• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

If you cannot own a person and corporation is a person then.....

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
If you cannot own a person and corporation is a person then, how can one person (corporation) own another person (corporation)?

Some bad court rulings have granted corporations person-hood. Since one person cannot own a person and a group of people cannot own a person then how can anyone own a corporation with twisted rulings like that?

With rulings like that I could argue that I can own other people.

Any discussion on this would be enlightening.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Corporations are not people. They have some of the same rights as people, in that they act on behalf of the people who own them, run them, or belong to them. When acting on such a behalf, they have the rights of those people, such as the right to speech and association. However, they do not have all the rights of people. For example, they can be dissolved. That would be the equivalent of losing their right to existence or, in human terms, life.

In that latter case, they are not acting on behalf of a person or people, and therefore are not exercising the rights of that person or people.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
person v natural person .. they are different ... a corporation can do things you cannot do and you can do things a corporation cannot do ...
 

Keylock

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2012
Messages
196
Location
OKC
Corporations are not people. They have some of the same rights as people, in that they act on behalf of the people who own them, run them, or belong to them. When acting on such a behalf, they have the rights of those people, such as the right to speech and association. However, they do not have all the rights of people. For example, they can be dissolved. That would be the equivalent of losing their right to existence or, in human terms, life.

In that latter case, they are not acting on behalf of a person or people, and therefore are not exercising the rights of that person or people.

Corporations come to "life" via government grant. They both lack sentience. Thus one non-life form grants life to another non-life form. Yet people, who are sentient beings, are treated as slaves and serfs by the state.

The government isn't capable of granting rights. It can only grant privileleges. Rights come from our humanity. Corporations lack humanity. By saying that corporations have rights that government grants, we begin down the road that says our rights don't come from the Creator, but government. Slippery slope. And all of this intentional as a means of confusing the stupid amongst us from where rights come.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Corporations come to "life" via government grant. They both lack sentience. Thus one non-life form grants life to another non-life form. Yet people, who are sentient beings, are treated as slaves and serfs by the state.

The government isn't capable of granting rights. It can only grant privileleges. Rights come from our humanity. Corporations lack humanity. By saying that corporations have rights that government grants, we begin down the road that says our rights don't come from the Creator, but government. Slippery slope. And all of this intentional.

You are trying to use life both metaphorically and literally, using the metaphoric life to make the point and then literal life to mock it. Non sequitur.

Corporations exist. They don't live. Corporate existence is the analog to a person's life.

Again, the rights that a corporation exercises do not come from government. They are the same rights that any organization, incorporated through government or not, can exercise on behalf of the people it represents. The rights belong to the people, but are being exercised by the entity created by the people and sometimes formally recognized by government, sometimes not.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
But many of the "privileges" and protections afforded corporations are granted by government. This is morally wrong.

That is an overbroad statement. Privileges and protections are granted to many different entities: corporations, people, and other entities. So? Unless you have a specific privilege or protection offered to a specific entity that you think is wrong, meh.

You will find that on most privileges and protections, I would agree with you that they are wrong, simply because I prefer minimal government. I just won't make a blanket statement implying that all are wrong, not even all for corporations.

On ninja edit: Notice that, in the quote, the word many is applied to the granting of privileges, not to the ones that are morally wrong. The statement is clearly implying that the privileges and protections afforded are morally wrong without exception. So any future post saying that SVG is only saying that many are wrong is a bunch of deceptive hooey.

I don't do many ninja edits, but some situations just cry out for them.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I just won't make a blanket statement implying that all are wrong, not even all for corporations.

Neither did SVG. He said "many."

It just so happens that a number of the primary defining characteristics of the modern corporation are granted by government and represent an abrogation of others' rights.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
But many of the "privileges" and protections afforded corporations are granted by government. This is morally wrong.

Corporations are supposed to be extremely limited.

Example:

A group of people, you, and I wanted to build a bridge across a river/lake/straight/valley we could start a corporation that had the sole purpose of building the bridge. It be there to help protect us if there was a person who died while building the bridge or if the bridge does not get maintained later and falls apart. After the bridge was built the corporation would dissolve.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Neither did SVG. He said "many."

It just so happens that a number of the primary defining characteristics of the modern corporation are granted by government and represent an abrogation of others' rights.

This.
That is an overbroad statement. Privileges and protections are granted to many different entities: corporations, people, and other entities. So? Unless you have a specific privilege or protection offered to a specific entity that you think is wrong, meh.

You will find that on most privileges and protections, I would agree with you that they are wrong, simply because I prefer minimal government. I just won't make a blanket statement implying that all are wrong, not even all for corporations.

On ninja edit: Notice that, in the quote, the word many is applied to the granting of privileges, not to the ones that are morally wrong. The statement is clearly implying that the privileges and protections afforded are morally wrong without exception. So any future post saying that SVG is only saying that many are wrong is a bunch of deceptive hooey.

Just keep in mind Eye the flow of the conversation....

Again, the rights that a corporation exercises do not come from government. They are the same rights that any organization, incorporated through government or not, can exercise on behalf of the people it represents. The rights belong to the people, but are being exercised by the entity created by the people and sometimes formally recognized by government, sometimes not.



But many of the "privileges" and protections afforded corporations are granted by government. This is morally wrong.

I am not arguing that the rights belong to the people of the corporation only that when you grant one group of people e.g. corporations over other groups of people or individuals it is morally wrong. And that is why I said many and then the subject privileges and protections afforded corporations, if you and I as private individuals acting without a government license have the same privileges and protections I would have no moral problems with it.
 
Last edited:
Top