Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[RandFan]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=683&pictureid=5273

Because ad hominem and rhetoric are an appropriate response.

 

[Alt+F4]

I raised this same question a few pages back. Do people calling for the end of corporate personhood really think we'd be better off not allowing lawsuits for or against corporations? Or that we'd somehow be better off not being able to write legally enforceable contracts with corporations?

I've yet to hear an answer about this.

In addition, if this nonsense was enacted once a person works for a corporation they cease to exist as a person since a corporation is nothing other than a collection of people (or one person).

 

[JihadJane]

In addition, if this nonsense was enacted once a person works for a corporation they cease to exist as a person since a corporation is nothing other than a collection of people (or one person).

No they don't and I thought you were just bothered about the feces and drums, anyway.

 

[Alt+F4]

No they don't and I thought you were just bothered about the feces and drums, anyway.

Well thanks to the good folks of the NYPD the feces and drums are gone from Zuccotti Park. As for no more corporate personhood, of course people would no longer legally be people if they work for a corporation (or own stock) because what you don't seem to understand is that a corporation IS people. How can you limit the speech of corporations without limiting the speech of the people who make them up?

 

[applecorped]

Because ad hominem and rhetoric are an appropriate response.

To the OWS? Why yes, it is!

 

[WildCat]

Well thanks to the good folks of the NYPD the feces and drums are gone from Zuccotti Park. As for no more corporate personhood, of course people would no longer legally be people if they work for a corporation (or own stock) because what you don't seem to understand is that a corporation IS people. How can you limit the speech of corporations without limiting the speech of the people who make them up?

And of course, the government is free to force corporations to worship or give money to whatever religion Congress is for at the time, since corporations have no Constitutional rights. And al the corporate news media can be required to submit any broadcast, web site, or printed material to government censors prior to publication, since they have no rights either.

Not that the occutards are capable of thinking about the consequences of their idiotic demands.

 

[Bosozoku]

Not sure if this has been posted already, but here is a rather long (bordering on 16:00) video of the events leading up to the U.C. Davis pepper spraying incident.

After watching the full video, while I still feel that the force used was somewhat excessive, it's pretty obvious that the protestors were deliberately attempting to create a confrontation with the police. Surrounding the police and saying you will "let them go" if they release people who were arrested for flagrantly violating the law isn't a "peaceful protest." In my mind, if you intentionally and illegally goad the police into using excessive force, you can't turn around and complain when they do.

I still take issue with the tactics that the police used, but the protestors here intentionally created a chaotic scene in which I think even well intentioned police officers would overreact and make a poor decision.

 

[bookitty]

Well thanks to the good folks of the NYPD the feces and drums are gone from Zuccotti Park. As for no more corporate personhood, of course people would no longer legally be people if they work for a corporation (or own stock) because what you don't seem to understand is that a corporation IS people. How can you limit the speech of corporations without limiting the speech of the people who make them up?

So if the employees of Walmart want decent wages but can not form a union because the CEO's of Walmart have been successfully lobbying for anti-union laws, whose free speech is being limited?

 

[WildCat]

So if the employees of Walmart want decent wages but can not form a union because the CEO's of Walmart have been successfully lobbying for anti-union laws, whose free speech is being limited?

What "anti-union laws"? Please list examples.

eta: btw one of the revelations when WalMart was trying to open stores in Chicago is that the unionized large grocery chains here actually have lower starting pay than the starting pay of WalMart employees here.

 

[bookitty]

And of course, the government is free to force corporations to worship or give money to whatever religion Congress is for at the time, since corporations have no Constitutional rights. And al the corporate news media can be required to submit any broadcast, web site, or printed material to government censors prior to publication, since they have no rights either.

Not that the occutards are capable of thinking about the consequences of their idiotic demands.

"End corporate personhood' is the rallying cry, a succinct phrase that is used because "Add an amendment to set limits on contributions and expenditures of corporations during elections for both candidates and issues so that the unlimited use of funds does not influence those elections, to limit corruption, and in order to preserve a participatory and democratic republic for all people regardless of wealth." is a bit of a mouthful.

