I would never claim that a corporation is a person – anymore than I would declare that a city is a man or that the NBA is a basketball player. If the Sun disappeared cabbages would also eventually disappear – but the Sun is not a cabbage simply because one is dependent for existence on the other. So persons and corporations are two distinct classes of things and what seems obvious to the commentor is also obvious to me. But it also seems obvious that if a city or the NBA disappeared some people(or persons) would be negatively affected.

The shareholders, investors and employees of a corporation would probably be negatively affected if a corporation disappeared – as the stockholders of Enron found out. Assuredly the stockholders would not disappear if a corporation disappeared – just their investments. Likewise the employees would also not disappear – just their paychecks. It is plain that the stockholders and employees are not the same thing as the corporation.

But the commentor seems to have an awed and supernatural view of corporations. For example the commentor seems to believe corporations are immortal, like gods I guess:

” … they[corporations] are, for example, immortal and capable of being in many different places at the same time

I happen to come across the Wisconsin Historical Society’s Library Archive which has an index of the Incorporation Papers of Defunct Domestic Corporations in Wisconsin through the years 1848 though 1945. Submitting just one county(Racine) results in a list many pages long of corporations that no longer exist. But I thought they were immortal!

http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/libraryarchives/corporations/domestic.asp

But leaving metaphysics and getting back to the legal rights of persons: Certain members of corporations have been found by the Judiciary to possess a legal right to present their views to politicians in order to influence legislation. And they may hire people to present those opinions for them. It’s known as ‘hiring a lobbyist’ and is guaranteed by the First Amendment.

While there are laws governing the act of lobbying there is no law banning it. Lobbying is one of those fundamental rights that has been upheld by the Judiciary, as embodied in the First Amendment which “prohibits the United States Congress from making laws” to “limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The case cited by the commentor, Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific, had to do with rights under the fourteenth Amendment involving the jurisdiction of states to tax corporations – not lobbying – and has little bearing on anything I’ve posted.

Hitler is only the archtype of the right to a communist. Go past the utopian, end justifies the means, and pragmatic view of war, you then get to the right. as you say, Hitler and Marxism, and all the others are socialist. At best they are what you can call an administrative feudal state in which there is the upper lords and their employs, and below the serfs, for whom all the toil is said to be the benefit of.

That’s what the American system was getting away from!!! And did!!!

in all other systems the classes are fixed, they cant move. In the US, despite the games of nearly 100 years of socialism trying to make communism, people are still mobile. The borders have to let workers in because the workers who were here moved upwards. And wealthy people spend poorly (or usually their children do), and they fade from wealth again.

the take to socialism is the creation of a fixed system that stagnates and makes possible a ruling class. About the only difference from kings is that their power is not from right of birth, or at least succession is not from right of birth, birth still guarantees you a place in the game.

I am telling it to them, just like I have told you. If you want to puretuate soviet deception that’s up to you.

Only someone who doesn’t think can place a socialist collectivist dictatorship on the right.

In relation to the Communism, NAZIism was to right.. But on the absolute scale, NAZI is on the Left.. Communism was even further left.

Thus Stalin , to discredit Germany’s version of Socialism , labelled NAZIsm to be totally ‘right wing’.

These two Left-wing fascist states were in competition with each other.. so they said what they needed to in order to discredit the other.

No, I’m not telling you that. It is true, however, that Marxism, if you characterize it in the traditional way–as politically left–was internationalist and anti-nationalist. But I suspect there were many communists who nurtured a secret love and loyalty to Russia or other homelands.

Um.. becuase it’s not true?

And are you telling us that those on the Left can’t be nationalistic or patriotic?

THanks for confirming what so many of us think.

All Collectivism is Left wing, including National Socialism. The Soviet Union believed in an Interntional Universalist spread of Communism. Germany’s socialism model was not universal but nationalistic. Germany viewed SU’s desire to spread Communism worldwide as a threat.

In its propaganda war against Germany, the Soviet Union called Germany “right wing” in order to discredit Germany’s flavor of collectivism. And the propganda worked.

I have no interest in perputuating propaganda lies started by Stalin, so I reject any characterization that Nazism is a Right Wing thing.

I get tired of peolpe who distort history.