or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Things you just don't get
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Things you just don't get - Page 827

post #12391 of 14178
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post

i rather like john oliver's show but there are some liberal talking points that are pretty retarded



somebody explain to me why a group of individuals don't deserve the same rights as the individuals that make up the group.

I've only seen (part of) the show once, and a few scattered YouTube bits. I'm generally not a fan, but I thought this one was well done.

As to your second question: is that a serious question? I'm not even sure what it means. But to the extent the question even makes sense, one answer would be: because a group of individuals can't necessarily be held accountable for their actions to the same extent as an individual can.

But generalizations like that are useless. I'm guessing it's some sort of a Citizens United point? (Apologies if I'm incorrectly ascribing a meaning to your words that you didn't intend.)
post #12392 of 14178
Not watching the video right now, but when you incorporate, you are agreeing to certain obligations and giving up certain rights in exchange for certain protections.

The owners of the company get to benefit from a huge reduction in personal liability as well as differing sets of tax treatment (and tons of other benefits to incorporation)...if Hobby Lobby went bankrupt tomorrow (barring fraud on the part of the owners), the owners could walk away and still be fine. They would lose their investment in the company, but nothing more.
If not for their status as a company, their debtors would sue them all into oblivion.
post #12393 of 14178

The issue isn't whether a group of individuals have the same rights as a single individual, but whether a legal construct (which a corporation is) has all the same rights as a real, live individual.  Historically speaking, they have not.  There is a certain philosophical aspect to the discussion that isn't really addressed in Oliver's rant, no matter how funny parts of it are.

post #12394 of 14178
For what it's worth, the Oliver video had nothing to do with Citizens United and the extent to which we treat corporations as "persons" for Constitutional analysis.

I think/assume indesertum was referencing an entirely different Oliver clip (one which did deal with the CU issue) as an example of a less successful/entertaining effort by Oliver.
post #12395 of 14178
citizens united basically allows superPACs right? but i feel like when most people talk about it they're talking about corporations are people which from what i understand is totally different
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

I've only seen (part of) the show once, and a few scattered YouTube bits. I'm generally not a fan, but I thought this one was well done.

As to your second question: is that a serious question? I'm not even sure what it means. But to the extent the question even makes sense, one answer would be: because a group of individuals can't necessarily be held accountable for their actions to the same extent as an individual can.

But generalizations like that are useless. I'm guessing it's some sort of a Citizens United point? (Apologies if I'm incorrectly ascribing a meaning to your words that you didn't intend.)

yeah its a "citizens united" thing i didn't understand (in the video he goes on about how corporations are not people or some point rather vaguely similar to it

Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

Not watching the video right now, but when you incorporate, you are agreeing to certain obligations and giving up certain rights in exchange for certain protections.

The owners of the company get to benefit from a huge reduction in personal liability as well as differing sets of tax treatment (and tons of other benefits to incorporation)...if Hobby Lobby went bankrupt tomorrow (barring fraud on the part of the owners), the owners could walk away and still be fine. They would lose their investment in the company, but nothing more.
If not for their status as a company, their debtors would sue them all into oblivion.

well I'm asking out of stupidity but what individual rights do you give up when you incorporate?
post #12396 of 14178

You, as a person, don't give up any.  The entity you create, the corporation, is an artificial construct that has certain legal characteristics.  The most important of which is to shield individuals from liability; for instance, in a bankruptcy, the debt holders can't go after the personal assets of the founder, CEO, etc.

post #12397 of 14178
CE, people, CE. Just saying,
post #12398 of 14178
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post

citizens united basically allows superPACs right? but i feel like when most people talk about it they're talking about corporations are people which from what i understand is totally different
yeah its a "citizens united" thing i didn't understand (in the video he goes on about how corporations are not people or some point rather vaguely similar to it
well I'm asking out of stupidity but what individual rights do you give up when you incorporate?

Ah, I missed the corporations as people point. I assume he used it as passing snark, because it's not really germane to the main subject.

Totally oversimplified, but:
1. CU basically held that legislation limiting political spending by corporations (among others) was unconstitutional.
2. There's a liberal talking point out there suggesting that in deciding CU the Supremes held that corporations are basically the same as people under the Constitutional and have exactly the same Constitutional rights as people (and more Constitutional rights than dames, who naturally have less). Not really accurate, but that's really the jumping off point for all the jokes and tropes.
3. It's not so much a question of giving up individual rights when you incorporate. It's more about how, and to what extent, the exercise of individual rights can be channeled through the corporation. But I think any attempt (including my own) to generalize at that level is so imprecise as to be almost useless. But (again, grossly oversimplifying here), the way it comes up in CU is something like this: You, as an individual, have rights under the First Amendment. Prior cases have held that the government can't limit how much money you, as an individual, can spend on "political expenditures", because spending money to get your viewpoint out there is inherently tied up with your right to free speech. CU dealt with whether the government can cap the political expenditures of corporations (and labor unions, and other groups), or whether the First Amendment makes such limitations unconstitutional just like they would be if applied to individuals. The Supremes' answer was "yes", no, the government cannot impose such caps.
Edited by lawyerdad - 7/10/14 at 4:34pm
post #12399 of 14178
bravo. my tiny brain understood everything (i think) you said
post #12400 of 14178
Thanks
Except I got the punchline bass-ackwards. The answer in CU was "No, the government can't cap corporations' political expenditures." One of those instances where by time I reached the end of the paragraph I forgot how I'd started it.

shog[1].gif
post #12401 of 14178
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post

well I'm asking out of stupidity but what individual rights do you give up when you incorporate?

Its not really that you lose rights (and you certainly don't lose your own individual rights). For a small company (like say, a 1-man IT consultation business), mostly what you give up are a few freedoms that made your life easier (like sharing bank accounts and credit with your "business") and the right to have your life be free of a bunch of extra paperwork.
When you grow, you gain certain other obligations (and I suppose, gaining an obligation is akin to losing the right to not have to meet that obligation). Income can be double taxed if you can no longer be an S-corp...if you make it past 50 employees, you are now required to pay for a bunch of things under the FMLA...you might have to start opening yourself up for audits when you get really big (even if not going public), etc.

Some of these things are not *really* a choice (e.g. rolling with 50+ employees as a sole proprietorship may be legal...but you are playing with fire, and its going to be impossible to get any serious financing without incorporating)
post #12402 of 14178
I want you guys to know that I did not read any of that.
Edited by EMartNJ - 7/10/14 at 6:16pm
post #12403 of 14178
nm answered.
post #12404 of 14178
This has been addressed in CE. Corporate personhood has fuck all to do with Citizens United.
post #12405 of 14178
Quote:
Originally Posted by EMartNJ View Post

I want you guys to know that I did not read any of that.
Can you let me know when it's over and it's safe to return to this thread?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Things you just don't get