🚀 go-pugleaf

erimess wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:21:36 GMT, Joe62 <NOSPAM...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>erimess wrote:
>>
>>>And, yes, it *is* the same thing.  It's just that everyone forgets
>>>that there's another side -- and that side consists of people, just
>>>like you, and their money, just like you.  But apparently no one
>>>thinks that side has any rights.
>>
>>Corporations are not people, so it is not at all the same thing. To
>>assign them the same rights as a person as a matter of course is
>>lunacy.
>
>Yes, I realize this is old, but I've had some personal things going on
>and haven't been on here.  I'm only answering this, because this
>attitude is starting to *really* tick me off, so I'm going to have my
>say about it.
>
>First of all, NOT ALL COMPANIES ARE CORPORATIONS!!!!!!!  I am SOOOOO
>sick of hearing this.  Corporations are in the minority.  And a good
>many of those are small, closely held corporations.  I'm tired of
>everyone acting like every issue that is related to employment is
>somehow related to the "big, bad corporation."  This is just total
>bull.
>
>Sole proprietorships and partnerships are owned *directly* by people.
>They OWN those companies.  It's their property.  It's their
>investment.  Just like your house.  This is also true of the small
>closely held corporations.
>
>As for the the minority of companies that happen to be bigger,
>publicly traded companies, they ARE owned by people.  They're called
>stockholders.  Yes, I realize most people also interpret stockholders
>as "bad people."  But it's their money.  They invested in that company
>and have a stake in that company.  If you invest your money into
>something, are you saying you have no interest in what happens to your
>money?  You have no say in the matter?  The employees have their
>rights, but you as a stockholder would also be a PERSON and have
>rights.  Do the employees have MORE rights?  NO!!
>
>So to say that we shouldn't give the same rights to corporations as we
>do to people is basically saying we shouldn't give the same rights to
>stockholders as we do to people.  Huh?  Stockholders ARE people.  So
>you're saying we shouldn't give the same rights to SOME people as we
>do to OTHER people?  They're all people.
>
>I hate to tell you this, but the economy is one big giant circle, and
>everything that happens affects everything else.  And it all comes
>back to people, whether the person is an employee, a stockholder, a
>customer, a patient, whatever... it will always come back around to
>people.  You don't want the government telling you what brand of bread
>you have to buy.  And you say, it's a loaf of bread, not a person, so
>it has no rights, and therefore I should have the right to choose.
>Who makes the bread?  People.  But I bet you don't think about them,
>do you?  Do they have rights?  Of course.  So why doesn't the
>government make a law about which brand you have to buy so that you
>can help keep someone in a job.  If you think that sounds ridiculous,
>it's because you're not getting the analogy.

So what you're saying is... houses should have the same rights as
people?