Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the idea that rights shouldn't be extended to organizations and that organizations can be dissolved at the government's leisure is inherently dangerous. Using that logic, political parties and other organizations can be silenced on the grounds that since they are not people they have no legal rights. Think about what that really could mean.
That though, is the goal for certain political systems. It is a way to side-step the individual liberty issue. It is also why some systems as such refer to everything as "group" or a "collective". This justifies the infringement on the individual to achieve the claimed prosperity of the "group".
I see such attempts to define business and organizations as such to be of similar method.
I think the idea that rights shouldn't be extended to organizations and that organizations can be dissolved at the government's leisure is inherently dangerous. Using that logic, political parties and other organizations can be silenced on the grounds that since they are not people they have no legal rights. Think about what that really could mean.
Politics always finds a way around it. For example: Unions. It is an organization of people. And it is not unusual to see every effort made to weaken, dismantle and eliminate such curse. This, while claiming for protections under "rights".
Bill of Rights was never intended to be a protection for "organization of people". It was meant for individuals, as in living breathing persons. For legal entities created by people, there were charters designed and implemented at state and local levels. Most of these charters were quite demanding, so much so that if some of those existed today, they would be quickly labeled dictatorial.
Trust me, when the people in the colonies rose against corporations and favors afforded to them, they didn't see them as "just another group of people". Corporations and unions are a way to acquire power... have the rights, just no accountability. And perhaps more rights because money ALWAYS helps in politics.
That though, is the goal for certain political systems. It is a way to side-step the individual liberty issue. It is also why some systems as such refer to everything as "group" or a "collective". This justifies the infringement on the individual to achieve the claimed prosperity of the "group".
I see such attempts to define business and organizations as such to be of similar method.
I was just thinking that using his logic; an organization like the ACLU or a rival political party or a university could be disbanded by the government since organizations do not have any rights that are not granted by the government. He said "Their rights are limited to what is chartered for them. You can't apply Bill of Rights to such legal entities." Ultimately that would be an excellent way to silence free speech and to violate other civil liberties. Unless you are wealthy enough to self-publish, the press can be shut down. "Hey, this newspaper is a for-profit business and doesn't really qualify as free speech nor the press as described in the Bill of Rights". I suppose governments could disband trade unions if they see fit as well.
Now, legally speaking that may or may not be the case, but it is fundamentally a rather disturbing thought if carried out to its logical conclusion.
I can only wonder and marvel at a court that confers personhood on a commercial entity that is neither human nor mortal.
Corporations are formed to encourage investment in a business to provide a useful product or service by limiting the investor’s liability to their investment instead of their entire personal wealth. The corporate structure, unlike an unlimited partnership, means you are betting your investment but not the house and land. This is useful but easily abused.
I do not consider a ban on smoking in publically used places to interfere with "property rights" in any way. I think it is perfectly reasonable to be able to allow smoking in my house but not in my resturant.
I was just thinking that using his logic; an organization like the ACLU or a rival political party or a university could be disbanded by the government since organizations do not have any rights that are not granted by the government...
Any such action by the government can be challenged, without having to treat unions as a person. An organization was never meant to be a person. To begin with, an organization was meant to be created, unlike a person. How many times do you see mention of any sort of organization within the original documents spelling rights of the people?
I think the idea that rights shouldn't be extended to organizations and that organizations can be dissolved at the government's leisure is inherently dangerous. Using that logic, political parties and other organizations can be silenced on the grounds that since they are not people they have no legal rights. Think about what that really could mean.
The 1st amendment explicitly protects our freedom of association. So the danger of businesses being shut down by the government does not extend to political or other organizations.
Does Obama have to abide by the smoking ban since he could potentially burn down the White House sitting up smoking cigs and drinking suds? He could fall asleep and whooosh, there goes 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Knowing Barry, he'll lie and say a wildfire broke out in Michelle's garden
I was just thinking that using his logic; an organization like the ACLU or a rival political party or a university could be disbanded by the government since organizations do not have any rights that are not granted by the government. He said "Their rights are limited to what is chartered for them. You can't apply Bill of Rights to such legal entities." Ultimately that would be an excellent way to silence free speech and to violate other civil liberties. Unless you are wealthy enough to self-publish, the press can be shut down. "Hey, this newspaper is a for-profit business and doesn't really qualify as free speech nor the press as described in the Bill of Rights". I suppose governments could disband trade unions if they see fit as well.
Now, legally speaking that may or may not be the case, but it is fundamentally a rather disturbing thought if carried out to its logical conclusion.
Yep, it does present a problem in that. That is why I do not see "legally" as any different. Law does not define liberties, liberties define law and when law conflicts with such, liberty takes precedence.
It reminds me of the law arguments where someone say "its the law!" as if that is all that was required to establish its validity. Unfortunately, that form of thinking is becoming more and more prevalent which when considering your points, becomes an extremely serious problem.
Any such action by the government can be challenged, without having to treat unions as a person. An organization was never meant to be a person. To begin with, an organization was meant to be created, unlike a person. How many times do you see mention of any sort of organization within the original documents spelling rights of the people?
You can not segregate an individual from their works. Liberties do not protect someone as if they were simply an object, it extends to their works and deeds.
Frank was pointing out that the reasoning of your position escapes the very elements of liberty of the individual, there by claiming that the works of the individual is not protected as the individual is. Using such a process, as he pointed out allows infringements indirectly.
If one can not have a business ( a profession, trade, etc...) without the consent of the government, then one is not free to pursue happiness as they see fit as the government is dictating to the individual what they can and can not have and under what conditions they may have it.
You can not segregate an individual from their works. Liberties do not protect someone as if they were simply an object, it extends to their works and deeds.
You can separate an individual from a business. They are two separate entities, one merely a legal one. But you're correct, rights were never meant to be for objects, just persons.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
