Statement 1.
The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act.
Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy.
There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter. '
A corporation has no rights except those given it by law. It can exercise no power except that conferred upon it by the people through legislation, and the people should be as free to withhold as to give, public interest and not private advantage being the end in view.
-- William Jennings Bryan
address to the Ohio 1912 Constitutional Convention
Statement 2.
Under our current agreements, the new corporate person is instantly endowed with many of the rights and protections of personhood. It's neither male nor female, doesn't breathe or eat, can't be enslaved, can't give birth, can live forever, doesn't fear prison, and can't be executed if found guilty of misdoings. It can cut off parts of itself and turn them into new 'persons,' and can change its identity in a day, and can have simultaneous residence in many different nations. It is not a human but a creation of humans. Nonetheless, the new corporation gets many of the Constitutional protections America's founders gave humans in the Bill of Rights to protect them against governments or other potential oppressors:
........................
These two statements really tie in with our class discussion we had Wednesday. Both statements make very compelling arguments against corporations receiving the same Constitutional protections under the Bill of Rights that humans do. I'd have to agree with the general message that is conveyed in these statements. My favorite example would have to be "it's neither male nor female, doesn't breathe or eat, can't be enslaved, can't give birth, can live forever, doesn't fear prison, and can't be executed if found guilty of misdoings.". If you notice the only "can" in that excerpt is "can live forever.". How can big corporations be given the same rights as an individual human being, when they are far from similar. This is just a way for corporations to exploit the Bill of Rights for gain of wealth. Although the government should draft a new and different set of laws that would pertain to corporations and their protection, they won't because most government positions are held by wealthy individuals from very large corporations. It is because of those wealthy individuals, that we will not see any solution to this problem in the near future.
ReplyDeleteThe two statements above truly delve into the debate over what constitutes a corporation and to what extent they are subject law. It is clear that the first statement draws a clear line between the definition of a "person" and that of a "corporation". Which, to me, is perfectly clear. The second statement, on the other hand, seems to give the same immunities and characteristics to a corporation that a person would have. In regards to this statement...blasphemy! Regardless if the "law" does not state the definition of a "person" it should be implied that this means a living, breathing human being. The fact a corporation can not hold a single person responsible for any actions that corporation may take is a red flag in itself. So, in turn, a corporation is NOT accountable for its OWN actions because there is no one to place the blame on. Case and point: BP, Exxon, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe statements tie in last weeks discussion in class and last nights homework. Both statements argue that the 14th amendment gives corporations many of the same rights human (real, living and breathing people) have. The corporation cannot be executed and does not fear prison. I agree that the Constitution does come off portraying this, but it doesn't sit well with me. How can someone characterize a corporate company as a "person"? The second statement clearly states "It's neither male nor female, doesn't breathe or eat, can't be enslaved, can't give birth, can live forever, doesn't fear prison, and can't be executed if found guilty of misdoings", therefore its not human and should not go by this amendment. I feel as though its allowing big corporations get away with things easily with nothing but a slap on the wrist. I don't understand how you can compare a human to a corporation, when humans can suffer so much more then corporations can. I think this is just another way for corporations to work the government to keep their wealth. I think the government needs to pass another set of laws for the corporations to go by, but i really don't see that happening because the people who will be passing these laws are people who are wealthily and are apart of big corporations. So why hurt themselves?
ReplyDeleteThese two statements really tie together the first set of homework that was assigned to us this week. The first statement really lays out the differences between what is considered to be an "artificial person" and what is an "actual person." I feel that it is a great definition as well, it really helps one to understand what the law considers to be an "artificial person."
ReplyDeleteThe second statement shows that it we give way to much leniency towards these big corporations mainly because the people who run these big corporations also help the government by endorsing them or by endorsing a candidate. So even though there should be a clear set of laws strictly set aside for these businesses I don't see this happening since they also help fund the people who pass the laws.