 

[RandFan]

To the OWS? Why yes, it is!

Because OWS is magic and therefore obviates rules of logic?

 

[Brainster]

So if the employees of Walmart want decent wages but can not form a union because the CEO's of Walmart have been successfully lobbying for anti-union laws, whose free speech is being limited?

Free speech does not mean free of consequences, it just means free of legal consequences.

 

[WildCat]

"End corporate personhood' is the rallying cry, a succinct phrase that is used because "Add an amendment to set limits on contributions and expenditures of corporations during elections for both candidates and issues so that the unlimited use of funds does not influence those elections, to limit corruption, and in order to preserve a participatory and democratic republic for all people regardless of wealth." is a bit of a mouthful.

So you want to put limits on political speech for the specific purpose of not having speech influence elections?

Like I said, you are incapable of seeing the consequences of such demands. For starters, the entire opinion/editorial/commentary sections of the New York Times is now under government regulation, can't print anything that might influence the election!

This has to be the first time in history people are using the 1st Amendment to demand a repeal of the 1st Amendment. And you wonder why we call them occutards?

 

[bookitty]

What "anti-union laws"? Please list examples.

eta: btw one of the revelations when WalMart was trying to open stores in Chicago is that the unionized large grocery chains here actually have lower starting pay than the starting pay of WalMart employees here.

I would like to see evidence of that. I'm not saying that I doubt you, only that it is different from many documented cases. Also, it would be interesting to compare aspects other than wage - health care benefits, retirement, sick leave, etc.

 

[Alt+F4]

So if the employees of Walmart want decent wages but can not form a union because the CEO's of Walmart have been successfully lobbying for anti-union laws, whose free speech is being limited?

So you think if Walmart lost it's corporate personhood it would be more likely that stores would be able to organize a union? I don't think so, without corporate personhood no one would be able file any type of suit against Walmart or any other corporation.

And speaking of unions, if corporations loose their personhood so will unions, universities, and non-profits. How is The Girl Scouts of America any less of an "artificial entity" than a corporation is?

 

[Alt+F4]

"End corporate personhood' is the rallying cry, a succinct phrase that is used because "Add an amendment to set limits on contributions and expenditures of corporations during elections for both candidates and issues so that the unlimited use of funds does not influence those elections, to limit corruption, and in order to preserve a participatory and democratic republic for all people regardless of wealth." is a bit of a mouthful.

They should just go with the simple version that Move To Amend came up with:

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

It's a bit longer than that, full wording of proposed amendment is here:

http://movetoamend.org/amendment

 

[RandFan]

...without corporate personhood no one would be able file any type of suit against Walmart or any other corporation.

I've not taken a position on corporate personhood. Could you explain why it is that an entity that is not a person cannot be sued? Is it conceptually impossible to sue entities that are not "virtual people" or is it because of legal precedent? If the latter could you cite the precedent? If the former could you provide justification?

 

[WildCat]

I would like to see evidence of that.

Walmart starting wage was $10/hr, Jewel and Dominick's (Safeway) were minimum wage ($8.25).

Still waiting for the anti-union laws you claimed Walmart got passed...

eta: oops, I was misremembering. It's actually $8.75/hr here for starting Walmart wages.

 

[RandFan]

Walmart starting wage was $10/hr, Jewel and Dominick's (Safeway) were minimum wage ($8.25).

Still waiting for the anti-union laws you claimed Walmart got passed...

My son recently quit Wallmart. He never made $10 an hour. Safeway has health benefits (and I believe other benefits) that Wallmart doesn't. It wouldn't be surprised that Wallmart can claim $10 minimum wage for certain positions.

 

[WildCat]

I've not taken a position on corporate personhood. Could you explain why it is that an entity that is not a person cannot be sued? Is it conceptually impossible to sue entities that are not "virtual people" or is it because of legal precedent? If the latter could you cite the precedent? If the former could you provide justification?

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality