Corperations are people, my friend - Agree or Disagree?

[hal]

This whole 'corporations are people' thing seems so far from the realm of reality - I don't understand how we got here...

But, although we have a few right wingers here, I don't ever recall hearing one defend this oddness. You don't need to discuss it if you don't want to - I just want a head count, so you can leave your anonymous vote and leave or just watch... or whatever you like...

So, I ask - do you agree or disagree. If there are no 'agrees', then one has to wonder - just who DOES agree and why is it the law of the land?

[hal]

well, we already got an 'I agree' so I guess it isn't as unanimous as I thought...

[freeradical]

It's quite true, and it's been this way since practically forever. How else could we hold a corporation liable for its actions?

This is not a new concept brought about by some recent Supreme Court decision...

A person is recognized by law as such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being considered to be having such attributes is what lawyers call a "natural person."[17] According to Black's Law Dictionary,[18] a person is:
In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood

[Chakravartin]

I think that corporations can be vehicles for speech and therefore merit some of the protections of the first amendment.

...However, because of the manifold benefits of the corporate veil, I think they should have a lesser standard for protection vs real people.

Among those benefits that they should forfeit are anonymous and unlimited political donations.

[GGD]

I don't feel that it's a simple yes/no question, I look at it two different ways.

1) Corporations are owned by groups of shareholders, so in that sense they are "people", a group of individual people who already have rights and representation of their own.

2) A corporation shouldn't create a new rights and representation for those shareholders, that's "double dipping", which would really allow an individual to have unlimited extra benefits through multiple corporations.

So, I feel that they are "existing people", but not "new people".

[Dennis S]

"How else could we hold a corporation liable for its actions?"

When are we going to start throwing "people" in jail?

[hal]

Dennis S wrote:
"How else could we hold a corporation liable for its actions?"

When are we going to start throwing "people" in jail?

There's not room for them with all of the corporations in prison already

[Mr Downtown]

I don't know how this concept has gotten so twisted in popular discussion. Corporations have always been legal "persons" in the sense that they can undertake actions, be held responsible for them, and have duties. And there's nothing new or novel about the First Amendment applying to them. Even the Framers would have expected a newspaper published by a corporation to have freedom of the press, would have expected a corporation's disputes to be heard in the courts, would have expected its offices and papers to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, would have expected the government to compensate it when taking its property for public use.

[Mac-A-Matic]

Corporations and the like have always been separate entities. Only recently, with the politicising, has the form been vilified. Was this corporate protection started by rich privilege? Probably. However, today anyone can make use of its benefits - including everyone here.

[OWC Jamie]

We only tax those we love.