Spacetime Inhabitant
Senior Member
A family is people, but they are not a person.
-
Features
Corporations are People?
- Thread starter Lumpenproletariat
- Start date
Are you a robot? Can a robot feel?
Run correctly, a family operates as a person. Dad makes all decisions. That’s why women should be allowed to vote. Just ask the GOP.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,711
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Corporations vs. NONcorporations
Still no one can say why corporations are "not people" and yet all other groups are "people"
But not all these groups are the same -- they are each doing their particular activity, and there might be differing legal conditions on certain of them, maybe particular requirements or responsibilities. All of which can be provided for in the law, without any pretense that they are "not people" and have no 1st Amendment rights. All of them have the basic rights guaranteed to "the people" and enumerated in the 1st Amendment, despite any special terms which might apply to certain of them in their unique situation.
That which is improved is something which already exists in the first place -- it had already been created or had come into existence earlier -- and then becomes better in some way. Becoming better or improving does not mean being created. So stop saying the corporation is an "entity created by the state" -- everything you say after this false premise is negated and falsified by your imposing this false premise.
And I have shown the historical facts that the earliest corporations were entities which existed PRIOR to any action by the state, even existed for centuries. So it was not any action by the state which "created" those corporations. Some even had limited liability in a form which was not due to any state action.
I'll quote my earlier post on this:
Google search question: When did gov't first create the corporate legal entity?
Google answer:
So the 17th century is when the legal form of the corporation entity first developed. But when did the first corporations develop?
HISTORY of early corporations
What do the facts of history say about the earliest corporations centuries ago? whether they existed first and then became incorporated officially by the state, or whether they did not exist until state law first created the corporation "form of entity"?
Google search question: What is the earliest corporation in history?
Google search answer:
Google answer:
So if you equate "corporation" with limited liability, this also predates the East India Companies, the 17th century, and is something earlier than the first state-created corporations.
The other early "corporation" -- kongo gumi -- did not have limited liability, so maybe was not a "corporation" technically, though "corporation" means much more than just limited liability. This company too had most of the features of the later "corporations" in the 18th & 19th centuries.
Google search question: Was kongo gumi created by the government, or did it exist first before being chartered by government?
Google search answer:
Google search question: Was Kongo Gumi a corporation?
Google search answer:
Here's a different wording of the same question --
Google search question: What was the first corporation?
Google search answer:
Google search question: Did the Honor dels molis del Bazacle exist first and then incorporate, or was it created by the government?
Google search answer:
But you can claim that the East India Companies were chartered by the state and did not exist prior to this official status being attached to them. So the creation of them was simultaneous to their official incorporation in the state. So you can claim SOME early corporations (not the earliest) maybe were dependent upon their legal status from a state action to create them. However, most corporations do/did not fit this description. So you cannot claim that corporations generally were CREATED by the state, even if some were (probably a small minority of corporations). The East India Companies are not typical examples. If you claim that the IDEA of incorporation was created by the state first, earlier, and this then became a MODEL for all later corporations, that too is false -- even then the earliest-known corporations existed first before later changing into a state-regulated entity which was called "corporation" by the state.
And limited liability also predates the earliest corporations created by the state. So this feature is not exclusive to corporations, or to the state-created corporations, and this earlier existence of a limited liability company proves that this feature was not a creation of the state, but rather that governments in the 17th & 18th centuries borrowed this feature already in existence earlier.
So modern corporations in the U.S. and Europe are not founded originally based on an earlier model created by the state and without which they could not have existed. There are earlier examples than the East India Companies model.
(this Wall of Text to be continued)
Still no one can say why corporations are "not people" and yet all other groups are "people"
And corporations are "groups of individuals" -- so they retain 1st Amendment protections. ALL groups are "people" as intended in the 1st Amendment phrase "the right of the people" = the right of individual humans and groups of humans.
Which is what a corporation is, i.e., individuals acting in association, as members of a group. Or the group is the association.
As the members of a corporation are doing, like any other group. All are "people" exercising their 1st Amendment rights.
But not all these groups are the same -- they are each doing their particular activity, and there might be differing legal conditions on certain of them, maybe particular requirements or responsibilities. All of which can be provided for in the law, without any pretense that they are "not people" and have no 1st Amendment rights. All of them have the basic rights guaranteed to "the people" and enumerated in the 1st Amendment, despite any special terms which might apply to certain of them in their unique situation.
Maybe not, but all groups are covered by the 1st Amendment, including those which are "casually associating" as well as those which are NOT "casually associating" -- nothing in the Constitutional language says that a group is "not people" because it associates casually or noncasually, or that it is not covered by the 1st Amendment if its manner of associating is casual or noncasual. You have to stop making up your own rules, inserting your own conditions based on your personal preferences or impulses. Nowhere does the Constitution make an exception for people or groups whose manner of associating is casual or noncasual.
