The Political Brain

[Coito ergo sum]

[
Corporations are not human beings, and should not have human rights. They should have only those authorities and privileges that society, through it's elected leadership, deem necessary and reasonable for the corporations to have.

This is what they have. Corporation law is generally a matter of state law, and the states may change it.

And, 1 USC sec. 1 may be amended by Congress at any time - and that says "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;" - so - it's perfectly o.k. to make them "not persons."

The basic distinction in the US is the same as JOZ mentioned - legal person vs. natural person.

Corporations are made legal persons mainly so that they can be taxed separately from natural persons. If they weren't legal persons, they'd just be groups of people and there would be a zero corporate tax. Also, corporations are given person status so that there may be shareholder limited liability. That allows investors to buy equity interests in the company but only put their investment at risk, not their life savings and personal assets. It also allows corporations to contract separate and apart from their owners - if corporations aren't persons, then they can't sign a contract, sue in court, or be sued in court in their own right. They'd just basically be partnerships.

It's certainly not something that has to be, as a matter of fundamental liberties. Corporations can be eliminated altogether. Like other forms of business entities, their rights and responsibilities are set by state law - like limited liability companies - I can start one today, because state law says I can. If they repealed the limited liability company act, then I couldn't do that. The corporation law of my state could be repealed to.

As far as constitutional rights go, the the idea that corporations or partnerships have free speech is simply an acknowledgement that these entities are fundamentally just groups of people. An individual has the right to speak and publish, right? So, a group of individuals who call themselves PETA, Inc. can also speak and publish. That's the basic gist of it, anyway.

[pErvinalia]

The Communist Party USA actively supported Obama during the primary election and their leader Sam Webb recently stated: "Just look at the new lay of the land: a friend of labor and its allies sits in the White House." He went on to enthusiastically discuss Obama's agenda to nationalize the American financial system, the Federal Reserve Bank, and private industries such as energy and various other sectors. "All these – and many other things – are within OUR reach now... an opportunity of a lifetime," said Webb. So, that's what the Communist Party USA thinks of him.

Gosh, do you think they think better of him than they do Bush? I bet the National Socialist Worker's Party and everyone at Stormfront liked Bush and McCain better than Obama. Doesn't make Bush or McCain racists.

GUILT BY ASSOCIATION.

McCarthy would be proud of you.

McCarthy was right, the US government was, and still is, stuffed with Communist spies, agents, traitors and fellow travelers. It's much worse today that it was in McCarthy's time, and we need another McCarthy who is willing to take on the traitors, communists and socialists in our government, like the one in the White House. I'd prefer to see some heads on pikes this time, or perhaps traitors hanging from light poles on Constitution Avenue, but I'll take what I can get for the moment, and Obama is on the ropes right now, which means he has to pander to the middle by moving to the right. Hopefully that will piss off the hard-left enough to run another Marxist against him in 2012, which will dilute the vote.

That's the problem with Marxists, they have little self-control, and when one of their leaders doesn't measure up to their idea of acceptable revolutionary zeal, they tend to kill them. Obama is likely at far greater risk of assassination from anarchists and radical Marxists than he is from the right. Typically presidential assassins are either pure nut jobs, or from the political left.

This is a good thing, though, that the radical Marxist left is generally unable to contain their anger at not achieving quick victory, because it shows the rest of us just how dangerous they really are, and why we need to extirpate Progressivism and Marxism from our society.


Glenn Beck's doing a fair job, and he doesn't even have subpoena powers. And the people responded to him and retook the House.

You don't epect to be taken seriously, do you? Advocating McCarthyism, honestly? We should exclude people from public life because of their political convictions, or even the political convictions of the people they hang out with? Really? I thought you valued freedom.

Guess I was mistaken.

Exactly. I can't be arsed responding anymore. It's pure lunacy.

[pErvinalia]

Ok, sorry to get carried away and lump you in with Seth. This happens when I have to deal with the sort of ridiculous conspiracy nonsense that Seth peddles. But to be clear here, Seth DOES believe the whole western world is socialist. He really DOES believe it will end in GULAGS and millions of deaths. I shit you not. He really believes this stuff. So, as long as you don't believe any of this nonsense, then I will once again apologise for possibly misrepresenting your argument.

