If Corporations are People, When They're Old can we take away their Money?

[FusedMass]

Disclaimer: The overall question IS are Corporation's People. Cancelling out insurance talking points making it an issue with both side take on it. Attempt to close this will result in an appeal in interest of fairness.

[DEATHETERNAL]

The picture you linked to is stupidity not based in reality from a radical leftist organization. Corporations are a legal entity that should not be defined as a person but should be given the rights of a person as it is made up of the collective assets and will of those who own pieces of it. To not respect the rights of the corporation is to not respect the rights of those people who own parts of it. Corporations are a legal entity that represent people who own them.

[FusedMass]

The picture you linked to is stupidity not based in reality. Corporations are a legal entity that should not be defined as a person but should be given the rights of a person as it is made up of the collective assets and will of those who own pieces of it. To not respect the rights of the corporation is to not respect the rights of those people who own parts of it. Corporations are a legal entity that represent people who own them.

He say's they are people

[cityguy193]

The picture you linked to is stupidity not based in reality. Corporations are a legal entity that should not be defined as a person but should be given the rights of a person as it is made up of the collective assets and will of those who own pieces of it. To not respect the rights of the corporation is to not respect the rights of those people who own parts of it.

Its so silly that Corporations are given more human rights than homosexuals

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

The picture you linked to is stupidity not based in reality from a radical leftist organization. Corporations are a legal entity that should not be defined as a person but should be given the rights of a person as it is made up of the collective assets and will of those who own pieces of it. To not respect the rights of the corporation is to not respect the rights of those people who own parts of it. Corporations are a legal entity that represent people who own them.

Corporations already have their owners to represent them, they do not need any additional representation.

[DEATHETERNAL]

Its so silly that Corporations are given more human rights than homosexuals

Actually, corporations can't get married either. At least think through what you say.

Corporations already have their owners to represent them, they do not need any additional representation.

And they don't have additional representation beyond what their owners choose to do with their own money within the corporation. I fail to see what your point is.

He say's they are people

If “people” in that statement is plural (which his further comments indicate) then yes, corporations are people (plural) in that corporations are made up of the assets of different people and have the same rights as the people whose assets make up the corporation as the corporation is a collective of those people. Corporations are people. A corporation is people. A corporation is the people whose assets make it up.

[Deleted]

Actually, corporations can't get married either. At least think through what you say.


And they don't have additional representation beyond what their owners choose to do with their own money within the corporation. I fail to see what your point is.


If “people” in that statement is plural (which his further comments indicate) then yes, corporations are people (plural) in that corporations are made up of the assets of different people and have the same rights as the people whose assets make up the corporation as the corporation is a collective of those people.

Sure they can, it's just called a merger and in case of forced marriage it would be called a hostile take-over

[FusedMass]

Actually, corporations can't get married either. At least think through what you say.


And they don't have additional representation beyond what their owners choose to do with their own money within the corporation. I fail to see what your point is.


If “people” in that statement is plural (which his further comments indicate) then yes, corporations are people (plural) in that corporations are made up of the assets of different people and have the same rights as the people whose assets make up the corporation as the corporation is a collective of those people. Corporations are people. A corporation is people. A corporation is the people whose assets make it up.

By using your own theory. Then if we cut them them in half and sell off. Shouldn't peope be charged with murder. A person who murdered a person would.

[IIamaKing]

This should be in republican pres discussion.

[FusedMass]

This should be in republican pres discussion.

No. It's their plan, but my question IS Are Corporations People. Making it a non republican but both party talking points cancelling out the insurance thing.

[DEATHETERNAL]

Sure they can, it's just called a merger and in case of forced marriage it would be called a hostile take-over

Gays can merge their assets without getting married which is what a merger does so again same rights (lol @ hostile take-over).

By using your own theory. Then if we cut them them in half and sell off. Shouldn't peope be charged with murder. A person who murdered a person would.

Cutting a person in half kills him (99.99999% of the time). Cutting a corporation in half does not kill the corporation, it in fact creates two corporations. So cutting the corporation in half is more like the corporation giving birth than being murdered (with the person overseeing the splitting of the corporation being like the attending doctor, Mitt Romney the Corporation Doctor ).

