If Corporations are people...

124678

Replies

  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Piercing the corporate veil? Yeah, that's an argument. But you would need BD or Pio to answer it as that's not really my area.

    Here's a good explanation. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/28/1287909/-Papantonio-Hobby-Lobby-Is-DOA?detail=email
    Very interesting to learn that no one has filed a single Amicus brief in support of Hobby Lobby.
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    You'll get there. Just let this disaster play out for a few years.

    And we'll all be the better for it. Ridiculous what we pay for 2nd rate medical care.
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,265 Senior Member
    dryflie wrote: »
    Here's a good explanation. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/28/1287909/-Papantonio-Hobby-Lobby-Is-DOA?detail=email
    Very interesting to learn that no one has filed a single Amicus brief in support of Hobby Lobby.

    That is where I got the idea. I am just loathe to link Daily Kos.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Why no amicus curiae briefs? Because this doesn't matter.

    I can't think of one management team I know that would care whether their company had religious rights - that's a lot different than using corporate cash in politics. Even if they were interested, I doubt any would would think it worth it to be identified as such - certainly not in a world where villification can happen as fast as a person can tweet and left and right wing groups are ready to call for a boycott at the drop of a hat.

    Even if there were no implications to the corporate veil (and I'm not sure if there are or not), if I'm the CoC or IBM management, I stay as far away from this as possible. There's no way this helps my company and can only hurt it.
  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Why no amicus curiae briefs? Because this doesn't matter.

    I can't think of one management team I know that would care whether their company had religious rights - that's a lot different than using corporate cash in politics. Even if they were interested, I doubt any would would think it worth it to be identified as such - certainly not in a world where villification can happen as fast as a person can tweet and left and right wing groups are ready to call for a boycott at the drop of a hat.

    Even if there were no implications to the corporate veil (and I'm not sure if there are or not), if I'm the CoC or IBM management, I stay as far away from this as possible. There's no way this helps my company and can only hurt it.

    I agree with your slant on this issue Steven. You're correct as far as it goes but there may also be the possibility that a lack of support for the position is also a fear of the long term implications. Just how real is the danger to corporations that the protection of individuals is threatened by a decision in favor of HobbyGodLobby?

    I personally find it truly incredible that in 2014 we are as a nation debating the role of religion in corporate life and in our schools. I may be wrong but I believe this nation is on a long regressive slide heading back to the 19th century. Intellectually we're heading for 3rd world territory. Why is this happening? Because smart conservatives like you are willing to tolerate and accept this element of your party in order to promote and support the fiscal positions of the GOP. I find even those positions questionable but at least they are rational.
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,265 Senior Member
    dryflie wrote: »
    Just how real is the danger to corporations that the protection of individuals is threatened by a decision in favor of HobbyGodLobby?

    According to Brian not very. I suspected as much.

    Which is why I didn't link the article. Chuck Schultz is the Sean Hannity of the left.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,265 Senior Member
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    dryflie wrote: »
    I personally find it truly incredible that in 2014 we are as a nation debating the role of religion in corporate life and in our schools. I may be wrong but I believe this nation is on a long regressive slide heading back to the 19th century. Intellectually we're heading for 3rd world territory. Why is this happening? Because smart conservatives like you are willing to tolerate and accept this element of your party in order to promote and support the fiscal positions of the GOP. I find even those positions questionable but at least they are rational.

    Personally, I'd be happy with a real, and reasonable, Libertarian Party but that simply isn't going to happen. Here's how I've always summarized the domestic policies of the two parties:

    Democrats: Want to mess with my business life but will leave my personal life alone.
    Republicans: Want to mess with private life but leave my business life alone.

    I'll choose the latter over the former.

    Just to be clear here, I don't consider Hobby Lobby a debate about the role of religion in corporate life. To me, Hobby Lobby is a debate about how much, if any, rights are given up by an individual based on how he or she chooses to assemble. I see no difference between Hobby Lobby or Citizens United. They're the same issue.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,265 Senior Member
    See and I think the founders were not just intent on protecting our individual rights from government and but also corporations. I believe they would also be appalled by urine testing in the work place. We have given corporations way too much power over our individual liberties.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • I would doubt it. They were all wealthy men - business owner's, land owner's and, in many cases, slave owner's. If they had any problems with corporations, it would have been the granting of monopolies, by the Crown.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,265 Senior Member
    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/06/09/founding-fathers/
    For those who need more evidence, how about statements from the founding fathers themselves. As we all know, big banks are also considered corporations and here is what Thomas Jefferson thought about them. In an 1802 letter to Secretary of State Albert Gallatin, Jefferson said,

    “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

    Thomas Jefferson, one of the most prominent founding fathers, also said this in 1816,

    “I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
    John Adams also had an opinion.

    “Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.”

    Individual liberty should be protected from all that would take it away.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • Retro-quotes Comic. Check out Monticello.com

    http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/private-banks-quotation

    Clue #1: the words inflation and deflation didn't enter the vernacular until after the Civil War
    Clue #2: You're quoting something called "addicting info."
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,265 Senior Member
    Well thanks.

