Support NeoGAF

[WayneMorse]

I was surprised someone so close to Silicon Valley like Gavin Newsom would give such a full throated advocacy for net neutrality on Real Time on Friday.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Privileged white dude now writing in Time. LOL



Lulz

I wish I was white so I could write stuff like this with a straight face. Oh man.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Are you talking about legal fiction? Someone can correct me if I am wrong because I am no lawyer, but In the case of corporations the fact created (the legal fiction) was that corporations are persons so that the shareholders could be sued for breach of contract. The fiction that was created was that corporations are persons, not that corporations exist. I mean, its pretty damn obvious that they do exist.

The very existence of corporations is a fiction. In reality, there are only the natural-person shareholders. For the sake of convenience, we act and speak as though corporations exist, though we know that they don't really.

 

[Manmademan]

Are you talking about legal fiction? Someone can correct me if I am wrong because I am no lawyer, but In the case of corporations the fact created (the legal fiction) was that corporations are persons so that the shareholders could be sued for breach of contract. The fiction that was created was that corporations are persons, not that corporations exist. I mean, its pretty damn obvious that they do exist.

the corporation is an "imaginary person" that represents tens or thousands of people for the sake of making certain things easier.

the "imaginary person" that is the corporation doesn't really exist, but everyone pretends it does when it comes to things like signing contracts or lawsuits. This is what he means by "legal fiction." the corporation is an imaginary friend that people tolerate out of convenience.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I'm white and I couldn't write that shit with a straight face either. :/

I wouldn't be an honest or intellectually upstanding white man like you, Cyan. I'd use my powers for evil.

 

[Tamanon]

I was surprised someone so close to Silicon Valley like Gavin Newsom would give such a full throated advocacy for net neutrality on Real Time on Friday.

Hmm? Net neutrality is favored by Silicon Valley.

 

[Manarola]

Which is lunacy. Individual rights should supersede "corporate rights" full stop, because a corporation is not a living person. a casual search turned this up:



Kmart Corp vs. Trotti seems to agree with me that the employee's personal right to a "reasonable expectation of privacy" completely trumps the corporation's interests. Even though the employee was using a company locker on company property, Kmart did not have the ability to order a search because the employee's right to privacy and against unreasonable search and seizure takes precedence.

Likewise if I'm driving a company vehicle I have a reasonable expectation of privacy and against search and seizure, and the company can't simply override that and order a search if I've declined one.

The corporation may indeed have limited rights of some kinds, but citizens enjoy full, unrestricted rights that corporations do not, and those win out.



Yep. My rights as a citizen > the corporation. Now there are some obvious caveats here- if I take the company car and run off to miami with it instead of going to a seminar like I'm supposed to, then obviously I lose any rights here to operate that vehicle and the corporations interests take precedence. likewise if I'm engaged in illegal activity or there is reasonable cause to think I am on company property, or there's reason to think I should NOT enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy, then I lose out.

Yeah, we're not discussing the same thing here. That is not a 4th amendment case. I was using the 4th as an analogy to the 1st because its easier to digest, but the basic point of contention is whether a corporation has constitutional rights against the government. We are not talking about the corporations rights versus a private individual. And if you want to start looking up cases, you'll see that SCOTUS has already said that the 4th applies to corporations

 

[Metaphoreus]

So your argument is that a restriction on the right to free speech as a limited-liability collective would also be a restriction on the individual right to free speech? How so?

Imagine a law saying that no more than one person may make a statement of any kind (including an oral or written statement, and regardless of length). That is, the law would prohibit two or more people from making a statement together. If you and I wanted to, say, join together and speak in opposition to child abuse (or speak on any subject whatsoever) in a Youtube video, then the law would prohibit us from doing so. It seems obvious that that would infringe on our First Amendment rights, even though you and I would still be free to each make such a video without the other's involvement. The limited-liability issue is a red herring; it should make no difference if we decide to make our joint statement as an unincorporated association (just two people making the statement) or as an incorporated association (two people who formed a corporation making the statement).

 

[Piecake]

The very existence of corporations is a fiction. In reality, there are only the natural-person shareholders. For the sake of convenience, we act and speak as though corporations exist, though we know that they don't really.

That is really absurd. Its a political and legal construct that the government gives special rights of limited liability so that that company can hopefully grow and flourish and not be bogged down by legality issues if it was simply a grouping of natural-person shareholders.

