rights of corporations

[swatiraohnlu]

Do corporations generally qualify for personhood/rights?

Proponents of corporate personhood generally believe that corporations, as representatives of their shareholders, were intended by the founders and framers to enjoy many, if not all, of the same rights as natural persons, such as the right to free speech, self-incrimination, right to privacy, and the right to lobby the government. Opponents argue that corporate personhood ignores a distinction between natural "God-created" persons (with God-given rights) and legally-constituted corporations (with state-given rights).

 

[swatiraohnlu]

* Corporate rights protect owners from liability. Corporations have a 'legal personality' for the purposes of conducting business while shielding individual stockholders from personal liability (i.e., protecting personal assets which were not invested in the corporation). Without such protection, corporations would face significantly more challenging barriers to market entry and survival, which effectively narrows the scope of competition in the marketplace. Less competition in the marketplace comes at the cost of the consumer who will have to select from a narrower variety of choices.

* Corporate personhood enables multinational corporations, global stability. A major benefit under the philosophy of corporate personhood is that it shields owners from legal responsibility. By having fewer restraints, corporations are able to grow and become multinational. The international commerce that multinationals participate in create economic ties between nation states. Economic ties bind the hands of nation states and pressure them to cooperate, contributing to peaceful and prosperous international relations.

 

[swatiraohnlu]

Citizens shouldn't be deprived of rights when joining corps. Supporters argue that corporations should have the protection of the U.S. Constitution, pointing out that they are just organizations of people, and that these people shouldn't be deprived of their human rights when they join with others to act collectively. Corporate interests rarely conflict with individuals interests "Should corporations have rights?": "Since a corporation is constituted by its members, they are unlikely to assert a right on behalf of the collectivity which is contrary to their individual interests.24 The second example may be disposed of on the additional ground that any right the corporation might assert to prevent a member from leaving would have to be weighed against the member's opposing individual right to freedom of dissociation."

 

[dimpy.handa]

Corps have no moral consciences like persons. A critical element of having rights within the social compact is that an individual has a moral conscience. This is because only entities with moral consciences can be trusted to fully uphold the social compact. Corporations do not have this moral conscience. This is partly because they simply are not human beings, but organizations that are specifically designed to make money and maximize profits. And, because they do not have moral consciences like humans, they should not be given the rights of ordinary persons.