(November 20, 2014 at 12:48 pm)polar bear Wrote:

(November 19, 2014 at 7:17 pm)Heywood Wrote: Money is speech so wanting less of it in a campaign is equivalent to wanting less speech in a campaign. I don't think we want less speech in a campaign. What we want is to equalize the amount of speech. A very progressive consumption tax would do just that coupled with making campaign contributions by corporations and people non tax deductible would begin to do that.

and corporations are human beings...I got your point of view loud and clear. Totally disagree with you but at least we know who you get your marching orders from

Again, he is cherry picking which class gets to "peaceably assemble" and pool their resources. The First Amendment bans ALL monopolies of power, he stupidly thinks that concept should not apply to business.

Corporations are run by people, but they are not one person collectively. It is basically giving rights to a piece of paper and has actually nothing to do with collectively protect the rights of every citizen no matter what class they fall in.

The government attitude of the First Amendment is that of a sanctuary, if it is to err on any side, it is designed to err to protect the weakest among us. It is not set up to only protect the private sector to allow it to do whatever it wants. If our government was only there to protect the private sector, there would be no right to sue a car company for a defective air bag or ignition switch. There would be no regulation mandating recalls for such things.

(November 20, 2014 at 12:48 pm)polar bear Wrote:

(November 19, 2014 at 7:17 pm)Heywood Wrote: Money is speech so wanting less of it in a campaign is equivalent to wanting less speech in a campaign. I don't think we want less speech in a campaign. What we want is to equalize the amount of speech. A very progressive consumption tax would do just that coupled with making campaign contributions by corporations and people non tax deductible would begin to do that.

and corporations are human beings...I got your point of view loud and clear. Totally disagree with you but at least we know who you get your marching orders from

Corporations are not human beings....nobody thinks they are. However, corporations are treated as persons under the law. Corporation have many of the same rights as people because they are comprised of people. People do not lose their constitutional rights just because they come together and pool their resources to do business.

Suppose Brian37 and Minimalist start a janitorial company which takes on a corporate form. Just because those two wish to do business as a corporation does not allow the police to seize their corporate truck and sell it without due process. If corporations were not considered persons for the purpose of law....the police could do exactly that.

(November 20, 2014 at 3:40 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 20, 2014 at 12:48 pm)polar bear Wrote: and corporations are human beings...I got your point of view loud and clear. Totally disagree with you but at least we know who you get your marching orders from

Corporations are not human beings....nobody thinks they are. However, corporations are treated as persons under the law. Corporation have many of the same rights as people because they are comprised of people. People do not lose their constitutional rights just because they come together and pool their resources to do business.

Suppose Brian37 and Minimalist start a janitorial company which takes on a corporate form. Just because those two wish to do business as a corporation would not allow the police to seize their corporate truck and sell it without due process. If corporations were not considered persons for the purpose of law....the police could do exactly that.

And that is wrong, that is like treating the the apartment 4 people live in as being a human itself. It is giving rights to the apartment. Objects do not have rights.

---

Sorry Haywood,

You do understand this mentality is also what has allowed police to keep money on a stop even if the person is not arrested or convicted of a crime? It is treating an object as a suspect, humans are suspects, not objects.

I know you do not want to accept it, but the reason big business likes this, isn't because it is about their rights, it is because they want more excuses to do whatever they want.

Money is not your DNA. A piece of paper is not physically a human being. Humans have rights, objects do not.

(November 20, 2014 at 3:49 pm)Brian37 Wrote: And that is wrong, that is like treating the the apartment 4 people live in as being a human itself. It is giving rights to the apartment. Objects do not have rights.

Objects don't pay taxes....people pay taxes. Corporations pay taxes because they are considered persons for purposes of law.....why? Because corporations are comprised of people and people do not lose their constitutional rights or their obligation to pay taxes simply because they decide to pool their resources and do business as a corporation.

This has been the case for as long as this country has existed and well into the common law prior to our country's existence.

Right, objects do not pay taxes. BINGO, just like that apartment does not equal the 4 people who live in it, the apartment does not pay taxes.

Again, the reason people do this is to avoid paying taxes. It isn't because they cannot afford the taxes, but by treating that piece of paper that legally categorizes a business as a corporation (the apartment) as being the people that live in it, it allows the people to get away with what the rest of society could not get away with.

It is nothing more than a bullshit tax doge.

(November 20, 2014 at 4:02 pm)Heywood Wrote: Objects don't pay taxes....people pay taxes. Corporations pay taxes because they are considered persons for purposes of law.....why? Because corporations are comprised of people and people do not lose their constitutional rights or their obligation to pay taxes simply because they decide to pool their resources and do business as a corporation.

