Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Noam Chomsky - corporate personhood

Posted 1 year ago on Jan. 25, 2013, 7:22 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

84 Comments

84 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

A nation that has two political parties.Both of whom espouse the idea that corporations are more important than the people that sopposedly elected them.Which leads us to the idiots that keep voting for these people.A large number of whom live pay check to paycheck.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

100+ reps in DC support a constitutional amendment to reverse cp

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

How about just reverse capatalism and be done with all the nonsense.I think we are to late in the game for legislative lip service.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

We can do what 80% of Americans say they want
We can do what 1,900,000 Americans signed
We can do what 363 local & state resolutions call for
We can do what 1,309 American mayors endorsed
Via one of 13 constitutional amendments already proposed in congress And supported by over 100 congressmen

[-] 0 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

That's not enough.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

More is better?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

so what are you going to do to increase the number of pro-amendment reps?

http://corporationsarepeople.webuda.com

our OWS site has all of the amendments & many of the sponsors listed

[-] -1 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

to increase the number? not a thing.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

Corporations will be people when I can shoot one.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (26867) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

And it falls over and does not get back-up.

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

Well I was planning on leaving nothing but a mat of bloody hair but yeah you got the idea.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (26867) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Or give it a bernie madoff make-over? From riches to rags to prison for a couple of hundred years. ( dead before release is possible )

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

Or we could torture them the same way we do our captives. Lets not play semantics anymore, lets just call things what they are are. Enhanced interrogation, detainee, collateral damage, extrajudicial, enemy combatants, rendition, et al. These are all bullshit. lets just call them what they are. Torture, torture victim, 100% innocent women and children murdered, unconstitutional, freedom fighters, abduction.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by cell81 (29) 1 year ago

This is interesting to tell you the truth this is the first I'm really hearing about this corporate personhood. I find it extravagant in the sense of corporate responsibility can be non-existent but rights cannot be denied. Corporations should be held to a higher-level of responsibility than an individual, if they are to be given rights afforded to groups but not individuals.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

the history of corporate personhood is well laid out on our documents page

http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com

[-] 1 points by cell81 (29) 1 year ago

You have a well suited and logical proposition against corporate personhood. The greatest loophole is that corporations are run by people, and those people have rights and their business is an extension of themselves and livelihood, therefore; it should be protected by the law. You will have a very hard time trying to take that right away, especially; since they already have it. Taking an already establish right away is a lot harder than placing new laws to constrict a full-fledged takeover of individual rights. Maybe, sticking with the new laws and forgetting about abolishing this could be an option. I just took a quick look at your stuff, so sorry if you are already doing that or something else.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

ON THIS ISSUE: millions of Americans have signed petitions, etc etc
look at the numbers
I do not think there is any specific OWS goal that has more public support
We used a constitutional amendment to stop people from owning people

[-] 1 points by cell81 (29) 1 year ago

Oh, that is great. The only thing is how many people can corporations get to signed a petition. How many people can they get to change these people's minds. I am not trying to destroy your work. I am just saying, you need to think like your competition and use things that would be harder to deny.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

We can do what 80% of Americans say they want
We can do what 1,900,000 Americans signed
We can do what 363 local & state resolutions call for
We can do what 1,309 American mayors endorsed
Via one of 13 constitutional amendments already proposed in congress And supported by over 100 congressmen


Virtually every OWS goal –
jobs, taxes, government honesty, energy, environment, economy
all go back to EXACTLY one place
MONEY IN POLITICS

And there is EXACTLY one first step:

╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬

A constitutional amendment to
Overturn Citizens United and Corporate Personhood

╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬

▬► http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com ◄▬

╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬

For a complete analysis of the amendment issue,

and the text of all amendments,
and our comparison of all of the amendments,
and the Citizens United case transcript,
and the Citizens United decision,
and the Buckley decision,
and analysis of corporate personhood,
and analysis of Article III,
and the ABC News poll on CU / CP,
and the PFAW poll on CU / CP,
and 70+ videos on CU / CP from

Chomsky, Hedges, Witchcraft, Reich,
Warren, Lessig, Hartmann, Maher, Sanders, Hightower, etc.

http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com
no password or signup

JOIN our OWS Working Group:
http://nycga.net/groups/restore-democracy

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Can you please explain what isactly is corporate personhood.. in laymens terms..?

Is it really as bad as it sounds .. or is there another side to the story .. one we always tend to avoid..

Perhaps if we knew what all the lablels meant we could see the picture with a clearer understanding..

and what is glass steagal all about .. are they related ?

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

the history of corporate personhood is well laid out on our OWS documents page

http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com

I've been working on this for 17 months - any other questions?


