Monday, December 05, 2011

PROOF: Corporations are not People

Corporations - corporations who need corporations
Are the luckiest corporations in the world....

I wrote this little ditty nearly two years ago, just a few days after the Roberts Court's disgusting Citizens United v FEC ruling. I've taken it out of the archives and given it a dusting off. It's proof - legal proof - that corporations are not persons. This is such a no-brainer that it's awkward having to explain it to certain people. It's almost like having to explain to a grown adult why it gets dark at night. Here it is:

Ascribing humanity to a corporation, to a company like Exxon or Disney for example, raises too many questions to even list here. But let's at least attempt to ask a few of them, shall we, boys and girls? Here goes....

Are corporations really persons?

Do corporations think?

Do corporations weep?

Do corporations fall in love?

Do corporations grieve when a loved one dies as a result of a lack of adequate health care?

Do corporations have loved ones?

Are corporations even capable of loving?

Do corporations sometimes lose sleep at night worrying about disease, violence, destruction, and the suffering of their fellow human beings?

Do corporations feel your pain?

Can a corporation run for public office?

Is a corporation capable of having a sense of humor? Is it capable of laughing at itself? (EXAMPLE: "So these two corporations walk into a bar....")

If a corporation ever committed an unspeakable crime against the American people, could IT be sent to federal prison? (Note the operative word here: "It")

Can a corporation register to vote?

We all know that corporations have made a shit-load of cash throughout our history by profiting on the unspeakable tragedy of war. But has a corporation ever given its life for its country?

Is a corporation capable of raising a child?

Does a corporation have a conscience? Does it feel remorse after it has done something really bad?

Has a corporation ever been killed in an accident as the result of a design flaw in the automobile it was driving?

Has a corporation ever written a novel or a dramatic play or a song that inspired millions?

Has a corporation ever risked its life by climbing a ladder to save a child from a burning house?

Has a corporation ever won an Oscar? Or an Emmy? Or a Tony? Or the Nobel Peace Prize? Or a Polk or Peabody Award? Or the Pulitzer Prize in Biography?

Has a corporation ever performed Schubert's Ave Maria?

Has a corporation ever been shot and killed by someone who was using an illegal and unregistered gun?

Has a corporation ever paused to reflect upon the simple beauty of an autumn sunset or a brilliant winter moon rising on the horizon?

If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a noise if there are no corporations there to hear it?

Should corporations kiss on the first date?

Could a corporation resolve to dedicate its life to being an artist? Or a musician? Or an opera singer? Or a Catholic priest? Or a rabbi? Or a Doctor? Or a Dentist? Or a sheet metal worker? Or a gourmet chef? Or a short-order cook? Or a magician? Or a nurse? Or a trapeze artist? Or an author? Or an editor? Or a Thrift Shop owner? Or a EMT worker? Or a book binder? Or a Hardware Store clerk? Or a funeral director? Or a sanitation worker? Or an actor? Or a comedian? Or a glass blower? Or a chamber maid? Or a film director? Or a newspaper reporter? Or a deep sea fisherman? Or a farmer? Or a piano tuner? Or a jeweler? Or a janitor? Or a nun? Or a Trappist Monk? Or a poet? Or a pilgrim? Or a bar tender? Or a tar bender? Or a used car salesman? Or a brick layer? Or a mayor? Or a soothsayer? Or a Hall-of-Fame football player? Or a soldier? Or a sailor? Or a butcher? Or a baker? Or a candlestick maker?

Could a corporation choose to opt out of all the above and merely become a bum? Living life on the road, hopping freight trains and roasting mickeys in the woods?

I realize that this is pure theological speculation on my part but the question is just screaming to be posed: When corporations die, do they go to Heaven?

Our lives - yours and mine - have more worth than any goddamned corporation. To say that the Supreme Court made a awful decision in Citzens United v FEC is an understatement. Not only is it an obscene ruling, it is an insult to our humanity.

Tom Degan
tomdegan@frontiernet.net

Join me on Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/tomdegan

For more recent postings on this disgusting, commie site, please go to the link below:

"The Rant" by Tom Degan

Shameful, left wing propaganda. I TELLS YA, THERE OUGHTTA BE A FREAKIN' LAW!!!

keep voting republican. there will be.

86 Comments:

At 5:10 PM, Blogger Gypsy Bob said...

PROOF: US Corporations Export Gas

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/05/news/economy/gasoline_export/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

 
At 5:18 PM, Anonymous James said...