I disagree with Seth all the time. Check out the "secular debate about abortion" thread.

Actually, CES agrees with Seth on most ideological issues. Judging from his posts anyway. He keeps mentioning the "abortion thread" as his opposition to seth. He disagrees on one issue as far as I can tell. Same librarian, knee jerk anti communist/socialist, pro imperialism, pro neo liberal free market capitalist stance.

Actually, I haven't agreed with Seth on most issues at all.

I didn't "keep" mentioning the abortion thread. I mentioned it.

I disagree with Seth on THIS issue, as a matter of fact. I don't think Obama is a crypto-Marxist whatever, etc. I don't agree with the recent suggestion that McCarthy was right.

Frankly, it's hard to think of where Seth and I agree. I think we both oppose the health care reform enacted in the US.

So do all true lefties, by the way.

[pErvinalia]

It's the corporations, man. You're playing into the corporate game! See, the corporations are trying to turn you into little Eichmanns so that "they" can make money. The corporations run the entire world. And now they fooled you into working for them.

It's a remarkable hypocrisy that so many Marxists and other leftists rant and rave against Capitalism while doing so on a capitalistically-created device, on a capitalistically-created network, while sitting in the capitalistically-created basement of their Capitalist parents in their capitalistically-created underwear, isn't it?

And you rant about socialism when socialistic policy brought you your roads, your military, your police department, a number of your fire departments, your clean air, your clean water, and yes, YOUR INTERNET. Pot, meet the kettle.

[pErvinalia]

Nah - you're foolin' yourself. The corporations are exploiting the workers! And, they're forcing you to 'ang on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.

And, yeah! Liberty sucks! All these people doin' what they please....gotta end that. Yay for un-liberty!

Wrong...or should I say...Fail. Corporations are our friends, they do nothing but help society raise their quality of life by serving our needs and growing the economy. Corporations are benevolent organizations working towards the betterment of all people. As for liberty and freedom, what are you on about? Yah for liberty, Freedom and democracy!! USA USA!!

No no! It's "Down with the USA! May it burn to ashes, because it is the bringer only of evil, oppression and imperialism." Freedom and liberty are just illusions, and what we need is Hugo Chavez to straighten us out just like he's doing to Venezuela. Viva Hugo! Viva Fidel!

But, for the record:

I do not think corporations are our friends, nor have I ever said they are or even implied that they are.
Corporations both help society and hurt society, depending on the time and the circumstance.
Corporations both raise quality of life by serving needs and growing the economy, and also hurt the quality of life and harm the economy, depending on the time and the circumstances.
Corporations are not now and never have been "benevolent" organizations working towards the betterment of all people - they are organizations of people working for the benefit of those who own them.

You forget, sandi - I'm not the absolutist, here. You are.

And the biggest mistake in US history is granting "personhood" to corporations, which were originally granted charters by the government that explicitly required them to act "in the public interest" or have their charter revoked.

Corporations are not human beings, and should not have human rights. They should have only those authorities and privileges that society, through it's elected leadership, deem necessary and reasonable for the corporations to have.

Something that both Seth and I (and virtually the whole of the proper left) strongly agree on.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's the corporations, man. You're playing into the corporate game! See, the corporations are trying to turn you into little Eichmanns so that "they" can make money. The corporations run the entire world. And now they fooled you into working for them.

It's a remarkable hypocrisy that so many Marxists and other leftists rant and rave against Capitalism while doing so on a capitalistically-created device, on a capitalistically-created network, while sitting in the capitalistically-created basement of their Capitalist parents in their capitalistically-created underwear, isn't it?

And you rant about socialism when socialistic policy brought you your roads, your military, your police department, a number of your fire departments, your clean air, your clean water, and yes, YOUR INTERNET. Pot, meet the kettle.

Government regulation does not equal "socialism" or "socialist policy."

