Comments on: Corporations are Not People
Newest First
By HP on 05-26-12 @ 6:21 am
I’ll buy that corporations are people after Texas executes one
By reggie on 05-26-12 @ 9:43 am
Good article, Jerry. I noticed that 22 states and the District of Columbia have joined Montana in the superme court case involving state rights to regulate corporate spending in state elections.
This shows that we who believe “people” are flesh and blood humans are not a small minority
of the population.
Another reason to NOT elect any republicans.
By Louie36 on 05-26-12 @ 7:21 pm
WE the people should Vote for all Judicial post’s, in every state’s Judge’s seat. our foundingFathers made it real simple Only a Human being can vote?. No man made devises created in
factories in any form Metal or Organic or in any combination thereof, and No Business should
have this Right. A vote is for the people from the people and by the people, Lets excercise this
God given right. And if I offend anyone for saying God?, this is my given right, lets NOT star a
war over my Beliefes. (you got a spell check on site?) sorry for my misspelings.
By Westside2 on 05-26-12 @ 11:54 pm
This issue has strong support in Montana from Democrats, Republicans and Independents.
By Roark on 05-27-12 @ 8:22 am
“A corporation is a union of human beings in a voluntary, cooperative endeavor. It exemplifies the principle of free association, which is an expression of the right to freedom.
Any attributes which corporations have are attributes (or rights) which the individuals have
—including the right to combine in a certain way, offer products under certain terms, and
deal with others according to certain rules, for instance, limited liability.
An individual can say to a storekeeper, “I would like to have credit, but I put you on notice
that if I can’t pay, you can’t attach my home—take it or leave it.” The storekeeper is free
to accept those terms, or not. A corporation is a cooperative productive endeavor which
gives a similar warning explicitly. It has no mystical attributes, no attributes that don’t go
back to the rights of individuals, including their right of free association.”—-Leonard Peikoff
By Roark on 05-27-12 @ 8:24 am
Louie36, you are context dropping, ie your definition of what a corp. is it at odds with facts. Liberals often context drop in order to rearrange definitions to suite their whims. It’s also called
newspeak.
By reggie on 05-27-12 @ 8:37 am
Do you remember when President Obama condemned “Citizens united” in a nationally brodcast speech shortly after the supremes reached this treasonous decision? And the
standing ovation he recieved from the Democrat’s side whial almost everyone on the
Republican side sat silently. It was such a specticle that I expected to see it in campaign
commercials.
Now the gallery seating is no longer devided on party lines during brodcast speeches. It seems
congressional Republicans don’t want to be identified easily in issues they know the public
opposes but they support…..regardless what Montana voters want.
By Roark on 05-27-12 @ 8:49 am
reggie, hp, westside2, you need to check your premise, too Your statements don’t gel at all with the facts. Of course, opinions are not facts, but that may take you a while to figure
out.
“A proper association is united by ideas, not by men, and its members are loyal to the
ideas, not to the group. It is eminently reasonable that men should seek to associate with
those who share their convictions and values. It is impossible to deal or even to
communicate with men whose ideas are fundamentally opposed to one’s own (and one
should be free not to deal with them). All proper associations are formed or joined by
individual choice and on conscious, intellectual grounds (philosophical, political,
professional, etc.)—not by the physiological or geographical accident of birth, and not on
the ground of tradition. When men are united by ideas, i.e., by explicit principles, there is
no room for favors, whims, or arbitrary power: the principles serve as an objective criterion
for determining actions and for judging men, whether leaders or members. This requires a
high degree of conceptual development and independence . . . . But this is the only way
men can work together justly, benevolently and safely.”—-Ayn Rand
By reggie on 05-28-12 @ 9:04 am
I don’t see any factual errors in my previous posts here, perhaps you could point them out?
Quoting advocates of our current (greed is good) economic system whial ignoring the ongoing
failure it is for the vast majority of U.S. public is unconvinceing. None of the luminaries on the
right who support this abomination inflicting the U.S. have any recommendation as to how to
increase DEMAND. And demand is what is missing from our economic equation, and has been
the problem since it was adopted fully by Saint Reagan.