Hey Tom, why are you changing the subject so quickly lately? The subject of 911 comes up and you post 3 days earlier than normal. And for the first time since I have been reading this blog, JTFs writes about something worth reading and discussing and you suddenly post 6 days early?

 
At 5:37 PM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

James, that sounds just a tad paranoid on your part. Chill.

 
At 5:41 PM, Blogger Catharine said...

Paranoid and non sequitur.

A great piece, Tom. Sharing.

~A~

 
At 6:03 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

Thanks James, I guess.

 
At 6:22 PM, Anonymous Dreams Amelia said...

Alas, not only do corporations not go to heaven, they don't even ever have to die (Reminds me of that Stephen Levine Book, _Who Dies?_)--they merge and acquire and simply re-structure debt in a way that should turn any mere human person green with envy. Or green with feeling ill that a corporation can use the legal fiction of its existence, a legal whim invented out of thin air that allows a business to procures special favors from the government in a highly arbitrary legal system, to literally achieve the humanly impossible: a corporation can write away its debts because once it no longer exists, it no longer has legal obligations.
Whereas we have codified into equally arbitrary (and harsh) law the idea that a person cannot absolve themselves of their student loan debts even after they have declared bankruptcy.

Thus a zombie bank, in a takeover by the Fed under restructuring, literally has more freedom and power than the average student-endebted citizen in the U.S.

Seems that there's too much student debt, but not enough street smarts about basic rights in this country. If we had more smarts, people would realize you can educate yourself quite well for free just by reading, and they wouldn't be eager to sign up for oodles of debt to do so. The education system/college requirements exist not because we really hold high standards to each other for being erudite, but because the banks are just so eager to con everyone into signing onto a lifetime of unforgivable debt. Enough people agree to the scam that the banks thrive, but philosophy/the meaning of life and the essence of what an education really means, withers--after all, based on the elusive nature of language to experience, what really defines "knowing" something? Does language disperse or concentrate power? As Rolande Barthes says, "a pluri-dimensional order(the real) cannot be made to coincide with a unidimensional order(language)."

You could ponder such questions with a friend all day long without needing to sign up for $200k of debt. Aristotle didn't have student loans.....

But thanks for a fantastic post, Tom. I hope to comment more at the blogs because the NYTimes new forum is so unappealing....

 
At 6:40 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Tom, this thought struck me as I was driving out of D.C. this afternoon:

If corporations are considered persons, and if I have a corporate charter laying in the passenger seat next to me, does that mean I can drive in the HOV lanes?

 
At 10:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So vote the Roberts court out, err, oops can't do that, can you. Hahaha.

 
At 10:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous Too said...

James... Just the Facts posts something worth reading and Tom changes the subject? The discussion isn't over yet. Scroll back down and keep reading the comments.

 
At 10:51 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

"Could a corporation resolve to dedicate its life to being an artist? Or a musician? Or an opera singer? Or a Catholic priest? Or a rabbi? Or a Doctor? Or a Dentist? Or a sheet metal worker? Or a gourmet chef? Or a short-order cook? Or a magician? Or a nurse? Or a trapeze artist? Or an author? Or an editor? Or a Thrift Shop owner? Or a EMT worker? Or a book binder? Or a Hardware Store clerk? Or a funeral director? Or a sanitation worker? Or an actor? Or a comedian? Or a glass blower? Or a chamber maid? Or a film director? Or a newspaper reporter? Or a deep sea fisherman? Or a farmer? Or a piano tuner? Or a jeweler? Or a janitor? Or a nun? Or a Trappist Monk? Or a poet? Or a pilgrim? Or a bar tender? Or a tar bender? Or a used car salesman? Or a brick layer? Or a mayor? Or a soothsayer? Or a Hall-of-Fame football player? Or a soldier? Or a sailor? Or a butcher? Or a baker? Or a candlestick maker?"

Unborn children can - yet we have determined to deny personhood to them.

By the way, I do pretty much agree with your take, I think.

 
At 11:35 PM, Blogger Margaret said...

Has a corporation ever given its life in the Armed Services of this country?

 
At 10:12 AM, Blogger Suz said...

I just read my first post from your blog that shows why corporations aren't people...loved it. Will be back..lol!
Suz

 
At 10:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why you're an idiot:

A corporation is not a person. A corporation is a group of people, sort of like a marriage. A marriage is a group of two people. Those two people don't have less rights just because they are married. Similarly, corporations are nothing more or less than people who have banded together to benefit themselves and their community. It's a shame you're too retarded to understand this.

