Corporate Personhood: how far?

[Taverner]

Really - I've been thinking about this and what I want to know is - how far should this distinction be extended?

- If you vandalize a WalMart, should you be held for assault and battery?
- If you set fire to an empty WalMart should you be held for attempted murder?
- Moreover, the CEO's who take golden parachutes after wrecking the company - should they be booked for attempted, or in Enron's case, 1st Degree Murder?


Also - is a corporation a Minor or an Adult? Arguments can be made in either case...

If so

- Should a new corporation, say one that has only been incorporated less than 21 years be allowed to sell liquor?
- Same goes for Strip clubs, porn companies, etc - do they have to be in existence for 21 years before they can push product?
- If you knowingly bring alcohol in a Corporation that is a Minor - would you be prosecuted for contributing for the delinquency of a minor?

Also - if a corporation has a natural barrier to competition (say a monopoly), shouldn't they be covered in the Americans With Disabilities Act?

If so

- Should a company trying to start in a natural monopoly be given access to said monopoly? Say, Media corporations. If I want to start a Major Network, shouldn't the Government forcibly provide access for me?

You see where I'm going here...

[musiclawyer]

1. Google Santa Clara v Southern Pacific

The seminal case establishing corporate personhood. You are simply showing examples of takling coprporte personhood to its logical extreme. Who know if those attorneys 100 years ago tried making thos arguments. ........... If I was a left wing think tank, I would try to find the perfect, ripe legal controversy to try to undo Santa Clara. It's the one Supreme Court case that is most responsible for an economically and politically dysfunctional America.

[Taverner]

2. I wish they would undo that as well

Corporations can thrive perfectly well without corporate personhood

If anything, corporate personhood is anti-capitalistic and it lays the paths for monopolism.

[izquierdista]

5. It isn't even the case

It's the comments on the case by some whacked out digest editor who succeeded in pushing his bizarre views into the mainstream. The justices deciding the case had NO intention of establishing "corporate personhood".

[anonymous171]

3. Corporations should have no constitutional rights.

[Taverner]

4. My point exactly