Declension
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2012
Posts: 1657
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 8:01 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. Corporations do not have responsibilities, so they do not deserve rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kjas
Onçinha
Joined: Feb 27, 2012
Age: 23
Posts: 4918
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Declension wrote: | | Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. Corporations do not have responsibilities, so they do not deserve rights. |
+1
_________________
Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
Vigilans
Orgasm Donor
Joined: Jun 20, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 12095
Location: La belle province
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kjas wrote: | | Vigilans wrote: | | They should be held to the same standards as an actual person. It should also be recognized that in the US at least, they as "persons" are the largest beneficiaries of welfare when you consider the bailouts etc |
I would disagree. I think they should be held to higher standards than an actual person since many of them hold quite a bit of power and have the capability to do a lot of good or a lot of evil.
A corporation doing a lot of evil inevitability causes a lot more harm than one actual person can, on average. That should be kept in mind when it comes to the law.
This is particularly important when you consider that many corporations actually form a large part of the base of the economy for many economies in the western world. |
Higher standards would be ideal. To begin with I would at least like them to be held accountable in the same way an individual is. As a group of individuals with significant power and influence they should have a higher standard to meet. Particularly I would like to see more impetus put on protecting stakeholders and not just shareholders
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do |
|
| Back to top |
|
simon_says
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2011
Posts: 2443
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Declension wrote: | | Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. Corporations do not have responsibilities, so they do not deserve rights. |
Maybe that's next. They'll get the vote and be compelled to show up for jury duty. Maybe Ronald McDonald will have to register for the draft.
Attorneys in a class action lawsuit will have to work hard (or not) to keep corporations like McDonalds and Apple from sending reps to stock the jury. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Chipshorter
Velociraptor
Joined: Jan 17, 2012
Age: 34
Posts: 477
Location: The Georgian Quarter of The Pool of Life, The Centre of The Creative Universe
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vigilans wrote: | | Higher standards would be ideal. To begin with I would at least like them to be held accountable in the same way an individual is. As a group of individuals with significant power and influence they should have a higher standard to meet. Particularly I would like to see more impetus put on protecting stakeholders and not just shareholders |
I agree tho practically speaking its an idealist idea. Theres a number of issues then need to be addressed before it can happen IMO.
Shareholders are a subset of stakeholders, so what safeguards can be put in place to stop stakeholder inequalities?
With that factor of globalisation, some corporations as "people" have multiple nationalities so if one nation places theres higher standards then what's to stop theres artificial people from migrating there morals to a country with lower standards, a bit like offshoring.
An understanding of Corporate social responsibility will give you an good idea into the pitfalls of corporate moral self-regulation.
On a socio-political level globalisation as aided multinational corporations to be "cults of capitalism", what is needed as an economic and political separation of church(corporation) and state.
_________________
Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. --Potter Stewart
Corruption is authority plus monopoly minus transparency. --Unknown |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kjas
Onçinha
Joined: Feb 27, 2012
Age: 23
Posts: 4918
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Issues may have to be addressed, but if you look at this from a long term point of view, privatizing profits and socialising losses is not something that is sustainable long term and causes a lot of harm.
The fact that many corporations are now multinational only adds more urgency to this, as if laws are not in place to that extent they will only continue to abuse the system even more than they do today.
I do not support corporations becoming "people" in the legal sense of the word, but if they want to do it then they're going to have to put up with their responsibilities in addition to the rights.
And lets face it, in a court of a law a person who privatised profit and then tried to socialise the cost would not be allowed to do so.
_________________
Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29338
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
The German phrase for corporation is much more accurate than the latin for "person". In German GMBH stands for business firm with limited liability. The basic issue is this: to what extent should the liability of a business firm be limited?
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
ArrantPariah
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 31, 2012
Posts: 4908
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
If''n da Supreem Cort say dey iz peeps, den dem iz peeps. Simple az dat.
If one pricks a corporation, does it not bleed?
Technically, no. But it does sue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29338
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ArrantPariah wrote: | If''n da Supreem Cort say dey iz peeps, den dem iz peeps. Simple az dat.
If one pricks a corporation, does it not bleed?
Technically, no. But it does sue. |
Then corporate law will have to be altered in due course. If the courts so ruled, it is because the law that makes some business firms = people is not unconstitutional.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
edgewaters
hibernating
Joined: Aug 17, 2006
Age: 40
Posts: 2426
Location: Ontario
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visagrunt wrote: | I think that you are asking the wrong question.
"Corporate personality" has existed in the law of England and Wales since the first companies were created by Royal Charter--and the United States has fallen heir to that legal principle.
Corporate personality is the basis under which corporations can enter into contracts and under which they can sue or be sued. In the absence of corporate personality, the most complex form of business relationship that could be created is the limited partnership, a vehicle which is entirely unsuited to the scope and complexity of the modern business world.
So, yes, corporations should be legal persons. But a legal person and a natural person are two different things.
To my mind the question should be, "what rights and privileges of a natural person arrogate to a legal person?" |
I agree, except that you've included rights and priveleges without including responsibilities. Mind you, responsibility is unfashionable today even for natural persons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
bizboy1
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 24, 2012
Posts: 945
Location: California, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| No, corporations aren't people. It's pretty obvious they are not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
bizboy1
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 24, 2012
Posts: 945
Location: California, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Declension wrote: | | Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. Corporations do not have responsibilities, so they do not deserve rights. |
Wrong. Corporations do have responsibilities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29338
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bizboy1 wrote: | | Declension wrote: | | Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. Corporations do not have responsibilities, so they do not deserve rights. |
Wrong. Corporations do have responsibilities. |
Corporations are legally obliged to operate in the interests of its stockholders. They are also bound by contract law and must repay their debts or be liquidated.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 47
Posts: 12797
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I forget who it was who said, "I'll believe corporations are persons when the state of Texas executes one."
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
Chipshorter
Velociraptor
Joined: Jan 17, 2012
Age: 34
Posts: 477
Location: The Georgian Quarter of The Pool of Life, The Centre of The Creative Universe
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kraichgauer wrote: | | I forget who it was who said, "I'll believe corporations are persons when the state of Texas executes one." |
I would love to have corporations executed (liquidated) as a penalty for serial corporate manslaughter as a part of gross negligence, or falling that more legal measures to enforce collective moral responsibility within a corporation.
_________________
Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. --Potter Stewart
Corruption is authority plus monopoly minus transparency. --Unknown |
|
| Back to top |
|
