The Atlantic must be excerpted and linked.
Worth reading.
Of course corporations are people.
What the hell do these anti-capitalists think created them? Are composed of? Employ?
Don't nonprofit organizations, as collections of citizens, enjoy those rights? If so, why not corporations?
Around here in the peoples republic of MA, Corporations are NOT people. But, unions are people. Go figure...
How can a group of people have less rights than a single person alone?
And I’m loathe to take seriously any person who uses “robber baron” in their lexicon.
Sometimes the whole is larger than the sum of its parts.
Corporations are groups of people.
“Corporations are people” is the essential driving concept behind the original, Italian version of Fascism.
Corporations are groups of people. There, was that supposed to be complicated?
Clearly, corporations are royalty, you stupid peasants.
Who do you think first implemented gay rights?
I think the article is total nonsense. For starters, no jurisprudence holds that “corporations” have “freedom of religion.“ What it does hold is that corporations can function as a legal individual. They can make contracts, be held liable for civil damages, and so on. It is true that campaign donations by corporations, along with other entities, cannot be entirely banned, and it is this that really drives the anti-freedom left crazy. But the fundamental issue is that individuals functioning through the corporate entity (profit or nonprofit) retain the freedom of speech even though they choose to speak to these entities.
The idea of a corporation as a single legal actor goes all the way back to Roman times. The idea as an existing legal doctrine appears in Blackstone’s commentaries. A major case involving the right of a chartered corporation not to be subject to arbitrary treatment involved Dartmouth university, of all corporations, in the late 18th century. The state of New Hampshire wanted to take it over, and the university sued, saying this was a breach of contract. (The University had been established under a corporate charter granted by George III.)
This idea that corporations suddenly got rights because of the shenanigans of Roscoe Conkling and a few others has been kicked around in the more feverish of the anticorporate literature for a long time. It has all the hallmarks of a good conspiracy theory —sinister villains, devious behavior, and brave reporters trying to get the truth out. I’m amazed it gets the traction it does.
One of the more important victories for economic freedom, and for the subsequent spectacular rise in prosperity in the United States, was the introduction of general incorporation (as opposed to the specific corporate charters like it only be granted by the state after a specific application, which therefore generated an immense amount of corruption, with East India Company being the most famous example) by state legislatures in the early 19th century.
I can hardly wait now for The Atlantic to be in favor of ZERO tax on corporations, since they are not PEOPLE who can be taxed.
Yeah. Well, I prefer Bill Whittle's explanation of Corporations.
THAT'S why.
How exactly did abortions come to be understood as “privacy” bestowed with the most fundamental constitutional rights? The answer can be found in a bizarre—even farcical—series of lawsuits...
I always thought the death penalty might be appropriate for some corporations...........................
Gee, just like Roe v. Wade.
An ethically challenged justice 130 years ago? I didn’t realize Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg was that old.
Not only am I the NRA...and I vote, but I am also a Corporation...and I vote. Actually am am one corporation and a third of another corporation!!!