$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 132.03

7,745 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
48.8% of Goal | left

Support:

Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
26 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Parks Are People Too rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mb
Um.....

http://www.outsideonline.com/2102536/parks-are-people-too-le...


Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
What the fuck!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
Shaman
mbmbmb
I think it's a funny play on corporate personhood.
4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
msg tools
What is it you kids say?

Cray-Cray!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I am waiting for socks to be people. I have socks with holes in them and once socks gain personhood, then I can request government funding to get mine mended.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xuzu Horror
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I am not in support of giving personhood to anyone but people, but if a corporation is given it that status, then I find the term so meaningless that I'm fine with giving an old sock the status as well.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xuzu Horror
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
xuzuthor wrote:
I am not in support of giving personhood to anyone but people, but if a corporation is given it that status, then I find the term so meaningless that I'm fine with giving an old sock the status as well.


(note, this is actually sarcasm - I would fight against personhood for anyone but people - I do find the term cheapened already though)

Now, the environment should be protected, but not through personhood.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guido Van Horn
United States
Othello
Washington
flag msg tools
I admit it, I killed her, I killed Yvette. I hated her so much
badge
Flames...flames on the side of my face...breathing...breathle...heaving breathes
mbmbmbmbmb
xuzuthor wrote:
I am not in support of giving personhood to anyone but people, but if a corporation is given it that status, then I find the term so meaningless that I'm fine with giving an old sock the status as well.


I can understand someone arguing that corporations should not have all the rights granted a citizen or person, however I don't understand people who can't see why they couldn't be considered a person. No corporation exists solely as a piece of paper or autonomous entity. People are what makes corporations a meaningful thing. Those people have rights, and in the context of free speech those people arguably have just as much right as every person to argue and spread their ideas as anyone else.

It doesn't make sense to me that you find the "term so meaningless"
1 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
GuidoVanHorn wrote:
xuzuthor wrote:
I am not in support of giving personhood to anyone but people, but if a corporation is given it that status, then I find the term so meaningless that I'm fine with giving an old sock the status as well.


I can understand someone arguing that corporations should not have all the rights granted a citizen or person, however I don't understand people who can't see why they couldn't be considered a person. No corporation exists solely as a piece of paper or autonomous entity. People are what makes corporations a meaningful thing. Those people have rights, and in the context of free speech those people arguably have just as much right as every person to argue and spread their ideas as anyone else.

It doesn't make sense to me that you find the "term so meaningless"


Under th3 law each person in the nation and each oerson in the corporation has the same say in politics as each other person. Democracy.

If you give corporations political clout then each person with an influential interest in that corporstion now has 1+n influence, whereas individuaks not part of a corporation just have 1. So, unequal on the face of it.
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:
GuidoVanHorn wrote:
xuzuthor wrote:
I am not in support of giving personhood to anyone but people, but if a corporation is given it that status, then I find the term so meaningless that I'm fine with giving an old sock the status as well.


I can understand someone arguing that corporations should not have all the rights granted a citizen or person, however I don't understand people who can't see why they couldn't be considered a person. No corporation exists solely as a piece of paper or autonomous entity. People are what makes corporations a meaningful thing. Those people have rights, and in the context of free speech those people arguably have just as much right as every person to argue and spread their ideas as anyone else.

It doesn't make sense to me that you find the "term so meaningless"


Under th3 law each person in the nation and each oerson in the corporation has the same say in politics as each other person. Democracy.

If you give corporations political clout then each person with an influential interest in that corporstion now has 1+n influence, whereas individuaks not part of a corporation just have 1. So, unequal on the face of it.


Also frequently the corporate power is controlled by only a few members of the corporation and may be actively working against the interests of half the employees.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
Shadrach wrote:
GuidoVanHorn wrote:
xuzuthor wrote:
I am not in support of giving personhood to anyone but people, but if a corporation is given it that status, then I find the term so meaningless that I'm fine with giving an old sock the status as well.


I can understand someone arguing that corporations should not have all the rights granted a citizen or person, however I don't understand people who can't see why they couldn't be considered a person. No corporation exists solely as a piece of paper or autonomous entity. People are what makes corporations a meaningful thing. Those people have rights, and in the context of free speech those people arguably have just as much right as every person to argue and spread their ideas as anyone else.

It doesn't make sense to me that you find the "term so meaningless"


Under th3 law each person in the nation and each oerson in the corporation has the same say in politics as each other person. Democracy.

