The Official Status Thread
-
If @-mentions are indeed case-insensitive, then both @pjh and @PJH should show as mentions... which they do ;)
TRWTF is that the user card shows the username with the capitalization used in the @mention (instead of showing the real one)
-
And I'd like to welcome users @IlIlIl and @lIlIlI.....
-
I don't even know what this means:
I think it basically means everyone has the right to expect the State to not leave them broke and starving to death.Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
-
the one that says corporations are entities entitled to the same rights as any human.....
because [insert fifteen minutes of swearing interspersed with suggesting applying painful, illegal, and quite probably deadly sexual acts to the "bodies" of such corporations] that!
Because you think people should lose rights when they join together to do things collectively?
-
I think it basically means everyone has the right to expect the State to not leave them broke and starving to death.
That's fairly plausible. Put that one in the bullshit pile, too.
-
not exactly.
for one thing i was attempting hyperbole there.
people should have people rights
corporations should have corporation rights.
corporations shouldn't have people rights, and people acting ex-corporation shouldn't have corporation rights.
people acting on behalf of a corporation should be shielded by the rights of the corporation.
-
because [insert fifteen minutes of swearing interspersed with suggesting applying painful, illegal, and quite probably deadly sexual acts to the "bodies" of such corporations] that!
I'm always amused that people can be so goddamned angry at corporations. Why is that? I don't get it.
I mean, sure, I don't like Comcast, but 1) I'd hate it just as much if it were a (say) sole proprietorship, and 2) I come come here talking about "deadly sexual acts" against it. WTF?
-
people should have people rights
corporations should have corporation rights.
What right do you believe people should have that corporations should not?
-
I'm always amused that people can be so goddamned angry at corporations. Why is that? I don't get it.
It always looks like incomplete understanding of what's going on. And fuzzy thinking about how we should curtail people exercising their legal rights.
-
-
Why is that? I don't get it.
Blakey does hyperbole... so accalia can do hyperbole too.
-
Blakey does hyperbole... so accalia can do hyperbole too.
It's a switcheroo!
But I've worked for corporations so you're going to emotionally damage me, then start a really drama-filled thread about it in meta!
-
Corporate personhood is not what all the corporation-haters make it out it be. It simply makes a corporation its own legal entity (or "person" in the legal definition but not in the common definition) with its own identity separate from that of any owners. They even have an Employer Identification Number (EIN) which counts as their Social Security Number for identification purposes.
Without corporate personhood, when a corporation gets sued and you happen to have some stock in that corporation as part of your 401k, you become legally liable because there is no distinction between the corporation and its owners and the plaintiffs, if they win, can come after YOUR personal property.
There's a lot more to it, but as far as I know most of it derives from the basic concept above.
IANAL.
-
It's a switcheroo!
But I've worked for corporations so you're going to emotionally damage me, then start a really drama-filled thread about it in meta!
-shrug- if you feel it's necessary.
i'm not feeling up to a shouting match so if you feel it's necessary would you mind imagining i'm all angry and stuff about it?
i'm feeling more pragmatic really. it's more i don't think corporations should not be people under law, because they aren't in reality. if there's a right that applies to both people and corp then it can apply to both but it shouldn't automatically apply.
-
i'm not feeling up to a shouting match so if you feel it's necessary would you mind imagining i'm all angry and stuff about it?
imagining? Ten minutes ago you were talking about murder via "illegal sexual acts".
i'm feeling more pragmatic really. it's more i don't think corporations should not be people under law, because they aren't in reality.
Ok; I'll ask more generally. What, specifically, do you believe is wrong with current corporate law and how do you propose changing it?
You'll excuse me if I spend a few posts here getting information to decide whether you actually have an informed opinion or are just spouting the typical "corporations are bad! - Greenpeace!" pop-culture nonsense bullshit.
-
You'll excuse me if I spend a few posts here getting information
Isn't that exactly what you get annoyed at @boomzilla for?
-
Isn't that exactly what you get annoyed at @boomzilla for?
Not exactly. The questions are directed away from @blakeyrat. This is critical.
-
imagining? Ten minutes ago you were talking about murder via "illegal sexual acts".
hyperbole, i did mention that before. i think it's your specialty, no?
Ok; I'll ask more generally. What, specifically, do you believe is wrong with current corporate law and how do you propose changing it?
i don't really know. give me a few years and a mountain of law books (some paralegals would also help) and i'll have some sensible ideas that, because they are sensible, stand a snowflake's chance in hell of being passed by congress into law. which is the real root of the problem, but that's also off topic.
my major complaint with the idea of corporation personhood is that it opens up a whole heaping pile of case precedent to be used by corporate lawyers that we have no idea how that will affect the legal landscape. Right now all of case law that applies to people is not considered precedent for corporate cases, but if corporations are granted personhood they could be tried as a person rather than a corporation and who knows where that will end? Frankly the idea scares me,
to whit:
People should have set of rights X
Corporations should have set of rights Y
X is not a superset of Y
Y is not a superset of X
X Union Y is not the empty set
Set X and set Y may or may not be the same set. We lack the information at this time to determine that
-
Boomzilla does it for like 58 posts, is the difference. I call you an idiot and move on after 3.
-
Corporate Personhood has existed in the US since 1819. I don't think the legal system has collapsed yet...
-
-
I don't believe in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
did you whoosh on my sarcasm?
-
And I'd like to welcome users @IlIlIl and @lIlIlI.....
Years ago I was playing a turn-based multiplayer space combat game (Stars!) where someone suggested that as a ship naming convention to annoy the other players. "Crap, was that a
'```''or a ''''? One's a battleship and the other's a scout and I need to know which!"
-
-
Corporate personhood is not what all the corporation-haters make it out it be. It simply makes a corporation its own legal entity (or "person" in the legal definition but not in the common definition) with its own identity separate from that of any owners. They even have an Employer Identification Number (EIN) which counts as their Social Security Number for identification purposes.
No. Just...no.
Corporate personhood was recently expanded to allow corporations freedom of speech...in a very specific way. Political contributions. Now corporations can spend virtually unlimited amounts of money on political campaign donations.
Another side effect is that now apparently corporations have freedom of religion. Now Hobby Lobby can piss and moan about being required to pay for birth control, etc.
This shit is all getting out of hand.
-
Status: My neighbor is hung up...in her front yard. Who buys an SUV without getting 4WD?
-
Frankly the idea scares me,
Denying people the exercise of their rights should scare you more. Corporations are ultimately just people doing things in a group instead of as individuals. Your train of thought scares me, because it seems to be behind so many "There ought to be a law!" outcries.
-
did you whoosh on my sarcasm?
Yes and no. But if I did, so did many people who take it seriously, and you can be sure there are some on this site. My background knowledge of you told me it was probably not serious, but for the aforementioned reason, it was paramount that I mount an assault on Turtle Bay.
-
No. Just...no.
Corporate personhood was recently expanded to allow corporations freedom of speech...in a very specific way.
Ah, no. Citizens United removed prior restrictions that were incompatible with a free country on corporate speech.
-
Corporate personhood was recently expanded to allow corporations freedom of speech...in a very specific way. Political contributions. Now corporations can spend virtually unlimited amounts of money on political campaign donations.
No, just that the law trampled the first amendment a little bit less. Note how all the whiners (you included) haven't decried the corporations who have been able to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns (i.e., media companies: newspapers, etc).
This shit is all getting out of hand.
Yeah, very libertarian of you. Finally, there are some signs of sanity, is what's really going on.
-
Another side effect is that now apparently corporations have freedom of religion. Now Hobby Lobby can piss and moan about being required to pay for birth control, etc.
Bzzzt! "Closely held" corporations--this has, in this context, and probably others, a specific meaning--were allowed to refuse to pay for a handful of methods of birth control (4 out of 20, the remainder of which they didn't object to) that they, not exactly inaccurately, considered to be abortifacients.
Also, you assume a company should be forced to pay for its employee's birth control, which doesn't logically follow from, well, anything but Socialism. And you forget that birth control is not terribly expensive--as was extensively noted, Target sells the Pill for $9/mo, not the $100/mo Sandra Dumb Fuck Fluke claimed.
-
Note how all the whiners (you included) haven't decried the corporations who have been able to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns (i.e., media companies: newspapers, etc).
You forgot unions. Somehow it's horrible for, say, Sears to spend money on politics, but it's OK for the police and teachers' unions--not to mention private-sector ones--to spend unlimited money, is what the people who were opposed to Citizens United seem to think.
-
Ah, no. Citizens United removed prior restrictions that were incompatible with a free country on corporate speech.
Corporations are not people. They are legal vehicles for limiting liability. I have no problem with corporations spending money to advance their political interests. I do have a problem with them spending nearly unlimited amounts of money. A corporation should be one person as it has one EIN and then can contribute the same amount that I as an individual can.
Help for candidates and committees - FEC.gov
FEC help for federal candidates, PACs, party committees and separate segregated funds (i.e., corporate/labor/trade PACs), including help with accepting contributions, making disbursements and filing financial reports
No, just that the law trampled the first amendment a little bit less.
No, now any money that individuals wish to contribute gets completely diluted by the amounts thrown in by corporations. If you are a politician, who are you going to service? The general population that contributes a minutiae of the amount that you need to win re-election, or the corporations who throw millions in to the pot?
Finally, there are some signs of sanity, is what's really going on.
No. Citizens United was the insanity.
-
No, now any money that individuals wish to contribute gets completely diluted by the amounts thrown in by corporations.
So. Fucking. What? Why do corporations want to spend money. Because the goddamned government is out of fucking control. They have to. You're attacking the wrong problem.
No. Citizens United was the insanity.
You have lost any shred of libertarian credibility.
A corporation should be one person as it has one EIN and then can contribute the same amount that I as an individual can.
This I can agree with. But the limit should be your bank account. Fuck all y'all statist assholes. The whole fucking point of having free speech is for political speech.
