A lesson in business and economics

[Vern Humphrey]

Some of our less-educated people have dredged up the old fallacy that there is something wrong with juridical personality.

Corporate personhood or juridical personality is the legal notion that a juridical person such as a corporation, separately from its associated human beings (like owners, managers, or employees), has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons. In most countries, corporations have a right to enter into contracts with other parties and to sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons.

If it were not for juridical personality the Virginia Company would never have been able to establish itself in America and the United States as we know it would not exist. The Virginia Company had to have the ability to hire people, enter into contracts and own property.

[dogtag]

Well, whatyadda know, I didn't know that.

[togor]

Had I wrote that, Lyman would have called it "word salad", and in this particular case, he would be right to call it such.

By your own bolded text, corporations have contract rights, same as people. But does that make them people? Does that give them the right to vote in elections for example? Can a corporation adopt a stable of babies and raise them as parent? Do corporations have gender?

These are simple "yes no" questions which somehow stump you.

Remember the question wasn't if corporations inhabit some of the attributes we assign to individuals under the law. The question was if corporations are people. SCOTUS says yes. They're nuts and someday these loopy decisions will get walked back. Quite possibly none of us will be alive when that day comes.

[Roadkingtrax]

So relevant to your point Togor. The VC was the Crown's way of spreading the cost of empire building around, and put the risk on the rich and influential. The things patriotic Americans think about on the 4th of July holiday...the rights of the British crown and its corporations. LOL

"The English Protestants could convert the Indians, thus preventing them from being converted by the Spanish; they could exploit the area?s natural resources; they could resettle England?s excess population; they could create a new market for English goods; and they could use the colony as political and commercial leverage against the Spanish."

I have to wonder what rights the Natives were given when their land was "eminent domained" for tobacco.

[lyman]

Had I wrote that, Lyman would have called it "word salad", and in this particular case, he would be right to call it such.

By your own bolded text, corporations have contract rights, same as people. But does that make them people? Does that give them the right to vote in elections for example? Can a corporation adopt a stable of babies and raise them as parent? Do corporations have gender?

These are simple "yes no" questions which somehow stump you.

Remember the question wasn't if corporations inhabit some of the attributes we assign to individuals under the law. The question was if corporations are people. SCOTUS says yes. They're nuts and someday these loopy decisions will get walked back. Quite possibly none of us will be alive when that day comes.

no,, this crap is word salad, and shows you simply don't understand much about business

- - - Updated - - -

So relevant to your point Togor. The VC was the Crown's way of spreading the cost of empire building around, and put the risk on the rich and influential. The things patriotic Americans think about on the 4th of July holiday...the rights of the British crown and its corporations. LOL

"The English Protestants could convert the Indians, thus preventing them from being converted by the Spanish; they could exploit the area?s natural resources; they could resettle England?s excess population; they could create a new market for English goods; and they could use the colony as political and commercial leverage against the Spanish."

I have to wonder what rights the Natives were given when their land was "eminent domained" for tobacco.

the 4th is a celebration of our (USA ) deciding to do for ourselves and split from the Crown, and it's corporations,

as far as the Natives,, they were and have been treated poorly

[Roadkingtrax]

the 4th is a celebration of our (USA ) deciding to do for ourselves and split from the Crown, and it's corporations,

Excerpt from:

AN ADDRESS
TO THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, OFFICERS, AND SOLDIERS OF THE AMERICAN ARMY.

ACCEPT, great men, that share of honest praise
A grateful nation to your merit pays:
Verse is too mean that merit to display,
And words too weak our praises to convey.
When first proud Britain rais'd her hostile* hand
With claims unjust to bind our native land,
Transported armies, and her millions spent
To enforce the mandates that a tyrant sent;
"Resist! resist!" was heard through every state,
You heard the call, and fear'd your Country's fate:
Then rising fierce in arms, for war array'd,
You taught to vanquish those who dar'd invade.

[togor]

no,, this crap is word salad, and shows you simply don't understand much about business

- - - Updated - - -



the 4th is a celebration of our (USA ) deciding to do for ourselves and split from the Crown, and it's corporations,

as far as the Natives,, they were and have been treated poorly

For the Virginia planters, getting out from under the debt burden owned to the English trading company was a big motivator.

[togor]

So relevant to your point Togor. The VC was the Crown's way of spreading the cost of empire building around, and put the risk on the rich and influential. The things patriotic Americans think about on the 4th of July holiday...the rights of the British crown and its corporations. LOL

"The English Protestants could convert the Indians, thus preventing them from being converted by the Spanish; they could exploit the area?s natural resources; they could resettle England?s excess population; they could create a new market for English goods; and they could use the colony as political and commercial leverage against the Spanish."

I have to wonder what rights the Natives were given when their land was "eminent domained" for tobacco.

It's easy to imagine that had Vernon been living in the Massachusetts Colony in 1773, he would have nothing good to say about the mob that descended upon Griffin’s Wharf and destroyed private property. Nothing he has ever posted would suggest otherwise.