Re: Corporations are NOT persons.

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Dave CROCKER <dcrocker () bbiw net>
Date: March 22, 2009 2:12:09 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>, Dan Lynch <dan () lynch com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Corporations are NOT persons.



> From: Dan Lynch <dan () lynch com>
...
> Hear hear!  Corporations are NOT persons.  How that get encoded in our
> brains?


Probably because corporations actually /are/ legal persons.  Their  
legal standing is not identical to humans, nevermind full citizens,  
but persons nonetheless. There are even credible arguments that the  
legal standing of corporations is in some ways stronger than of humans.

Wikipedia provides some convenient background on the topic:

  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood>

But the gist is that if you list the legal rights of humans in the  
U.S., you'll find that corporations share quite a few of the same ones.

The debate about similarities or differences between corporations and  
human rights apparently goes back to the Romans, so it's not likely to  
get settled anytime soon.  Rather it looks like something worth  
ongoing review, to make sure that an acceptable balance is  
maintained.  The assumption should be that things can and will go out  
of balance.

Imagine, for example, if Corporations were not permitted to make  
political contributions.  Would that, perhaps, violate their  
"rights"?  Would that, perhaps, alter the political process more  
towards the folks who can vote than towards corporate dominance?   
Questions that should at least be considered.

d/

--

 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 bbiw.net




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com