 
At 12:30 PM, Anonymous George Gipp said...

I just want to post a belated endorsement of Newt! Thank you Tom for your open forum.

 
At 12:59 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

All of these question can and should be asked about Unions, if you wanted to be honest.

 
At 1:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A corporation is a group of people, sort of like a marriage. A marriage is a group of two people. Those two people don't have less rights just because they are married. Similarly, corporations are nothing more or less than people who have banded together to benefit themselves and their community."

So to extrapolate a little here are you saing that if your married you and your wife/husband should have 2 votes as individuals and then double dip and have a third as a married couple? Just wondering.

Den from Oz

 
At 2:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Den from OZ

Corporations do not vote.
The people who work for and make up the corporation get to vote once, unless they are Ed Schultz or members of whatever ACORN calls itself these days. Then you get to vote more than once.

 
At 6:25 PM, Blogger Yellowstone said...

You are going to need an attorney to answer this . .

In first semester law school (many, years ago) we learned that corporations were to be treated as individuals. The intent of this ruling escapes me - but I remember those of us in the class were taken back until it was thoroughly explained. Then it made sense.

But as I 'recall' (legalese way of forgetting), corporations are taxed and can be sued as individuals - among other things affecting individuals. This all came about long before the recent Supreme Court ruling that is really the basis for today's posting.

So, where are the attorneys out there?

 
At 7:39 PM, Anonymous Tyrone Witherspoon said...

Yellowstone,

Our resident lawyer is Ellis, but we haven't heard from lately. I'm afraid he may have OD'd at one of these OWS parties.

 
At 8:04 PM, Blogger Kati said...

Corporations can't be arrested, and it seems neither can their CEOs no matter how much fraud they commit....

So if corporations are not people because they can't be arrested, doesn't that also mean that their CEOs are not human beings either?

 
At 8:29 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

If CEO's cant be arrested then explain Bernie Madoff's current residence.

 
At 9:15 PM, Blogger Yellowstone said...

Words from the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX):

"Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."

 
At 10:09 PM, Blogger Yellowstone said...

continuation . . .

To address a question about "why no corporation (CEO or official) hasn't been vigorously prosecuted?"

It's the Legislative branch that writes the law. The Judicial branch decides it's Constitutionality. And it's the Executive branch's job to enforce the laws.

So, you need to ask, "why isn't the Chief Executive performing enforcement - when referring to numerous violtions of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX)?"

 
At 11:37 PM, Blogger Marcheline said...

As an apolitical but literate person, I find it annoying that so many theoretical questions were used by the author (and at least one commenter) to beat to death the simple concept that a corporation is not a human being.

After the first one or two pointed questions, we get the gist.

 
At 8:07 AM, Anonymous Christian de Lutz said...

My favorite OWS sign: I'll believe that corporations are people when Texas executes one!

 
At 12:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In Teddy Roosevelt's era, President Barack Obama explained to the nation this week, "some people thought massive inequality and exploitation was just the price of progress. ... But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you want from whoever you can."

And he's right. Even today there are people who believe they should have free license to take whatever they want from whomever they can. They're called DemocRats.

 
At 12:20 PM, Anonymous Diane Clare said...

corporations are people in the same vein as the royal "we". "We" are not pleased. "We" declare.....whatever royal/corporate edict we please. Royal "we" being given special powers by God to decide the fate of "us". You will notice some of these folks (Cain) talk about themselves in the third person or say "we" when they should say me or I am a screw up and all the people I rule or employee catch my shit when I decide.

 
At 12:44 PM, Anonymous JTF's Kindred Spirit said...

Obama: Republicans believe in a "you're-on-your own" style of economics.
Not true. Here are the distinctions that Obama and other collectivists obfuscate.

1) Providing social safety nets (welfare, social security, medicare, etc) is a power reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment.

2) There are 3 levels of relationships:
- dependence: One must rely on others to survive
- independence: One can survive by themselves
- interdependence: One can survive by themselves, but chooses to rely on others because of mutual gain

Obama wants us all to be dependent. The Republican philosophy is to be interdependent. In both, we are all "in it together". But one is oppression and the other is liberty.

 
At 4:00 PM, Blogger Ellis D., Esq. said...

