Skip to main content

View Diary: Federal judge smacks down challenge to Obama administration's birth control insurance coverage rule (92 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  sometimes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tb mare

    but again,  the corporation is a financial collective.  It operates collectively for one real purpose, to pool capital in an economically effective manner.   When it comes to its collective economic activity, limited rights make sense. And in modern times, advertising is a major commercial undertaking.  So yes, the corporations thinks to spend money to further its profits, part and parcel of its collective purpose.

    But when does an economic collective become a spiritual being?  How does it further the economic collective to pray to God?  If a rich man isn't making it through through to heaven, how can a collective that exists to make money?

    Again,  do you truly see belief in a deity as the same as corporate speech in the commercial sphere?  A computer can speak,  does it have a soul?  And no, for the purposes of this conversation, we aren't addressing the Mitt'bot.

    •  Which, again, raises the question (0+ / 0-)

      of why such a financial collective has any rights at all.

      Romney economics: Feed our seed corn to the fattest pigs and trust them to poop out jobs.

      by blue aardvark on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 06:32:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  every economy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blue aardvark

        benefits from financial collectives, and so do individuals in many cases, so it makes sense to create them,  but their ownership, regulation and distribution of benefits are what matters.

        Farm collectives are generally considered very progressive,  if owned by the farmers who contribute the crops to them,  credit unions are frequently better for the consumer than a large bank,  socialist countries have collectives, that may or may not work, etc.  Labor unions are a financial collective as well, a counterweight to the corporate collectives that allow workers to speak with a unified voice for their rights with management.  I would accord a labor union speech.

        That's the problem with laws and due process, one has to try to fashion rules that fairly control those we like and those we dislike equally.

        The ability to have many people working together, sharing benefits is not bad.  Modern extensions of power to private corporations need to be curtailed, but not necessarily outlawed entirely.

        •  Which is to say (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          a corporation has no rights, not being a person, but we can extend to it such powers as enable it to act beneficially within society.

          Romney economics: Feed our seed corn to the fattest pigs and trust them to poop out jobs.

          by blue aardvark on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 06:53:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  if we extend to them the power to own (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blue aardvark

            property, we extend to them the rights of ownership, including defending title in court, receiving compensation in eminent domain cases.

            Commercial speech, of a different class than ordinary 'human speech', exists.   What the courts have done is take political speech and accorded it to corporations, which was a stretch initially, but I can see the reasoning,  political process affects their commercial interests, just as it affects any individuals' interests. I think, however, that is better addressed through regulatory process and not political elections. But Citizen United went further, and said cash is speech, giving financial collectives an advantage over humans in the political process.  Not just some rights to participate in the political process, but given their nature as financial collectives,  giving them superiority over humans. Cash should never triumph over votes in a democracy.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site