No it is not "created by the state" -- I refuted this already, 2 or 3 times. Virtually all corporations existed BEFORE they incorporated, so that the act of becoming a corporation does not make them an "entity created by the state" -- the corporation, or the entity, existed PRIOR to incorporating. In most cases that already-existing entity made the decision to incorporate, and so changed its status from noncorporate to corporate status. In many/most cases it was already a functioning business entity, and by incorporating this business made some changes to improve itself.
That which is improved is something which already exists in the first place -- it had already been created or had come into existence earlier -- and then becomes better in some way. Becoming better or improving does not mean being created. So stop saying the corporation is an "entity created by the state" -- everything you say after this false premise is negated and falsified by your imposing this false premise.
And I have shown the historical facts that the earliest corporations were entities which existed PRIOR to any action by the state, even existed for centuries. So it was not any action by the state which "created" those corporations. Some even had limited liability in a form which was not due to any state action.
I'll quote my earlier post on this:
No, corporations did exist before gov't created that legal form of entity.
Google search question: When did gov't first create the corporate legal entity?
Google answer:
So the 17th century is when the legal form of the corporation entity first developed. But when did the first corporations develop?
HISTORY of early corporations
What do the facts of history say about the earliest corporations centuries ago? whether they existed first and then became incorporated officially by the state, or whether they did not exist until state law first created the corporation "form of entity"?
Google search question: What is the earliest corporation in history?
Google search answer:
Google search question: Did Honor dels molis del Bazacle have limited liability?
Google answer:
So if you equate "corporation" with limited liability, this also predates the East India Companies, the 17th century, and is something earlier than the first state-created corporations.
The other early "corporation" -- kongo gumi -- did not have limited liability, so maybe was not a "corporation" technically, though "corporation" means much more than just limited liability. This company too had most of the features of the later "corporations" in the 18th & 19th centuries.
Google search question: Was kongo gumi created by the government, or did it exist first before being chartered by government?
Google search answer:
But wait -- Was Kongo Gumi even a "corporation"?
Google search question: Was Kongo Gumi a corporation?
Google search answer:
OK, so here's a real "corporation" from very early, though not having "limited liability" originally, but still a precursor to modern corporations at a time when it had not been created by the state. The above Japanese business became a more modern "corporation" in 2006, but it obviously was not "created" by the government because it already had existed for centuries before becoming an officially-recognized corporation legally.
Here's a different wording of the same question --
Google search question: What was the first corporation?
Google search answer:
note: "Earlier forms of corporations" PRIOR to the East India Companies and prior to the legally-established corporate form of entity. So originally, the corporations came first, and later governments enacted some controls over them, refashioning them into the modern corporate entities of today.
Google search question: Did the Honor dels molis del Bazacle exist first and then incorporate, or was it created by the government?
Google search answer:
So it's an early corporation which was NOT CREATED BY THE STATE. Rather, it existed first (was "created" earlier) and later became regulated officially by the state. Most businesses are not state entities. A government program like the postal service is a state entity.
But you can claim that the East India Companies were chartered by the state and did not exist prior to this official status being attached to them. So the creation of them was simultaneous to their official incorporation in the state. So you can claim SOME early corporations (not the earliest) maybe were dependent upon their legal status from a state action to create them. However, most corporations do/did not fit this description. So you cannot claim that corporations generally were CREATED by the state, even if some were (probably a small minority of corporations). The East India Companies are not typical examples. If you claim that the IDEA of incorporation was created by the state first, earlier, and this then became a MODEL for all later corporations, that too is false -- even then the earliest-known corporations existed first before later changing into a state-regulated entity which was called "corporation" by the state.
And limited liability also predates the earliest corporations created by the state. So this feature is not exclusive to corporations, or to the state-created corporations, and this earlier existence of a limited liability company proves that this feature was not a creation of the state, but rather that governments in the 17th & 18th centuries borrowed this feature already in existence earlier.
So modern corporations in the U.S. and Europe are not founded originally based on an earlier model created by the state and without which they could not have existed. There are earlier examples than the East India Companies model.
(this Wall of Text to be continued)
Last edited:
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 39,670
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
But were not, by definition, corporations.
Sure it does. Because that was an act, by the state, to make them a corporation.
But was not, by definition, a corporation PRIOR to incorporating.
Obviously they didn't. Companies existed, and some then became corporations. But no corporations existed, or could possibly in any way have existed, before gov't created that legal form of entity.
Similarly, the USA did not exist prior to the Declaration of Independence. That doesn't mean that the continent of North America had a huge void between the 48th parallel and the Rio Grande; All the land that would one day become the USA already existed. But the USA did NOT exist until a government was formed which declared it to exist.
