Talk:Corporate personhood

Is there any actual evidence that these entities exist and that they're not imaginary
So it's bullshit to declare something as a corporate entity? You mean like what we've just done with RationalWiki? 12:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not an "entity," a person, i.e. one possessing citizenship rights like freedom of speech. But the article as written is ... less than adequate. 18:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought RationalWiki has become a foundation, which unlike a corporation does not seek to make money. -- 20:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it was a website?LogicMaster777 (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Something I've been wondering
If corporations are legally persons, why don't they pay income tax? Totnesmartin (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You haven't heard of corporate income tax? And if one doesn't pay income tax one isn't a person? I wonder what the inhabitants of the US were before 1913. &mdash; Unsigned, by: User: / talk / contribs
 * Coporations are not yet legally persons, though they hold the status of legal persons in some contracts. It's a tricky topic.  And income tax has been around since the country started.  NOt at the federal level, but most people do pay state and local income tax.[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   Moi j'dis, laisse beton 16:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Corporations have enjoyed certain federal constitutional protections as to state law and action under the 14th Amendment since 1886 (this may have been a misinterpretation of dicta in a SCOTUS decision and it wasn't without out bitter controversy - some people still find it insulting that a reconstruction era amendment meant to grant equal rights to Black men was interpreted to protect some of the very entities that enslaved them). They've been granted a certain amount of personhood for purposes of conducting their own affairs since before the colonies, though, on the issue of contracting Godot mentions, I think the notion of corporations having independent legal existences was only recognized by SCOTUS in 1819. I have no idea when the idea of corporate personhood was recognize by the court or congress as to protections and franchises from the US under federal law. Remarkably there wasn't a federal income tax until congress needed to fund the Civil War in 1861 and it applied only to individuals. The first corporate income tax didn't exist until the 1890's, and even then it wasn't until the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913 (The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.), with its very general grant of congressional legislative authority without regard to the definition of "person," that the right of the US to tax corporations became set in stone. Corporations being persons under federal law has been a foregone conclusion since Congress passed 1 USC 1 in 1947 (I think...): "the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals." 17:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Corporate personhood and apportionment
If a corporation is a person, then why does the state it is in not obtain representation in the United States House of Representatives on the basis of the number of persons in the state, including corporate persons?
 * Because you misconstrue the meaning of "person" in this context. It means that a corporation can be sued, taxed, can own property, etc. under the name of the corporation; this is much easier than e.g. suing each shareholder individually. It's a very useful legal tool. Treating corporations as legal persons does not imply they are equivalent to natural persons, i.e. humans. (Yes, I know I'm replying to an ancient comment. But someone is wrong on the Internet!) Kimberly (talk) 10:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Indian Mutiny
The last para of the lede, about the Indian Mutiny, was off-topic, so I've been bold and removed it. MrGumby (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Corporate "entities" are religious articles faith
To quote the magic book of legal scripture as the "factual evidence" to prove the "existence" of a hypothetical "entity" is a fallacious appeal to authority. We can also prove the existence of "Magic" by this fallacious argument(since there are anti-witchcraft statutes as well). To quote tradition/precedent as "evidence" of the existence of a hypothetical entity is a fallacious appeal to tradition. This is a great example of statist/corpratist magical thinking: to believe we can create an imaginary "entity" simply by writing words in a magical authoritative book and then that "entity" magically becomes "real" through the supernatural power of "force of law".LogicMaster777 (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Do these "entities" called corporations actually exist in the physical universe, or are they just mental abstractions?
If they are only mental abstractions then isn't it magical thinking to explain these imaginary entities as operating on the physical universe? In any other context, would you accept that imaginary "people" could "own assets"?LogicMaster777 (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yawn! Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Logicmaster, I've read some misinformation here, so let's clear some things up. First of all, I and my friends peers are real people. Secondly, we don't pay tax. Starbucks (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A rationalist challenge to the evidential basis (if any) for the existence of "corporate entities"
If so, what is that evidence? If there is no actual evidence, then how do we know this whole faith-based concept of imaginary "people" is consistent with rationalism?LogicMaster777 (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are we to take the existence of these magical entities as an article of faith?LogicMaster777 (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's a matter of law and legal precedent. Do you have this idea that people here view corporate personhood as a good thing?  Ikanreed (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, so these entities only "exist" because of scripture(Sacred writings)/tradition. By law you mean "authoritative" words on paper right? Not law as in scientific law, right? Not really relevant to if they are good/bad imaginary "entities". Whether our imaginary elves are light elves or dark elves has no bearing on whether or not they are "real". LogicMaster777 (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I cannot escape the irony that you named yourself Logicmaster (InsertOpinion) (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Corporations are social constructs, like laws. They may not be corporeal, but only the crankiest of cranks would declare that because social constructs are intangible they must not exist. CorruptUser (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

-EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * These imaginary "entities" exist as abstract ideas like the "person" of Santa or Batman "exist" as ideas.
 * Religions are social constructs and religious constructs like religious laws exist as ideas in the minds of the believers. A corporation is an entity that is believed in by virtue of sacred authoritative texts/"laws" "say so" as articles faith in the context of an organized belief system which is what is different about them from Santa who we generally acknowledge is imaginary. I'm specifically referring to empirical corporeal existence. I mean if you are telling me "I have this imaginary friend named McDonalds" that's great, but why should we accept that your McDonalds is "real"? Because of the authoritative writings of a perceived authority figure wearing a black priest's robe who took a religious oath? Is it therefore beyond the bounds of logic and reason and therefore magically true and we don't need any evidence to verify it because of this? LogicMaster777 (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The idea of "corporate personhood" "evolved" through "case law" and "common law", the authoritative scriptural writings of "Judges", the priest-caste of the government religion. Due to their personal relationship with their invisible higher power of "state" (as its chosen representative- anointed as such through ceremonial magic including a religious oath typically given with hand on bible), these clergy members of government religion claim a unique ability and "authority" in their interpretation and administration and creation of statist scriptural "law". Faith in this scripture is the basis for this magical concept of "corporate personhood". It is a modern-day superstition.LogicMaster777 (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

A TRUISM

 * Let's try a stupid truism and see if it gets through: Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Ikanreed (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So then did corporations exist before people started believing in them? If everyone stopped believing, are you saying they would continue to exist? If not, then your argument leads to the conclusion that they are not "reality".LogicMaster777 (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Corporate-like things existed before laws recognized them as such. One historical example of corporate-like constructs was trade guilds.  The modern labels and laws we have help clarify and define things in a cleaner way.  Ikanreed (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And if no one believed in Guilds, would they still "exist"?LogicMaster777 (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Is your argument basically that "non-physical things that people create don't really exist?" Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's been their argument forever, except that they only concern themselves with aggregate creations that have some direct relationship with the law(Because an-cap). Arguments about parallels like "music" or "family" or "math" are routinely ignored.   Ikanreed (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Non-physical things that people create" "exist" as ideas. To imagine an abstract idea as an anthromorphized "entity" with its own personality is magical thinking/reification. Like Santa has an imagined "existence". But he, like a corporations, is just an idea. If a child actually BELIEVES Santa puts presents in his socks, that is a supernatural belief. He is ascribing the physical phenomena of presents in socks by an imaginary "person" acting on the physical universe. That is where it becomes magical in terms of the thinking processes. The child is using faith/magical thinking rather than rationalist thought processes to arrive at the conclusion. "Santa is real" Occams razor says if parents putting presents in socks explains the phenomena of "Christmas" then we don't need to invent "Santa" to explain it, so "Christmas" does not prove Santa, logically. Likewise, burgers being sold does not require us to conjure up an imaginary entity called "McDonalds" to explain the phenomena. For us to do so is contrary to Occam's Razor, but yet we still do so in our thinking. This is the irrational influence of corpratist religion. "Corporate America" is an organized religion.LogicMaster777 (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. That's an uninteresting argument that I've heard for so many years from so many first-year philosophy minors who roll their own cigarettes, read Kerouac or Alan Watts and have crabs, so now I know I don't have to pay an attention to this guy. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, the poison the well fallacy, you win. LogicMaster777 (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an uninteresting argument no matter who makes it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * K, it's uninteresting. You win. [User:LogicMaster777|LogicMaster777]] (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * They will reply forever, accusing you of ignoring their points, and dismissing them as a brainwashed follower of the god of government. If you're uninterested in that, please let this be your last reply.  I was just trying one more tactic that I was pretty sure wouldn't work.  Ikanreed (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Alan Watts
I looked up Alan Watts on this wiki and got Alan Watt instead, before heading over to wikipedia. Ok, read up on him, and hate him already. We could use a ratwik on him... TO THE TUBE'O'NET!!! CorruptUser (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, didn't he say Allen Ginsberg? It must be snow blindness, I'm all bedazzled. Alec Sanderson (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)