I'm still here. To me corporations were always the epitome of capitalism so I really had no interest in any of the concepts involved. The heading on my outline for my corporations class in law school read CORPSE so I think that says it all. Regardless, I believe the influence of money should be removed from the electoral process so NO ONE whether an individual or otherwise is able to contribute to a particular candidate's campaign. What is needed is PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING by which all candidates share equally from a taxpayer financed till. The more candidates the less each one gets, PERIOD.

 
At 5:30 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

This is good news! It's a start. OWS is making a difference; exposing the greed and corruption. This is what we're working toward.

 
At 5:45 PM, Blogger Gypsy Bob said...

Corporations aren't People. However I remember a time when they did exhibit "People like traits." They wouldn't fire/lay folks off who were just about to achieve retirement criteria. Pensions and Benefits earned were sacred. Human Resource Departments were employee advocates not just the Comptrollers Henchmen. That's the way it was...until it changed in the 1980's.

 
At 5:58 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

When are the Unions, who are treated by the law the same way as those evil corporations, going to marched against by OWS?
Will the purposed amendment by the City of Los Angeles include Unions as well as Corporations?
After all, I'll believe that Unions are people when Texas executes one.

 
At 6:45 PM, Anonymous boltok said...

Are you corporate haters paying any attention to one of your most important politicians/businessmen, Jon Corzine. After putting NJ on a path to bankruptcy, he did it good and proper at MFGlobal. Billions of people's funds can't be found and he is going to take the Fifth in front of Congress. Oh, and your boy Blogo in the can for 14 years. Liberals are the biggest crooks while professing piety and self righeousness.

 
At 11:10 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Boltok, you attempted, once again, to divert the discussion. Why do you continually do that?

By the way, Jon Corzine isn't one of ours. He's a former CEO of Goldman Sachs, as I'm sure you know, and so he's neither ours or yours -- he's theirs. You know as well as I that Goldman Sachs owns this government, just as it owned the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration before that. So please, refrain from the labeling based upon party affiliation. Just call 'em all corporatists and you'll be right on the mark.

As far as Blagojevich, he's just another crooked politician. They're a dime a dozen.

Liberals don't profess piety and self-righteousness, unlike conservatives. You guys will defend a child molester if he has an "R" after his name.

 
At 11:49 AM, Anonymous boltok said...

JG
In case it escaped you, Jon Corzine is a Democrat and an ex Senator from NJ.

I know that now he has failed your movement, it is time to disown him, as Chicago has disowned Blago. I know you would like to declare them both Republicans now.

Corzine is not different. He is like all liberals, a smiling hypocrite.

 
At 2:50 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Boltok, since I thought I alluded to this fact in my very first paragraph, I guess anything beyond spelling it out for you, in a nice simple sentence, was too much for you to comprehend.

I was obviously mistaken, believing you would interpret the point I was making. Let me try to make it easy for you:

Corzine is a corporatist. Being an ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs, he's more powerful and influential than any president of the United States. (Sorry, did the last compound sentence confuse you?)

I'll make it even easier for you:

Goldman Sachs owns our government. I would have thought you could have figured this out by now.

Apparently not.

 
At 3:24 PM, Anonymous boltok said...

JG
Simple question:

Suppose you were a resident of high tax, mobbed up state doing its best to maintain the middle class called New Jersey. Also suppose that you had to opportunity to vote for Corzine or Christie. You would vote for Corzine in a second becuase Democrats are competent and Christie is a greedy Republican in bed with big business. Tell me where I am wrong.

 
At 4:10 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Boltok, here's my simple answer...

Neither.

They're both corporatists doing the bidding for the international banking syndicate and the multinational corporate cartel.

Unless, and until, you come to terms with that, there will not be any economic reform in America.

This is, in a nutshell, the message of OWS.

 
At 4:32 PM, Blogger Ellis D., Esq. said...

Why do these conservative trolls think we like ANY of these establishment assholes ?? Corzine will soon join the Chicago crook in the slammer and good riddance to both of them !! Now if WE THE PEOPLE can clear out the rest of the Wall Street criminals and get regulations passed to put a leash on the semi-honest at best capitalist pigs who remain, MAYBE we can make progress toward social and economic justice !!!