Last edited:
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,711
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Corporations initiated their own creation.
not a product of government
The state "creates" an agency, a post office, a school, a road it built, etc. -- those are "creations" by the state. But when the state changes the status of something which already existed, it did not "create" it. It hires a janitor, e.g., making someone into a janitor. But it does not thereby create a janitor. It hires the janitor, changes a non-janitor person into a janitor person. But it's still the same person as before, not a new creation by the state.
And historically the earliest corporations existed first, and later became recognized by the state, or were given the corporate status by the state. I cited the historical facts about this in my previous post #284 (scroll down to "history of early corporations" -- examples of early corporations, in the 15th century and in the 6th century AD), long before they were recognized by the state. The change added some new features to the corporation, or to the entity changing into a corporation, but the change did not CREATE that entity, because this entity existed already.
By changing the corporation, the state did not CREATE that corporation any more than the U.S. government CREATED a native American tribe by granting it recognition. A tribe became officially recognized a sovereign nation by government action, but this government action did not "create" the tribe or nation, which was already there. The tribes existed first and so were not created by gaining this status or recognition. This new name or label they gain is a change a tribe experienced. The tribe existed before experiencing this change, so was not created by this change.
So the announcement or declaration is not an act which creates the country. You could say it's the final step in the formation process, like the celebration of it and popping the champagne, but this thing becoming a country still had to already exist, and so the announcement is not the creation of it.
But this is a false analogy. For the nation forming, it's only one entity which you're saying creates itself by its own announcement. Which is totally different than a corporation being created by something else -- 2 entities rather than only one. Whether a corporation is created by the state -- one entity being created by another -- is not analogous to whether a nation creates itself by announcing itself. Yet, in both cases the formal act of announcing or recognizing something is not an act of creation. In both cases the entity being recognized has to first exist before the act of recognition or announcing. Even the entity announcing itself with its "Declaration of Independence" still has to exist first, before it issues this Declaration. It first has to decide to take this step, so still it has to exist first, which means that it was created BEFORE it makes the announcement.
In all likelihood any nation announcing itself, or declaring its independence or sovereignty, is an entity which existed for a long period first, BEFORE making its declaration, and it's during this period that it made the decision to become a nation. And that decision had to happen prior to the announcement. It can't be CREATED by the announcement, because by the time the announcement is made it had already done something, in arriving at the decision, meaning it had to already exist.
No matter how you cut it, you can't claim something is created after it already existed. The creation of it has to happen from the beginning of it, not later after it had already existed. And what existed was a certain entity which might change name, by its decision, or by receiving recognition, and so might receive the label "corporation" or "country" or "USA" or other label, but this happens AFTER it had already existed. So this announcement and adoption of a new name or label is not the same as the creation of it.
"The People" create the government.
The government does not create "the People."
This isn't just semantics. The corporation, being an entity in itself, is just as independent and separate from the state as any other group or as any individual. The group exists because it has a function in the world which it did not derive from the government and which is a legitimate part of human activity. The group categorized as corporation can be regulated just as any individuals or groups can be regulated, as needed, but it's entitled to the same basic rights as all other groups and individuals which also are separate entities from the government. A corporation is not part of the government or a creature of the government any more than other groups are.
All the groups are part of "the people" who are to be served by the government. And it's this government which is created, not the individuals or groups ("people") it serves. So "the people" (including all groups of people) created the government, and the government did not create anything except the various government agencies and government programs to serve the people. Corporations are not a government agency or government program.
not a product of government
They existed already, so the state did not create them. The state only gave them the name "corporation" and the new corporate status. The State did nothing to improve a corporation other than just granting the new name to it. The state could not "create" something which already existed.
No, making a change in something is not to "create" it. If the state grants citizenship to someone, that doesn't mean the state "created" a citizen. It changed someone who already existed, but did not "create" that person. If it convicts a criminal, that convict is not "created" by the state. Rather, the state changes that person's status.
The state "creates" an agency, a post office, a school, a road it built, etc. -- those are "creations" by the state. But when the state changes the status of something which already existed, it did not "create" it. It hires a janitor, e.g., making someone into a janitor. But it does not thereby create a janitor. It hires the janitor, changes a non-janitor person into a janitor person. But it's still the same person as before, not a new creation by the state.
But it existed prior to incorporating. CREATION is more than just semantics or definitions. If the entity receiving the new corporate label already existed, then it can't be "created" by just giving it a new name. You could say the corporate status is created, but not the entity which becomes a corporation by choosing to change its status.
