Talk:Corporate personhood
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Is there any actual evidence that these entities exist and that they're not imaginary[edit]
So it's bullshit to declare something as a corporate entity? You mean like what we've just done with RationalWiki? 
theist 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. Blue (pester) 18:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- I thought RationalWiki has become a foundation, which unlike a corporation does not seek to make money. --Sir Onion Kneel before my vegetable might! 20:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- I thought it was a website?LogicMaster777 (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- I thought RationalWiki has become a foundation, which unlike a corporation does not seek to make money. --Sir Onion Kneel before my vegetable might! 20:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Something I've been wondering[edit]
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. — Unsigned, by: [[User:|User:]] / [[User talk:|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.
GodotMoi 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)
- 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."
- 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.
Corporate personhood and apportionment[edit]
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[edit]
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)
LogicMaster777's Input[edit]
| Expand to see further examples of LogicMaster777's "Corporations are unreal religions"-shtick |
|---|
|
Corporate "entities" are religious articles faith[edit]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?[edit]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)
Subsection necromancy[edit]A rationalist challenge to the evidential basis (if any) for the existence of "corporate entities"[edit]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)
A TRUISM[edit]
Is your argument basically that "non-physical things that people create don't really exist?" Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
|
Alan Watts[edit]
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)