GS is not directly related
Simply stated - It made it illegal for ordinary banks that were designed to be ultra-safe to invest in risky business - but since it is the job of any corporation to maximize profits, they got rid of GS to maximize profits - and we paid for their losses in the 2008 crash

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

..So it appears the problem is with allowing corporations to help with campaign ads .. and with all their money they can spend a lot on ads and this in turn helps the candidate of their choice , since advertising as /seems to be , the key to wininng an election .. But do not all parties have this equal right.. campaigns can be funded on both sides of the aisle by corporations .. of course it may mean a lot more campaign begging by candidates to encourage corporate campeign donations and advertisement spending .. which puts Congress in close contact with corporations ..and from that point favors could be suggested .. which may be where it is looked upon as bribery.. 17 months, I think you wasted a lot of energy on this matter.. trying to catch the tiger by the tail.. but you think once you catch that tigers tail you will be in control .. I have some news for you .. you will not be in control.. at all.

Well good luck with your hunt. But consider this, we all contribute to campaign funding.. of the candidate of our choice .. and we vote for the candidate we want to see succeed .. the essence of supporting ones candidate should not be removed from the peoples grasp.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Please understand -
the "corporate equal rights" come from court decisions -
not democratically passed laws

if this amendment was in place, it would be CONSTITUTIONAL to stop ANY corporate spending or donating to politics and then limit contributions to $1000 each so kochs cant buy a representative.

Our OWS web site has 75+ videos ( most < 10 minutes ) &
40+ documents that will let you see this all very clearly


http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com


[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

..and you oppose the courts decisions on this.

Walk away from it bensdad, it's not a battle worth fighting over.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

so you stand against bernie sanders & udall & schumer & kucinich & lessig & chomsky & cobb & 1,900,000 Americans?
what battle do you think is worth fighting for?

[-] -3 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

I'm not standing against anyone.. I am simply trying to point out you are fighting a non-issue.. use your energies where they will do some good.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26867) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Is that your approach to solving problems? Walk away?

Solve many problems? Go through a lot of shoes?

[-] -2 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Corporate personhood is a non-issue.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26867) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Bullshit.

So who are you trying to solve problems for? Koch? ALEC? CATO? Heritage?

You should do your "thing" - walk away.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

My "tiger" icludes: 80% of Americans say they want
1,900,000 Americans signed
363 local & state resolutions call for
1,309 American mayors endorsed
13 constitutional amendments already proposed in congress supported by over 100 congressmen

[-] -2 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Political postering. That's all these numbers represent. Toeing the party line.

Here is where you should be focusing your attention:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/multi-party-governments-dont-work/

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

tell that to stalin or adolph

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

"We need a Single-Party Government, where all members have been elected by the people and removed by the people. A Single-Party Government will achieve the best results for the people."

And EXACTLY how can that be done? EXACTLY?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

1,900,000 Americans signing petitions is political posturing?
check the document s on our OWS site for the letter signed by 50 lawyers.

[-] 1 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

Now that the party fight has taken legislative process in Washington DC the whole campaign is outside democratic anything. Proof in all these details of how the systems have failed us miserably and shall be replaced with Peoples voice that is what is being developed now. It is unamerican to talk of which party after elected they(are supposed to)serve all the people to not do so they should be removed from office but then what more would one expect from criminals of war, baby killers even, torture and death is what they now represent!

[-] 2 points by Sandy0621 (175) 1 year ago

For the general things just google the wikipedia articles. The corporate personhood apparently stated in the early 1800's. Corporations are groups of people and they were granted the same rights that a group of people would have, but have been denied rights that would go to only an individual. So it's more a case of the individual situation.

Corporations can't get a Miranda warning and can't get protection against self incrimination, those are rights for individuals. Protection from the government seizing property without just compensation or free speech however were seen as rights that groups of people can have.

Glass-Steagal is more about regulating banks, not corporations having rights.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Thank you.. so whats all the fuss about .. groups of people .. have rights.. ?

[-] 2 points by Sandy0621 (175) 1 year ago

I think the fuss is over corporate influence through funding issue ads and contributing to political campaigns. That influence is, in my opinion, largely effective on voters that don't put much effort into staying informed. You can't literally buy an election, but a campaign of lies can often sway the uninformed.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Imagine if the ONLY spending would be required to come FROM the candidate & only voters could contribute TO the candidate - limit $1000

Would walker have stayed governor without millions from the koch brothers & alec & rove

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The $1000 per person should be lowered to $100.

We crunched the numbers last year to run for senate in the state, grassroots style. Very manageable. I can put together a very effective campaign for less than 100k. But here is the catch:

It depends on volunteers. It depends on people willing to find 10 hours a month to help out. Without all that, your only hope is the TV, and thats where the majority of the campaign funding goes to.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

the limit is debatable for many reasons
for me, voters need to own the government
pacs, corps, etc must be extracted from politics

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

That seems pretty clear. Well said.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

No it isn't. What does a campaign of lies have to do with personhood.. the only thing clear is the poster has no idea neither.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