Do you think we should do away with limited liability, then, and the special privileges that incorporation provides?

And I have to agree with Cyan. I don't see how limited to rights of the corporation limits the rights of the individual. Their individual rights don't disappear because they started a corporation. I think its pretty clear that because we grant limited liability to corporations that corporations arent actually people and we can grant or limit their rights to further the interest of business or the public good.

 

[Metaphoreus]

That is really absurd.

Dude, I'm describing reality.

Its a political and legal construct that the government gives special rights of limited liability so that that company can hopefully grow and flourish and not be bogged down by legality issues if it was simply a grouping of natural-person shareholders.

I know what a corporation is, and I know that it doesn't exist.

Do you think we should do away with limited liability, then, and the special privileges that incorporation provides?

No. What have I said to suggest that?

Their individual rights don't disappear because they started a corporation.

I agree.

I think its pretty clear that because we grant limited liability to corporations that corporations arent actually people and we can grant or limit their rights to further the interest of business or the public good.

I agree that corporations aren't actually people. They're fictions. The question is, can we limit actual people's rights because their association incorporates? I don't understand why the obvious answer--"no"--is so hard to swallow for some people.

 

[Piecake]

Dude, I'm describing reality.



I know what a corporation is, and I know that it doesn't exist.



No. What have I said to suggest that?

Well, you are clearly describing your reality. I'll give you that.

If you think that corporations are people and that corporations are fiction why should they have different/more rights than individuals?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Well, you are clearly describing your reality. I'll give you that.

If you think that corporations are people and that corporations are fiction why should they have different/more rights than individuals?

I'm sure you noticed after posting this, but I edited my last post to address the final paragraph of your last post.

As to this post, corporations largely have the same rights as natural persons. In some significant ways those rights are more circumscribed. I can't think of any in which they're broader. Limited liability certainly isn't one, since the corporation itself is subject to liability on the same terms as any individual would be.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

For real, do people really say "check your privilege"?
I googled it, it's mostly people complain about it or making fun of it, I also never heard it ever said in real life.

And in any case (and as I said in that thread ad nauseum) that problem with that stupid ass article is that guy denied the existence of white privilege.

Oh yeah, but there were a very healthy number if replies calling him on it. I was expecting the usual "it doesn't exist" routine from more posters. I think the concept has gained a lot of traction.

 

[East Lake]

I'm sure you noticed after posting this, but I edited my last post to address the final paragraph of your last post.

As to this post, corporations largely have the same rights as people. In some significant ways those rights are more circumscribed. I can't think of any in which they're broader. Limited liability certainly isn't one, since the corporation itself is subject to liability on the same terms as any individual would be.

If corporations are a fiction limited liability does not exist.

 

[speculawyer]

Not at all. My theory that corporations don't exist--which is correct, incidentally--requires that the rights of the real, flesh-and-blood people involved be considered. If you and I can join together to speak, then it should make no difference that we form a corporation (or other type of entity) to do so. A restriction on the corporate right to free speech is a restriction on the speech of the owners or operators of the corporation. But saying that I'm not privileged against testifying against you simply because we're both members of a single unincorporated association or corporation has no effect on my privilege against testifying against myself.

So I get all the advantages and none of the disadvantages.

How convenient. You'll make a great ball-licker for corporations. Well . . . if the actually existed. But they don't.

I'm going to go shoplift now because I'm not stealing from anything.

 

[Metaphoreus]

If corporations are a fiction limited liability does not exist.

Corporations are a fiction, and shareholders are not generally liable for the liabilities of the corporation.

I don't deny that corporations "exist" in contemplation of law. I deny that they really, actually exist in the way you and I do. A corporation has no physical form (which is a little bit ironic), has no mind, no will. It's a fiction, but it's a legal fiction.

 

[speculawyer]

Corporations are a fiction, and shareholders are not generally liable for the liabilities of the corporation.

I don't deny that corporations "exist" in contemplation of law. I deny that they really, actually exist in the way you and I do. A corporation has no physical form (which is a little bit ironic), has no mind, no will. It's a fiction, but it's a legal fiction.

Seriously . . . this is the dumbest argument I've read today.

Yeah . . . I have a wall of fiction books. But they don't exist because fiction means something is not real and thus does not exist! Derp.

 

[Metaphoreus]

So I get all the advantages and none of the disadvantages.

