Home page logo

interesting-people logo Interesting People mailing list archives

Re: Corporations are NOT persons.
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 14:36:27 -0400

Begin forwarded message:

From: Dave CROCKER <dcrocker () bbiw net>
Date: March 22, 2009 2:12:09 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>, Dan Lynch <dan () lynch com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Corporations are NOT persons.

From: Dan Lynch <dan () lynch com>
Hear hear!  Corporations are NOT persons.  How that get encoded in our

Probably because corporations actually /are/ legal persons. Their legal standing is not identical to humans, nevermind full citizens, but persons nonetheless. There are even credible arguments that the legal standing of corporations is in some ways stronger than of humans.

Wikipedia provides some convenient background on the topic:


But the gist is that if you list the legal rights of humans in the U.S., you'll find that corporations share quite a few of the same ones.

The debate about similarities or differences between corporations and human rights apparently goes back to the Romans, so it's not likely to get settled anytime soon. Rather it looks like something worth ongoing review, to make sure that an acceptable balance is maintained. The assumption should be that things can and will go out of balance.

Imagine, for example, if Corporations were not permitted to make political contributions. Would that, perhaps, violate their "rights"? Would that, perhaps, alter the political process more towards the folks who can vote than towards corporate dominance? Questions that should at least be considered.



 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking

Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]