    However I stand by the principle that if rights are inalienable, they cannot be taken away by governments or pseudo-governments. Individual liberty trumps all other interests.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • I'm glad we agree.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,265 Senior Member
    I don't think we do. You seem to believe that the corporation's rights supercede those of the individual. That the individual concedes some element of their privacy as an aspect of their employment. So I do not see much agreement here. In my mind what happens when I am not at work is none of the business of my employer. I get to make my healthcare decisions whether that healthcare is paid for by myself or my employer. They do not have the right to violate my fourth and fifth amendment rights just because they provide me a paycheck for services I dutifully provided them in exchange.

    But here is an interesting article I found on the Monticello site.

    http://www.monticello.org/site/blog-and-community/posts/pursuing-their-happiness
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • I don't think we do. You seem to believe that the corporation's rights supercede those of the individual. That the individual concedes some element of their privacy as an aspect of their employment. So I do not see much agreement here. In my mind what happens when I am not at work is none of the business of my employer. I get to make my healthcare decisions whether that healthcare is paid for by myself or my employer. They do not have the right to violate my fourth and fifth amendment rights just because they provide me a paycheck for services I dutifully provided them in exchange.

    But here is an interesting article I found on the Monticello site.

    http://www.monticello.org/site/blog-and-community/posts/pursuing-their-happiness

    Not really an interesting article. As we now know, Jefferson didn't have much to say about corporations or his views thereon (although he was a governor William and Mary in the first corporate personhood case). As soon as the author stated that Jefferson was a well-known corporate critic, I was done.

    I do not believe corporate rights supercede those of the individual. I believe that the rights of a corporation (or any assemblage of people) are the same as those of individuals. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this example but here it is:

    You and I have a partnership selling widgets. The partnership makes $500,000 per year and we each take a $250,000 cut at the end of the year. We both like Hillary Clinton and we each donate $10,000 to the Hillary2016 PAC.

    You and I have a limited liability corporation selling widgets. The corporation makes $500,000. We pay ourselves dividends at the end of the year of $240,000 per person and the corporation donates $20,000 to the Hillary2016 PAC.

    What's the difference?

    As for employment practices (Which have never been discussed here btw with regards to drug testing), let me ask you a question: Would you think it unconstitutional if, when you're done with school, an employer asked you for your transcipts and refused to hire you unless you provided them?
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,265 Senior Member
    How is that a violation of my 4th and 5th amendment rights. I am being asked to verify information I provided as to my qualifications for employment. But to be honest, I don't think they should have the right to ask for anything more than my diploma.

    BTW none of what you brought up as examples has anything to do with the fact that I have a right to do with a benefit I earned as I please without your interference. What happens at the doctor's office or what medical services a third party is paying for is none of your business.

    BTW this is not limited to drug testing. They are also allowing corporations to fire people for engaging in legal activities after work such as using tobacco. This is not right and it is an overreach.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,265 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    As soon as the author stated that Jefferson was a well-known corporate critic, I was done.

    Well then you missed out because he actually went on to discuss policies that Jefferson pursued as President to make his case. Unless you think the Louisiana Purchase is in dispute.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • How is that a violation of my 4th and 5th amendment rights. I am being asked to verify information I provided as to my qualifications for employment. But to be honest, I don't think they should have the right to ask for anything more than my diploma.

    BTW none of what you brought up as examples has anything to do with the fact that I have a right to do with a benefit I earned as I please without your interference. What happens at the doctor's office or what medical services a third party is paying for is none of your business.

    BTW this is not limited to drug testing. They are also allowing corporations to fire people for engaging in legal activities after work such as using tobacco. This is not right and it is an overreach.

    I don't know of anything regarding the usage of tobacco, so I'll just ignore this.

    1) Drug testing is not a violation of your 4th and 5th amendment rights. The 4th and 5th amendments are protections in criminal proceedings. The 4th amendment protects you from an unreasonable search from a governmental agent without a warrant being issued. The 5th amendment protects you from having to testify against yourself in a criminal proceeding.

    2) Even if it the 4th and 5th amendments did apply, I'd have a hard time agreeing that this would be an unreasonable search. I think it would be very reasonable to know about an applicants drug use as that could very well affect his or her performance on the job. Employers have a very valid interest in this.

    3) It isn't a question of whether you have a right to do with a benefit as you see fit. It is first a question of what kind of rights a corporation has. Second, if a corporation has the right to freedom of exercise, it is then a question of whether or not public policy concerns trump freedom of exercise. Third, its a question of whether the rule is least intrusive as possible.