 
At 6:50 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

boltok,
You must be aware by now that in the case of JG, Tom and EDE you are not dealing with liberals in the sense liberal democrat, as in Senator Humphrey. You are dealing with either useful idiots (or as Austrian-American economist Ludwig von Mises called them,"useful innocents") or out right anti capitalists.
To attempt to tie them to the results of an action of a liberal democratic will only bring derision from them. They will quickly claim as you saw in the posts by EDE and JG that your example of liberal failure can not apply as the person/s who failed (Corzine) are
"capitalist pigs", "crooks","establishment assholes" or "corporatists doing the bidding for the international banking syndicate and the multinational corporate cartel".
The OWS are not liberals but they are followers and believers of Karl Marx. Their belief system is best summed up by this quote of Karl Marx
"Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form."
They define reason the way they want it, as it is needed to advance their anti-capitalist agenda.

Understand and you'll be free from trying to convince them of their folly, they do not want to win the argument with you, they want to defeat your way of living.

 
At 3:45 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Tom...Ellis, did you read the preceding comment?

So, I guess, one is either totally and unequivocally pro-capitalism, with corruption and predatory practices included, otherwise one is surely a communist?

Interesting use of illogical thought. But, then again, consider the source.

 
At 8:07 AM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

JG
Explain how you are not a Marxist. What are your differences?

Or, are you simply a "useful innocents"?

 
At 2:17 PM, Blogger Ellis D., Esq. said...

What is wrong with being a Marxist ?? You really think capitalism has worked so fucking well that you can put down Karl Marx ?? He was smarter than all you con jobs put together !!

 
At 5:07 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

Easy EDE easy, re read my post! I didn't post anything that was putting down Marxism. All I did, and you have confirmed it now, was advise boltok that you are not a liberal democrat but a Marxist.

If you re read your own post it is YOU who puts down people who are NOT Marxist, not the other way around. I simply quoted you.

Now that we got that out in the open, who are some of the countries who currently operate under Marxism? Let's discuss how their citizens are better off than those who do not live in Marxist operated states. You claim that living under capitalism is bad, now prove to me that living in a Marxist country is good.

It is a lot easier having a discussion with you now that the belief system you are coming from is known.

Just the Facts is a conservative capitalist.
EDE is a Marxist. Not a liberal.

Waiting for your list of Marxist countries so we can start to honestly debate.

 
At 9:50 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

What is wrong with Marxism?

Its atheistic foundation. It’s flawed economic theory. It’s justification of totalitarianism to achieve its goals. The fact that it does not mesh well with human nature. Its ignobility. Its bloody history in the 20th century.

Also, if you’ve ever actually studied Marx, you’ll know that he understood that capitalism was necessary to achieve the economic growth of the State. THEN, socialism should swoop in by force and annex the gains and usher in the State industrialist worker’s utopia. So, even he understood the power of capitalism to grow an economy.

 
At 4:36 PM, Blogger Ellis D., Esq. said...

Harley, I think you oversimplify Marxist philosophy. As far as it relates to our situation here in 21st Century Amerika, Marx was certainly correct about the relationship between the proletariat ( worker ) and the bourgeoisie ( capitalist employer ). The exploitation of the worker by the employer is quite apparent and undeniable. There is A LOT more to Marxist philosophy than the bastardized communist applications we were all taught during the Cold War. I always look to take the best ideas from philosophies and synthesize them into a hybrid philosophy. Religion is the least useful and most hindering of all philosophies hence the atheism. Ironically religious practice is the biggest obstacle we face in Amerika and causes much of the division that is not class related. I don't see how anyone paying attention to the events of the past 40 yrs. in Amerika can dispute Marx's view of the employer/employee relationship.

 
At 7:01 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

Great, EDE good to see you back.. Please give a country that follows Marx in their economic polices.
Need this list in order to debate honestly, now that you have become Marxism top defender.

Your statement "I don't see how anyone paying attention to the events of the past 40 yrs. in Amerika can dispute Marx's view of the employer/employee relationship" As a Marxist, please defend your statement. Examples please to support you belief along with the countries I have requested.

BTW, as I read it Harley got you on the truth that Marx realized he needed capitalism to jump start an economy, something you and our non liberal but very conservative President have never learned.

 
At 7:20 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

I don't believe Ellis has ever proclaimed being a Marxist, has he? If so, please indicate when and where.

Secondly, I'd like a response to my original inquiry: If one is against the corruption and predatory practices of modern day capitalism, does that also mean one is a communist?

 
At 8:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah yes, good ole Jefferson Guardian coming to rescue of a fellow Marxist, again. Diverting the course of the debate in order to cover up the continued failure of the Marxism agenda, while demanding the watered down version of capitalism we now endure in the USA be defended.