How convenient. You'll make a great ball-licker for corporations.

Reeeeaaaaally now? (For the curious, the above is the entirety of speculawyer's post when he initially posted it. That's why I've separated responding to his final sentence until my second edit, below.)

As to your first sentence, what disadvantages are you talking about?

EDIT:

Yeah . . . I have a wall of fiction books. But they don't exist because fiction means something is not real and thus does not exist! Derp.

Books containing fictional stories, like laws concerning fictional entities, exist. But Narnia is no more a place existing in the real world than Wal-Mart, Inc. is a real person whom I can go meet if I'd only travel to Bentonville.

SECOND EDIT:

I'm going to go shoplift now because I'm not stealing from anything.

And this? Do you not understand the phrase "in contemplation of law"?

 

[East Lake]

Corporations are a fiction, and shareholders are not generally liable for the liabilities of the corporation.

I don't deny that corporations "exist" in contemplation of law. I deny that they really, actually exist in the way you and I do. A corporation has no physical form (which is a little bit ironic), has no mind, no will. It's a fiction, but it's a legal fiction.

Its physical form is its assets and debts, which are separate from the employees' or shareholders personal assets and debts.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Its physical form is its assets and debts, which are separate from the employees' or shareholders personal assets and debts.

Its assets and debts are assets and debts, just as my assets and debts are assets and debts. In neither case do the assets and debts constitute the physical form of the person who owns the assets or is liable on the debts.

 

[East Lake]

It's actually a pretty important distinction. If there is no corporation there is no mechanism to separate personal and corporate assets and debts. And as such when I start Godzilla Extermination Corp and my products don't work as advertised I have to cover damages with my own money, and there's nothing to say I don't have to.

 

[Chichikov]

When discussing corporate personhood, it's important to be precise in what is meant. Manarola thinks you're talking about whether a corporation is a "person" in that it can sue and be sued, own property, enter contracts, and so forth. But I'd guess you're talking about whether a corporation is a "person" entitled to Constitutional rights. There's good reason to conclude that it is.

The first rule in discussing corporations is this: corporations do not exist. There is no creature out there in the real world called a corporation. Fundamentally, a for-profit corporation is an association of individuals to carry on a private business. When you talk about a "corporation," you're talking about them--those individuals who form the association. So the question becomes, "Do individuals give up their Constitutional rights when acting in association with other individuals?" I think the answer to that is obvious.

If you concede that individuals do not give up their Constitutional rights when acting in association with other individuals, then the question becomes merely semantic: do we say that these rights belong to the corporation as a person, or do we say that these rights are the rights of the individuals who comprise the association that has been incorporated?

Some people will argue that by accepting a grant of limited liability, an association that incorporates loses its Constitutional rights--or at least, should lose its Constitutional rights. It is enough to respond that such a bargain has never been suggested by law.

Of course people don't lose their constitutional rights when joining a corporation, I don't think anyone argues that, the question here is whether or not the constitution limits what rules and regulations you can put on them.
And this is not some random sophistry, there is a clear legal and financial distinction whether someone is acting on their own personal behalf or in the corporation's name.

p.s.
By the way, the problem with citizen united is much more the stupid assertion than money equals speech than corporate personhood.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The biggest problem is neither. Its the fact that they court doesn't think there is corruption or even the 'appearence' of corruption in our current campaign fiance, pay to play system.

 

[Giant Panda]

p.s.
By the way, the problem with citizen united is much more the stupid assertion than money equals speech than corporate personhood.

I wouldn't even say that's the problem. The problem was that the majority opinion completely denied corruption as a reason to put limits on the electioneering spending, and that they were completely fine with their ruling resulting in a system that had a lot of secrecy and lacks transparency. I think our current system with mandatory reporting requirements and contribution limits would be fine really.

 

[Chichikov]

I wouldn't even say that's the problem. The problem was that the majority opinion completely denied corruption as a reason to put limits on the electioneering spending, and that they were completely fine with their ruling resulting in a system that had a lot of secrecy and lacks transparency. I think our current system with mandatory reporting requirements and contribution limits would be fine really.

Transparency would surely help, but unlimited political spending, even when reported, further increase the power and influence that rich people inherently have, and that's not a good thing.

 

[Metaphoreus]

We're not talking about banning all corporate speech in any case, just about rights.

What do you mean we're talking "just about rights"?

