Occupy Wall Street Protests not working? What do you think?

[Kasz216]

richardhutnik said:

osamanobama said:

bannedagain said:

I will end this now because of your thought of corporations being people. They are not and where born in a lawyers office. Already clear to see we will not see eye to eye.. Corporations own our politicians because of this ruling. It has nothing to do with the first amendment. SO peace.

 

so wha are they, robots?

Corporations are not people.  They are artifically created entities whose structure is defined by law, that enables the owners to not be liable for the things they own do.  If they were people, then they could vote, and get arrested and go to jail when they do wrong.  And in this structure, when they collectively do evil, no single person gets singled out and dealt with.  You can have a corporation end up doing things that harm and kill people, that if an individual did it, they would go to jail, but with a corporation, no one does.  In other legal structures, if an entity owners had did something wrong, the owner would be fined, go to jail for negliegence.  This is not the case with corporations, particularly publically traded ones.

And you have other things that don't happen with individuals.  Individuals die.  When they die, and are the holder of IP, the IP goes into public domain. Because corporations hold the rights to IP, they never die and the intellectual property never goes into the public domain.

I also haven't seen a corporation eat, fall in love, get married, use a toilet, have to go to the hospital, send their kids to school or anything.  Exactly what DO corporations do that is human?

Well that's the problem.  Corporate personhood isn't LITERALLY corporations are people.  That's just the way it's framed by people to make it seem ridiculious.

Corporate Personhood is the belief that people should not be deprived of human rights when they work collectivly.

For example, I should be able to say something negative about the government as a private citizen, and I should also be allowed to say something negative about the government as a spokesman for McDonalds.

Without corporate personhood, Mcdonalds could be fined for talking bad about the government, and I could even be thrown in jail, because I was talking for mcdonalds, who doesn't have a right to free speach.

This is exactly the precedent you would set if you rule corporations don't have a right to free speech.  (Which is what this corporate personhood arguement involving campagin funding is about.)