Maybe the question JG should answer is what is wrong about Marxism, communism and socialism before he attacks capitalism. Naw, not going to happen, in JG's mind there is nothing wrong with any of the before listed three, except they are not in place now in America.

 
At 9:46 AM, Blogger Carl-John X Veraja said...

Corporations should get social security when they retire.

 
At 9:54 AM, Blogger Ellis D., Esq. said...

No I never said I was a Marxist, only that Marx had some good ideas that could be adopted to create a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources among WE THE PEOPLE. Let's stick to discussing the relationship between the employer and employee in Amerika in the context of Marxist philosophy.

 
At 1:55 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

"Maybe the question JG should answer is what is wrong about Marxism, communism and socialism before he attacks capitalism."

Maybe that's because the topic of this post is corporate personhood; despite your preoccupation with Marxism, communism and socialism.

"...in JG's mind there is nothing wrong with any of the before listed three, except they are not in place now in America."

Good, I'm glad you've finally changed your mind. Socialism most definitively does not exist in America -- something we agree upon!

 
At 5:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

EDE, list what you don't like about Marxism.

 
At 6:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yup, socialism doesn't exist "now" in America, but that's not due to a lack of effort on your part JG. And what capitalism we still have is under attack from socialists who are the useful tools of Marxism as Harley A. so historically correct pointed out.

Since you are against "modern day capitalism" what era of capitalism could you support?

 
At 11:01 PM, Blogger YhuntressE said...

If corporations are people because they are composed of them, then we should consider schools, churches and even conga lines people as well. How far do we go with considering something as a human?

 
At 7:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are Labor Unions people?

 
At 1:51 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

"When corporations die, do they go to Heaven?"

Maybe they just imagine there's no heaven and act accordingly...

 
At 2:10 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

"Since you are against "modern day capitalism" what era of capitalism could you support?"

The era of capitalism from our late colonial times, through our nation's founding, and up to about the time of our own civil war.

I realize you probably have no clue as to how or what corporate charters were or included in those early days, so I'm leaving it up to you to research it. You can find the answers on my own blog, primarily in the initial posts from the summer of last year.

By the way, Harley A. was correct in his assessment that Marxism recognized the natural progression from capitalism to socialism to communism. Unfortunately, he conveniently omitted the underlying reasons for this: Capitalism, according to Marxist theory, would no longer be able to sustain the living standards of the population due to its need for perpetual profitability, thus corporations would resort to driving down wages, cutting social benefits, and pursuing military adventurism through the state. In other words, capitalism, according to Karl Marx, would eventually, and more importantly - naturally - fail to fulfill the expectations of society.

Sound familiar?

 
At 4:59 PM, Blogger Ellis D., Esq. said...

JG.....my point exactly !! These greedy capitalist pigs of today make Marx seem more like a prophet than a philosopher !!!

 
At 6:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

WOW, amazing how human nature was not so greedy in the days before the days Civil War!
No poverty, (excepting those who were slaves), no child labor issues, cause there were no rules, no EPA to protect us from the greedy capitalist pigs of today, no 40 hour work week, no over time pay, no health insurance or social security, no vacations or holidays. No Labor Unions, no unemployment checks, or section 8 housing. But best of all, no greedy corporations!

Yes sir, that sounds like the American I want to live in.

Still looking for a country today that is operating under the rule of Marxist economic policy's? I'd like to check out what their immigration polices are.
Come one EDE and JG, you guys know everything, give us a couple at least. After all if Marx was so super smart and his policy's are much better to live under, there has to be a few places that aren't as stupid as America is, right?

 
At 7:08 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Just as I thought...you haven't researched or read anything about early corporate charters.

Enjoy remaining mired in your ignorant solitude. It certainly fits you well.

 
At 10:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tell you what fits you well JG, it is your arrogant elitism.

Since you think so highly of Marxism, give us a country that is Marxist. Or can you? Let's do a debate on the merits of living in that country vs. the evil "current capitalistic" America. If you like, we can compare this Marxist country to pre-Civil War America, since you think so highly of that time.

Truth be told, you are the one who pines for the American before the Civil War which included all the things listed, that you now run from, as always I might add, once someone stands up to you and calls your bully bluff.

You forget JG, that if you want the early corporate charters, you just might not be able to have all things that corporations now give you.