Sure, it seems intuitive that a joint statement from two people should come with the same free speech rights as if it were from an individual. Somewhere along the line to thousands upon thousands of shareholders appointing a board which appoints agents which release statements on behalf of the fictive corporation, that intuition breaks down for me.

At what point and why? The thousands and thousands of shareholders, the board of directors, and the agents all have individual rights to free speech, obviously. So why should they lose those rights when acting in unison? And what is the basis in the First Amendment for drawing the line where you do?

 

[Piecake]

What do you mean we're talking "just about rights"?



At what point and why? The thousands and thousands of shareholders, the board of directors, and the agents all have individual rights to free speech, obviously. So why should they lose those rights when acting in unison? And what is the basis in the First Amendment for drawing the line where you do?

why are you assuming that all those shareholders agree with each other all the time when it concerns the speech and actions of the corporation?

Before you respond that people can simply not invest in that company if they agree, what about index investors? If the corporation has free speech, why should I lose my right to free speech based on my investment strategy?

 

[empty vessel]

The first rule in discussing corporations is this: corporations do not exist.

A corporation doesn't exist in the same exact way that the government does not exist. Yet you still pay taxes.

(By the way, money also does not exist, but you still pay taxes.)

If you concede that individuals do not give up their Constitutional rights when acting in association with other individuals, then the question becomes merely semantic: do we say that these rights belong to the corporation as a person, or do we say that these rights are the rights of the individuals who comprise the association that has been incorporated?

When an individual acts in the capacity of an agent of the state, the individual does not have any rights at all. The individual has powers.

 

[Gotchaye]

Sure, it seems intuitive that a joint statement from two people should come with the same free speech rights as if it were from an individual. Somewhere along the line to thousands upon thousands of shareholders appointing a board which appoints agents which release statements on behalf of the fictive corporation, that intuition breaks down for me.

I'm fine with that, personally. That's more-or-less how political parties work, for many purposes. It's not just fine for people to join together and exercise a free speech right jointly - that's actually a vital part of free speech and is one of the only ways most people can meaningfully participate in the democratic conversation.

But a few things strike me as problematic about for-profit corporations politicking on the side.

One is what Piecake points out just above - because this politicking is only a small part of what the corporation is doing, a lot of shareholders are going to end up contributing to speech that they don't want to support. This is rather different than when you contribute to something like a political party, where even though you don't agree with all of the speech you're supporting you're contributing specifically in order to support its speech. Many shareholders might prefer that the corporation not participate in politics at all; nobody contributing to the Republican Party hopes that it pulls out of politics. All of those people do have a right to get together and agitate for tax cuts or whatever, but they ought to be made to do so through a separate opt-in organization so that we can be sure that everyone contributing does on-balance support the speech being made in their name. Politicking by private sector unions is even a little problematic in this regard, although it's hard to object to public sector unions politicking because that's a natural way for them to go about participating in collective bargaining with their "bosses".

Another problem is that, as I understand it, this speech is tax-advantaged. I can't get together with a bunch of people and decide that income we make by virtue of owning stock in various companies is going to go to support causes we like before we have to pay any tax on it. We have to pay taxes on that first before we can pool it together and use it for speech.

It's also difficult to track individual contributions when this sort of corporate contribution is allowed. If I own some Walmart stock, and Walmart spends some money politicking, what share of that was my contribution? This is relevant if we care about limiting the amount any individual can spend or if we care about making sure that only people in some area can contribute (maybe we only want people from the state or country the election is in participating in the conversation).

 

[empty vessel]

We're not talking about banning all corporate speech in any case, just about rights.

Sure, it seems intuitive that a joint statement from two people should come with the same free speech rights as if it were from an individual. Somewhere along the line to thousands upon thousands of shareholders appointing a board which appoints agents which release statements on behalf of the fictive corporation, that intuition breaks down for me.

Thousands upon thousands of people can act together to make a joint statement and that is absolutely an exercise of the right of speech. But thousands and thousands of people acting in concert is not a corporation, which is an entity that is conceived of independently from any individual (just like the state is). When a corporation speaks, it doesn't exercise rights, it exercises powers vested in it by the state.

 

[Metaphoreus]

why are you assuming that all those shareholders agree with each other all the time when it concerns the speech and actions of the corporation?

I'm not.

Before you respond that people can simply not invest in that company if they agree, what about index investors? If the corporation has free speech, why should I lose my right to free speech based on my investment strategy?