"corporate influence through funding issue ads and contributing to political campaigns" this is the clear statement that creates the campaign of lies referred to.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Is that what it's about, Corporations can now directly fund campaigning and use this as a tax right off. Corporate personhood was designed for supplying campaign funding from corporate entities..? That's it ! and BensDad thinks he's going to stop the all the fighting if he can remove this .. legality..Corporations funding campaigning.. sheesh ..let them for god's sake .. fund away .. We could perhaps use this to our benefit.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

thats right, alec

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

How can we perhaps use corp funding of campaigns to our benefit? please clarify.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

We could make it mandatory ! ..with minimum requirements .. hey now were thinking .. lobby that one to Congress .. mandatory campaign funding !!! make those corporations give all the money back to the government that they stole from the people .. and left us in a huge debt.. make them go to the caymen islands and withdraw all those sixteen trillions and repay our debt .. It's a wonderful solution .. I wish I had thought of it ;-)

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I can support forcing corps pay extra money (maybe as a penalty) to our gov, but not for campaigns, maybe job creation, or health care.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Sure make em pay for that too !

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

That can't be related to personhood.. campaign funding ?

[-] 1 points by Sandy0621 (175) 1 year ago

It's related to another idea. That in today's world in order to have your say about an issue and be heard, you may have to buy advertising. To over simplify, because you need money to buy air time or newspaper advertising, money = speech.

A union, occupy, a corporation are all simply groups of people. That group has the right to speak, which the courts take to mean they have a right to contribute to politicians or buy advertising to make their point.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Corporations had a right to buy advertising long before personhood .. there is still something missing in this ?

[-] 0 points by Sandy0621 (175) 1 year ago

They have had rights since the 1800's. The Citizens United decision applied them in overturning a campaign financing law, McCain Feingold.

It essentially said that a group of people had the right to free speech. In what some see as irony, "free" speech included the right to use as much money as the group wanted in making issue ads.

Many feel that the influence on the political process held by a few corporations with vast sums of money to spend means that money buys votes. It doesn't help that the public perceive corporations to be corrupt.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Sandy.. thanks for your effort in explaining this..

Here is another question if you have a moment.

Why is it that every election, out of 300 million people the vote always comes down to such a close 50/50 chance? what are the odds of it always being so close.. When people all vote in private I would think the turn out of votes would at least once be .. 20/80 .. ?

[-] 0 points by Sandy0621 (175) 1 year ago

I don't know if your question can be answered by anything other then opinion. The two major parties both pander to a core group of people and seem to use arguments designed to pit one group against another.

You may see some 80-20 type splits in local elections. Nationally presidential candidates tend to run as close to the middle while also trying to paint their opponent as an extremist. I guess it tends to shore up their base and splitting the independents left in the center.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

It just seems unlikely that the out come would be so close.

[-] 0 points by Sandy0621 (175) 1 year ago

What can I say? Over the last 10 or 15 years the two sides have become more entrenched. The results are what you see. We may never have a good explanation.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Am I the only one whom looks at this with suspicion ?

[-] 1 points by Sandy0621 (175) 1 year ago

I'm not sure why very many people would be suspicious. The two major parties are close to equal in membership. They both taylor their message to appeal to that group of independents in the middle. It doesn't seem too surprising that the split is close.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Corporate personhood gives corporations rights to affect the peoples government (in fact control it) because corporation have an unfair advantage in levels of wealth. Only individual people should be involved with the election of the peoples government.

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

That's what every one keeps saying.. but explain how this can be..? How does this "corporate personhood affect the government.. how ?

Walk me through it.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

They use their massive wealth to bribe the peoples representatives, and the illogical personhood Scotus findings makes it legal

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

How so ..?

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

"How so " what.? How do they use their massive wealth to bribe our politicians? How has the illogical scotus findings make it legal?

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

The 2nd one..

How has the illogical scotus findings make it legal?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The decisions have given corporations the rights of individuals, it is not logical. They aren't people and should not have the same rights as people especially when it comes to elections.

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

You remind me of the Government.. they don't explain anything properly but they want us to vote anyways..

Well not this time..

Explain yourself clearly so we all understand.. or get off the stage.

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Still not clear.. if we can not even explain this clearly than how can we begin to understand this.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Your claims of not understanding do not necessarily constitute a failure to explain this clearly. In fact I HAVE explained it clearly, I understand it fine. Millions of supporters understand it fine. When you say "we" who do you think you are speaking for, besides yourself? Look it up if you truly can't understand. Go to the occupy site on this issue corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com, or movetoamend.org, or Wiki, or google. make an effort to educate yourself because you are one of the few who do not (or claim to) understand.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

You're Fired !

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

What stage? I don't understand. Please clarify.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

ha-ha.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Still not clear.. If you can't even explain this clearly then how can we begin to understand this.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Explain yourself clearly so we all understand.. or get off the stage.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

LOL. C'mon give me another chance. I didn't get a verbal warning, or a written warning. Do I at least get 2 weeks notice.?

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

I gave you a written warning.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26867) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Not in a right to work ( fire ) state.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Only lawyers ask questions that they already know the answer to :)

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

So it appears.