Try this on for size.
reason.com/archives/2001/07/01/killing-corporations

 
At 10:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One need not believe that a corporation “is” a person to recognize that it is made up of persons, and that those people should not give up their rights when they associate to form a corporation. If the groups known as “unions,” “churches,” and “political parties” are protected by the Bill of Rights, then so are the groups known as “corporations.” Deny this, and you run into a host of practical problems. (If Mokhiber and Weissman really think corporations shouldn’t enjoy the same First Amendment freedoms as the rest of us, what do they think should happen to the corporation that publishes The New York Times?)

Jesse Walker

Now come on JG and EDE, lets come up with those wonderful Marxist countries where corporations are treated correctly.

 
At 11:30 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

"...if you want the early corporate charters, you just might not be able to have all things that corporations now give you."

Okay, I'll play. What is it about the corporate charters of that time that makes them unique?

Oh, and by the way, I don't want "to have all the things that corporations give" me. Not in the least.

"...people should not give up their rights when they associate to form a corporation."

They don't! I believe that fact's been made abundantly clear -- by many. Gee, you have really limited comprehension skills, don't you?

"If the groups known as 'unions', 'churches', and 'political parties' are protected by the Bill of Rights, then so are the groups known as 'corporations'."

Please recite for me, from the Bill of Rights, where it says unions, churches, political parties, and, of course, corporations, are protected constitutionally.

I'm waiting for your answer. (And about to break out in hysterical laughter!)

 
At 7:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm waiting for your answer. (And about to break out in hysterical laughter!)
Waiting for you to end your deflection and respond to request for you to list nations that are Marxist.

 
At 11:37 AM, Blogger Yellowstone said...

You don't think corporations are individuals?

Join Bernie Sanders by supporting this amendment:

http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c

 
At 1:15 PM, Blogger Ellis D., Esq. said...

Nations that are " Marxist " are not relevant to this discussion. If you want discuss the unwillingness of the bourgeoisie to treat the proletariat fairly and rebut JG's observations, fine. We are waiting.......

 
At 1:25 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

"Waiting for you to end your deflection and respond to request for you to list nations that are Marxist."

Deflection? You're the master.

This post concerns corporate personhood. Once Tom posts an article regarding Marxism (or you do, on your non-existent blog ;-), I'll be more than happy to indulge you. Until then, please remain on topic.

Now, as I requested, please recite for me, from the Bill of Rights, where it says unions, churches, political parties, and especially corporations, are protected. I must have missed that part.

I eagerly await your response...with a huge smirk on my face.

 
At 4:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

EDE, re read the string, meat head.

 
At 10:52 PM, Blogger Just the Facts! said...

"I eagerly await your response...with a huge smirk on my face."
That says it best of all, ass breath, you are nothing more than a pompous, effete, self important busy buddy who jumped into a conversation between EDE and I regarding Marx/Marxism. So shove that smarmy pseudo-intellectual crap you like to throw around like the grade school bully with a high degree of self doubt that you are, where the sun don't shine! (only a man with ZERO degree of self confidence in his own value as a man would, post a shirtless photo of himself. Like he was trolling for an overnight stand in a loser looking for losers blog)

You jumped in to save EDE's bacon, got called out to back the pablum you're spreading, cant any more that EDE can and now are trying to act like all you wanted to talk about was corporations.
Here's EDE quote "Let's stick to discussing the relationship between the employer and employee in Amerika in the context of Marxist philosophy." So where does your line of crap about sticking to corporate personhood fit now?
Here's a easy question for you, what don't you like about Marxism?
Got what it takes to answer that?

 
At 3:12 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Gee, Just the Facts!, are you angry with me? ;-)

 
At 3:34 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

Nope JG, not at all. Your invasion of my personal computer through the use of the internet without my permission is what I would expect from a Marxist.
After 12/15/11 if any of my personal records, files, banking information, passwords and personal likeness of me or my photo appear anywhere on the internet without my permission, I now now to charge with identity theft.
In the meantime, I know your blog IP and will be sure to copy it down for future reference if needed. By the way, since I did not create or authorize the blog you made for me, I suggest you remove it now.

 
At 5:35 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

This is great! So, Just the Facts!, you must have a secret admirer (as strange as that may seem). ;-) Or, it's your alter ego screaming to be recognized as a real and genuine person!

Sorry, my friend, it wasn't me. You're barking up the wrong tree (which, not coincidentally, you tend to do all the time).

 
At 5:40 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

By the way, nobody "invaded" your computer. Somebody opened an account in Blogger under your pseudonym. Anybody could have done it.

The only thing you've lost is your name. Now relax, and enjoy the evening.

 
At 6:15 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts said...