How do you figure you lose your right to free speech based on your investment strategy? And are you really asking me how permitting someone else the right to speak freely doesn't limit your right to do the same?

A corporation doesn't exist in the same exact way that the government does not exist. Yet you still pay taxes.

(By the way, money also does not exist, but you still pay taxes.)

OK. What's the point of this comment?

When an individual acts in the capacity of an agent of the state, the individual does not have any rights at all. The individual has powers.

I'll concede this. That doesn't make it relevant to the present discussion.

 

[Hobbestetrician]

What if Metaphoreus is actually a corporation?

 

[B-Dubs]

What if Metaphoreus is actually a corporation?

Which one?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Which one?

What if I'm the only one? And secretly in control of all others?

Look, I'm not saying it's true, but have you ever seen me and Walmart, Inc. in the same place at the same time?

Something to think about.

 

[Piecake]

I'm not.

then you shouldnt have used the word unison.

How do you figure you lose your right to free speech based on your investment strategy? And are you really asking me how permitting someone else the right to speak freely doesn't limit your right to do the same?

So, you are suggesting that shareholders allow someone to speak on their behalf, even if they disagree with it? That is their free speech? I have to agree with Gotchaye (who is doing a much better job expressing it). For many, the purpose of investing is to make money, not for the corporation to exercise free speech. As a small shareholder, I have absolutely no way of influencing what the company does or express my beliefs to the company besides buying and selling the stock. Does my voice simply not count because of the small share that I own? Moreover, if I use a total market index strategy, I sacrifice that right for better investment returns. This definitely does not seem like a collection of individuals expressing their beliefs and views in unison.

If shareholders do not always hold the same opinions on all issues then who gets to decide what position the corporation takes? If I, as a shareholder, disagree with that, isnt my free speech limited because the corporation is not expressing my views?

Before you say investing in stocks is voluntary, the way our system is set up requires Americans to invest in the stock market to be able to afford retirement. I believe that corporations should have no monetary influence in politics, yet I have to invest. I am sacrificing my views, my free speech, so that I have enough money in retirement. A much simpler solution seems to be is to limit corporate speech. The indivduals who are a part of that corporation still can express their views as individuals

 

[Chichikov]

At what point and why? The thousands and thousands of shareholders, the board of directors, and the agents all have individual rights to free speech, obviously. So why should they lose those rights when acting in unison? And what is the basis in the First Amendment for drawing the line where you do?

First of all, I don't accept that putting limits on campaign donation is a violation of the first amendment, regardless if we put that limit on people, corporations or unions.
Also, there is a very clear line between acting as an individual and as a corporation, there is no technical problem distinguishing between the two, our laws and tax code are doing it all the time without any problems.
If you think that corporation should automatically inherent the constitutional protection that people have, you need to explain why you think that's a good idea, because if wanted to impose a different set of laws and regulation on people and corporations, it's a very easy thing to do, in fact, we do it all the time and without limiting the people's constitutional rights.

The rationalization behind corporate personhood is and always been just legalistic trickery aimed to increase the power of rich people (if people really believed that bullshit they would have applied it fully, but they don't, because following that notion to its logical conclusion, like allowing corporation to plea the fifth would've pulled the mask over such stupidity).

 

[CHEEZMO™]

What if I'm the only one? And secretly in control of all others?

So you're The Jews?

 

[empty vessel]

The thousands and thousands of shareholders, the board of directors, and the agents all have individual rights to free speech, obviously. So why should they lose those rights when acting in unison?

People acting in unison do not lose rights. But a corporation is not "people acting in unison." It is a creation of the state that--like the state itself--is an independent construct. It has powers (eternal life being one of them). People acting on behalf of the corporate form are no different from people acting on behalf of the state. They are acting as agents of the state, and the state does not have rights, just powers. The government does not have freedom of speech. Corporations do not have freedom of speech. People--including people acting in unison--have freedom of speech.

Do you think it is not possible to act in unison absent a corporate charter or something?

And so it's clear: The people-->(create) government-->(creates) corporation

The people can act in unison without the government creating a corporation. A corporation is a special state agency that must serve a public purpose (otherwise it should not exist).