    Amish rules forbade Amish businesses from paying unemployment and social security taxes. The Supreme Court said they had to otherwise public policy would be undermined, thus there was a compelling interest. On the other hand, the Court ruled that Santeria ritual slaughter could not be banned as there was no compelling interest on the part of the city of Hialeah to do so.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,265 Senior Member
    Corporate rights do not supersede the rights of the individual. To think otherwise is just batchit crazy. Even with a corporation I should retain both a presumption of innocence and privacy. I don't care what they think their compelling interest is to violate my rights. If you cannot figure out in an interview or by looking at my work history that I am a drug addict, then you are an idiot.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • We don't give up our rights by incorporating. There is no difference between the corporations right and the individuals as corporations are made up of individuals. To think otherwise is batshit crazy.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,265 Senior Member
    And you retain every right you have as an individual. Saying corporations cannot take away an individuals right has no effect whatsoever on the rights of the members of that corporation. What you want are special rights. Otherwise every member of McDonald's board would have to do time for theft.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • And you retain every right you have as an individual. Saying corporations cannot take away an individuals right has no effect whatsoever on the rights of the members of that corporation. What you want are special rights. Otherwise every member of McDonald's board would have to do time for theft.

    I retain those rights in an assembly, no matter how I choose to assemble.

    The fact that corporations are granted limited liability doesn't change this. If these rights were not granted by the State, I could negotiate the same rights in the open market. Elon Musk could easily right up a contract that says if you want buy a Tesla, you cannot sue him for amounts greater than his investment in Tesla Motors.
  • Here's a question for everybody.

    Let's assume I was ultra-orthodox (they're like Catholics. Sex is for procreation). I want to start Steven's Kosher Deli, LLC. The government mandates that I have to provide contraceptive coverage as part of a mandatory health insurance package that I must provide my employees.

    Should I have to choose between starting a business or staying true to my religious beliefs?
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 10,007 Senior Member
    That would be a pretty big deli to reach the mandated coverage stage. At that point I think your rights as an employer are less clear, and more limited than had you a half dozen or so people working for you.

    Analagous to your argument, Rastafarians (outside of Colorado:)) ought to be able freely to use the Sacred Weed while worshiping Hallie Selassie, and cults believing in sacramental human sacrifice ought to be allowed to carry on with the state's blessing.

    But to return to the "corporations are people" issue, corporate person hood long has been understood to be a artifice designed to ease various legal and administrative procedures that did not endow the corporation with all the rights of individuals. Can corporations register to vote? Can they obtain abortions? Can they enlist in the armed forces?

    More to the point, can they marry whom they choose without Federal regulatory approval, donate organs, drive a car or attend public schools?

    Bill Moyer's famous quip about Texas executing one is founded in traditional case law.

    The reactionary "political activists" (a favorite rightie term) on the court overturned a century or more of jurisprudence in a decision that is unjust, evil and simply wrong.

    This decision eventually will be replaced by another, and in my view it is the Dredd Scott case of our age. Thomas, Scalia and crew will be viewed with the same scorn enjoyed by Chief Justice Taney,
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • ouzelproouzelpro Senior Member Posts: 5,361 Senior Member
    I come for the straw man arguments. Steven is the straw man Mensch!
  • George K wrote: »
    That would be a pretty big deli to reach the mandated coverage stage. At that point I think your rights as an employer are less clear, and more limited than had you a half dozen or so people working for you.

    Sure, but there's nothing, according to John Roberts, that would stop the Government from extending it to anybody that employs someone else. So, this reply just dodges the real question.


    George K wrote: »
    Analagous to your argument, Rastafarians (outside of Colorado:)) ought to be able freely to use the Sacred Weed while worshiping Hallie Selassie, and cults believing in sacramental human sacrifice ought to be allowed to carry on with the state's blessing.

    Given Colorado, I don't know what the answer is with regard to Rastas, but the SCOTUS found that the government had a compelling interest in not allowing Plains Indians to use peyote. The same would go for human sacrifice.
    George K wrote: »
    But to return to the "corporations are people" issue, corporate person hood long has been understood to be a artifice designed to ease various legal and administrative procedures that did not endow the corporation with all the rights of individuals. Can corporations register to vote? Can they obtain abortions? Can they enlist in the armed forces? [/Qoute]

    Can a partnership? Yet no one is arguing that a partnership doesn't have the same rights as a natural person? What's so special about the corporate form?

    George K wrote: »
    Bill Moyer's famous quip about Texas executing one is founded in traditional case law.

    Know any former accountants from Arthur Andersen?


    George K wrote: »
    The reactionary "political activists" (a favorite rightie term) on the court overturned a century or more of jurisprudence in a decision that is unjust, evil and simply wrong.

    This decision eventually will be replaced by another, and in my view it is the Dredd Scott case of our age. Thomas, Scalia and crew will be viewed with the same scorn enjoyed by Chief Justice Taney,

    Maybe. Who knows.
  • ouzelpro wrote: »
    I come for the straw man arguments. Steven is the straw man Mensch!

    You like that? I'll admit it's got some hay on it, but it's not like it's that extreme. There are chasidic deli owners, after all (as well as strict Catholics and Born Again Protestants that do start companies).
  • And...we're done here.

    It's like Godwin's Law.
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,214 Senior Member
    ****, I wanted to hear more about this Deli you're gonna open!!

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.