JG

Guess we will see, wont we?

You see, the photo used could only be found by on my computer.

Now after that bit of diversion, tell me what is wrong with Marxism?

 
At 7:25 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

"Guess we will see, won't we?"

Well, "we" won't, but "you" will - once whoever hacked into your computer starts "redistributing your wealth". ;-) Must have surely been a communist -- or a banker...

By the way, nice fish -- or is that your moustache?!

 
At 2:50 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

JG,

Interesting to see you purged my message from your blog. Some supporter of free speech you are. You gonna get Tom to purge my posts from his blog next? Or like Dave has?

If your position is right, so supported by the masses, why are you afraid of the posting a counter view point? Are you afraid to answer my and others questions, because to do so would expose your Marxist/socialist position for what it is, a failure?

Still waiting (since you butted into my conversations with EDE) for your answers to the following:

Name of country currently operating under Marxist economic rules.

What don't you like about Marxism?

 
At 3:08 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Hmmm, what should I do with my "newfound" wealth today...? :-)

 
At 6:17 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts said...

"Hmmm, what should I do with my "newfound" wealth today...? :-)"

Hide it from the taxman

 
At 11:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A corporation is OWNED. If it were a person, it would therefor be a slave. But slavery is illegal, so a corporation must not be a person.

 
At 10:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You all might want to do some reading up on the whole concept of corporate personhood. Your argument is comically bad, courts have not ruled that corporations ARE people, rather that as a group of people it should enjoy some of the protections of the constitution so as to not infringe upon the rights of the individuals in the group.

 
At 3:33 PM, Blogger whirlygirl said...

Hi Tom,
This is off-topic, but as fate would have it, while I was browsing Google for the latest developments in the Russell/Kavanaugh/and ultimately Walker debacle, I ran into a comment you made regarding this stench. I live in Milwaukee and have worked for the VA Medical Center as a medical transcriptionist for almost 20 years. I have seen Kavanaugh over the years as he worked in Facility Management for as many years as I've been around. His wife worked a few offices from mine. This douch nozzle is 61 years old, getting ready to retire with a nice pension, but nooooooooo, that's not enough, and get this, we have a federal union that rat-boy couldn't touch and Kavanaugh of course is a member, so unlike our city counterparts, he didn't have to worry about his collective.bargaining rights. There is so much about this that is so deeply disturbing I don't even know where to begin...and to top it off this hairbag is a veteran! I can only pray that as Walkergait unfolds the stench of his corruption will the trail they need...just follow that fowl odor! Thanks for your wonderful blog. I'll be following along, politically speaking I think you read my mail!
Sal

 
At 5:30 PM, Blogger whirlygirl said...

As I look over my comment I see Walkergait rather than "Walkergate" and fowl odor rather than "foul odor. Even 20 years of medical transcription hasn't freed me from typos!
Sal

 
At 12:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're snarky. I like it!

Thanks for putting into words what us wordsmithing-impaired folks have been trying to say.

But what I can say is this: Just who the hell do they think they are? Santorum (sanitorium?, sanitarian? - auto-correct can be fun!) wants to ban birth control. Like he has any rights to my body?!? How arrogant they are. And sad and hypocritical.

I'll be back...

 
At 12:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

response to: "Obama: Republicans believe in a "you're-on-your own" style of economics.
Not true. Here are the distinctions that Obama and other collectivists obfuscate.

1) Providing social safety nets (welfare, social security, medicare, etc) is a power reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment.

2) There are 3 levels of relationships:
- dependence: One must rely on others to survive
- independence: One can survive by themselves
- interdependence: One can survive by themselves, but chooses to rely on others because of mutual gain

Obama wants us all to be dependent. The Republican philosophy is to be interdependent. In both, we are all "in it together". But one is oppression and the other is liberty."
---------

Where you get "Obama wants us to all be dependent" I would say is laughable on its face, but that would be rude, so let me, instead, point out a slight flaw in your argument.

1. We are the UNITED States of America, not the United STATES of America.
2. Social safety nets are the epitome of interdependence, yet you would choose to weaken those nets by taking them back to state only levels. (Should we really make Mississippi fend for itself?). What about people who move to a different state. Will they collect Social Security from all the states they have lived in through their life? Where's the efficiency in that?

Republicans are definitely the you're-on-your-own types in their rhetoric. Listen closer if you didn't get that the first time...

 
At 4:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom,

You give turds a bad name.

Love,

Bill

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home