Ah, but the corporation DOES sue people. You wouldn't say "A variety of people in an organization that produces fast food known as McDonalds sued a variety of people in an organization that produces shoes called Nike", you would say "Mcdonalds sued Nike".
Strictly because the latter's shorter than the former and linguistic convention has accepted that speaking in the latter manner is acceptable. The former is actually accurate. The latter is, and only is, a way to avoid having to spell it out quite so explicitly. That doesn't magically make McDonalds or Nike things that exist outside a person's head. It is directly equivalent to me saying "epistemology" instead of "the study of knowledge." Specialized language and not a wit more.
Like I said, to a heavy degree that's basically the crux of it. We've stated that a collective -- which is only a thing in a cognitive sense, and doesn't actually exist beyond that -- is an individual, and somehow deserves some of the rights (but not all of the responsibilities!) of an individual. If a corp, or a union, or whatever, exhibited the same degree of independence that a human does to, say, its lungs, I might be able to get behind the concept of groups as individuals.
But, they don't. Corps are fully controlled by individuals, and explicitly demonstrate the leading and control of individuals. The only times this seems (and only seems) to blur is when we allow those controlling individuals to hide behind the collective mantle of whatever it is they're directing... and allowing that perception -- and exponentially worse, attempting to enshrine it into law -- is causing extremely blatant problems.
I'd put it bluntly. The courts screwed the pooch with this one, and a reading of the constitution that does what you're speaking of is one that seriously needs to be reexamined. Calling things that are blatantly not people, people, isn't something we should be doing. Establishing laws for the recognition and protection of collective action? Yes, we need that. Calling collective action anything but what it is? No. We don't need that.
Yes, it is a strictly epistemological conclusion, but its still a true one, again, because the dog sure isn't complaining whereas the corporation (or the people representing it) is. The dog does not have representatives unless you count its owners, either.
Another point though: dogs don't "speak", they bark. There is no freedom of barking. If I went out late at night and barked, I wouldn't be sent to the pound but I would probably be fined for disturbing the peace (which is what dogs are doing by barking). Inversely, if a dog started campaigning for Rick Santorum, I seriously doubt it would be sent to the pound for doing so (or even if it was swearing and offending people). Therefore, it can be said that dogs, and therefore corporations, have freedom of speech.
The obvious answer is that is is no coincidence at all. Perhaps we are all sockpuppets of Necro.
Quiet, you're giving too much away!
But a corporation isn't sentient or sapient any more than an is does when there is someone piloting it.
A corporation is also an abstract concept that doesn't exist in the real world. However, the government also is an abstract concept that doesn't exist in the free world, but I don't think anyone would say the government doesn't have freedom of speech.
(And you say 'the airplane crashed', not 'the pilot of the airplane crashed', even in when the crash happens due to user error.)
Well yeah, even if the pilot of the airplane is responsible for crashing the airplane he isn't physically crashing. It's the plane plowing into the ground, the pilot just so happens to be inside. "The pilot of the airplane crashed" implies that he was racing across the sky like Superman and didn't watch where he was going.
Author
Topic: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread (Read 1293143 times)