How in the world did "socialist policy" bring about the US military? We had a military in the 1700s, and we didn't have socialism. Monarchies had militaries, and they sure as heck weren't socialist.

I think you're confusing "government" with "socialism."

[Coito ergo sum]

Ok, sorry to get carried away and lump you in with Seth. This happens when I have to deal with the sort of ridiculous conspiracy nonsense that Seth peddles. But to be clear here, Seth DOES believe the whole western world is socialist. He really DOES believe it will end in GULAGS and millions of deaths. I shit you not. He really believes this stuff. So, as long as you don't believe any of this nonsense, then I will once again apologise for possibly misrepresenting your argument.

I disagree with Seth all the time. Check out the "secular debate about abortion" thread.

Actually, CES agrees with Seth on most ideological issues. Judging from his posts anyway. He keeps mentioning the "abortion thread" as his opposition to seth. He disagrees on one issue as far as I can tell. Same librarian, knee jerk anti communist/socialist, pro imperialism, pro neo liberal free market capitalist stance.

Actually, I haven't agreed with Seth on most issues at all.

I didn't "keep" mentioning the abortion thread. I mentioned it.

I disagree with Seth on THIS issue, as a matter of fact. I don't think Obama is a crypto-Marxist whatever, etc. I don't agree with the recent suggestion that McCarthy was right.

Frankly, it's hard to think of where Seth and I agree. I think we both oppose the health care reform enacted in the US.

So do all true lefties, by the way.

Enough of them attack the hell out of me for opposing it, though.

[pErvinalia]

It's the corporations, man. You're playing into the corporate game! See, the corporations are trying to turn you into little Eichmanns so that "they" can make money. The corporations run the entire world. And now they fooled you into working for them.

It's a remarkable hypocrisy that so many Marxists and other leftists rant and rave against Capitalism while doing so on a capitalistically-created device, on a capitalistically-created network, while sitting in the capitalistically-created basement of their Capitalist parents in their capitalistically-created underwear, isn't it?

And you rant about socialism when socialistic policy brought you your roads, your military, your police department, a number of your fire departments, your clean air, your clean water, and yes, YOUR INTERNET. Pot, meet the kettle.

Government regulation does not equal "socialism" or "socialist policy."

How in the world did "socialist policy" bring about the US military? We had a military in the 1700s, and we didn't have socialism. Monarchies had militaries, and they sure as heck weren't socialist.

I think you're confusing "government" with "socialism."

Remember who I was addressing my reply to.

[pErvinalia]

I disagree with Seth all the time. Check out the "secular debate about abortion" thread.

Actually, CES agrees with Seth on most ideological issues. Judging from his posts anyway. He keeps mentioning the "abortion thread" as his opposition to seth. He disagrees on one issue as far as I can tell. Same librarian, knee jerk anti communist/socialist, pro imperialism, pro neo liberal free market capitalist stance.

Actually, I haven't agreed with Seth on most issues at all.

I didn't "keep" mentioning the abortion thread. I mentioned it.

I disagree with Seth on THIS issue, as a matter of fact. I don't think Obama is a crypto-Marxist whatever, etc. I don't agree with the recent suggestion that McCarthy was right.

Frankly, it's hard to think of where Seth and I agree. I think we both oppose the health care reform enacted in the US.

So do all true lefties, by the way.

Enough of them attack the hell out of me for opposing it, though.

Well there you go. You've finally learnt those Democrats aren't as left as you thought they were.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well there you go. You've finally learnt those Democrats aren't as left as you thought they were.

Not just Democrats.

If attacking me for opposing the US health care reform meant someone was not left, then there might be one left leaning person on this forum. Maybe.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's the corporations, man. You're playing into the corporate game! See, the corporations are trying to turn you into little Eichmanns so that "they" can make money. The corporations run the entire world. And now they fooled you into working for them.

It's a remarkable hypocrisy that so many Marxists and other leftists rant and rave against Capitalism while doing so on a capitalistically-created device, on a capitalistically-created network, while sitting in the capitalistically-created basement of their Capitalist parents in their capitalistically-created underwear, isn't it?

