Obamacare Recreates the First Estate

Originally posted by no1marauder
The whole point of incorporation is to create a legal entity separate and distinct from its owners. Your argument is "a have your cake and eat it too" one; I want to form a corporation so I am not personally liable for its debts but I insist that as far as my constitutional rights are concerned the corporation is a mere extension of me.

You can't have it both ways.

There are many other advantages and disadvantages of forming a corporation besides the liability protection. For one, corporations have to pay taxes separate from the taxes paid on profits made by owners.

You've taken one advantage of being a corporation (i.e. limit to personal liability) and juxtaposed it with one proposed constraint (i.e. no personal rights) and you've asserted that you can't have one without the other. And you did all this as if it were logically on the pretext of having made a logical argument.

Boil it all down, and you've merely repeated the same assertion you've been making the whole time.

Besides, you've tried to say that the New York Times has freedom of press. If what you've just now said is a sound argument (which it is not), then by implication the New York Times does not have freedom of press.

Originally posted by techsouth
But the New York Times is a for profit corporation. I thought you said their freedom of press was protected.

Since they are a for profit company, you must be consistent. Either Hobby Lobby has constitutional rights based on the first amendment or the New York Times does not. Which is it?

I suggest you re-read the posts I have already made. I have fully explained my position.

The critical point is not whether either is a for profit corporation or not, but what the purpose of the corporation is in fact. The nuns win because their organization is specifically religious in nature; the NYT wins because it is unquestionably "the press"; Hobby Lobby loses because it is a business having no nexus with religion.

Originally posted by techsouth
There are [b]many other advantages and disadvantages of forming a corporation besides the liability protection. For one, corporations have to pay taxes separate from the taxes paid on profits made by owners.

You've taken one advantage of being a corporation (i.e. limit to personal liability) and juxtaposed it with one proposed constraint (i.e. no p ...[text shortened]... gument (which it is not), then by implication the New York Times does not have freedom of press.[/b]

You may keep parroting the same thing over and over and over and over again, but this point has been met several times already.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The whole point of incorporation is to create a legal entity separate and distinct from its owners. Your argument is "a have your cake and eat it too" one; I want to form a corporation so I am not personally liable for its debts but I insist that as far as my constitutional rights are concerned the corporation is a mere extension of me.

You can't have it both ways.

A legal entity for the protection of the owner.

According to you this means that the owner must give up his or her rights to privacy in exchange. You are sick.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You may keep parroting the same thing over and over and over and over again, but this point has been met several times already.

But the point doesn't seem to have been grasped.

If you insist that the NY Times has first amendment protection and Hobby Lobby does not, you should quit using arguments against Hobby Lobby that could equally be applied to NY Times.

You are only left that weak argument you made that the article of incorporation must reserve the right to first amendment protection.

The idea of having your cake and eating it too is an argument you should stop making it because you're willing to allow the NY Times to have its cake and eat it too.

Originally posted by Eladar
A legal entity for the protection of the owner.

According to you this means that the owner must give up his or her rights to privacy in exchange. You are sick.

You're a complete loony. What "privacy rights" are implicated by corporate actions regarding the provision of insurance to its employees?

Originally posted by techsouth
But the point doesn't seem to have been grasped.

If you insist that the NY Times has first amendment protection and Hobby Lobby does not, you should quit using arguments against Hobby Lobby that could equally be applied to NY Times.

You are only left that weak argument you made that the article of incorporation must reserve the right to first amendme ...[text shortened]... uld stop making it because you're willing to allow the NY Times to have its cake and eat it too.

I made no such argument as that mere claims in the corporate charter can "reserve first amendment protection". Surely you know this and are being disingenuous.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're a complete loony. What "privacy rights" are implicated by corporate actions regarding the provision of insurance to its employees?

The employer is buying the insurance. The employer should have rights.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I made no such argument as that mere claims in the corporate charter can "reserve first amendment protection". Surely you know this and are being disingenuous.

You just made a argument against "having your cake and eating it too" with regards to benefits of incorporating versus keeping freedoms that individuals have. You summarized, and I quote: "You can't have it both ways" as if this were logically evident.

But you've said that the NY Times is protected under the first amendment. So somehow, you are allowing for the fact that some corporations can indeed "have it both ways".

But your arguments must be consistent. If the NY Times can have it both ways, then we have no reason to automatically assume other corporations cannot have it both ways ( including Hobby Lobby). You must have some reason why Hobby Lobby can't have it both ways but NY Times can. You've given such an argument earlier (although not a convincing one). But in the world that the NY Times can have it both ways and Hobby Lobby cannot, the whole notion of having it both ways is not the problem. Something else is.

If the NY Times can have it both ways, and they are a for profit corporation, then obviously having it both ways is allowable for "for profit" corporations according to what you've argued. So you can't now say that Hobby Lobby can't "have it both ways".

You've given a very unconvincing argument that NY Times enjoys first amendment protection because they included a "mother-may-I" clause in their articles of incorporation. You said that Hobby Lobby is not protected by the first amendment because they have no such clause. You're now stuck with that weak argument because you must be consistent.

Either a "mother-may-I" clause allows a for profit corporation to have their cake and eat it too (in which case the Hobby Lobby can change simply amend their articles of incorporation and claim their rights), or a "mother-may-I" clause does not allow a for profit corporation to have their cake and eat it too (in which case the NY Times is not protected by the first amendment).

Which is it.

I don't see why corporations shouldn't have free speech or freedom of religion.

Of course, giving money to politicians has nothing to do with free speech, and paying some tax or complying with labour laws has nothing to do with freedom of religion. Indeed, an exemption for certain religious institutions can be regarded as a violation of the freedom of religion of people not belonging to said religion.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I don't see why corporations shouldn't have free speech or freedom of religion.

Of course, giving money to politicians has nothing to do with free speech, and paying some tax or complying with labour laws has nothing to do with freedom of religion. Indeed, an exemption for certain religious institutions can be regarded as a violation of the freedom of religion of people not belonging to said religion.

People give money to politicians because they endorse the politicians' platform. It is symbolic speech.

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
People give money to politicians because they endorse the politicians' platform. It is symbolic speech.

In a properly functioning democracy, people endorse politicians through voting. Allowing politicians to be sold undermines this principle. This is why bribing politicians is illegal in most countries in the world.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
In a properly functioning democracy, people endorse politicians through voting. Allowing politicians to be sold undermines this principle. This is why bribing politicians is illegal in most countries in the world.

A campaign contribution in and of itself is not a bribe because the contributor is not asking for anything in return. The contributor simply wants (1) the public to know that he endorses the candidate, which may help sway public opinion, and (2) to increase the chances that his favored candidate will win.

Bribery is illegal in the US too. If bribery is suspected, the district attorney can charge the contributor with bribery. If the district attorney is in the politician's pocket, the public can push for impeachment. If that fails, the public can recall the politicians. If that fails, they can vote them out.

Edit:

Also, democracy does not function properly unless there is free speech.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're a complete loony. What "privacy rights" are implicated by corporate actions regarding the provision of insurance to its employees?

Your problem resides in your assumption that once you incorporate you no longer exist as a human being. You loose all rights as a person once you take legal actions to protect yourself in business.

This assumption is absolute Marxism and has not part in the US. One does not give up the right to privacy if one wants to try to make a buck, even if you own the business.

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
A campaign contribution in and of itself is not a bribe because the contributor is not asking for anything in return.

By that logic, politicians don't care about votes because the voters are not specifically demanding a direct return on their vote. In a system where campaign contributions are unlimited, smart politicians try to maximize the contributions they get.