# \#OccupyWallStreet **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 19, 2011, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851 "2011-09-19T18:27:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 29
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/561 "2011-10-07T05:53:27Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > So corporate personhood is bad, and you want to outlaw corporations. Have you thought thru the consequences? I said that we should end corporate personhood, not corporations. They existed just fine for hundreds of years before their money was considered “speech” that must be protected. Or were you being serious? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/562 "2011-10-07T06:06:54Z")
First, re: the influence on corporate money on politics, I’m willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of protestors would be down with public financing and the banning of all private donations to political parties entirely, from both the left and the right – along with some strict regulation of lobby activity. Or is that too complex/too simple/too vague/too specific/too unreasonable for you all? **Jimmy Chitwood** : > [@](#): > > \*My problem is that Bricker’s demand for specificity was an obviously disingenuous cavil; one of many. First there were no demands. Then there were too many. Then they were too vague. Now they’re so specific as to be unrealistic because they’d require an amendment. It’s all bullshit. Rather than just say to begin with “I am against these people’s interests, and they are against mine,” people are pretending that they have half a dozen fucking procedural objections, like: I’d really be interested to hear what they have to say, but they’re just so silly that it’s difficult, and I’m so sad about that. > > To be clear: I’m not worried about what the world would be like without corporate personhood at all, and neither is \*\*Bricker \*\*or any of you, because everyone in the world who has bothered to think about it knows that the real issue here isn’t about destroying the entire concept of corporate rights and responsibilities across the board so that nothing like it is ever seen again. I haven’t seen any insistence that we need to overturn Colonial precedents. Meanwhile there are popular objections to a current high-profile trend in our treatment of corporate personhood, and those are obviously, to anyone who cares enough to spend 45 minutes reading about it, what are probably being referenced by the phrase “Ending corporate personhood.” It’s not at all hard to figure out what these people are upset about, and what they generally want to see happen. It’s a fairly mainstream issue by now. \* +1 Or, as Glenn Greenwald put it, in a very worthwhile post on his blog: > [@](#): > > \*\*Some of these critiques are ludicrous. Does anyone really not know what the basic message is of this protest: that Wall Street is oozing corruption and criminality and its unrestrained political power — in the form of crony capitalism and ownership of political institutions — is destroying financial security for everyone else? Beyond that, criticizing protesters for the prominence of police brutality stories is pure victim-blaming (and, independently, having police brutality highlighted is its own benefit). \*\* Secondly: **John Mace** : > [@](#): > > \*And like I said earlier, if we need to have a dialog on what the limits of corporate personhood are, that’s a valid argument to be made. “End corporate personhood”, as has been proposed by posters in this thread, would set the economy back centuries. \* You’ve said this twice now. Could you flesh out your objections a bit more for me? In what way do corporations require the status of “personhood,” and how would it damage our economy to deny them that status? Thirdly: Hola **Red**! Que pasa? Nice to see you again, hope all is well with you and yours. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/563 "2011-10-07T06:31:41Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > … 'A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law… This is some deeply Gnostic shit going on, here. A non-corporeal being that only exists in a state of contemplation. Whoa. Was he one of those hemp-growng Founders? Because, I mean,… _damn!_ Far out! > [@](#): > > …Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence. … OK, that’s too many for me. I fold. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/564 "2011-10-07T12:43:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The sound-bite from this event needs much more clarity – which in fairness **RTFirefly** offered up. Assuming his version is what’s meant, then his proposal suffers from exactly the same deficit mine does: it would need a constitutional amendment to make real. Nah, it would just need five votes on the Supreme Court. Of course, we’d need five libruls on the court who were as willing to dispense with precedent as the current conservative majority is, but that’s not gonna happen anytime soon. So you’re right, a constitutional amendment is needed. We might as well start pushing for it now. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/565 "2011-10-07T12:54:38Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s a far left idea (ending corporate personhood). Not really. It’s had too little discussion among the public at large to be identified with any particular point on the spectrum, other than to say it’s a center-left idea because the conservative end of the spectrum will stick up for the rights of corporations almost automatically. I think that if this idea gets into play, a lot of people who don’t consider themselves liberal in the least will accept it as a common-sense idea. > [@](#): > > “End corporate personhood”, as has been proposed by posters in this thread, would set the economy back centuries. How so? We aren’t talking about ending corporations as a legal entity distinct from their shareholders; the proposal is that corporations shouldn’t have the rights accorded to flesh-and-blood persons except as conferred by statutes specific to corporations. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/566 "2011-10-07T13:13:07Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > How so? We aren’t talking about ending corporations as a legal entity distinct from their shareholders; the proposal is that corporations shouldn’t have the rights accorded to flesh-and-blood persons except as conferred by statutes specific to corporations. So a lot of statutes would get passed in short order? ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/567 "2011-10-07T13:13:11Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > OK, that’s too many for me. I fold. Translation from Justice Marshall to modern layperson English: Corporations are entities which were created by law and not by nature; therefore the rights and privileges they enjoy aren’t _inalienable_, but are inherent to their legal charter and legitimate operation. In _other_ other words, Marshall thought those corporate rights and privileges could be properly controlled by statute and are not constitutionally protected. This opinion came well before _Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad_, in which the Court under Chief Justice Waite determined that corporations enjoy the “equal protection” afforded to “persons” by the 14th Amendment _at least as that protection applies to the assessment of state taxes_. The _Santa Clara_ decision avoided the question of whether corporations are full “persons” under the 14th, but the precedent advanced the concept of corporate personhood well beyond what was previously understood by the term. And this is where we begin to get into the aspects of the ‘legal fiction’ that are disdained by most of us lefty hippy radicals. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/568 "2011-10-07T13:21:21Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > You walk in with a Star of David embossed urn in one hand and a clipboard with a checklist in the other. Then you tell everyone that they should all stop complaining because the paperwork was in order. > > -Joe What do mean by a Star of David embossed urn? Speak plainly: what do you mean to say here? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/569 "2011-10-07T13:25:58Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > So a lot of statutes would get passed in short order? Yeah, you’d have to have a period of a few years after ratification before the amendment took effect, to pass the appropriate statutes. If the amendment ever actually got through Congress and started working its way through the state legislatures, I’m sure there’d be plenty of discussion in both legal and non-technical circles of what was needed. There’s the obvious quick fix, which is for state legislatures to pass laws saying that the statutory rights applying to persons in their states also apply to corporations. But hopefully a lot of states would use this as an opportunity to pass genuinely corporation-specific laws. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/570 "2011-10-07T14:37:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What do mean by a Star of David embossed urn? Speak plainly: what do you mean to say here? I think it’s pretty clear he was accusing you of being a Nazi; personally, I wouldn’t give him the benefit of the doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/571 "2011-10-07T14:46:29Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I think it’s pretty clear he was accusing you of being a Nazi; personally, I wouldn’t give him the benefit of the doubt. I’d go with that assumption too, unless **Merijeek** comes back sharpish with a Damn Good Explanation. Back on topic, I came across a quote recently that seems relevant in this thread: > [@Teddy Roosevelt](#): > > Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/572 "2011-10-07T14:51:57Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I think it’s pretty clear he was accusing you of being a Nazi; personally, I wouldn’t give him the benefit of the doubt. Well, perhaps more accurately a bureaucratic Nazi-enabler, i.e. the official who would casually sign off on atrocities as long as a written procedure exists and was followed. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/573 "2011-10-07T15:34:12Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, perhaps more accurately a bureaucratic Nazi-enabler, i.e. the official who would casually sign off on atrocities as long as a written procedure exists and was followed. How is that better? Someone who would condone the plan to murder six million Jews, not to mention Roma, Catholics, the handicapped, and homosexuals, as long as there was a clipboard with procdure on it? I know this is the Pit, but that seems a bit extreme and uncalled-for. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/574 "2011-10-07T16:49:56Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Unions are looking at this mass movement with interest. They have resources. They also have economists and assorted policy wonks on staff and on call. How many resources could they have when the wealthiest 400 families have more wealth than the bottom 50% of American families combined. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/575 "2011-10-07T16:58:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s a far left idea (ending corporate personhood). Whether you want to conflate far left with dirty hippie, that’s on you. I never said anything about dirt or hippies. > > And like I said earlier, if we need to have a dialog on what the limits of corporate personhood are, that’s a valid argument to be made. “End corporate personhood”, as has been proposed by posters in this thread, would set the economy back centuries. Corporations are a legal construct. A mechanism to divorce shareholders from unlimited liability to promote capital creation. Sure we protect their property rights (we are actually protecting the property rights of the shareholders) and respect the enforcability of their contracts, but why do corporations need to be able to participate in the political process at all? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/576 "2011-10-07T18:57:28Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > How many resources could they have when the wealthiest 400 families have more wealth than the bottom 50% of American families combined. Those wealthy families still only have so many votes–at some point, public perception of them WILL come in to play if they start out-donating and out-funding unions and PACs by too much of a margin. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/577 "2011-10-07T19:15:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How is that better? I didn’t say it was better, I speculated it was a more accurate description of the original image of an approving person with an urn in one hand and a clipboard in the other. Anyway, your issue isn’t with me but with the author of said image, i.e. Merijeek. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/578 "2011-10-07T19:37:04Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Those wealthy families still only have so many votes–at some point, public perception of them WILL come in to play if they start out-donating and out-funding unions and PACs by too much of a margin. If you’re using your money to tell other people what to think, you don’t have to worry much about public perception. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/579 "2011-10-07T19:48:33Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > I’d go with that assumption too, unless **Merijeek** comes back sharpish with a Damn Good Explanation. > > Back on topic, I came across a quote recently that seems relevant in this thread: What a concept. Judge corporations by the public good they do. Then revoke the charter of the ones who don’t. There would not be very many left. It is possible to do good by the environment and the people while making money, but you won’t make as much. As long as money is the only barometer of a corporations success, they will be very bad citizens. The methods of determining a successful company should be changed. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/580 "2011-10-07T20:44:52Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > The idea that a corporation is a person is silly. You say that until you become liable for the damages a company causes just because you happen to be “part owner” with a couple hundred shares of their stock in your 401k. > [@gonzomax](#): > > . > I don’t see the obits of corporations dying. I don’t think they get sick. Enron? Lehman Brothers? Bear Stearns? Arthur Andersen? I’m curious how you fight unemployment by attacking the very institutions that create jobs for people? And if corporations aren’t “people”, why do you insist on “punishing” them as if you were going to (or could) teach them a lesson? > [@Damuri Ajashi](#): > > How many resources could they have when the wealthiest 400 families have more wealth than the bottom 50% of American families combined. Let’s look at a sampling of the source of wealth for some of these Forbes 400 families: Mircosoft Berkshire Hathaway Oracle Wal-Mart Bloomberg > **[Amazon.com. Spend less. Smile more.](https://www.amazon.com/)** > > Free shipping on millions of items. Get the best of Shopping and Entertainment with Prime. Enjoy low prices and great deals on the largest selection of everyday essentials and other products, including fashion, home, beauty, electronics, Alexa... Facebook Google Ebay Ralph Lauren Most of these companies are being run by their founders. And most of them have been founded in my lifetime. How much wealth do these companies generate for their employees and shareholders? How much value do their products create for the economy? I can’t take you people seriously (not that I need to) because you can’t seem to make a distinction between investment bankers destroying the economy thought leverageing huge amounts of debt for reckless speculation and entrepreneurs creating billions of dollars of wealth through their own ingenuity. It just sounds like a mindless drone of “big business is evil! Rich people are bad!” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851.md?page=30)