Advertisement
by Knootoss » Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:28 am
by Nullarni » Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:32 am
by Speculine » Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:45 am
Knootoss wrote:OOC: WTF. PETA can and, in fact, does send out petitions. People sign them too. There are also petitions against PETA. The argument really makes no sense. Corporations being allowed to send letters is the beginning of the end?
by Knootoss » Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:56 am
by Southern Patriots » Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:00 am
Panzerjaeger wrote:Why would Cleopatra have cornrows? She is from Egypt not the goddamn Bronx.
by Speculine » Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:01 am
by Knootoss » Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:03 am
by Alqania » Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:06 am
by Herttora » Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:30 pm
Speculine wrote:OOC: PETA is a corporation and yes I do feel that corporations should not be allowed to petition. People and non-corporate entities can petition till their heart's are content. But I really don't think corporations should have that power.
by Glen-Rhodes » Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:51 pm
by Quelesh » Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:01 pm
Knootoss wrote:EXTENDS this right equally to companies, organisations and associations that have their headquarters in a World Assembly Member State;
Knootoss wrote:RESOLVES that citizens and residents of World Assembly Member States, acting alone or as part of a group, have the right to send petitions to officials and institutions that claim jurisdiction over their person;
by Darenjo » Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:11 pm
CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution is to be construed as the WA taking a position in the debate over whether corporations are people, or keeping the WA from taking a position on such in the future;
by Quelesh » Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:19 pm
Darenjo wrote:Third, as to Quelesh's comment, I do agree that a corporation could count as a "group." Possibly, additional clarification on that point may be needed. And as for the precedent about corporations being people, how about this (if it's really needed):CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution is to be construed as the WA taking a position in the debate over whether corporations are people, or keeping the WA from taking a position on such in the future;
There - nice and neutral.
by Glen-Rhodes » Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:30 pm
Quelesh wrote:Under this clause, people will have the right to petition collectively, not just individually. Therefore, member states would be compelled to accept a petition signed with the names of the employees of a corporation. They would simply not be required to accept a petition with no people's names signed to it.
by Linux and the X » Wed Aug 24, 2011 11:32 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:To you, is there a difference between "Industrial Manufacturing, Inc." and "United Agricultural Workers Union?"
by Quelesh » Thu Aug 25, 2011 9:03 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Quelesh wrote:Under this clause, people will have the right to petition collectively, not just individually. Therefore, member states would be compelled to accept a petition signed with the names of the employees of a corporation. They would simply not be required to accept a petition with no people's names signed to it.
To you, is there a difference between "Industrial Manufacturing, Inc." and "United Agricultural Workers Union?"
by Glen-Rhodes » Fri Aug 26, 2011 2:00 pm
Quelesh wrote:In terms of personhood, no. Neither is a person and neither entity in itself, as opposed to the people who compose it, should be granted legal recognition as a person.
Quelesh wrote:However, that's irrelevant to the current discussion and to corporate (or perhaps "organizational") personhood.
by Scandavian States » Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:30 pm
by Libraria and Ausitoria » Fri Aug 26, 2011 7:26 pm
Knootoss wrote:The resolution says nothing about governments being forced to accept petitions.
Darenjo wrote:CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution is to be construed as the WA taking a position in the debate over whether corporations are people, or keeping the WA from taking a position on such in the future;
○ Commonwealth Capital (Bank) ○ ○ Commonwealth Connect (Bank Treaty) ○ ○ SeaScape (Shipping & Energy) ○(██████████████████████████████║║◙█[Θ]█]◙◙◙◙◙[█]
by Quelesh » Fri Aug 26, 2011 7:34 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Quelesh wrote:In terms of personhood, no. Neither is a person and neither entity in itself, as opposed to the people who compose it, should be granted legal recognition as a person.
So a labor union should not be able to collectively petition the government? Doesn't that completely destroy the purpose of labor unions?
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Quelesh wrote:However, that's irrelevant to the current discussion and to corporate (or perhaps "organizational") personhood.
No, it's not irrelevant. Both are corporations. However, you are separating them into profit vs. non-profit categories, and saying that the profit category corporations don't deserve any rights.
For some reason, you've been fooled into thinking that the right to petition has anything to do with corporate personhood. Corporations have always had the right to petition. Corporate personhood arose in 1886; the right to petition arose in the late 1600s. Since corporations are affected by laws, they have always been given the right to petition for redress of grievances.
Scandavian States wrote:[There are ways to sharply curb the influence of corporations in government without removing their right to petition. Further, as Glen Rhodes has pointed out, corporate personhood is an old legal concept that at this point is unassailable. Finally, as Knoot has pointed out, corporations have the right to petition because they are chartered by people.
If you're seriously going to argue that corporations don't have the right to petition, you're basically arguing against a whole slew of natural and statutory rights beyond the right to petition.]
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Aug 26, 2011 7:38 pm
Scandavian States wrote:[There are ways to sharply curb the influence of corporations in government without removing their right to petition. Further, as Glen Rhodes has pointed out, corporate personhood is an old legal concept that at this point is unassailable. Finally, as Knoot has pointed out, corporations have the right to petition because they are chartered by people.
If you're seriously going to argue that corporations don't have the right to petition, you're basically arguing against a whole slew of natural and statutory rights beyond the right to petition.]
by Glen-Rhodes » Fri Aug 26, 2011 7:49 pm
Quelesh wrote:All I'm saying is that the government should be able to reject petitions that are signed only with the name of a corporation (or union, or what have you) and not with the names of any people.
by Linux and the X » Fri Aug 26, 2011 7:51 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Aug 26, 2011 7:54 pm
by Bears Armed » Sat Aug 27, 2011 4:36 am
Quelesh wrote:Quelesian law does not recognize the existence of corporations, or any other kind of organization. That doesn't mean that people can't organize; it just means that people are responsible and liable for their own actions individually.
Economy _ ImplodedAh, okay, looks as though you might already have found that out for yourself...
The private sector is almost wholly made up of enterprising ten-year-olds selling lemonade on the sidewalk, although the government is looking at stamping this out.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement