Corporations are People?

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why do you think the ACLU is "not people"?

Why is it that the "corporations are not people" fanatics cannot answer a simple question like this? Why is it so important for you to belch out this slogan, and yet you can't begin to explain what it means?

 

[ZiprHead]

Another idiotic "gotcha" by Lumpy.

There's sixteen pages of explanation you've rejected because of "reasons". I don't think another explanation will help you understand it.

Which also make your signature quite ironic.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Another idiotic "gotcha" by Lumpy.

There's sixteen pages of explanation you've rejected because of "reasons". I don't think another explanation will help you understand it.

Which also make your signature quite ironic.

And a "person" is a social construct to begin with. Nope, not "just the facts".

 

[NoHolyCows]

Why do you think the ACLU is "not people"?

Why is it that the "corporations are not people" fanatics cannot answer a simple question like this? Why is it so important for you to belch out this slogan, and yet you can't begin to explain what it means?

Lumpen, no one said “the ACLU has no rights.” Here’s the clean line, people are people; a corporation is a state-created vehicle. Fact, its treasury exists because the state grants privileges, limited liability, perpetual life, asset pooling. Therefore when that treasury is used to electioneer, the state may add guardrails, disclosure, coordination bans, source limits without stripping anyone’s speech. Translation, “corporations aren’t people” means we don’t turn an asset shield into a super-citizen. Want pure member speech? Use an opt-in, member-funded PAC: one person, one consent, no compelled subsidy. Stop blurring members’ rights with the entity’s privileges.

NHC

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

No one's giving an answer.

Is the ACLU "not people"? Yes or no. Don't pretend you're answering the question if you refuse to say simply:

The ACLU is not people; or

The ACLU is people, and so "corporations are not people" is false.

You have to say one or the other of these 2. The fact is that the ACLU is a corporation. So if "corporations are not people" is true, then the ACLU is "not people" like all other corporations are "not people."

So will anyone finally make the choice to be honest? Or will you just keep regurgitating your meaningless slogans?

Why don't you self-reflect, instead of blurting out your hate impulse against your imaginary "corporations" phantom. What is this deep hate which has become emblazened into your subconscious which forces you to burst out with these dog-whistles? Your problem is even worse than that of the Trumpsters.

 

[NoHolyCows]

No one's giving an answer.

Is the ACLU "not people"? Yes or no. Don't pretend you're answering the question if you refuse to say simply:

The ACLU is not people; or

The ACLU is people, and so "corporations are not people" is false.

You have to say one or the other of these 2. The fact is that the ACLU is a corporation. So if "corporations are not people" is true, then the ACLU is "not people" like all other corporations are "not people."

So will anyone finally make the choice to be honest? Or will you just keep regurgitating your meaningless slogans?

Why don't you self-reflect, instead of blurting out your hate impulse against your imaginary "corporations" phantom. What is this deep hate which has become emblazened into your subconscious which forces you to burst out with these dog-whistles? Your problem is even worse than that of the Trumpsters.

Yes answer, clean and final, the ACLU isn’t people. If you think it is, do any one thing with the ACLU itself and not its members, make it cast a ballot, swear an oath, or sit in a jail cell. You can’t. Legal personhood lets a paper entity own property and sue; it doesn’t turn a charter into a rights-bearing human. Members keep every ounce of speech; the charter doesn’t get a second mouth to pour money into elections.

NHC

 

[Colonel Sanders]

So here's the deal. Businesses need to transact (e.g. contracts). Shareholders need to be protected from personal liability, as do direct employees. The corporation itself is held responsible things like negligence rather than good ol' Aunt Alice in HR.

Let's say that Bill the truck driver gets drunk and kills someone while in the course and scope of his duty. A plaintiff can sue Bill personally, but the chances that Bill has dick-all with which to compensate the plaintiff is likely to be nil. Also, Bill still needs to make a living. You can't take such a percentage of Bill's paychecks to the extent that he can't support himself. Then he'd lose his job and the plaintiff gets nothing. Instead, the corporation is insured for things like this so that someone wronged is able to be compensated.

