3 ms·

>Since corporations, like families, partnerships, and groups of friends, are aggregations of people, I don't think that your distinction makes sense. They have

>Since corporations, like families, partnerships, and groups of friends, are aggregations of people, I don't think that your distinction makes sense. They have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits. That's enough of a difference for, but different strokes... Here's another discussion of the legal rationale if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood >I reject that approach because it can't work. Huh? Read about the Sherman Anti-trust Act. If it's not clear to you why it's necessary after that, then I give up. >the real solution is to keep govt passing ot favors Who decides what is a favor and what isn't? Is the recruitment of more troops for the Iraq war a handout to the high school kids with no college aspirations? Why can't they just put a bid for a private militia? While seemingly extreme, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Overall, this comes across as a very overly simplistic view of reality.

anamax 15y ago
> They have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits. That "responsiblity" doesn't work the way your argument requires - see the NYT for an example. Moreover, it isn't relevant. My free speech rights don't depend on whether I'm trying to maximize profits, so why is my corporation any different? Either you think that corps are not aggregations of people or you think that aggregated people have less rights than the members of the aggregation. Which is it and why? > >I reject that approach because it can't work. > Huh? Read about the Sherman Anti-trust Act. Yes, do. You'll find that it didn't provide the promised benefits. In fact, it's pretty much been a disaster. Yes, it broke up standard oil. However, look at the consequences. > If it's not clear to you why it's necessary after that, then I give up. You're confusing the existence of a problem with whether a solution works. > >the real solution is to keep govt passing ot favors > Who decides what is a favor and what isn't? The existence of some gray areas does not imply that every area is gray. In reality, there's pretty widespread agreement on what constitutes handouts and it's silly to suggest otherwise. > Is the recruitment of more troops for the Iraq war a handout to the high school kids with no college aspirations? Why can't they just put a bid for a private militia? While seemingly extreme, It's not "extreme" - it has nothing to do with your supposed point. The private militia will hire the kid, so both are the same on the "handout" basis.

anamax 15y ago

> They have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits. That "responsiblity" doesn't work the way your argument requires - see the NYT for an example. Moreover, it isn't relevant. My free speech rights don't depend on whether I'm trying to maximize profits, so why is my corporation any different? Either you think that corps are not aggregations of people or you think that aggregated people have less rights than the members of the aggregation. Which is it and why? > >I reject that approach because it can't work. > Huh? Read about the Sherman Anti-trust Act. Yes, do. You'll find that it didn't provide the promised benefits. In fact, it's pretty much been a disaster. Yes, it broke up standard oil. However, look at the consequences. > If it's not clear to you why it's necessary after that, then I give up. You're confusing the existence of a problem with whether a solution works. > >the real solution is to keep govt passing ot favors > Who decides what is a favor and what isn't? The existence of some gray areas does not imply that every area is gray. In reality, there's pretty widespread agreement on what constitutes handouts and it's silly to suggest otherwise. > Is the recruitment of more troops for the Iraq war a handout to the high school kids with no college aspirations? Why can't they just put a bid for a private militia? While seemingly extreme, It's not "extreme" - it has nothing to do with your supposed point. The private militia will hire the kid, so both are the same on the "handout" basis.