This is dishonest. People don't lose any rights because they are associated with a corporation. They are free to vote and to donate their own personal finances towards anything they want, just like you or I. What you are doing is suggesting that, in addition to those rights we all share, corporate executives and shareholders should have the additional special right to use money that is not theirs, personally, to make their own personal political influence stronger than yours or mine. You are suggesting that corporate executives and shareholders deserve more of a say in politics than the average voter, who cannot afford to do such things.

As I said previously, if you want to treat money as if it was speech, then you might as well drop the pretense and let everybody buy as many votes as they can afford, because that is the practical result of what you're advocating.

(November 20, 2014 at 3:40 pm)Heywood Wrote: Corporations are not human beings....nobody thinks they are. However, corporations are treated as persons under the law. Corporation have many of the same rights as people because they are comprised of people. People do not lose their constitutional rights just because they come together and pool their resources to do business.

Suppose Brian37 and Minimalist start a janitorial company which takes on a corporate form. Just because those two wish to do business as a corporation does not allow the police to seize their corporate truck and sell it without due process. If corporations were not considered persons for the purpose of law....the police could do exactly that.

Corporations are set up for 2 reasons liability and tax. They protect the owners from liability as you stated and they help avoid certain taxes. They are NOT set up to have any rights. Check your constitution, please (I assume you reside in Merica the way you think)

(November 20, 2014 at 6:29 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: This is dishonest. People don't lose any rights because they are associated with a corporation. They are free to vote and to donate their own personal finances towards anything they want, just like you or I. What you are doing is suggesting that, in addition to those rights we all share, corporate executives and shareholders should have the additional special right to use money that is not theirs, personally, to make their own personal political influence stronger than yours or mine. You are suggesting that corporate executives and shareholders deserve more of a say in politics than the average voter, who cannot afford to do such things.

Campaigns are not people then either. They are just pieces of paper filed with the FEC. What you are doing by advocating publicly financed elections is granting candidates the right to use money that is not theirs, personally, to make their own personal political influence stronger than yours or mine. You are suggesting that candidates deserve more of a say in politics than the average voter, who cannot afford to do such things.

Can you see how silly your position is when we change "corporation" to "campaign"?

Campaigns are tools used by an assembly of people to speak. Corporations are tools used by an assembly of people to speak. If you don't like what a candidate is saying....leave their campaign. If you don't like what a corporation is saying....sell your stock.

---

(November 21, 2014 at 10:28 am)polar bear Wrote: Corporations are set up for 2 reasons liability and tax. They protect the owners from liability as you stated and they help avoid certain taxes. They are NOT set up to have any rights. Check your constitution, please (I assume you reside in Merica the way you think)

This is wrong. Corporate profits get taxed twice.....from a tax standpoint it is a disadvantage to incorporate. Corporations have rights. The government can't seize their assets without due process for instance.

(November 21, 2014 at 3:50 pm)Heywood Wrote: Campaigns are not people then either. They are just pieces of paper filed with the FEC. What you are doing by advocating publicly financed elections is granting candidates the right to use money that is not theirs, personally, to make their own personal political influence stronger than yours or mine. You are suggesting that candidates deserve more of a say in politics than the average voter, who cannot afford to do such things.

What sort of dressing do you suggest goes best with this word salad? There's nothing about any of this that makes any rational sense at all. Candidates have to use some money, so they should all be using the same amount of it, from the same impartial source. Do you really not get how that is different from using corporate money? Do I have to spell that out for you?

Quote:Can you see how silly your position is when we change "corporation" to "campaign"?

Given that there is no basis for comparison whatsoever, I have to go with "no".

Quote:Campaigns are tools used by an assembly of people to speak. Corporations are tools used by an assembly of people to speak. If you don't like what a candidate is saying....leave their campaign. If you don't like what a corporation is saying....sell your stock.

What a fantastic idea! We can all make our voices heard by selling the stock the vast majority of people don't have and can't afford! Heywood, you're a perfect example of why people shouldn't formulate political ideas under the influence of drugs and alcohol, even if you're not and you just don't understand anything you're talking about.

Seriously, this is Hall of Shame material. This is just criminally stupid shit you just came up with.

(November 21, 2014 at 4:21 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: What sort of dressing do you suggest goes best with this word salad? There's nothing about any of this that makes any rational sense at all. Candidates have to use some money, so they should all be using the same amount of it, from the same impartial source. Do you really not get how that is different from using corporate money? Do I have to spell that out for you?

Word salad? Those are largely your words...accept that I applied them to publicly financed campaigns instead of corporations.