[FusedMass]

Gays can merge their assets without getting married which is what a merger does so again same rights (lol @ hostile take-over).


Cutting a person in half kills him. Cutting a corporation in half does not kill the corporation, it in fact creates two corporations, so cutting the corporation in half is more like the corporation giving birth than being murdered (with the person overseeing the splitting of the corporation being like the attending doctor, Mitt Romney the Corporation Doctor).

You are the spin doctor.

[DEATHETERNAL]

You are the spin doctor.

When you brought up "murdering" corporations, I think we had already departed the realm of serious debate thanks to you lol.

[FusedMass]

When you brought up "murdering" corporations, I think we had already departed serious debate thanks to you lol.

That is INSULTING. You say one thing. I bring up a situation. Now the rules do not apply. My point you cannot just make the rules favor you. You are worse then a poster with little sense. Even the republican's I argue with don't stoop to personal insults. That quite frankly explains your postion. Sitting there in your arm chair pretending to know all the in and out's and re-directing back to me when your theory is explained in logic.

[DEATHETERNAL]

That is INSULTING. You say one thing. I bring up a situation. Now the rules do not apply. My point you cannot just make the rules favor you. You are worse then a poster with little sense. Even the republican's I argue with don't stoop to personal insults. That quite frankly explains your postion. Sitting there in your arm chair pretending to know all the in and out's and re-directing back to me when your theory is explained in logic.

I showed you the foolishness of what you stated by stating something equally as foolish and you are somehow insulted and rageful? You want to equate equal legal and economic rights for corporations and people to meaning corporations are somehow human and capable of being murdered and then accuse me of not making sense? You didn’t explain my theory in any form of logic, you inserted your own stupidity into it and then tried to pin it on me.

[FusedMass]

How does this post even make sense? I showed you the foolishness of what you stated by stating something equally as foolish and you are somehow insulted and rageful?

Want me to break it down?

I bring up a situation "Corporations are People" in order for benefit's

But murdering them doesn't apply to, their human rule. That's when I bring up logic.

Then you re-direct question and insult me when I explain my theory

If corporations are people, shouldn't this apply.

Need more help to understand?

How does my post even make sense

NICE EDIT on your post. I guess it did.

[Catta]

I will believe corporations are people when they execute one.

[DEATHETERNAL]

Want me to break it down?
I bring up a situation "Corporations are People" in order for benefit's
But murdering them doesn't apply to, their human rule. That's when I bring up logic.
Then you re-direct question and insult me when I explain my theory
If corporations are people, shouldn't this apply.
Need more help to understand?

Benefits has nothing to do what we are discussing. I never claimed they were human in their nonexistent capacity to be murdered as you are attempting to put forth, I stated that they are people in that they are made up of the collective assets and will of the people who own them and therefore should be given the rights of people who own them as they are simply an extension of those people. Allowing a corporation its rights does not suddenly magically make them capable of being murdered as you want to put forth.

[FusedMass]

Benefits has nothing to do what we are discussing. I never claimed they were human in their nonexistent capacity to be murdered as you are attempting to put forth, I stated that they are people in that they are made up of the collective assets and will of the people who own them and therefore should be given the rights of people. Allowing a corporation its rights does not suddenly magically make them capable of being murdered as you want to put forth.

They can be murdered. To divide a corporation up and sell of shares is in effect killing it. If you want wish collective assets and will of people. That doesn't make them a person. Simply wanting or wishing it to be. Does not make it so. Or church's can be people? warehouses? where is the line. If a corporation doesn't have human right's. It shouldn't be labeled human.

[DEATHETERNAL]

They can be murdered. To divide a corporation up and sell of shares is in effect killing it. If you want wish collective assets and will of people. That doesn't make them a person. Simply wanting or wishing it to be. Does not make it so. Or church's can be people? warehouses? where is the line. If a corporation doesn't have human right's. It shouldn't be labeled human.

You are really just hung up on how we label it? Fine, as long as you allow it to maintain its economic and legal rights then I don't care what you call it. Call corporations mermaids for all I care. We say a corporation is people not because the corporation is physically a person, but because it has the same economic and legal rights to operate as a person because it is an extension of all the people whose assets and will collectively make it up.