Except corporations are not "legally a person" (whatever that means) just because we have a concept that some imbecile decided to call corporate personhood.
The issue of "foreign" corporations is the biggest one caused by this decision, and will probably lead to another case being brought before the court. Most corporations are, at this point, so multinational that you can hardly assign a nationality to them. When that case inevitably makes it way...
This decision has nothing to do with corporate personhood.
The first amendment is a restriction on government rights (Congress shall pas no laws). It does not state that people have these rights, simply that Congress cannot restrict them.
While advertising does produce results, it is...
I would hope the average american would take the time to know the first amendment, because that is all the research required to support the supreme court's decision.
There was a cap in how much you could donate to a particular organization that created the ads. Nothing, however, stopped corporations from creating support ads that just happened to strongly agree with one candidate and disagree strongly with another. This decision changes nothing really. It...
I have yet to see any legal precedent that leads to corporations being considered persons with all the rights associated with personhood. Corporate personhood is something that everybody in this thread seems to misunderstand. This decision was not caused by considering corporations a separate...
I'd hardly describe her trashy writing as philosophy.
Objectivism states that you should act for your own benefit. Objectivism provides the most benefit for perfect beings (defined by Galt). As an imperfect being it is not in my interest to believe in objectivism. I should therefore not...
I would like to see a meaningful distinction between "the press" and corporations. Why is speech from, say, Haliburton fundamentally different from speech from the NY times? Now what about GE, who happened to have a majority share in MSNBC, who we ostensibly consider a news station.
Again...
This decision has absolutely nothing to do with corporate personhood. The first amendment is a restriction on government regulation of speech. It does not use the word "person" at all.
And oh no! Now a corporation won't have to own a news station to create political media! How horrifying.
Certainly not in the current sense of the term. Again, I have yet to see a justification of property as a right. Property is fundamentally different from other natural rights in that its fundamental nature is exclusive. If I own something it directly conflicts with your ability to own it.
And why did you want whatever your reason was. Why is happiness something desirable (other than definitionally). Any value system is ultimately reduced to I wanted to and no other reason unless you tie yourself down to a physical reason. The moment you do that you no longer have free will (which...
But it seems to be the entirety of it.
Why did you want good publicity?
Why do you want money?
Why do you want that?
Why do you want to feel good?
Keep on going. Assuming we have free will, we can't tie an answer back to a physical entity. Eventually you are just left with "because" or I...
This is ignoring the point that I made. Assuming you have some irreducible sense of agency (free will), your reason will ALWAYS boil down to "I wanted to." I can question your reasons for wanting good publicity also. And eventually I will reduce you to circularity or "I wanted to."
Is cherrypicking yours?
This heavily suggests the original definition of capitalist, one which you conveniently omitted.
And this dictionary omits the more precise definition from Das Kapital, which amounts to one who owns working capital and lets others work on it, which is undeniably...
that's because the idea of a selfless act doesn't make any sense if you assume people have agency. I mentioned this in an earlier thread. If you perform an action it is because you wanted to, which goes against the idea of what a selfless act is.
The topic in general. The gist of this discussion is consequentialism vs <other>. A topic that isn't particularly interesting (for easily googleable reasons).