 

[Chumly]

Anyone else have a problem with how the older conservative generation is fine with fucking the younger generation but god forbid you fuck with their government benefits. If these people are so against government intervention blah blah blah then should take immediate and drastic cuts to their OWN benefits (not that I would support any cuts). Maybe the younger generation should have their Medicare and SS taxes cut in half and we institute a special tax on the 55+ crowd to fund their own government benefits (Since they are planning on gutting our benefits). I mean we wouldn't want them to be moochers right?

Its just very frustrating reading the views on the potential candidates for my potential US senator.

 

[Sathsquatch]

Anyone else have a problem with how the older conservative generation is fine with fucking the younger generation but god forbid you fuck with their government benefits. If these people are so against government intervention blah blah blah then should take immediate and drastic cuts to their OWN benefits (not that I would support any cuts). Maybe the younger generation should have their Medicare and SS taxes cut in half and we institute a special tax on the 55+ crowd to fund their own government benefits (Since they are planning on gutting our benefits). I mean we wouldn't want them to be moochers right?

Its just very frustrating reading the views on the potential candidates for my potential US senator.

The thing about the conservative movement is that it is not really based on any kind of ideological consistency. That is why you have red states that take more in government benefits than they pay in taxes, a belief that the only good regulations are immigration laws that keep brown people out of the U.S., and the view point that the market place is always right but it somehow created a media that has lied to the public for decades. None of these facts show that conservatives are intellectually consistent or honest about what they really want.

The conservative movement is mostly defined by who they are against. They hate young people and minorities because those groups vote for democrats. Any of their ideological talking points are just ways of deflecting allegations that they simply favor the powerful.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I disagree though with that assertion. I think the modern conservative movement is largely based on the belief of white supremacy. It gets expressed consciously or subconsciously in most policy proposals. It's just that now nobody is screaming negro.

Similarly, I would say the modern liberal movement is based on the belief of equality.

This applies to US only.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Of course people don't lose their constitutional rights when joining a corporation, I don't think anyone argues that, the question here is whether or not the constitution limits what rules and regulations you can put on them.

I assume when you say "them," you mean corporations. But that's just my question rephrased. If people do not lose rights when they act through an incorporated association, then they may assert those rights through the corporation, thereby limiting "what rules and regulations [the government] can put on them."

p.s.
By the way, the problem with citizen united is much more the stupid assertion than money equals speech than corporate personhood.

Corporate personhood wasn't an issue in Citizens United. And the holding rested on the idea that restricting money spent on speech is a restriction on speech. To me, that seems tautological, but it's a point that appears to escape many.

then you shouldnt have used the word unison.

Fair enough. My opinion does not depend on whether every individual member of an association agrees with the speech in which the association intends to engage.

So, you are suggesting that shareholders allow someone to speak on their behalf, even if they disagree with it?

Shareholders allow many things to be done "on their behalf," even though they disagree with it. That's the nature of a the democratic regime that governs corporate management.

As a small shareholder, I have absolutely no way of influencing what the company does or express my beliefs to the company besides buying and selling the stock.

That's not true. You can, of course, vote. You may be entitled to submit a shareholder resolution to a vote of the shareholders. You can lobby management or other shareholders to adopt your view. You can express yourself publicly. You're not at all restricted to merely buying and selling stock in expressing your beliefs to the company.

Does my voice simply not count because of the small share that I own?

Of course your voice counts, through your vote and the votes of anyone your actual voice can convince to vote with you. You're demanding that your voice win, and you're not entitled to that.

If shareholders do not always hold the same opinions on all issues then who gets to decide what position the corporation takes?

This is a corporate governance question. You're suggesting that because you don't know the answer, the government should decide, and it will decide that the corporation take no position. But you're leaping to an unwarranted conclusion on the basis of identifying a potential problem.

If I, as a shareholder, disagree with that, isnt my free speech limited because the corporation is not expressing my views?

You don't have a First Amendment right to compel a private association to express your views. So, no.

Before you say investing in stocks is voluntary, the way our system is set up requires Americans to invest in the stock market to be able to afford retirement.

And what has this got to do with whether corporations or other private associations have First Amendment rights?

I believe that corporations should have no monetary influence in politics, yet I have to invest. I am sacrificing my views, my free speech, so that I have enough money in retirement.

No, you're not. You're investing. But the mere fact of investing doesn't empower you to dictate how or whether the associations you invest in express themselves.

The indivduals who are a part of that corporation still can express their views as individuals

Hence why I say that you're not "sacrificing [your] views, [your] free speech."