Of course, the urer-rich who enjoy the outsized profit they take in the current rigged system
would love for all political opposition to be overwhelmed by cubic money in campaign
commercials; and thus results this “judical activism” against the people in favor of capital.
By fourweight on 05-29-12 @ 11:24 am
We can mince words all day long. Fact is that the current R party is just a political arm for corps. Its only interesting because they seem to be somehow embarassed about it or in
denial. I think they should just proudly own it so we can have a real debate.
This happened once before and it had to be fixed from within. A repub, TR went to war with
the big corps until he was kicked out of the party. The result was a century of the rise of the
middle class.
How anyone but the billionaire Koch types can think the new mating of Repubs with Corps is a
good idea is beyond me but ignorant people have always been easily convinced to vote
against their own self interests. These days the ignorance is cloaked in Tea Party Patriotism.
But make no mistake, its ignorance in spades.
By JB on 05-30-12 @ 11:12 am
“ignorance in spades” is continuing to support a government that thinks it knows better than the people it is supposed to serve - and those who do support it seem either not to know the difference between
equality and liberty…or just choose to ignore it.
By fourweight on 05-30-12 @ 2:46 pm
No JB - I don’t think soThe ignorance to which I refer has to do with rewriting every rule to allow those with money and
power to rape people and resources for more of the same. Government is imperfect, but it is
the tool by which we insure that the most powerful do not consolidate power to a degree that its
impossible for others to flourish.
You may think you are voting for motherhood and apple pie when you vote for Tea Baggers,
but you are really voting for folks who have been co-opted into tearing at the very thing that
protects us all.
Pointing out the foilbles of Government may make you feel like a big man, but fact is that none
of what we now value would exist without Government. No money, no protection (rule of law),
no rules or regulations, no way to protect your property, no way to insure that criminals don’t
kidnap your family. Without it there would be a few kings and princes, and the rest of us would
be serfs. Heck, even wildlife is a product of government - individual freedom wiped it out, and
only government regulation brought it back.
I think all the rabid repubs would do well to remember that before they go ripping at the thing
that allows them to rip in the first place
By JB on 05-30-12 @ 3:33 pm
@4W - I don’t dispute the merits of government…I have no desire to try to live under an anarchical society. The problem is, our government as it stands today takes things way too far - so far that
the people end up serving it versus the other way around.
When farmers are not allowed to sell their produce to the public because of a government
regulation, or when someone can’t make their own fuel for their own use without being taxed by the
government, or when a little girl can’t open a lemonade stand because it violates a health and safety
code, or when a person cannot even use rainwater that falls on their property because it violates a
water use regulation, then government is being served…not the people. These issues are the tip of
the iceberg of what I speak.
That is why you fail to see the difference between equality and liberty. Government is in place to
preserve liberty - not destroy it in the name of some definition of equality.
By fourweight on 05-30-12 @ 4:53 pm
most of the examples you cite are results of corps ruling us. Its tough to swallow I know, but the answer is more governmental regulation of corps, not less.
farmers can’t sell stuff because big ag bends the rules. Big oil rigs the rules against fuels and
piping energy onto the grid.
You want to stop that - get corp money out of politics - place restrictions on them. Supporting
idiocy with Citizens United (and other T Parry Gibberish) will only get us all a heck of a lot more
of this!
By reggie on 05-31-12 @ 1:46 pm
Perhaps we should research approximately when government stopped working for the vast majority of citizens. Then it may be easier to decide a corse of action.
By Mark W. on 05-31-12 @ 4:04 pm
JFK found out what happens when government attempts to work for the people.
By Mark W. on 05-31-12 @ 9:16 pm
Or Joe McCarthy, for that matter.
By reggie on 06-01-12 @ 7:12 am
When we all shared in the extra wealth generated by increased production, the economic system (instituted by government) worked for everyone, and lifestyle of the vast majority rose.
During 2010, the most recent year reported, 93% of the increase in production was taken by
the top .1% of citizens, and standard of liveing continued to fall for the 99%.
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.