Bill, and CEOs and the like can be held criminally responsible as individuals (see Enron).

Corporate personhood is a real world practicality. You can shit on "The corporations, man!" but they employ tens of millions of people. Etc.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

 

[Toni]

View attachment 53119

No one's giving an answer.

Is the ACLU "not people"? Yes or no. Don't pretend you're answering the question if you refuse to say simply:

The ACLU is not people; or

The ACLU is people, and so "corporations are not people" is false.

You have to say one or the other of these 2. The fact is that the ACLU is a corporation. So if "corporations are not people" is true, then the ACLU is "not people" like all other corporations are "not people."

So will anyone finally make the choice to be honest? Or will you just keep regurgitating your meaningless slogans?

Why don't you self-reflect, instead of blurting out your hate impulse against your imaginary "corporations" phantom. What is this deep hate which has become emblazened into your subconscious which forces you to burst out with these dog-whistles? Your problem is even worse than that of the Trumpsters.

The ACLU is not a person or people.

 

[Elixir]

The ACLU is not a person or people.

Me trying to understand that people can’t discern this for themselves:

 

[Swammerdami]

No one's giving an answer.

Is the ACLU "not people"? Yes or no. Don't pretend you're answering the question if you refuse to say simply:

We've provided you with good answers -- (for how many YEARS now?) -- but to no avail. Let me apologize on behalf of all Infidels for the evidently useless answers. Obviously what you need is what Socrates' students or what Zen students need: Better questions.

Is Wednesday an hour? Yes or no.
Australia has kangaroos. Is Australia a mammal? Yes or no.
Is a hand a finger?
Is a banquet a spoon?
Is water an oxygen atom?

Work on these questions for a while and then get back to us.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

No one's giving an answer.

Is the ACLU "not people"? Yes or no. Don't pretend you're answering the question if you refuse to say simply:

The ACLU is not people; or

The ACLU is people, and so "corporations are not people" is false.

You have to say one or the other of these 2. The fact is that the ACLU is a corporation. So if "corporations are not people" is true, then the ACLU is "not people" like all other corporations are "not people."

So will anyone finally make the choice to be honest? Or will you just keep regurgitating your meaningless slogans?

Why don't you self-reflect, instead of blurting out your hate impulse against your imaginary "corporations" phantom. What is this deep hate which has become emblazened into your subconscious which forces you to burst out with these dog-whistles? Your problem is even worse than that of the Trumpsters.

Yes answer, clean and final, the ACLU isn’t people. If you think it is, do any one thing with the ACLU itself and not its members, . . .

No! That's also true of any group, e.g., a business or a family or a club, which is not a corporation. There are many groups -- NON-corporate groups -- about which you can say the same.

. . . and not its members, make . . .

The same can be said of any non-corporate group.

. . . make it cast a ballot, swear . . .

The same can be said of any non-corporate group.

. . . swear an oath, or . . .

The same can be said of any non-corporate group.

. . . or sit in a jail cell. You can't.

The same can be said of any non-corporate group.

Legal personhood lets a paper entity own property and sue;

Yes, but this is also true of non-corporations. I.e., there are other groups than only corporations which have legal standing or legal personhood.

it doesn’t turn a charter into a rights-bearing human.

Nothing turns anyone (or any group) into a rights-bearing person/group. ALL groups have basic 1st Amendment rights which are guaranteed in the Constitution without them having to be turned into anything. Corporations like the ACLU have the basic right to publish or produce political propaganda videos or films promoting any political or controversial cause they wish, without needing to be turned into something first.

Having said that, it may be true that there are some laws restricting certain non-profits from some kinds of political propagandizing, but these laws are themselves unconstitutional and should be repealed. There should be nothing limiting the right of any corporation (or any group of any kind) from promoting any political propaganda they wish. You can't give any justification for any of these restrictive laws. I'm not familiar with the particulars of it, but I know there are some idiotic laws placing restrictions like this on publishing by some non-profits. It's so stupid, because such groups have every incentive to remain neutral in politics anyway, and so it's bone-headed to impose restrictions onto them which they already do voluntarily for good reason. And occasionally they may have good reason to take sides in something controversial, and that should be left completely to the discretion of that group, not to politicians or politically-motivated gov't agencies like the FEC etc.

 

[Elixir]

No! That's also true of any group, e.g., a business or a family or a club, which is not a corporation. There are many groups -- NON-corporate groups -- about which you can say the same.

So what?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

My family registered with the state of Delaware. Their regulations are easiest on our operations and so our managers really appreciated it.

 

[NoHolyCows]

No! That's also true of any group, e.g., a business or a family or a club, which is not a corporation. There are many groups -- NON-corporate groups -- about which you can say the same.

That’s wrong in law and in practice. A corporation carries state-granted shields that a family or club does not. Limited liability against involuntary creditors. Entity asset partitioning. Perpetual life. Easier capital aggregation through transferable shares. Those privileges are why corporate treasury money is treated differently in elections. Regulating how an artificial, shielded entity deploys pooled capital does not silence a single human. Every member can still speak, donate within limits, form a PAC, publish, and vote. What they cannot claim as a right is to strap a state-built shield to their money and demand the same treatment as a citizen spending personal funds. That is the distinction you keep skipping.

Yes, but this is also true of non-corporations. I.e., there are other groups than only corporations which have legal standing or legal personhood.

Capacity to sue is not constitutional equivalence. Some unincorporated groups can sue, but they don’t carry the corporate bundle limited liability against involuntary creditors, strong entity shielding, perpetual life, and frictionless capital aggregation. Election rules that cabin how a state-created, shielded vehicle spends pooled treasury funds regulate the vehicle, not silence its members. You’re conflating procedural personhood (standing to sue/own property) with substantive First Amendment treatment. That distinction is exactly why corporate treasury spending can be limited while individual speech remains fully protected.

Nothing turns anyone (or any group) into a rights-bearing person/group. ALL groups have basic 1st Amendment rights which are guaranteed in the Constitution without them having to be turned into anything. Corporations like the ACLU have the basic right to publish or produce political propaganda videos or films promoting any political or controversial cause they wish, without needing to be turned into something first.

Having said that, it may be true that there are some laws restricting certain non-profits from some kinds of political propagandizing, but these laws are themselves unconstitutional and should be repealed. There should be nothing limiting the right of any corporation (or any group of any kind) from promoting any political propaganda they wish. You can't give any justification for any of these restrictive laws. I'm not familiar with the particulars of it, but I know there are some idiotic laws placing restrictions like this on publishing by some non-profits. It's so stupid, because such groups have every incentive to remain neutral in politics anyway, and so it's bone-headed to impose restrictions onto them which they already do voluntarily for good reason. And occasionally they may have good reason to take sides in something controversial, and that should be left completely to the discretion of that group, not to politicians or politically-motivated gov't agencies like the FEC etc.

You’re asserting absolutism that the First Amendment has never required. Individuals retain full speech rights. Vehicles we build on top of that, corporations, PACs, and tax-favored nonprofits—speak under neutral, structural rules tied to the privileges they claim.

A 501(c)(3) is not gagged. It chooses a public subsidy and, in exchange, forgoes express campaign advocacy. If it wants to endorse or oppose candidates, it uses its affiliated 501(c)(4) or PAC. That is not censorship. It is channeling speech by entity type while leaving every human being free to say and spend as they wish.

Corporate form is a state-conferred shield limited liability, entity shielding, perpetual life, easy capital pooling. The state can attach conditions to that shield, disclosure, anticorruption limits on contributions and coordination, fiduciary duties, foreign-money bans. Citizens United did not erase those. It removed one prohibition on independent expenditures; it did not create an unlimited corporate right to electioneering without guardrails.

Your “nothing should limit any group’s political spending” collapses in the real world. Foreign nationals cannot spend in our elections. Coordinated corporate spending may be treated as contributions and limited. Tax-deductible dollars cannot be routed through a charity into candidate ads. None of that silences any person; it keeps the legal vehicles we invented from being weaponized in ways that swamp accountability.

If you want pure, unconditional speech, use your own voice and wallet. The moment you claim the legal and fiscal advantages of a charter or a subsidy, you accept neutral, speech-preserving rules that come with it. That’s the difference you keep waving away.

NHC

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why are corporations "not people" but non-corporations are people?

(NHC): Yes . . . the ACLU [a corporation] isn’t people. If you think it is, do any one thing with the ACLU itself and not its members, make it cast a ballot, swear an oath, or sit in a jail cell.

No! That's also true of any group, e.g., a business or a family or a club, which is not a corporation. There are many groups -- NON-corporate groups -- about which you can say the same.

So what?

So, the description NHC gives does not tell us why CORPORATIONS are "not people" and why they don't have the same 1st Amendment rights that non-corporations have. The question no one is answering is: Why is a corporation (e.g. the ACLU) "not people"? Why doesn't that corporation have the same basic 1st Amendment protections which non-corporations have.

This is the topic: Why are corporations "not people"? Or, what is it about corporations that makes them "not people"?

To say it's that a corporation cannot be given a ballot to cast a vote, or cannot be made to swear an oath, does not tell us what it is about a corporation per se which makes it "not people." Rather it's telling us why ANY group is "not people." Because it's also true that any group cannot be made to cast a ballot or to swear an oath. If this means it's "not people," then it's also true that ANY group is "not people" -- not just corporations.


"The People" = all individuals and groups of individuals

Even convicted criminals are covered by basic 1st Amendment rights. And all groups of any kind, even groups you hate. Even if you put corporations into a negative category, that still doesn't cancel their 1st Amendment protection.

The 1st Amendment guarantees basic rights to "people." This has always included groups of people, not only individuals one at a time. Groups also are "people" with basic rights -- one group alone is people doing these acts which are protected. That group can exercise these rights, as a collective, just as an individual can. The group buys something, spending money belonging to the group, which was collected from individual members, thus exercising its 1st Amendment rights as a group. You cannot deny to such a group the right to publish propaganda by simply saying they have no 1st Amendment rights because they're a "corporation," or that they are a group rather than an individual. The rights enumerated in the 1st Amendment mostly pertain to groups, saying they have freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition the government, and freedom of religion. These are usually about groups. It includes groups that publish or assemble or act as a group.

But saying "a corporation is 'not people'" means it's not covered by the 1st Amendment. You have to tell us WHY it's not covered and what makes it "not people" before you can deny it 1st Amendment protection. No one is explaining what makes it "not people" and not entitled to 1st Amendment rights, while NON-corporate groups are "people" and do have 1st Amendment rights.

What's the difference? No one is giving an answer. No one is explaining why CORPORATE groups are "not people" and have no rights, in contrast to NON-corporate groups which are "people" and do have rights.

If the reasoning is that ALL groups are "not people" and have no rights, then the slogan must be changed, from "corporations are not people" to: "GROUPS are 'not people.'"


It's a sickness --
Your obsession to say "corporations are not people" is a deep emotional impulse driven by hate against something you're unable to identify. You don't hate the ACLU, and yet your impulsive "not people" outburst says that you hate this corporation along with all corporations, even though 99% of corporations have nothing to do with whatever it is that you hate.

With this slogan you're saying you hate someone you do not hate. You're compelled or driven to keep repeating this falsehood/slogan, just like the Trumpsters are driven to keep repeating his lies. You're a cult, just like they are.

 

[NoHolyCows]

So, the description NHC gives does not tell us why CORPORATIONS are "not people" and why they don't have the same 1st Amendment rights that non-corporations have. The question no one is answering is: Why is a corporation (e.g. the ACLU) "not people"? Why doesn't that corporation have the same basic 1st Amendment protections which non-corporations have.

The ACLU isn’t people; its members are. The corporation has some First Amendment protection to speak and publish, but it doesn’t hold the full set of human rights. It cannot vote, claim a self-incrimination privilege, assert personal liberty interests, or demand the same electoral leeway as a human speaker. Its speech is protected to the extent the law protects listeners and the association of its members, and the state can condition the special advantages the charter confers—limited liability, perpetual life, entity shielding—with disclosure, coordination bans, foreign-money bars, and tax-status limits. That’s the line you keep eliding, natural persons have inherent rights; chartered entities have derivative, regulated ones. You can argue about where to draw the line, but you don’t get to pretend it isn’t there.

NHC

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Why are corporations "not people" but non-corporations are people?

(NHC): Yes . . . the ACLU [a corporation] isn’t people. If you think it is, do any one thing with the ACLU itself and not its members, make it cast a ballot, swear an oath, or sit in a jail cell.

No! That's also true of any group, e.g., a business or a family or a club, which is not a corporation. There are many groups -- NON-corporate groups -- about which you can say the same.

So what?

So, the description NHC gives does not tell us why CORPORATIONS are "not people" and why they don't have the same 1st Amendment rights that non-corporations have. The question no one is answering is: Why is a corporation (e.g. the ACLU) "not people"? Why doesn't that corporation have the same basic 1st Amendment protections which non-corporations have.

This is the topic: Why are corporations "not people"? Or, what is it about corporations that makes them "not people"?

To say it's that a corporation cannot be given a ballot to cast a vote, or cannot be made to swear an oath, does not tell us what it is about a corporation per se which makes it "not people." Rather it's telling us why ANY group is "not people." Because it's also true that any group cannot be made to cast a ballot or to swear an oath. If this means it's "not people," then it's also true that ANY group is "not people" -- not just corporations.


"The People" = all individuals and groups of individuals

Even convicted criminals are covered by basic 1st Amendment rights. And all groups of any kind, even groups you hate. Even if you put corporations into a negative category, that still doesn't cancel their 1st Amendment protection.

The 1st Amendment guarantees basic rights to "people." This has always included groups of people, not only individuals one at a time. Groups also are "people" with basic rights -- one group alone is people doing these acts which are protected. That group can exercise these rights, as a collective, just as an individual can. The group buys something, spending money belonging to the group, which was collected from individual members, thus exercising its 1st Amendment rights as a group. You cannot deny to such a group the right to publish propaganda by simply saying they have no 1st Amendment rights because they're a "corporation," or that they are a group rather than an individual. The rights enumerated in the 1st Amendment mostly pertain to groups, saying they have freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition the government, and freedom of religion. These are usually about groups. It includes groups that publish or assemble or act as a group.

But saying "a corporation is 'not people'" means it's not covered by the 1st Amendment. You have to tell us WHY it's not covered and what makes it "not people" before you can deny it 1st Amendment protection. No one is explaining what makes it "not people" and not entitled to 1st Amendment rights, while NON-corporate groups are "people" and do have 1st Amendment rights.

What's the difference? No one is giving an answer. No one is explaining why CORPORATE groups are "not people" and have no rights, in contrast to NON-corporate groups which are "people" and do have rights.

If the reasoning is that ALL groups are "not people" and have no rights, then the slogan must be changed, from "corporations are not people" to: "GROUPS are 'not people.'"


It's a sickness --
Your obsession to say "corporations are not people" is a deep emotional impulse driven by hate against something you're unable to identify. You don't hate the ACLU, and yet your impulsive "not people" outburst says that you hate this corporation along with all corporations, even though 99% of corporations have nothing to do with whatever it is that you hate.

With this slogan you're saying you hate someone you do not hate. You're compelled or driven to keep repeating this falsehood/slogan, just like the Trumpsters are driven to keep repeating his lies. You're a cult, just like they are.

This shows how over the top you are, in claiming people hate corporations, including the ACLU, because they don't recognize those entities as being persons. Cats, dogs, natural beauty, are not people, but people don't have a hatred of them; quite the opposite in fact.

Your desire to have all corporations to have all rights of persons is inane. There is a difference between most large corporations and normal actual people. Those corporations have immense wealth, and the power and influence that goes along with it, which they are already abusing. You want them to abuse it even more. This is actually Trump's ideal.

 

[bilby]

Your desire to have all corporations to have all rights of persons is inane.

There may be an 's' missing from that last word...

 

[unapologetic]

TLDR

This thread died-out months ago. Let it rest in peace.