Monday, March 12, 2012

Stupid Liberal Arguments #1: Corporations Aren't People

So I'm going to start a series to quickly and hopefully somewhat humorously and or pithily pick some of the dumber liberal arguments I happen to run across for the day.

Today's is the more recently popular liberal meme that corporations aren't people and therefore aren't deserving of the same rights and protections afforded to individuals. In a sense, they are correct. A corporation is a highly fluid and somewhat ambiguous abstract concept. Typically the label is applied to very large businesses that employ high numbers of individual (oh no) people. They're run by people, organized by people, started by people (NO! you stop it. This is an inconvenient truth!!), and developed by people. A corporation doesn't get in trouble, people within the corporation get in trouble (you hush!!! The FCC needs to ban your blog!!). A corporation doesn't get rich, people in the corporation get rich.

Wow. it almost seems inescapable here. Corporations are almost like large groups of individual people!!! GASP!! Could it be that what is protected by the law currently that affords corporations, per se, human rights is that they're nothing but individuals working toward a single goal? Corporations actually are the individual people that make them up. Without the people the corporation doesn't exist. Any rights individuals have would be extended to multiple individuals trying to reach a similar goal. That's all a corporation is.

For a reductio ad absurdum example, say a government decided that a specific corporation must sacrifice their newborns. Well, the corporation doesn't have rights because it's not human, says the low liberal. Well, it's the rights of individuals being infringed upon in that situation.

I heard someone today try to apply this to the Catholic church with regard to the recent debacle of the Obamuhh administration trying to force people with religious convictions to act against their convictions, clearly violating the 1st amendment. The thing is, individuals who hold to a certain religion would be forced to break the free exercise of their own religion. The Catholic church being an institution does not take away from the fact that it is simply a group of individuals who hold to a common creed. Forcing individuals to act against that creed is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

2 comments:

Norwegian dude said...

"I heard someone today try to apply this to the Catholic church with regard to the recent debacle of the Obamuhh administration trying to force people with religious convictions to act against their convictions, clearly violating the 1st amendment. The thing is, individuals who hold to a certain religion would be forced to break the free exercise of their own religion. The Catholic church being an institution does not take away from the fact that it is simply a group of individuals who hold to a common creed. Forcing individuals to act against that creed is prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
So if it is someone's religious belief that they have to do human sacrifice, that means they should be allowed to do it?
If Sikhs mean that CARRYING KNIVES IN PUBLIC is part of their religion, they should be able to do it?
Your complaint holds no water.

bossmanham said...

So if it is someone's religious belief that they have to do human sacrifice, that means they should be allowed to do it?

Are you even really serious here? You realize murder is not even close to the same thing as providing a commercial product to someone against one's will, right?

If Sikhs mean that CARRYING KNIVES IN PUBLIC is part of their religion, they should be able to do it?
Your complaint holds no water.


Uh....knives in public isn't against the law and isn't a part of any religion.

So you are for simply doing away with the first amendment if you don't like a certain tenant of someone's religion?