Today help: Are corporations people? - Help.com

The Supreme Courts seem to think so, as for I, if they are people, I would love to kick a few of them in the right place.

I learned in school that a corporation has the same rights as a person does (except a corporaion can’t vote) so I guess with that being said some people may believe that corporations are people.

All I know is that Corporations have a lot of power influencing many decisions within our society, especially political. We the People do not stand a chance when it comes to this, we do not have the resources they have. Even if we banded together, it would take years, maybe even decades before any change would transpire.

They, E Pluribus Unum, (E Pluribus Unum describes an action: Many uniting into one).

No, they are simply defined as people by the Supreme Court. I myself will never address a Corporation as a person or people. I will address you as a person, that is unless you are a Corporation?

Da⌐11 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I learned in school that a corporation has the same rights as a person does (except a corporaion can’t vote) so I guess with that being said some people may believe that corporations are people.

what do you believe?

I don’t like to think of a corporation as a person, i thought it was a bit ridiculous when I first heard it.

A corporation is a legal entity, just like a person is a legal entity. And according to the Law, each entity has certain rights associated with it. Legally speaking, they are very similar creatures. But legally speaking isn’t the same thing as actuality. You can legally say that a cow is a maple tree, based on the legal uses and practices surrounding them. But that doesn’t mean that maple trees go “moo”, or that cows can be used to make maple syrup.

If anything, a corporation is more than a person, because a corporation is a multitude of people working together. But on the other hand, a corporation is not alive, or a living thing, and is therefore not subject to the concepts of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

But for legal reasons, sure. I can see how a corporation is people.

Da⌐11 wrote:
If as you say a corporation is a multitude of people working together; and if these people are living things and there for subject to the concepts of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; can these people not collectively exercise those rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness while working together in their corporation? Or should they leave their life, liberty and pursuits for happiness at the door when they enter into their corporation?

Well, from what I understand of it, the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are individual rights. They do not extend to corporate groups, because individuals can exist outside the corporate group, the corporate group cannot exist independently from individuals. For example, families. A family does not have unalienable rights, as is clearly shown by many legal options; the most recent of which being the Gay Marriage issue. If a family was guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then you could not get a divorce, as the corporate right would be higher priority than the right of the individual.

A family cannot exist without FAMILY MEMBERS. Thus, a corporation cannot exist independently from its corporate members. But members can exist separately outside of a corporation, making their rights more important and non-transferrable. Some things can only be accomplished in an organized corporation, so it is given legal status as an entity. But it does not have the right to inherit rights from its members. Canada is a corporation, or a corporate group. It is an organization of people all working and living together in a government and state. Canada’s government has certain rights and obligations, as do Canadians. If there were no Canadians, then Canada’s government would not exist. But if Canada’s government didn’t exist, there would still be Canadians.

“Mitt Romney’s America: ‘Corporations Are People’”: http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/…

Da⌐11 wrote:
Wouldn’t the will of the corporation simply by the combination of the individual will of those involved? Do not the individual rights of the people involved guaranty them the ability to create a collective voice.

For example; by your statements the right to free speech is extended to the individual. But when that individual uses his speech in concert with a group of people he has incorporated with than that speech is no longer guaranteed to be free?

Yes and no. To use the family example again, a mother has the right to free speech. And in some cases, she has the right to speak FOR her family. But the family does not have a voice in and of itself, because the family is not sentient, and therfore does not have free speech. The family is a conceptual entity, not an actual individual. If the individual family members guaranteed the ability to create a collective voice, then it would give the “family” the ability to speak for the individual, rather than an individual having the ability to speak for the family.

The family does have a voice, but not freedom of speech. The family NEEDS an individual to represent it, in order to have that freedom of speech. We call this a Spokesman, or if it’s a political organization, we call it a “Representative”. Without that individual, the corporate group cannot have a “voice”, and therefore cannot have free speech. But again, the spokesman is only a representative, not the corporation itself. Each member of the corporation is a representative in one way or another. That’s why certain professions have a dress code. You represent the corporation to the public, and the corporation wants a specific image to be maintained.

they are legal entities composed of people.
Many are motivated wrongly.

Da⌐11 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Da⌐11 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I learned in school that a corporation has the same rights as a person does (except a corporaion can’t vote) so I guess with that being said some people may believe that corporations are people.

what do you believe?

I don’t like to think of a corporation as a person, i thought it was a bit ridiculous when I first heard it.

But how about thinking of a corporation as a group of people? is that ridiculous as well?

As a group of people no, I don’t think it’s ridiculous, but thinking of corporation as one person, I just thought it sounded a little weird.

A corporation consists of more than just one person. You know they say that corporations made America. Now just look at what corporations have done to America-brought it down…

well, for example: You have all your financial institutions, political campaigning corps, military, computer corporations, telephone, tv, you name it and there is some corporation with it’s name attached. the clothes that we wear, hairstyles, how we’re supposed to represent ourselves and/or others were standards that were set by a high class society.
Now look at the US’ current financial difficulties… Downgraded to a AA instead of that Perfect AAA credit score…Who do you think came up with the credit score and analysis?

Da⌐11 wrote:

rn.bejvancesky wrote:
A corporation consists of more than just one person. You know they say that corporations made America. Now just look at what corporations have done to America-brought it down…

In what ways have corporations made America and in what ways have they brought it down?

Yeah, I’m wondering the same thing. Unless you’re talking about the Federal Government and Federal Reserve, I can’t think of any corporations that directly affected the United States. And I certainly don’t think that America has been “brought down.” We may not be as economically stable as in the past, but we are FAR from being brought down.

rn.bejvancesky wrote:
Now look at the US’ current financial difficulties… Downgraded to a AA instead of that Perfect AAA credit score…Who do you think came up with the credit score and analysis?

Academic accountants who specialize in running statistics to find out if somebody is a risky investment or not.

Also, only one company downgraded to a AA score.
The other two kept it at AAA.
So it’s more like AA and 2/3rds of another A.

Blest wrote:

rn.bejvancesky wrote:
Now look at the US’ current financial difficulties… Downgraded to a AA instead of that Perfect AAA credit score…Who do you think came up with the credit score and analysis?

Academic accountants who specialize in running statistics to find out if somebody is a risky investment or not.

WHO WORK FOR & IN CORPORATE AMERICA…

Blest wrote:
Also, only one company downgraded to a AA score.
The other two kept it at AAA.
So it’s more like AA and 2/3rds of another A.

lol. True

Da⌐11 wrote:

rn.bejvancesky wrote:
well, for example: You have all your financial institutions, political campaigning corps, military, computer corporations, telephone, tv, you name it and there is some corporation with it’s name attached. the clothes that we wear, hairstyles, how we’re supposed to represent ourselves and/or others were standards that were set by a high class society.
Now look at the US’ current financial difficulties… Downgraded to a AA instead of that Perfect AAA credit score…Who do you think came up with the credit score and analysis?

The era of the big corporation is relatively new; the telephone, tv, financial institutions and the rest you mentioned all use to be local and small, sometimes they were just one person working out of their garage. In that regard I would say it was human ingenuity that made America and those corporations where just the grouping of these people along the way. They where a product of America being made, not the things that made America.

Assuming that American treasury bonds ought to be downgraded from triple A rating to double A pulse (and all indications shows that it should) how do we blame the rating agencies for telling the truth.

Right. HOWEVER, they were not considered Corporations until they had so many people working under them and the client base that they had accumulated.

And with the way that our government is ‘CHOOSING’ to spend and reserve our money, it’s putting us at that national debt, therefore, breaking us.

Was not aware of that, just going by information I’d received. Thanks for the insight though. :)

rn.bejvancesky wrote:
Right. HOWEVER, they were not considered Corporations until they had so many people working under them and the client base that they had accumulated.

And with the way that our government is ‘CHOOSING’ to spend and reserve our money, it’s putting us at that national debt, therefore, breaking us.

No, they were corporations the day that they filed for an Article of Incorporation from their local government office. My sister owns a corporation. She runs an in-home daycare with four children. She’s the only workers, and has three clients. But she is a corporation.

I know that the common word “Corporation” means like a large company and business that is national or international in scope. But that’s not true. Sixteen year old Tyler down the street has a corporation in the summer when he mows lawns for $25 each.

See, that is what made America. And it’s how America is supposed to work. Everything starts at the local level. Before McDonald’s was a global restaurant chain, it was a single restaurant. Before Wal-Mart was an international conglomerate of retail stores, it was a single store. Before Coca Cola was was the most well-known word in the world other than “Okay”, it was a small-town tonic and beverage producer in Georgia.