if you look at this from a long term point of view, privatizing profits and socialising losses is not something that is sustainable long term and causes a lot of harm.

The fact that many corporations are now multinational only adds more urgency to this, as if laws are not in place to that extent they will only continue to abuse the system even more than they do today.

I do not support corporations becoming "people" in the legal sense of the word, but if they want to do it then they're going to have to put up with their responsibilities in addition to the rights.

And lets face it, in a court of a law a person who privatised profit and then tried to socialise the cost would not be allowed to do so.

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

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Apr 2012, 7:56 am

The German phrase for corporation is much more accurate than the latin for "person". In German GMBH stands for business firm with limited liability. The basic issue is this: to what extent should the liability of a business firm be limited?

ruveyn

ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 121
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

15 Apr 2012, 8:01 am

If''n da Supreem Cort say dey iz peeps, den dem iz peeps. Simple az dat.

If one pricks a corporation, does it not bleed?

Technically, no. But it does sue.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Apr 2012, 9:16 am

ArrantPariah wrote:

If''n da Supreem Cort say dey iz peeps, den dem iz peeps. Simple az dat.

If one pricks a corporation, does it not bleed?

Technically, no. But it does sue.

Then corporate law will have to be altered in due course. If the courts so ruled, it is because the law that makes some business firms = people is not unconstitutional.

ruveyn

edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

15 Apr 2012, 9:54 am

visagrunt wrote:

I think that you are asking the wrong question.

"Corporate personality" has existed in the law of England and Wales since the first companies were created by Royal Charter--and the United States has fallen heir to that legal principle.

Corporate personality is the basis under which corporations can enter into contracts and under which they can sue or be sued. In the absence of corporate personality, the most complex form of business relationship that could be created is the limited partnership, a vehicle which is entirely unsuited to the scope and complexity of the modern business world.

So, yes, corporations should be legal persons. But a legal person and a natural person are two different things.

To my mind the question should be, "what rights and privileges of a natural person arrogate to a legal person?"

I agree, except that you've included rights and priveleges without including responsibilities. Mind you, responsibility is unfashionable today even for natural persons.

bizboy1
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Mar 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: California, USA

15 Apr 2012, 10:25 am

No, corporations aren't people. It's pretty obvious they are not.

bizboy1
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Mar 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: California, USA

15 Apr 2012, 10:26 am

Declension wrote:

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

Wrong. Corporations do have responsibilities.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Apr 2012, 7:43 pm

bizboy1 wrote:

Declension wrote:

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

Wrong. Corporations do have responsibilities.

Corporations are legally obliged to operate in the interests of its stockholders. They are also bound by contract law and must repay their debts or be liquidated.

ruveyn

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,242
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

15 Apr 2012, 7:50 pm

I forget who it was who said, "I'll believe corporations are persons when the state of Texas executes one."

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Chipshorter
Velociraptor

Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 477
Location: The Georgian Quarter of The Pool of Life, The Centre of The Creative Universe

15 Apr 2012, 8:21 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

I forget who it was who said, "I'll believe corporations are persons when the state of Texas executes one."

I would love to have corporations executed (liquidated) as a penalty for serial corporate manslaughter as a part of gross negligence, or falling that more legal measures to enforce collective moral responsibility within a corporation.

scubasteve
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,001
Location: San Francisco

15 Apr 2012, 8:29 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

I forget who it was who said, "I'll believe corporations are persons when the state of Texas executes one."

Chipshorter wrote:

(Well, more accurately they were extradited by Texas to be executed in New York.)

Last edited by scubasteve on 15 Apr 2012, 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,242
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

15 Apr 2012, 8:30 pm

Chipshorter wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

I forget who it was who said, "I'll believe corporations are persons when the state of Texas executes one."

Hell, if the Democrats (and I mean real Democrats - not bluedog conservadems) get solid majorities in both houses again, and retain the White House, then maybe we'll see a law like that. Make the Supreme Court and the Republicans think twice about passage of something as patently absurd as corporate personhood.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,242
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

15 Apr 2012, 8:35 pm

scubasteve wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

I forget who it was who said, "I'll believe corporations are persons when the state of Texas executes one."

Chipshorter wrote:

(Well, more accurately they were extradited by Texas to be executed in New York.)