These two statements are pretty straight forward in discussing what should be considered a natural person and what should be considered an artificial person. The natural person is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the United States Constitution. These "natural people" are part of the American fabric and their blood and sweat has helped to shape this country since its inception. The artificial person, otherwise known as a corporation, is not an actual human being but now is afforded the same rights that natural people enjoy. I certainly think that it is dangerous to give corporations the same right as human beings. You can talk to a person, reason with a person, or hold a person accountable for any wrongdoings. A corporation is a completely different matter. These corporations, like William Jennings Bryan declares, are infinitely more powerful than human beings. Therefore it is not right to bestow upon them the same rights we as citizens expect. Under these similar conditions, natural people will never be on a level playing field with these so called "artificial people".
ReplyDeleteThe statements are obviously trying to explain to the reader how much a corporation is like a human and should be characterized as well as protected as one. These statements are attempting to show similarities between real human beings such as people and unreal beings such as a corporation. In my opinion this is absolutely absurd considering the fact that a corporation is nothing like a human nor should it be treated as one. A corporation is a non breathing non feeling thing unlike a human being and therefore should not be treated like one. Corporations have one purpose and that is to make money, they have no other reason for being around. People are made for multiple purposes and without humans corporations would not even exist so how can they be looked upon as equal? A corporation should have certain rights but no sort of rights that compare to those of a human, that doesn't even make sense. In all honesty humans should take offense to these comparisons because these statements are saying humans are no better than an object made for only one purpose. Of course there will always be the people who own the corporations that want them to have the same rights as human beings but that's because it will be benefiting them.
ReplyDeleteBoth statements are meant to describe the difference between a "natural" person and an "artificial" person. The first statement says that a natural person is the handiwork of God and an artificial person is the handiwork of humans. It describes how a corporation or artificial person can be hundreds or thousands times stronger then one man. The second statement tells how that even though the artificial person is not living, breathing, or able to do things that a natural person is able too, they are given the same rights as a natural person is. I personally believe that that is unacceptable. Corporations should not have the same rights as living breathing human beings. If a person is found guilty of a crime they can be executed or imprisoned. A corporation can not be executed or imprisoned. This is why I believe that the assumed "person" is completely unacceptable. The rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were used under false pretenses in my opinion and contorted to help corporations.
ReplyDeleteThe two statements above clearly outline characteristics of a natural and fictitious person. In the first statement, William Jennings Bryan does a thorough job of highlighting the relationship between the natural and fictitious person. Although the fictitious person does not have the biological characteristics that a natural person does, they are still entitled to the same rights given to them by the law. The second statement focused closely on the corporation and gave reason as to why it is given the same legal rights as a natural person. In my opinion, this statement was definitely easier to understand because it was simple and to the point. Ultimately, i believe it is important for corporations to have the same legal rights as humans because they play an important role in society. The statements above helped me understand the importance of both classifications of humans.
ReplyDeleteDespite the religious tinge to William Jennings Bryan's statements, the ideas contained in the excerpt still form the basis of many citizens' views of corporations and, for the most part, provide accurate descriptions. For nearly all corporations, profit is the bottom line - acting in the public's best interest only occurs when the corporation feels that such will increase revenue. For some people, this devotion to profit is immoral or, at the very least, counterproductive to society due to corporations' narrow-mindedness - if the stockholders see huge monetary gains, what difference does it make how the corporation achieved them? Naturally, the idea of granting the same legal privileges as a human being to an entity motivated entirely by greed is, to put it mildly, upsetting to those who believe corporations should be regulated in order to provide for the public rather than their own, as WJB put it, private advantage.
ReplyDeleteThe first statement makes a non-secular attempt to prove that a corporation should not be considered a person. Bryan asserts that a person is a singular entity created by God whereas a corporation is manmade and has the strength of many men. While I wouldn't make the argument through religious means, his statements are sound. Corporations enjoy the comforts that citizens of the US do, despite being infinitely more powerful. The second statement points out just how different natural and artificial persons are, aiming to present the argument that a non-person should not be granted the same rights as a person and point out the obvious hypocrisy. I agree with both statements, religious connotations of the first put aside, and feel that it is downright unbelievable to consider a corporation to be a person. How can something so massive and powerful be ranked among human beings. While one entity needs food and water to survive, the other only needs money. That in and of itself is enough to prove that one is more deserving of Constitutional rights than the other.