And you rant about socialism when socialistic policy brought you your roads, your military, your police department, a number of your fire departments, your clean air, your clean water, and yes, YOUR INTERNET. Pot, meet the kettle.

Government regulation does not equal "socialism" or "socialist policy."

How in the world did "socialist policy" bring about the US military? We had a military in the 1700s, and we didn't have socialism. Monarchies had militaries, and they sure as heck weren't socialist.

I think you're confusing "government" with "socialism."

Remember who I was addressing my reply to.

It doesn't change what was written. Why would you claim that that socialism brought roads, military and police departments? Were you being sarcastic or something?

[pErvinalia]

It's a remarkable hypocrisy that so many Marxists and other leftists rant and rave against Capitalism while doing so on a capitalistically-created device, on a capitalistically-created network, while sitting in the capitalistically-created basement of their Capitalist parents in their capitalistically-created underwear, isn't it?

And you rant about socialism when socialistic policy brought you your roads, your military, your police department, a number of your fire departments, your clean air, your clean water, and yes, YOUR INTERNET. Pot, meet the kettle.

Government regulation does not equal "socialism" or "socialist policy."

How in the world did "socialist policy" bring about the US military? We had a military in the 1700s, and we didn't have socialism. Monarchies had militaries, and they sure as heck weren't socialist.

I think you're confusing "government" with "socialism."

Remember who I was addressing my reply to.

It doesn't change what was written. Why would you claim that that socialism brought roads, military and police departments? Were you being sarcastic or something?

Because Seth believes that the US government (past and present) is socialist. Did you miss the bit where he claimed that Bush was a progressive?

Anyway, it absolutely is a socialist principle that the government/state provides services through collective taxation. It doesn't mean that the gov is socialist, just that socialist principles have influenced it to some degree. All western democracies (US included) are mixed-systems as you have rightly stated. They have a mix of socialistic and capitalistic principles.

[pErvinalia]

Well there you go. You've finally learnt those Democrats aren't as left as you thought they were.

Not just Democrats.

If attacking me for opposing the US health care reform meant someone was not left, then there might be one left leaning person on this forum. Maybe.

Really. There's only one other person on this forum (other than you, me and Seth) who think the health care policy is a fuck up? I'm struggling to believe that. Perhaps if you were more specific as to why you oppose it. If it is because it is too "socialist", then it's not surprising most people don't agree with you.

[Coito ergo sum]

Because Seth believes that the US government (past and present) is socialist. Did you miss the bit where he claimed that Bush was a progressive?

Well, progressive doesn't mean "socialist." Bush wasn't a conservative Republican in terms of government regulation, I'll give that much. I don't know as I'd call him a Progressive, though. That depends on what definition one's using, I suppose.

Anyway, it absolutely is a socialist principle that the government/state provides services through collective taxation.

It's also a principle of capitalism. Capitalism doesn't mean we have no public taxation and no provision of police forces, militaries, or road/bridge construction. That wasn't invented by socialism, FFS.

It doesn't mean that the gov is socialist, just that socialist principles have influenced it to some degree. All western democracies (US included) are mixed-systems as you have rightly stated. They have a mix of socialistic and capitalistic principles.

Taxation and provision of government services did not originate with socialism. They did it under Monarchies and they did it in the US in 1789. Just because socialism also involves taxation and the provision of government services doesn't suddenly make it a socialist principle.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well there you go. You've finally learnt those Democrats aren't as left as you thought they were.

Not just Democrats.

If attacking me for opposing the US health care reform meant someone was not left, then there might be one left leaning person on this forum. Maybe.

Really. There's only one other person on this forum (other than you, me and Seth) who think the health care policy is a fuck up? I'm struggling to believe that. Perhaps if you were more specific as to why you oppose it. If it is because it is too "socialist", then it's not surprising most people don't agree with you.

No, I was lambasted unmercifully for daring to oppose the health care reform, from most folks on this forum who call themselves leftist.

I never used the word "socialist" in relation to the US health care reform I've been quite specific on other threads.