If you give corporations political clout then each person with an influential interest in that corporstion now has 1+n influence, whereas individuaks not part of a corporation just have 1. So, unequal on the face of it.


Also frequently the corporate power is controlled by only a few members of the corporation and may be actively working against the interests of half the employees.


Hence the term influential interest
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mb
Shadrach wrote:


If you give corporations political clout then each person with an influential interest in that corporstion now has 1+n influence, whereas individuaks not part of a corporation just have 1. So, unequal on the face of it.


So, exactly like unions then?


Ferret
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
Shadrach wrote:


If you give corporations political clout then each person with an influential interest in that corporstion now has 1+n influence, whereas individuaks not part of a corporation just have 1. So, unequal on the face of it.


So, exactly like unions then?


Ferret


Not at all.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
windsagio wrote:
I think it's a funny play on corporate personhood.


I don't think it's funny nor do I think it is remotely related to corporate personhood. This appears to be a quasi spiritual approach to environmental protection in which real people (i.e. human beings) can ultimately be considered as nothing more than tenants. Who will be the guardians of these ultimately inscrutable and silent "people"? What powers will the guardians have or take upon themselves in the wholly quest of preserving their charges?

I generally support environmental protection but this is just creepy.

GuidoVanHorn wrote:
xuzuthor wrote:
I am not in support of giving personhood to anyone but people, but if a corporation is given it that status, then I find the term so meaningless that I'm fine with giving an old sock the status as well.


I can understand someone arguing that corporations should not have all the rights granted a citizen or person, however I don't understand people who can't see why they couldn't be considered a person. No corporation exists solely as a piece of paper or autonomous entity. People are what makes corporations a meaningful thing. Those people have rights, and in the context of free speech those people arguably have just as much right as every person to argue and spread their ideas as anyone else.

It doesn't make sense to me that you find the "term so meaningless"


[A] person lives, breathes, feels pain, grows, matures, loves, has empathy procreates (maybe) and eventually dies. If a human being makes an error and suffers consequences, they mostly adapt and move on or, if a criminal act they serve time or pay fines.

A corporation is exactly a piece of paper. A legal fiction. They exist , largely, to allow the explosive growth of wealth without the liability suffered by individuals. They are created rather than born and they don't die.

Here are some principle differences. First, corporations have no principles. They are bound by no obligation or code beyond the enrichment of their shareholders as expressed by the board of trustees and the CEO. They owe no obligation to any parent, teacher, pastor or child. Their cold and amoral obligation is solely to the maximally efficient enrichment of their owners. They can be sued easily by shareholders for failing to generate those returns but, compliance with any other external regulation is one of only grudging compliance rather than any feeling of societal responsibility. Directors and board members come and go along with managing agents who generally hop from job to job in search of higher paychecks or bonuses wit little sense of long term loyalty or vision.

Second, a corporation has no liability..not in any conventional sense. The individuals who make the most impactful decisions are usually shielded from the negative consequences of their decisions. Accidents, injuries, deaths may generate some monetary cost to a corporation, often limited by the forces of "tort reform" or concealed by non disclosure agreements, bot the decision makers often face no responsibility whatsoever and even are allowed to glide away on parachutes of gold while pensions are crashed. In the somewhat rare case where criminal liability is assessed, it is the sacrificial goat that goes to prison while the corporation itself fills the slot of the convicted with someone new and moves on having wiped its hands of the offense.

Corporations don't sit in jail cells for selling drugs that kill people or for poisoning rivers or crashing oil tankers or building bridges out of bad concrete that then collapse or...you get the picture. They don't feel remorse or grieve. They have no parental instinct to protect or teach or even to create jobs in their own back yard.

Third, and this is really more subtle, a corporation is made up of many people all at once. Those people are not one person. They are many with different values and different voices and different needs. They come and go. They are managers, employees, owners, customers, suppliers and so on. Thinking that you can unify all of this into one coherent voice as with any other "person" is a silly notion. If a corporation is a person, then so is a club, a political party, a town, a city, a nation or why not say the whole planetary population is "a person".

The fiction of corporate personhood is useful to have a name in which to secure loans, sign contracts, issue debt and equity instruments and for legal suits. It was never meant to become synonymous with an actual person.


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guido Van Horn
United States
Othello
Washington
flag msg tools
I admit it, I killed her, I killed Yvette. I hated her so much
badge
Flames...flames on the side of my face...breathing...breathle...heaving breathes
mbmbmbmbmb
Rulesjd wrote:
windsagio wrote:
I think it's a funny play on corporate personhood.


