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.
Jonathan Frieman, a local activist and nonprofit consultant, was ticketed Oct. 2 for driving in the carpool lane during restricted hours; the officer apparently wasn't impressed when Frieman showed him his incorporation papers. A traffic court hearing is scheduled for Monday afternoon.
The fine for such a violation is $478, but Frieman, 59, of San Rafael, says that if the court rules against him Monday, he's prepared to appeal the case all the way to the California Supreme Court in an effort to expose the impracticality of corporate personhood.
Corporate personhood, of course, has been at the heart of the ongoing debate over campaign finance ever since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling unleashed a torrent of corporate contributions.
"Corporations are imaginary entities, and we've let them run wild," Frieman said in a news release. "Their original intent 200 years ago at the dawn of our nation was to serve human beings. So I'm wresting back that power by making their personhood serve me."
So, what do you free-market fundamentalists think? If a corporation is a person, shouldn't Frieman be let off without a fine?
Frieman is an "activist" who went looking for a fight. His argument is asinine, as there are almost 200 years of court precedent involving corporate personhood and what it does and doesn't mean.
A one-man corporation - which is an oxymoron - still wouldn't have the right to drive in the carpool lane.
A better challenge would have been to form a corporation with 9 of his friends, then take them to the local buffet and attempt to all eat for the price of one.
If a corporation is a person that can contribute to political camapigns does it commit corprocide if it puts another corporation out of business? Could this be considered corporate murder? Why should it not be considered an corporate killing?
If a corporation is a person that can contribute to political camapigns does it commit corprocide if it puts another corporation out of business? Could this be considered corporate murder? Why should it not be considered an corporate killing?
One would have to first stipulate that the state of the corporation being in business causes it to be "alive".
Also, how would one define corpocide for corporations which exist for purposes other than doing business?
Frieman is an "activist" who went looking for a fight. His argument is asinine, as there are almost 200 years of court precedent involving corporate personhood and what it does and doesn't mean.
A one-man corporation - which is an oxymoron - still wouldn't have the right to drive in the carpool lane.
A better challenge would have been to form a corporation with 9 of his friends, then take them to the local buffet and attempt to all eat for the price of one.
I saw a news report about this, and apparently he had his incorporation papers on the passenger seat of his car. Which I suppose begs the question: what exactly is the physical representation of a corporate "person" anyway?
A better challenge would have been to form a corporation with 9 of his friends, then take them to the local buffet and attempt to all eat for the price of one.
I like it!
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.
Corpersonhood