Obviously they did, as I showed earlier. Name an entity which became a corporation and did not exist before it changed its status to the corporate status. For it to change its status it had to exist first, and then it does the procedure to make the change, such as to incorporate. All you can claim is that the corporate status is created by the state, not the corporation, and this status is then assigned to this entity which already existed and had been created long before
And historically the earliest corporations existed first, and later became recognized by the state, or were given the corporate status by the state. I cited the historical facts about this in my previous post #284 (scroll down to "history of early corporations" -- examples of early corporations, in the 15th century and in the 6th century AD), long before they were recognized by the state. The change added some new features to the corporation, or to the entity changing into a corporation, but the change did not CREATE that entity, because this entity existed already.
By changing the corporation, the state did not CREATE that corporation any more than the U.S. government CREATED a native American tribe by granting it recognition. A tribe became officially recognized a sovereign nation by government action, but this government action did not "create" the tribe or nation, which was already there. The tribes existed first and so were not created by gaining this status or recognition. This new name or label they gain is a change a tribe experienced. The tribe existed before experiencing this change, so was not created by this change.
Yes they did exist, even if they were not called "corporations" -- it's just semantics or labels you're talking about. Changing the name of something does not CREATE that something. That same entity did exist earlier and then underwent a change in name, or in recognized status. So the state did not create that entity or that corporation. Any more than it created the Indian tribes as sovereign nations. They were already sovereign nations -- but they were not officially recognized sovereignties. It's rather the government which changes than the object it's recognizing or granting the official status to. The government changes and improves itself when it recognizes an entity which was already there.
This is a bad analogy. But even so, the entity later called USA did exist prior to its Declaration of Independence. Just because it wasn't yet called "USA" doesn't mean it did not exist. It had to exist at least a short time prior, because this was a decision made to declare independence, and the one making this decision had to exist before the final Declaration which was decided upon.
No, it's not clear that a mere declaration creates a country. Rather, what happens is that something exists first, and then a government might declare it to be a country. If this is a group of people there announcing their own nation status, that means that the entity or group already existed and now it's announcing itself, and the nation status begins with this announcement. But even so, the entity becoming a nation did already exist and is not created just by making this announcement.
So the announcement or declaration is not an act which creates the country. You could say it's the final step in the formation process, like the celebration of it and popping the champagne, but this thing becoming a country still had to already exist, and so the announcement is not the creation of it.
But this is a false analogy. For the nation forming, it's only one entity which you're saying creates itself by its own announcement. Which is totally different than a corporation being created by something else -- 2 entities rather than only one. Whether a corporation is created by the state -- one entity being created by another -- is not analogous to whether a nation creates itself by announcing itself. Yet, in both cases the formal act of announcing or recognizing something is not an act of creation. In both cases the entity being recognized has to first exist before the act of recognition or announcing. Even the entity announcing itself with its "Declaration of Independence" still has to exist first, before it issues this Declaration. It first has to decide to take this step, so still it has to exist first, which means that it was created BEFORE it makes the announcement.
In all likelihood any nation announcing itself, or declaring its independence or sovereignty, is an entity which existed for a long period first, BEFORE making its declaration, and it's during this period that it made the decision to become a nation. And that decision had to happen prior to the announcement. It can't be CREATED by the announcement, because by the time the announcement is made it had already done something, in arriving at the decision, meaning it had to already exist.
No matter how you cut it, you can't claim something is created after it already existed. The creation of it has to happen from the beginning of it, not later after it had already existed. And what existed was a certain entity which might change name, by its decision, or by receiving recognition, and so might receive the label "corporation" or "country" or "USA" or other label, but this happens AFTER it had already existed. So this announcement and adoption of a new name or label is not the same as the creation of it.
"The People" create the government.
The government does not create "the People."
This isn't just semantics. The corporation, being an entity in itself, is just as independent and separate from the state as any other group or as any individual. The group exists because it has a function in the world which it did not derive from the government and which is a legitimate part of human activity. The group categorized as corporation can be regulated just as any individuals or groups can be regulated, as needed, but it's entitled to the same basic rights as all other groups and individuals which also are separate entities from the government. A corporation is not part of the government or a creature of the government any more than other groups are.
All the groups are part of "the people" who are to be served by the government. And it's this government which is created, not the individuals or groups ("people") it serves. So "the people" (including all groups of people) created the government, and the government did not create anything except the various government agencies and government programs to serve the people. Corporations are not a government agency or government program.
Last edited:
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 39,670
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
So, the only way to become a corporation is to be made into one by the state.
You really cannot be this dense; It's just performance art, am I right?
I am not going to bother to even read the rest of your very long post; As I have observed in the past, there is a clear inverse correlation between the length of your posts and their factual accuracy.
You only expound at length when you are in the wrong. So you must know you are wrong. So I needn't pay any attention at all to your argument, as you are already fully aware that it is bullshit.
Businesses have TINs, which are effectively social security numbers for a business.