Orwell called it doublespeak, as I recall. It was used by those in power to make words like truth, honesty, justice, freedom and democracy meaningless. Now that corporations are people, couldn’t they just run for office rather than have to buy so many politicians and, apparently, judges?
Funny that now the defense of the freedoms confirmed in the Constitution is turned into Big Brother. The court says Big Government can’t force a private entity to violate their conscience, and that ruling is tyranny? The world turned upside down, indeed.
The whole process of incorporation has one purpose: to put a wall of separation between the humans behind the company, and the actions and concerns of the company itself. This is why the people who won a corporation aren’t personally responsible for its debt. Now they want it to be considered identical to them… but only when it suits them; they still don’t want to be responsible for its debt. Sorry, but that doesn’t make any sense.
There has never been a problem with signing contracts with a corporation, because that is one of the express functions that corporations were created to do. It is not a function of being human; any entity with money can engage in contracts. You are correct, however, that what a company can’t do, a union should not be able to do, but “company” and “corporation” are not identical terms, and whether a union resembles a corporation or not depends on the union. Those which are structured as corporations, with the full protection for the individuals involved against liability for the union’s actions, should be treated like corporations — that protection against liability is what should be distinguishing companies which can be treated as extensions of the humans behind them and companies which shouldn’t be. A union which does not protect its individual members against liability for the actions of the union should be treated as a group of individuals, just as a company which has not incorporated (and therefore which still offers no liability protection for the individuals behind it) should still be treated as a group of individuals. But there really ought to be some legal consistency behind the question of whether they are separating the entity from the individuals who make it, or they aren’t.
" what if a family runs a business and incorporates? Do they give up their rights? "No, the individual family members have the same rights they had before. But a corporation is set up to limit certain types of personal liability. There must indeed be a limit to personal discretion when acting for the corporation tied to that freedom from accountability.
griffthegreat almost 10 years ago
George Orwell was just a few years off in his book “1984”
Spyderred almost 10 years ago
Orwell called it doublespeak, as I recall. It was used by those in power to make words like truth, honesty, justice, freedom and democracy meaningless. Now that corporations are people, couldn’t they just run for office rather than have to buy so many politicians and, apparently, judges?
mightyfrog almost 10 years ago
I love this one – excellent.
braindead Premium Member almost 10 years ago
Four legs good, two legs better.
dzw3030 almost 10 years ago
What will Socialists do when they run out of other peoples money?
Dtroutma almost 10 years ago
Left off “religion trumps all”,(as long as you have the “right” one!)
SergeitheAntagonist almost 10 years ago
Funny that now the defense of the freedoms confirmed in the Constitution is turned into Big Brother. The court says Big Government can’t force a private entity to violate their conscience, and that ruling is tyranny? The world turned upside down, indeed.
oneoldhat almost 10 years ago
kiser asks " what if a family runs a business and incorporates? Do they give up their rights?" answer only those the p c crowd does not like
tomwheaton almost 10 years ago
From many of the responses here, it appears that that Big Brother has already won.
wayne30523 almost 10 years ago
New double speak: cartoonist is brilliant…superficial thought is deep thought!
PocketNaomi almost 10 years ago
Jeff,
The whole process of incorporation has one purpose: to put a wall of separation between the humans behind the company, and the actions and concerns of the company itself. This is why the people who won a corporation aren’t personally responsible for its debt. Now they want it to be considered identical to them… but only when it suits them; they still don’t want to be responsible for its debt. Sorry, but that doesn’t make any sense.
There has never been a problem with signing contracts with a corporation, because that is one of the express functions that corporations were created to do. It is not a function of being human; any entity with money can engage in contracts. You are correct, however, that what a company can’t do, a union should not be able to do, but “company” and “corporation” are not identical terms, and whether a union resembles a corporation or not depends on the union. Those which are structured as corporations, with the full protection for the individuals involved against liability for the union’s actions, should be treated like corporations — that protection against liability is what should be distinguishing companies which can be treated as extensions of the humans behind them and companies which shouldn’t be. A union which does not protect its individual members against liability for the actions of the union should be treated as a group of individuals, just as a company which has not incorporated (and therefore which still offers no liability protection for the individuals behind it) should still be treated as a group of individuals. But there really ought to be some legal consistency behind the question of whether they are separating the entity from the individuals who make it, or they aren’t.
drivingfuriously Premium Member almost 10 years ago
Don’t forget, they said CO2 is poison
Yontrop almost 10 years ago
" what if a family runs a business and incorporates? Do they give up their rights? "No, the individual family members have the same rights they had before. But a corporation is set up to limit certain types of personal liability. There must indeed be a limit to personal discretion when acting for the corporation tied to that freedom from accountability.