http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hFFXHfh0tnIHWKcr6uJHTpaLmuJg?docId=15e08682c72a44f786d8aee89f86a8e4
Aaaaaaaggghhhhhh
I'm a businessman and an MBA. I more than get the idea of corporate identity as a useful financial accounting tool. Incorporation helps to keep track of what assets are owned by the company (the "company" being an entity that can own said assets) and what liabilities the company has to vendors, banks and other interest holders. Incorporation is even more necessary when you have "owners" who are countless public stockholders, where ownership fluidly changes hands as stocks are traded. It's a useful financial accounting tool and I can't imagine any alternative.
That's all the concept of corporate identity was ever intended for. It's strictly for keeping track of asset ownership, financial liabilities and tax filing. It was never intended to create these faux people who suddenly need to have their rights protected like real flesh-and-blood people. What's next? Voting rights?
I almost think we need an amendment to the constitution that spells out that corporations are only "persons" with respect to internal financial accounting and tax purposes. They are explicitly not protected by any other freedom or dignity offered by our constitution.
Quote:US judge rules against corporate contribution ban
(AP) – 16 hours ago
ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — A U.S. judge has ruled that the campaign finance law banning corporations from making contributions to federal candidates is unconstitutional, saying that a recent Supreme Court decision gives companies the same right to donate as individual citizens enjoy.
[...]
"(F)or better or worse, Citizens United held that there is no distinction between an individual and a corporation with respect to political speech," Cacheris wrote in his 52-page opinion. "Thus, if an individual can make direct contributions within (the law's) limits, a corporation cannot be banned from doing the same thing."
Aaaaaaaggghhhhhh
I'm a businessman and an MBA. I more than get the idea of corporate identity as a useful financial accounting tool. Incorporation helps to keep track of what assets are owned by the company (the "company" being an entity that can own said assets) and what liabilities the company has to vendors, banks and other interest holders. Incorporation is even more necessary when you have "owners" who are countless public stockholders, where ownership fluidly changes hands as stocks are traded. It's a useful financial accounting tool and I can't imagine any alternative.
That's all the concept of corporate identity was ever intended for. It's strictly for keeping track of asset ownership, financial liabilities and tax filing. It was never intended to create these faux people who suddenly need to have their rights protected like real flesh-and-blood people. What's next? Voting rights?
I almost think we need an amendment to the constitution that spells out that corporations are only "persons" with respect to internal financial accounting and tax purposes. They are explicitly not protected by any other freedom or dignity offered by our constitution.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