First of all, I don't accept that putting limits on campaign donation is a violation of the first amendment, regardless if we put that limit on people, corporations or unions.

I agree with this, to an extent. Campaign contributions clearly pose some risk of corruption, and so should be subject to at least some regulation. Disclosure requirements may suffice, but I'm open to limits on such contributions. At the same time, I recognize that contributing money to a campaign can be done in non-corrupt way and is an important form of associating with the ideals of the person running for office. I also recognize that incumbents--who control the enactment of campaign-finance laws and regulations--have a vested interest in structuring such laws and regulations to their own benefit. So, I believe that campaign contributions are entitled to protection under the First Amendment, should be subject to reasonable regulations, and that the courts should ensure that such regulations are reasonable and not an attempt to rig the system in incumbents' favor.

Also, there is a very clear line between acting as an individual and as a corporation, there is no technical problem distinguishing between the two, our laws and tax code are doing it all the time without any problems.

There are always problems, but generally what you say here is correct.

If you think that corporation should automatically inherent the constitutional protection that people have, you need to explain why you think that's a good idea,

No, I would need to explain why I believe that is true, regardless of whether it's a good idea. Yet, I believe it's both true and a good idea that corporations are treated as having many of the same rights as individuals.

because if wanted to impose a different set of laws and regulation on people and corporations, it's a very easy thing to do, in fact, we do it all the time and without limiting the people's constitutional rights.

You're right, and of course we do impose different laws on individuals and corporations. But it isn't saying much to say that we do so without limiting individuals' Constitutional rights, since the current regime treats corporations as having such rights. If the unthinking radicals on the left have their way and corporations are stripped of Constitutional rights, then that will no longer be true.

The rationalization behind corporate personhood is and always been just legalistic trickery aimed to increase the power of rich people

You don't have to be rich to control a corporation. In fact, most entities taxed as corporations under federal law are "small business corporations" taxed under Subchapter S of Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, which requires the corporation to have no more than 100 shareholders. These aren't the publicly traded giants that you, Cyan, and Piecake appear to have in mind.

People acting in unison do not lose rights. But a corporation is not "people acting in unison."

People acting through an association do not lose rights, and a corporation is an association through which individuals act. So people acting through a corporation do not lose rights.

People acting on behalf of the corporate form are no different from people acting on behalf of the state.

This is true to the extent that you're merely drawing an analogy between agents of a corporation and agents of a state. It's not true to the extent you wish it were.

They are acting as agents of the state, and the state does not have rights, just powers. The government does not have freedom of speech. Corporations do not have freedom of speech. People--including people acting in unison--have freedom of speech.

Corporations and corporate agents are not and do not act as agents of the state. Because people acting in unison have freedom of speech, people acting in unison through a corporation have freedom of speech. It is not a form or subdivision of government; it is a form of private association.

Do you think it is not possible to act in unison absent a corporate charter or something?

Of course it's possible for people to act in unison without incorporating. The question is whether there is a difference for Constitutional purposes between people acting in unison without incorporating and people acting in unison through a corporation. The answer is no.

And so it's clear: The people-->(create) government-->(creates) corporation

This is more accurately represented as: The people --> government; some people --> corporation. As I noted earlier, the only thing a government does anymore is accept a piece of paper for filing. Governments do not specially charter corporations for a specific purpose.

A corporation is a special state agency that must serve a public purpose (otherwise it should not exist).

A corporation is a private association that can serve any lawful purpose (such purpose may be limited by the decision of the private persons organizing the corporation, of course). It needn't serve a public purpose, as it is a private association.

Heap problem.

I'm not familiar with this term. Do you mean the sorites paradox?

Again, they don't. Your intuition-grabbing example doesn't extend from two up to infinite. That was the whole point of my post.

I see no distinction in the phrase "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech" between an association of two individuals and an association of two million individuals. If you're going to assert that eventually a group becomes so large (or is structured in such a way) that it loses its rights, you need to have a rational basis on which to do so. The agency problem is one example of that, though I find it an inadequate basis for limiting corporate speech.

 

[Chichikov]

I'm going to try to focus the conversation a bit here, I hope I don't miss anything important -

I assume when you say "them," you mean corporations. But that's just my question rephrased. If people do not lose rights when they act through an incorporated association, then they may assert those rights through the corporation, thereby limiting "what rules and regulations [the government] can put on them."

