Could a corporation not be clothing optional?

[Xavier_Onassis]

They are given EXTRA rights, a major extra right, the right to limit their liability, not to the damage that their corporation might have, but to only the amount they have invested.

A corporation does not have the rights of a person intentionally and by definition. It cannot vote, for example. A corporation cannot receive food stamps. So it is already "stripped of the some of the rights of a citizen". Are you going the demand that corporations be given the right to vote? Shall we send food stamps to Cargill if it claims it is hungry?

The citizens that belong to the corporation do not forfeit their personal rights, ever. It is just that their corporation does not have the same rights as the individual citizens do. This is because the purpose of a corporation is not to impose religious beliefs on employees. The purpose of a corporation is to facilitate innovation, production and the creation of goods and services. A corporation cannot have beliefs. It is an artificial entity. Just as my refrigerator cannot claim to be an Adventist and refuse to cool my food on Saturdays, a corporation does not have religious rights. Like my refrigerator, it was created for a specific purpose and has no rights other than to fulfill that purpose.

[Plane]

The citizens that belong to the corporation do not forfeit their personal rights, ever.

Stop!

That is the entire point and you get it perfectly.

[Xavier_Onassis]

But said personal rights do NOT extend to what they want a corporation to which they own can do.

A corporation cannot claim it has a religion and therefore cannot be required to comply with government mandates involving corporations.

[Plane]

But said personal rights do NOT extend to what they want a corporation to which they own can do.

How not?

Didn't you just say that individuals do not loose rights by joining a corporation?

How can a group have less rights than the members of the group?

[Xavier_Onassis]

A corporation is not a group. It is a fictitious entity created for the express purpose of limiting the liability of the shareholders to the amount invested. A corporation has no vote, has the purpose of making money for its shareholders, or perhaps in the case of a non profit corporation, has the purpose of providing a service without making a profit. A corporation is NOT A GROUP: it is a fictitious entity owned by a group, just as a family might own a refrigerator. Corp[orations ARE NOT PEOPLE they are fictitious entities created by people to limit financial liability.

Do I have to say this again?  It is not a difficult concept.

[Plane]

I don't own a fictitious refrigerator , nor have I ever joined a refrigerator.

I have seen unwonted refrigerators, unowned refrigerators.

But a corporation that has no owners ceases to exist.

To say that IBM is not people is just as correct as saying that France is not people.

[Xavier_Onassis]

France is not people. It is a country and it has a population.

A country is not an entirely fictitious entity, as a corporation is.

A corporation has shareholders, who may or may not be people.

I won mutual funds. I am a person, but the mutual funds are not. The mutual funds own stock in companies, and the companies have shareholders.

I own shares in a fund of funds, which in turn owns other funds as well as bonds and bond funds. The other funds own shares in companies, but I have no right to tell those companies how to run their companies. I cannot vote for or against officers or proposals that the companies owned by the mutual funds I own. I can vote for the officers and proposals of the mutual funds.

[Plane]

  So when you exercise your rights , these rights are not restricted by your ownership of stock?

[Xavier_Onassis]

No, my rights as a person are the same. My rights as a shareholder I clearly understand.

The point is corporations are not people, and a corporation's purpose is not to impose religious views on its employees.

[Plane]

  Corporations are nothing but people.

   What rights do you want to give away when you buy stock?

    Suppose that you owned a significant share of Bayer .

     And at a board meeting , there was the question brought up of selling contraceptives to a government not your own , and this government clearly intended to give this contraceptive surreptitiously or involuntarily to its unpopular minority.

     For the sake of this argument lets assume that you object and vote your shares and proxies against providing this drug.

      Then you find that your government wants this to happen , and your vote is mooted.

     This scenario is entirely fiction , but I am trying to think of what would offend your sensibilities in a fashion similar to being forced to provide killing drugs to state execution chambers or abortifacients  to abortionists is to those people who object to these things.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is totally fiction. Shareholder's meetings only vote on two sorts of issues.

(1) Here is a list of officers. You may vote FOR or AGAINST them. T=It is exactly like the USSR: Joseph Stalin is Chairman. if you are a party member you may vote FOR or AGAINST him. Nearly all corporations fail to provide a list of candidates, as in you get to choose between Hugh Jass and Jack Cass.

(2) Here is a list of proposals. You may vote for, against or abstain. They are written in legalese and are usually not very intelligible.

Management always recommends that you vote FOR everything proposed.

The only exception that I know of is TIAA-CREF, that always has three or four candidates, with their bios and a personal statement of their concerns.
When TIAA-CREF has propolsals, they explain them clearly, with how a PRO and a CON vote might affect the company and the shareholders.


Corporations are NOT "anything but people". They are artificial entities that prefer to be dictatorial in nature and are not respectful of the intellect of their shareholders or their customers most of the time. A corporation many have many shareholders and officers, but the shareholders are normally ignored and only a couple of the officers always speak for the whole shebang.

YOu are never going to convince me otherwise. Hobby Lobby and Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas can shove it, and rotate it until it bleeds.



I know from TIAA-CREF that corporations do not have to suck and treat their shareholders like dummies. They do this because they think we are dummies, apparently.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Look: if a woman is pregnant or likely to become pregnant, I believe that the decision to abort or take a pill is ENTIRELY her own. It is not any of my business, or your business or anyone else';s business. If it is an ethical dilemma, since she was the one who knew what might make her pregnant and dealt with that dilemma, I am sure that she can deal with all other ethical dilemmas. The government should have NO ROLE in this.

[kimba1]

legally it is her decision but it`s not solely her responsibility. the father has no decision but has most definitely responsible

[Plane]

The government should have NO ROLE in this.

Why is it not your responsibility to pay for every abortion in Florida?

Supposing that you became the only Floridian willing to pay.

[Xavier_Onassis]

When I say that the government has no role in this, I mean the government should have mo right to bar a woman from having an abortion. If she has the money, she will get and abortion and well not be punished. Restrictions on abortions apply only to those who cannot simply go where they can have an abortion and pay for it entirely legally.


Actually, I would be willing to pay for abortions in my taxes, because unwanted children are are far more expensive proposition, and I believe that a women should have the total right to decide. I am also for contraceptives being issued free to those that request them. Population is getting to big, and the people with the most children are precisely the people who do not have the means (or often the desire or the knowledge how) to educate them

Having a child should be the woman's choice alone.

If the state is paying, then all are paying. There is no constitutional way that a state could tax only me. That is simple an impossible and silly comment and you know it.

As for the father, he has the right to plead with the woman to bear the child, but not the right to prevent her from having an abortion. It is her body, not his body, after all. That is the way nature decided to do it.