I don't think it's funny nor do I think it is remotely related to corporate personhood. This appears to be a quasi spiritual approach to environmental protection in which real people (i.e. human beings) can ultimately be considered as nothing more than tenants. Who will be the guardians of these ultimately inscrutable and silent "people"? What powers will the guardians have or take upon themselves in the wholly quest of preserving their charges?

I generally support environmental protection but this is just creepy.

GuidoVanHorn wrote:
xuzuthor wrote:
I am not in support of giving personhood to anyone but people, but if a corporation is given it that status, then I find the term so meaningless that I'm fine with giving an old sock the status as well.


I can understand someone arguing that corporations should not have all the rights granted a citizen or person, however I don't understand people who can't see why they couldn't be considered a person. No corporation exists solely as a piece of paper or autonomous entity. People are what makes corporations a meaningful thing. Those people have rights, and in the context of free speech those people arguably have just as much right as every person to argue and spread their ideas as anyone else.

It doesn't make sense to me that you find the "term so meaningless"


[A] person lives, breathes, feels pain, grows, matures, loves, has empathy procreates (maybe) and eventually dies. If a human being makes an error and suffers consequences, they mostly adapt and move on or, if a criminal act they serve time or pay fines.

A corporation is exactly a piece of paper. A legal fiction. They exist , largely, to allow the explosive growth of wealth without the liability suffered by individuals. They are created rather than born and they don't die.

Here are some principle differences. First, corporations have no principles. They are bound by no obligation or code beyond the enrichment of their shareholders as expressed by the board of trustees and the CEO. They owe no obligation to any parent, teacher, pastor or child. Their cold and amoral obligation is solely to the maximally efficient enrichment of their owners. They can be sued easily by shareholders for failing to generate those returns but, compliance with any other external regulation is one of only grudging compliance rather than any feeling of societal responsibility. Directors and board members come and go along with managing agents who generally hop from job to job in search of higher paychecks or bonuses wit little sense of long term loyalty or vision.

Second, a corporation has no liability..not in any conventional sense. The individuals who make the most impactful decisions are usually shielded from the negative consequences of their decisions. Accidents, injuries, deaths may generate some monetary cost to a corporation, often limited by the forces of "tort reform" or concealed by non disclosure agreements, bot the decision makers often face no responsibility whatsoever and even are allowed to glide away on parachutes of gold while pensions are crashed. In the somewhat rare case where criminal liability is assessed, it is the sacrificial goat that goes to prison while the corporation itself fills the slot of the convicted with someone new and moves on having wiped its hands of the offense.

Corporations don't sit in jail cells for selling drugs that kill people or for poisoning rivers or crashing oil tankers or building bridges out of bad concrete that then collapse or...you get the picture. They don't feel remorse or grieve. They have no parental instinct to protect or teach or even to create jobs in their own back yard.

Third, and this is really more subtle, a corporation is made up of many people all at once. Those people are not one person. They are many with different values and different voices and different needs. They come and go. They are managers, employees, owners, customers, suppliers and so on. Thinking that you can unify all of this into one coherent voice as with any other "person" is a silly notion. If a corporation is a person, then so is a club, a political party, a town, a city, a nation or why not say the whole planetary population is "a person".

The fiction of corporate personhood is useful to have a name in which to secure loans, sign contracts, issue debt and equity instruments and for legal suits. It was never meant to become synonymous with an actual person.




You make some valid points but get exactly wrong the conclusion that is most closely aligned to corporate personhood in today's political climate and that is in the context of Citizens United and more importantly free speech as a general guideline.

You hit the core of it then go in the wrong direction IMHO...corporations are a collective of people, that collective of people have interests that each individual could theoretically and in my opinion should be allowed to speak out about. The CEO or board could act in the worst interest of the collective, but they actually have incentives not to, why do we get pissy when a corporation uses resources to advocate their positions?

You have a jaded sense of corporations and mostly think of mega corps but ignore the hundred of thousands of small corporations that exist, that do not fit your jaded worldview.

I feel you are misplacing the concern of influence with the primary importance that free speech is powerful and we are better when that is not infringed upon. I don't think, they are better or more capable at getting their message out is a good enough reason to mess with that.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
GuidoVanHorn wrote:


[q="GuidoVanHorn"]



You make some valid points but get exactly wrong the conclusion that is most closely aligned to corporate personhood in today's political climate and that is in the context of Citizens United and more importantly free speech as a general guideline.