When a corporation get incorporated, you're effectively signing a contract with the government, you get some benefits and you get some limitations, but those limitations only apply to stuff that you do on behalf of the corporation, this is well defined and usually beneficial course of action, but you're always free to act on your own, individually or collectively.
Also, you don't have to get incorporated, the choice is yours, no one is forcing anything on you.

Much like a TV station can sign an anchor to a contract that stipulate that they can't say the n word without violating the first amendment, so do we can put whatever rules we fucking want on incorporated businesses (if you want to get anal/technical you can add "unless we force them to violate constitutional rights of real people").
That is not to say that everything we put there is a good idea, but just that the personal freedoms we have in the Constitution don't really apply to that contract.

No, I would need to explain why I believe that is true, regardless of whether it's a good idea. Yet, I believe it's both true and a good idea that corporations are treated as having many of the same rights as individuals.

Why what is true?
That corporations are not people (my friend)?
This are rules and laws made by men for the betterment of society, if they're not beneficial we need to strike them down.

You don't have to be rich to control a corporation. In fact, most entities taxed as corporations under federal law are "small business corporations" taxed under Subchapter S of Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, which requires the corporation to have no more than 100 shareholders. These aren't the publicly traded giants that you, Cyan, and Piecake appear to have in mind.

That's true, but the people who benefit from corporate personhood (who are also those who push for it) are pretty much all very very rich.

 

[Piecake]

..

You have a very idealized view of corporate governance then. Your influence and vote is determined how many shares you have, meaning that the wealthy has far more of a vote than any small investor ever will. Thats not democratic.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Way too much fisking lately.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

‏@SenJohnMcCain 6m
My hero Jack Bauer is back tonight @24Fox!

So much to unpack in those 7 words

Way too much fisking lately.

Not gonna lie, its keeps me out of the discussion. Way too much work.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Supreme Court just endorsed religion. 5-4. Guess who!

Kennedy opinion discusses and rejects the argument that the prayer practice coerces participation by non-adherents to the Christian faith.

Kennedy is willfully stupid here

 

[AndyD]

Supreme Court just endorsed religion. 5-4. Guess who!

Kennedy is willfully stupid here

My quick reading is that they found no anti-christian discrimination in the actual business of the town and the meetings, and the prayer start is not always christian, just most of the time as it fits the demographic/religious congregations of the town.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

My quick reading is that they found no anti-christian discrimination in the actual business of the town and the meetings, and the prayer start is not always christian, just most of the time as it fits the demographic/religious congregations of the town.

Which is of course continuing with the courts tradition of ignoring reality and real world consequences and pretending the letter of the law matches with reality. Kagan goes over how this is favoritism and their we're open to anyone is BS.

From the time Greece
established its prayer practice in 1999 until litigation
loomed nine years later, all of its monthly chaplains were
Christian clergy. And after a brief spell surrounding the
filing of this suit (when a Jewish layman, a Wiccan priest­
ess, and a Baha’i minister appeared at meetings), the
Town resumed its practice of inviting only clergy from
neighboring Protestant and Catholic churches

 

[empty vessel]

Of course it's possible for people to act in unison without incorporating. The question is whether there is a difference for Constitutional purposes between people acting in unison without incorporating and people acting in unison through a corporation. The answer is no.

The answer is yes. A corporation is a state agency, and as you have conceded, state agencies do not have rights. The FBI does not have a right of free speech. Neither does Exxon-Mobile. A corporation is not people acting in unison. A person who is acting within the scope of employment for a corporation is acting as an agent of the corporation, not as an individual citizen. This is just as a person who is acting within the scope of employment for the FBI is acting as an agent of the state, not as an individual citizen. We don't concern ourselves with the rights of corporate agents or state agents. They don't have any.

People acting in unison, on the other hand, are agents of themselves. They have all the rights as though they were acting individually, which, after all, they effectively are.

This is more accurately represented as: The people --> government; some people --> corporation. As I noted earlier, the only thing a government does anymore is accept a piece of paper for filing. Governments do not specially charter corporations for a specific purpose.

What you are describing is government malfeasance. The lack of any oversight over the state agency that is incorporated for-profit business is a huge social problem. Possibly the largest we collectively face. But that governments have abandoned the public interest by letting corporations run wild does not render their agencies not part of the state. Anybody concerned about "limited government" should see this as a huge problem.