Originally posted by Tardacus
right, the stockholders individually are people, the stockholders collectively are not a seperate individual person, they are a group of individual
Yes, they are a group, and a group of people has a right to speak as one collective. That is what the term “right to peacefully assemble”
So, are you saying that after a group peacefully assembles, they no longer have a right to speak as a whole?
The absurdity of granting a corporation the status of being a person is beyond absurd.
Will you get it out of your head that we are transferring rights to a corporation. That statement was absurd the first time I heard it, and it is
still absurd the 50,000th time I heard it
Originally posted by adjensen
By that logic, any personal property has "rights" -- does my car have rights? Is my kitchen table a person?
No, but the owner is a person, and he can use said items to voice his opinion. You have a right to put a bumper sticker on the car, or make the care a
rolling billboard, and let the car signify your distaste for a subject.
If they infringe on the right to have a bumper sticker on the car, then they infringe on freedom of speech. Not the car’s freedom of speech, but
yours, the owner.
By your logic, we could say a car does not have the freedom of speech, because it is not a person, so any car that has any signage that promotes a
political opinion, is illegal.
What are you talking about? How does saying that a corporation doesn't have a right to free speech (which is not what is being proposed here, but
whatever) somehow impinge on your right to free speech? Why do you need a corporation to speak for you?
The original intent of corporate governance was to enable corporations (and partnerships and other forms of business) to enter into contracts legally.
It was never expected that we'd find ourselves in an age where sham corporations are created simply to get around campaign finance regulations.
That is one of the basic requirements of forming a group. To allow the group as a whole to sign as one. That does not restrict in any way, what that
said group is allowed to do through that entity. It just allows that group to function as a group. That is why they have for profits, non for profits,
and every other type. To cater to what that group of people want to do as a group. If you can not interact with the outside world as one entity, then
you basically no longer have the ability to form a group any more.
Talking as one entity, allows a group of similar like minded people to form a stable entity that will exist past the life of any single member. That
will speak on behalf of all members that wish to support it.
That allows a group of people to peacefully assemble and form a single point of contact with the outside world, which they can use to voice their
collective opinion (to talk as a group). That way, if one person dies, and another one joins, the message will remain strong and unwavering. It give
people the ability to form an opinion that will retain continuity from generation to generation.
That is what the people are afraid of that wrote the bill. They know they can easily beat down individual opponents, but they know it’s hard to beat
down a group that stands as one.
So they want to neuter the voice of the collective.
Thus, the right to peacefully assemble, to voice your grievances as one, will be gone.