You hit the core of it then go in the wrong direction IMHO...corporations are a collective of people, that collective of people have interests that each individual could theoretically and in my opinion should be allowed to speak out about. The CEO or board could act in the worst interest of the collective, but they actually have incentives not to, why do we get pissy when a corporation uses resources to advocate their positions?

You have a jaded sense of corporations and mostly think of mega corps but ignore the hundred of thousands of small corporations that exist, that do not fit your jaded worldview.

I feel you are misplacing the concern of influence with the primary importance that free speech is powerful and we are better when that is not infringed upon. I don't think, they are better or more capable at getting their message out is a good enough reason to mess with that.


You are entitled to your opinion.

I am not against corporations speaking per se. I am against defining them as persons in particular. It is short sighted to think this has implications only as to political speech. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it can't go back. If a corporation is a person as to speech it is a person in all other respects. Less enlightened politicians in our future combined with some rubber stamp jurists could see recent decisions as the groundwork to contort all manner of absurd results now that corporations are people too.

If a corporation is a person what additional rights or entitlements might it have beyond speech?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guido Van Horn
United States
Othello
Washington
flag msg tools
I admit it, I killed her, I killed Yvette. I hated her so much
badge
Flames...flames on the side of my face...breathing...breathle...heaving breathes
mbmbmbmbmb
Rulesjd wrote:
GuidoVanHorn wrote:


[q="GuidoVanHorn"]



You make some valid points but get exactly wrong the conclusion that is most closely aligned to corporate personhood in today's political climate and that is in the context of Citizens United and more importantly free speech as a general guideline.

You hit the core of it then go in the wrong direction IMHO...corporations are a collective of people, that collective of people have interests that each individual could theoretically and in my opinion should be allowed to speak out about. The CEO or board could act in the worst interest of the collective, but they actually have incentives not to, why do we get pissy when a corporation uses resources to advocate their positions?

You have a jaded sense of corporations and mostly think of mega corps but ignore the hundred of thousands of small corporations that exist, that do not fit your jaded worldview.

I feel you are misplacing the concern of influence with the primary importance that free speech is powerful and we are better when that is not infringed upon. I don't think, they are better or more capable at getting their message out is a good enough reason to mess with that.


You are entitled to your opinion.

I am not against corporations speaking per se. I am against defining them as persons in particular. It is short sighted to think this has implications only as to political speech. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it can't go back. If a corporation is a person as to speech it is a person in all other respects. Less enlightened politicians in our future combined with some rubber stamp jurists could see recent decisions as the groundwork to contort all manner of absurd results now that corporations are people too.

If a corporation is a person what additional rights or entitlements might it have beyond speech?


I don't know, what rights are you worried about? It seems that implication would make them more liable for bad behavior.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
フィル
Australia
Ashfield
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
Pushing a lesbian old growth union-approved agenda since '94.
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
Shadrach wrote:


If you give corporations political clout then each person with an influential interest in that corporstion now has 1+n influence, whereas individuaks not part of a corporation just have 1. So, unequal on the face of it.


So, exactly like unions then?


Ferret

For the purposes of this thread, sure. I would also oppose treating a union as a person.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
フィル
Australia
Ashfield
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
Pushing a lesbian old growth union-approved agenda since '94.
mbmbmbmbmb
GuidoVanHorn wrote:
I don't know, what rights are you worried about? It seems that implication would make them more liable for bad behavior.

The whole point of (e.g.) an LLC is to limit liability, so treating one as a person simply gives them more rights without the matching responsibility.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guido Van Horn
United States
Othello
Washington
flag msg tools
I admit it, I killed her, I killed Yvette. I hated her so much
badge
Flames...flames on the side of my face...breathing...breathle...heaving breathes
mbmbmbmbmb
sbszine wrote:
GuidoVanHorn wrote:
I don't know, what rights are you worried about? It seems that implication would make them more liable for bad behavior.

The whole point of (e.g.) an LLC is to limit liability, so treating one as a person simply gives them more rights without the matching responsibility.


But that limited liability isn't a universal limiting...it isn't as though there are no repercussions to crap that goes down with corporations. It also doesn't entirely shield individual leaders from criminal repercussions for illegal acts. There are some classic and well known instances where we have failed to prosecute, but there are some specific reasons that none of us are entirely qualified to speak on.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
GuidoVanHorn wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:
GuidoVanHorn wrote:


[q="GuidoVanHorn"]



You make some valid points but get exactly wrong the conclusion that is most closely aligned to corporate personhood in today's political climate and that is in the context of Citizens United and more importantly free speech as a general guideline.

You hit the core of it then go in the wrong direction IMHO...corporations are a collective of people, that collective of people have interests that each individual could theoretically and in my opinion should be allowed to speak out about. The CEO or board could act in the worst interest of the collective, but they actually have incentives not to, why do we get pissy when a corporation uses resources to advocate their positions?

You have a jaded sense of corporations and mostly think of mega corps but ignore the hundred of thousands of small corporations that exist, that do not fit your jaded worldview.

I feel you are misplacing the concern of influence with the primary importance that free speech is powerful and we are better when that is not infringed upon. I don't think, they are better or more capable at getting their message out is a good enough reason to mess with that.


You are entitled to your opinion.

I am not against corporations speaking per se. I am against defining them as persons in particular. It is short sighted to think this has implications only as to political speech. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it can't go back. If a corporation is a person as to speech it is a person in all other respects. Less enlightened politicians in our future combined with some rubber stamp jurists could see recent decisions as the groundwork to contort all manner of absurd results now that corporations are people too.

If a corporation is a person what additional rights or entitlements might it have beyond speech?


I don't know, what rights are you worried about? It seems that implication would make them more liable for bad behavior.


Does a corporation have a right to bear arms? What kind? It's self defense is a much bigger job than a family home. Maybe SAM's on the roof top corners would be reasonable? Pillboxes in the foundation?

Does it have the right to counsel? Should the states or US government pick up the tab when going after corporations for violating anti trust laws or creating environmental disasters?

Why can't corporations vote? As persons, they should get a voice in the voting booth.

How can a corporation be both a person and be "owned" by shareholders? Isn't that slavery? Perhaps all corporations should have court appointed guardians to protect their assets and to prevent them being bought and sold, as in hostile takeovers.

Oh, and if they are people, why don't they pay income taxes? Don't they benefit from military protection, the court system and all of our state and national infrastructure?

Silly arguments? No more than considering a paper construct to be a person. Or a tree.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guido Van Horn
United States
Othello
Washington
flag msg tools
I admit it, I killed her, I killed Yvette. I hated her so much
badge
Flames...flames on the side of my face...breathing...breathle...heaving breathes
mbmbmbmbmb
Rulesjd wrote:
GuidoVanHorn wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:
GuidoVanHorn wrote:


[q="GuidoVanHorn"]



You make some valid points but get exactly wrong the conclusion that is most closely aligned to corporate personhood in today's political climate and that is in the context of Citizens United and more importantly free speech as a general guideline.

You hit the core of it then go in the wrong direction IMHO...corporations are a collective of people, that collective of people have interests that each individual could theoretically and in my opinion should be allowed to speak out about. The CEO or board could act in the worst interest of the collective, but they actually have incentives not to, why do we get pissy when a corporation uses resources to advocate their positions?

You have a jaded sense of corporations and mostly think of mega corps but ignore the hundred of thousands of small corporations that exist, that do not fit your jaded worldview.

I feel you are misplacing the concern of influence with the primary importance that free speech is powerful and we are better when that is not infringed upon. I don't think, they are better or more capable at getting their message out is a good enough reason to mess with that.


You are entitled to your opinion.

I am not against corporations speaking per se. I am against defining them as persons in particular. It is short sighted to think this has implications only as to political speech. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it can't go back. If a corporation is a person as to speech it is a person in all other respects. Less enlightened politicians in our future combined with some rubber stamp jurists could see recent decisions as the groundwork to contort all manner of absurd results now that corporations are people too.

If a corporation is a person what additional rights or entitlements might it have beyond speech?


I don't know, what rights are you worried about? It seems that implication would make them more liable for bad behavior.


Does a corporation have a right to bear arms? What kind? It's self defense is a much bigger job than a family home. Maybe SAM's on the roof top corners would be reasonable? Pillboxes in the foundation?

Does it have the right to counsel? Should the states or US government pick up the tab when going after corporations for violating anti trust laws or creating environmental disasters?

Why can't corporations vote? As persons, they should get a voice in the voting booth.

How can a corporation be both a person and be "owned" by shareholders? Isn't that slavery? Perhaps all corporations should have court appointed guardians to protect their assets and to prevent them being bought and sold, as in hostile takeovers.

Oh, and if they are people, why don't they pay income taxes? Don't they benefit from military protection, the court system and all of our state and national infrastructure?

