The PokéCommunity Forums  

Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > Discussions & Debates
Sign Up Rules/FAQ Live Battle Blogs Mark Forums Read

Notices

Discussions & Debates The place to go for slightly more in-depth topics. Discussions and debates about the world, current events, ideas, news, and more.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1    
Old January 30th, 2013, 08:46 PM
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14
Conservative Patriot
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Nature: Bold
A Bay Area man accused of a carpool violation is arguing that he had a second a person in the car with him: his corporation.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...-as-passenger/

Does he have a point?
Discuss.
Reply With Quote
  #2    
Old January 31st, 2013, 06:03 AM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
In the article he's quoted as saying:

“Corporations are imaginary entities, and we’ve let them run wild,” Friedman has stated, according to a San Jose Mercury News article. “Their original intent…was to serve human beings. So I’m wresting back that power by making their personhood serve me.”

So, I don't think he actually buys his own argument. It seems more like a stunt, or trying to prove a point.

...considering his corporate papers can't drive, and the point of carpooling is to use less cars, I don't think they should give him a pass in the carpool lane. XD Otherwise his papers should just take the bus. :p
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3    
Old January 31st, 2013, 08:44 AM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
His point is that corporations shouldn't have personhood. When he goes to court (and inevitably looses his case) he's hoping that the publicity will instill in people some amount of anger or dissatisfaction with the idea of corporate personhood, which I assume he'd hope would help people push to get that notion changed.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
  #4    
Old January 31st, 2013, 11:09 AM
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
Oops
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
The idea of corporate personhood is to make it easier for big money to suppress the people.

It's not about letting corporations have a voice - Because they already had a voice, it's called their CEO. It's about making it easier for corporations to use their larger reserves of money to outbuy, outspend, and essentially suppress the people so that they, the corporations, can make even more money... Sometimes at the cost of the average American.

Edit - What were the founding fathers words? Oh yes, 'We The People', not 'We the Corporations'.

Our country is about the collective ideals of the people, not the ideals of a collective.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
Reply With Quote
  #5    
Old January 31st, 2013, 02:03 PM
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14
Conservative Patriot
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Nature: Bold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarf View Post
His point is that corporations shouldn't have personhood. When he goes to court (and inevitably looses his case) he's hoping that the publicity will instill in people some amount of anger or dissatisfaction with the idea of corporate personhood, which I assume he'd hope would help people push to get that notion changed.
California Vehicle Code section 470 defines a "person" as "a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation." Section 21655.5, under which Frieman was cited, states that "no person shall drive a vehicle upon lanes except in conformity with the instructions imparted by the official traffic control devices."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. X View Post
The idea of corporate personhood is to make it easier for big money to suppress the people.

It's not about letting corporations have a voice - Because they already had a voice, it's called their CEO. It's about making it easier for corporations to use their larger reserves of money to outbuy, outspend, and essentially suppress the people so that they, the corporations, can make even more money... Sometimes at the cost of the average American.

Edit - What were the founding fathers words? Oh yes, 'We The People', not 'We the Corporations'.

Our country is about the collective ideals of the people, not the ideals of a collective.
I agree that corporations and labor unions should have limits placed on their ability to influence elections. We had a ballot measure her in California last year called Prop 32, which would have done just that. Labor unions opposed it because it included them, and also contained a "paycheck protection" provision. I voted against it because it went too far by completely banning corporations and labor unions from donating to political candidates, instead of just limiting them.

Last edited by FreakyLocz14; February 5th, 2013 at 07:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6    
Old January 31st, 2013, 02:44 PM
Shiny Celebi
Donator Tier 3
Community Supporter Tier 3
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Internet
I never understood corporate personhood. Why are they labeled that in the first place. In my opinion corporations have too much power and influence the govenment/elections too much.
__________________
BMGf Ever Grande City
Reply With Quote
  #7    
Old February 4th, 2013, 12:21 PM
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
Oops
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 View Post
I agree that corporations and labor unions should have limits placed on their ability to influence elections. We had a ballot measure her in California last year called Prop 32, which would have done just that. Labor unions opposed it because it included them, and also contained a "paycheck protection" provision. I voted against it because it went to far by completely banning corporations and labor unions from donating to political candidates, instead of just limiting them.
A total ban is needed though.

This won't deny those groups a voice in government - the separate people that are a part of this group or corporation can still donate separately. All this does is prevent a single person, usually the CEO and/or leader of the corporation and/or union from using the resources of the group to suppress the ideals of the member.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
Reply With Quote
  #8    
Old February 5th, 2013, 07:33 AM
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14
Conservative Patriot
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Nature: Bold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. X View Post
A total ban is needed though.

This won't deny those groups a voice in government - the separate people that are a part of this group or corporation can still donate separately. All this does is prevent a single person, usually the CEO and/or leader of the corporation and/or union from using the resources of the group to suppress the ideals of the member.
Banning direction contributions to candidates won't prevent unlimited independent expenditures on their behalf. Since independent expenditures are considered free speech in praising or criticizing a candidate, it would take a constitutional amendment to limit them. California has some of the strictest campaign disclosure laws in the nations for non-federal elections (federal elections in all states are governed by federal law), but Citizens United changed them somewhat. For example, a Bay Area candidate for county supervisor who plead no contest to shoplifting was attacked by what appeared to be a homemade sign calling her a thief that was displayed in front of a local supermarket parking lot. All campaign material must usually come from a campaign committee that is registered with the FPPC, but the sign was not investigated. It would likely have been considered protected speech.
Reply With Quote
  #9    
Old February 5th, 2013, 10:06 AM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiny Celebi View Post
I never understood corporate personhood. Why are they labeled that in the first place. In my opinion corporations have too much power and influence the govenment/elections too much.
Corporations fought to get themselves recognized as legal persons so they would get all the benefits of being real people, like the protection to speak freely. But of course they, being a corporation, can speak so much more freely (as in with more money) that it drowns out real people's voices and not being actual individuals they are much harder to punish when they break the law. Can't put a corporation in jail, only individuals serving in a corporation, and they can be replaced and/or their misdeeds covered up and obfuscated. Basically, someone a while back realized that a corporation could gain more power by being a person on paper with none of the drawbacks of being a real person.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25



All times are UTC -8. The time now is 01:29 AM.


Style by Nymphadora, artwork by Sa-Dui.
Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.