-
Bzzzt! "Closely held" corporations
I don't give a shit. If they wish to have the benefits of the corporate veil, then I say that same corporate veil also protects their religion from decisions and money spent by the corporation. It is when they wish to have it both ways that I have a problem.
I would not consider the same objections made by an LLP or LLC to be a problem. In those cases, they are pass-through entities and therefore closer to the owner, etc.
You forgot unions.
Nope. As far as I am concerned, they can abide to the same chart. One union is one corporation is one person. The power of unions should lie in the voting power of those involved.
But really, fuck unions. They are just organized blackmail.
-
Denying people the exercise of their rights should scare you more.
that really isn't my intention here. People have rights. those rights need to be protected. Corporations also have rights that need to be protected. And while i'll happily agree that there is a fair amount of overlap between those sets of rights i don't agree that they are the same set of rights.
for one thing it's A-OK for a corporation to sell itself to another corporation or to an individual. Not so cool for a person to do that.
Corporations are ultimately just people doing things in a group instead of as individuals.
Right, and certain actions they take would be actions on behalf of the corporation, and so protected under corporation rights first, then personal rights if applicable, and then other actions would be actions by an individual and not protected by corporate rights, but still protected by person rights.
For example:
person A embezzles money. this is not an action by a corporation, but by an individual and so the person A gets no protection at the corporate level.
person B launches an add campaign for a product that turns out to be a death trap, and this fact may or may not have been known by Person B. Person B was acting on behalf of the corporation and so gets corporate protection, although depending on whether person B knew about the status of the problem they might be subject to additional liability issues (depending on situation) that might not qualify for corporate protection.
Your train of thought scares me, because it seems to be behind so many "There ought to be a law!" outcries.
hmm... i might be explaining my thoughts poorly then. that's not my intent...
-
This I can agree with. But the limit should be your bank account. Fuck all y'all statist assholes. The whole fucking point of having free speech is for political speech.
Sure. I am OK with that. Citizens United removed stipulations on free speech for corporations you say, then remove them for me also.
The problem being that now 99% of the population's political voice matters fuck-all.
Why do corporations want to spend money.
To achieve advantageous laws for them? Something that the common people really cannot spend enough money to enact for themselves. If we follow your recommendations, we may as well let corporations just buy DC outright and not have to go through the entire spectacle of "lobbying".
-
-
If we follow your recommendations, we may as well let corporations just buy DC outright and not have to go through the entire spectacle of "lobbying".
No, if you follow my recommendations, there won't be much of anything for corporations to buy in DC.
The problem being that now 99% of the population's political voice matters fuck-all.
That's just oversimplifying bullshit. Stop fucking whining and advocating shit that makes everything worse.
-
okay then.... how does my line of thought deny people the right to exercise their rights?
cause i'm not following how that happens but i want to understand your point of view.
-
how does my line of thought deny people the right to exercise their rights?
You should go back and re-read my previous response to you. You're trying to say that once people get together and organize they should lose rights.
-
I do have a problem with them spending nearly unlimited amounts of money.
Do you, or do you not, feel unions should be limited the same way?
-
I would not consider the same objections made by an LLP or LLC to be a problem. In those cases, they are pass-through entities and therefore closer to the owner, etc.
You clearly do not understand what a closely-held corporation is. Hobby Lobby is basically a family company. It has something like 5 shareholders.
-
Nope. As far as I am concerned, they can abide to the same chart. One union is one corporation is one person. The power of unions should lie in the voting power of those involved.
But really, fuck unions. They are just organized blackmail.
But the prior situation let unions have unlimited spending, and limited every other corporation. You can disagree with CU, but all it did was level the playing field.
If unions were limited too, instead of CU being overturned, that would be "fairer" but it wouldn't be very American.
-
Citizens United removed stipulations on free speech for corporations you say, then remove them for me also.
That would, indeed, be the proper solution.
-
Do you, or do you not, feel unions should be limited the same way?
I do.
Fuck...unions.
-
I do.
Fuck...unions.
Fair enough. Then the libertarian answer is "remove all restrictions on lobbying."
Obviously in an ideal world, we would still have an informed population of voters, too, something that's frankly far more important, but the Long March Through the Institutions has fucked that up.
-
You're trying to say that once people get together and organize they should lose rights.
that's not what i'm saying at all!
i'm saying people have a set of rights and they never lose them
corporations have a set of rights that are not necessarily the same as personal rights.
when people get together and act as a corporation their actions on behalf of the corporations are considered actions of the corporation and protected by corporate rights, if the corporate rights do not afford any protection for the action then personal rights are applied.
so when acting under and on behalf of a corporation a person is protected by the rights of the corporation and their personal rights
and of course participating in a corporation provides no additional protection to actions taken when not acting in a corporate manner (off hours, or conducting personal business... that sort of thing)
-
No, if you follow my recommendations, there won't be much of anything for corporations to buy in DC.
Huh? How?
-
i'm saying people have a set of rights and they never lose them
Until they organize themselves into a corporation.