Silly arguments? No more than considering a paper construct to be a person. Or a tree.


Bear arms, yes (purchasing arms for their own security seems a no-brainer)
Counsel, yes (under the same indigent guidelines provided to individuals)
Voting, no (the fundamental nature of voting would preclude this use)

We could talk a lot about corporate taxes...but you aren't seriously arguing that corporations don't pay taxes are you? Some will do things to avoid them, and we could argue about how the tax code should be adjusted, but corporations pay taxes.

Everything else you brought up were in fact silly arguments, that I will not discuss.


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
GuidoVanHorn wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:
GuidoVanHorn wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:
GuidoVanHorn wrote:


[q="GuidoVanHorn"]



You make some valid points but get exactly wrong the conclusion that is most closely aligned to corporate personhood in today's political climate and that is in the context of Citizens United and more importantly free speech as a general guideline.

You hit the core of it then go in the wrong direction IMHO...corporations are a collective of people, that collective of people have interests that each individual could theoretically and in my opinion should be allowed to speak out about. The CEO or board could act in the worst interest of the collective, but they actually have incentives not to, why do we get pissy when a corporation uses resources to advocate their positions?

You have a jaded sense of corporations and mostly think of mega corps but ignore the hundred of thousands of small corporations that exist, that do not fit your jaded worldview.

I feel you are misplacing the concern of influence with the primary importance that free speech is powerful and we are better when that is not infringed upon. I don't think, they are better or more capable at getting their message out is a good enough reason to mess with that.


You are entitled to your opinion.

I am not against corporations speaking per se. I am against defining them as persons in particular. It is short sighted to think this has implications only as to political speech. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it can't go back. If a corporation is a person as to speech it is a person in all other respects. Less enlightened politicians in our future combined with some rubber stamp jurists could see recent decisions as the groundwork to contort all manner of absurd results now that corporations are people too.

If a corporation is a person what additional rights or entitlements might it have beyond speech?


I don't know, what rights are you worried about? It seems that implication would make them more liable for bad behavior.


Does a corporation have a right to bear arms? What kind? It's self defense is a much bigger job than a family home. Maybe SAM's on the roof top corners would be reasonable? Pillboxes in the foundation?

Does it have the right to counsel? Should the states or US government pick up the tab when going after corporations for violating anti trust laws or creating environmental disasters?

Why can't corporations vote? As persons, they should get a voice in the voting booth.

How can a corporation be both a person and be "owned" by shareholders? Isn't that slavery? Perhaps all corporations should have court appointed guardians to protect their assets and to prevent them being bought and sold, as in hostile takeovers.

Oh, and if they are people, why don't they pay income taxes? Don't they benefit from military protection, the court system and all of our state and national infrastructure?

Silly arguments? No more than considering a paper construct to be a person. Or a tree.


Bear arms, yes (purchasing arms for their own security seems a no-brainer)
Counsel, yes (under the same indigent guidelines provided to individuals)
Voting, no (the fundamental nature of voting would preclude this use)

We could talk a lot about corporate taxes...but you aren't seriously arguing that corporations don't pay taxes are you? Some will do things to avoid them, and we could argue about how the tax code should be adjusted, but corporations pay taxes.

Everything else you brought up were in fact silly arguments, that I will not discuss.




History has a way of turning silly arguments into nightmarish realities. That's why quality judges are so important rather than rubber stamp ideologues. No one could have envisioned a successful Trump campaign last year, especially one in which he was so inflammatory. However, given the success in his base and his legions of apologists and I'll bet you he could find some jurists that would make my points seem pedestrian.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
BJ
United States
Eau Claire
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
You are full of poisonous refuse and insane foolishness.
badge
I had not supposed or expected your arrogant spirit to seek such a ridiculous and childish reason for lying; you should have better reasons.
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
I am waiting for socks to be people. I have socks with holes in them and once socks gain personhood, then I can request government funding to get mine mended.


Is that a Mormon joke?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
BJ
United States
Eau Claire
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
You are full of poisonous refuse and insane foolishness.
badge
I had not supposed or expected your arrogant spirit to seek such a ridiculous and childish reason for lying; you should have better reasons.
mbmbmbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
Shadrach wrote:


If you give corporations political clout then each person with an influential interest in that corporstion now has 1+n influence, whereas individuaks not part of a corporation just have 1. So, unequal on the face of it.


So, exactly like unions then?


Ferret


Not at all.


And there's where you turn into a silly hypocrite.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.