ReplyDeleteThe statements are telling us how different a natural person and a fiction person is how we have different roles in society and different meanings in existence and how different we act. man was created by god and was placed here for a divine purpose. Corporation were built by man and their soul purpose is to create money. Corporations have no souls no feeling towards humans it could car less about what goes on around the world its purpose is to serve man.It's neither male nor female, doesn't breathe or eat, can't be enslaved, can't give birth, can live forever, doesn't fear prison, and can't be executed if found guilty of misdoings. It can cut off parts of itself and turn them into new 'persons,' and can change its identity in a day, and can have simultaneous residence in many different nations. they don't have any right but the ones given to them by law. corporations are just a source of wealth.
ReplyDeleteBoth statements want to stress the difference between a "natural person" and a corporation and the importance of this difference. First of all, I think that it is really important to consider the purposes of both. The purpose of a corporation is to gain money and wealth and usually it does regardless of how it does so. This purpose is a stark opposite of a human being's purpose. Moreover, a corporation can be a million times stronger than an average man and live forever in any country it chooses. These aspects should not be irrelevant if we consider that a corporation has the same rights and even more rights than a human being. It's protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights against oppressors and government, and also, unlike natural persons, it does not have the fear of prison, and it can change identity at anytime. The difference is very clear in the statements. Personally they make me alert. Corporations play an important role in our society, and even if some of them would gain money in a dishonest way, it does not mean that all of them work in this way. However, I don't feel safe knowing that a corporation has the same right as me as it is more powerful than I am.
ReplyDeleteThe first article deals with the highly discussed difference between a natural person and a corporation or artificial person. It explains man as being from God, created and put on Earth to carry out a predesigned plan. On the other hand a corporation is man made and created to make money. There is strength in the corporation because it can be anywhere from one hundred to a million, however it is not a person and has no morals or even thoughts. On the contrary, human beings have a conscience and think for themselves. The article also explains that corporations have no rights except those given by law, and that it can exercise no power without people acting for it. The second article basically further builds on the concept of the corporation and explains even though it’s not human it is entitled to many of the constitutional rights. I find this whole topic to be slightly confusing just because it is hard to comprehend a non-person non-living thing having equal rights with people. These articles bettered my understanding of the differences between a natural person and a corporation with rights.
ReplyDeleteThe two statements intertwine with each other based on the comparisons and contradictions between the "natural person" (man) and the "fictitious person" (corporation). In the first, Bryan states that man was made by God, thus its reason to have rights, and since corporation is man-made it has no ranking to obtain rights. In the second, it is made clear that corporation has many rights, although it has no human characteristics. Many people may feel that since a corporation is simply a big idea with a name, it shouldn't have ranks over a living breathing person. Sadly, a corporation takes people, living, breathing people, to run, thus the increase of controversy over its ranking. The main difference is this: men need care and corporations need money, but both need support to maintain stability.
ReplyDeleteStatement one provided a very emotional response to artificial vs. human people. it was full of charecteristics consisting of someone who responded with a lot of passion to an issue. statement two on the otherhand provided a response that was more supportive of a loose application to the bill of rights. it was more logical then statement one in that statement two was not trying to lobb to anyone. Bryan was certainly trying to prove a point to a convention, ergo he was using more language that proves a point, where as staement two was applying facts to the concept of a corporate man. Both are calling into question the ethical nature of having a corporation consideed a man, and both do a very good job lobbying for either one of there sides. However, both statements need to bring to the table more facts if they where to present this to a serious committee...
ReplyDeleteWhen I read the first statement I build upon the fact that natural people build fictitious people. To me the author describes natural people as God made and gives them a good connotation. When he describes fictitious people he gives corporations a bad connotation by saying they only want to carry out money making policy and that they exercise to much strength. After reading the second quote I feel I have an even stronger emotional opinion to the word corporation. The wording used by the second author stimulated my emotional senses into believe corporations are heartless creation by man. We then protect our selves as individuals and corporations covering our rights in the Bill of Rights.
ReplyDelete