Ron Paul Breaks With Mitt Romney: Corportions are Not People

[bobbyw24]

Late last week, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) told Iowa fair-goers during a question-and-answer session about his belief that “corporations are people.”

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who placed second in the Ames Straw Poll over the weekend, took a far different view when speaking with ThinkProgress. Unlike Romney and his own son Rand, Ron Paul argued that corporations are “obviously” not people. “People are individuals,” Paul affirmed. “They’re not groups and they’re not companies.”

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/08/15/295646/ron-paul...

[dannno]

lol... Rand wth are you doin man you already got elected :D

[trey4sports]

lol, interview with thinkprogress

[pcosmar]

Romney nailed his coffin.
Mitt Romney Just Lost the Election
http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-just-lost-the-election-2011-8

[fisharmor]

Corporations are people with rights,
the 2nd Amendment says "people" but means "governments",
and whatever small humans with umbilicals still attached actually are, it isn't "people".
Oh, almost forgot anyone labeled "terrorist" by a guy with an office paid for with tax money. They obviously aren't people!

[bobbyw24]

Corporations are not people; they are juridical entities

[Brian4Liberty]

Thumbs up for Ron!

[KingRobbStark]

Corporations are people. Their hearts are located in the basement.

[Rothbardian Girl]

We need to send this to some liberals who insist on calling Ron Paul a corporatist at every chance they get.

[Dreamofunity]

I agree with Ron, but I think Rand's (and I guess Romney's) positions are taken out of context.

I would think their main point is that when you think of a company such as Apple; my grandmother, mother, neighbor, friend, teacher, bus driver, etc. all own a piece of it. It's just a grouping of people with limited liability that own the corporation, the corporation is not some non-human autonomous entity.

[pcosmar]

I agree with Ron, but I think Rand's (and I guess Romney's) positions are taken out of context.

I would think their main point is that when you think of a company such as Apple; my grandmother, mother, neighbor, friend, teacher, bus driver, etc. all own a piece of it. It's just a grouping of people with limited liability that own the corporation, the corporation is not some non-human autonomous entity.

Why should liability be limited?
If you are responsible for a product that causes harm, why should you be immune from liability?
If you are profiting from a product that causes harm, why should you be protected from liability?

[Dreamofunity]

Why should liability be limited?
If you are responsible for a product that causes harm, why should you be immune from liability?
If you are profiting from a product that causes harm, why should you be protected from liability?

I agree that, within a truly free market, limited liability may not be possible absent some insurance aspect, but Rand and others are speaking within the current framework. I'm not saying they're right, and I stated I agree with Ron, but I think ThinkProgress is taking their statements out of (modern framework) context.

[AuH20]

Why should liability be limited?
If you are responsible for a product that causes harm, why should you be immune from liability?
If you are profiting from a product that causes harm, why should you be protected from liability?

But by the same token there is alot of junk science out there. The lawyer cabal is very parasitic in this country.

[dannno]

But by the same token there is alot of junk science out there. The lawyer cabal is very parasitic in this country.

Ya I'm more of a "buyer beware" free market guy.

If somebody buys a wrench and they drop it on their foot and break their toe, it doesn't mean the wrench had a faulty design, needed a better handle, thus people should sue the manufacturer.. You just go out and buy a better wrench with a better handle, or make one and sell it, or be more careful not to drop it on your foot.

In a free market, companies that have policies where you can return the product for any reason within a certain allotted time would exist just like they do now. Other companies might have "all sales are final" policies.

I'd probably start a consumer magazine if we had a more free market to provide this type of information to consumers. It would certainly be cheaper than them paying the government to keep them safe, and it would be more effective.

[bobbyw24]

Why should liability be limited?
If you are responsible for a product that causes harm, why should you be immune from liability?
If you are profiting from a product that causes harm, why should you be protected from liability?

Google Limitation of Liability Act of 1851 and BP

[erowe1]

Late last week, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) told Iowa fair-goers during a question-and-answer session about his belief that “corporations are people.”

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who placed second in the Ames Straw Poll over the weekend, took a far different view when speaking with ThinkProgress. Unlike Romney and his own son Rand, Ron Paul argued that corporations are “obviously” not people. “People are individuals,” Paul affirmed. “They’re not groups and they’re not companies.”

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/08/15/295646/ron-paul...

This doesn't sound good.

Is this the same Ron Paul who argued stridently against McCain-Feingold?

[erowe1]

Why should liability be limited?
If you are responsible for a product that causes harm, why should you be immune from liability?
If you are profiting from a product that causes harm, why should you be protected from liability?

You should be able to limit your liability if you and the other party in the contract agree beforehand to limit it. Your rights when acting in concert with other individuals via a corporation shouldn't be any more or less than what they are when you act alone.

Are there ways that the government gives special favors to corporations? Sure. But the problem is what the government does, it's not the mere existence of corporate personhood, which would exist with or without any government involvement at all.

[purplechoe]

You should be able to limit your liability if you and the other party in the contract agree beforehand to limit it. Your rights when acting in concert with other individuals via a corporation shouldn't be any more or less than what they are when you act alone.

Are there ways that the government gives special favors to corporations? Sure. But the problem is what the government does, it's not the mere existence of corporate personhood, which would exist with or without any government involvement at all.

What the corporate personhood did was make each citizen of the USA a corporate entity, just like when Lincoln fought the civil war he didn't free the slaves, he made every person in the Union a slave to the central government...

[neumoljiv]

Corporations are not people; they are juridical entities

without people there wouldn't be any corporations

corporations were created for and by people, essentially they are people

[Anti Federalist]

Late last week, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) told Iowa fair-goers during a question-and-answer session about his belief that “corporations are people.”

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who placed second in the Ames Straw Poll over the weekend, took a far different view when speaking with ThinkProgress. Unlike Romney and his own son Rand, Ron Paul argued that corporations are “obviously” not people. “People are individuals,” Paul affirmed. “They’re not groups and they’re not companies.”

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/08/15/295646/ron-paul...

Every day I'm presented with more evidence to assert:

Ron > Rand

[bobbyw24]

‘Sorry, you are not people, corporations. You do not have First Amendment rights of free speech. Get out of our political lives and our political world.’ It’s time to bring politics back of, by and for — to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln — we the people.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/what-is-corporate-personhood-and-why-does-it-matter/

[acptulsa]

It's just a grouping of people with limited liability that own the corporation, the corporation is not some non-human autonomous entity.

O.K. Now riddle me this. Should we give limited liability and Constitutional rights to, say, a lynch mob as a whole? Just by way of example. Should we?

[bobbyw24]

Romney Stands Firm: ‘Corporations are People’

Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney took a lot of flak from Democrats last week after he said that “corporations are people.” In a new web ad, the former Massachusetts governor sticks to his guns, Politico reports.

“Businesses are comprised of people,” he said in the video. “I'm talking about repair shops, and gas stations, and beauty salons, and restaurants. I'm talking about Apple computer, Facebook, and Microsoft. I'm talking about businesses that employ people.”

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/mitt-romney-corporations-position/2011/08/19/id/407997

[erowe1]

What the corporate personhood did was make each citizen of the USA a corporate entity, just like when Lincoln fought the civil war he didn't free the slaves, he made every person in the Union a slave to the central government...

I don't know or care if that's true. But if anybody wants to take away my right to cooperate with other people in forming a corporation, they're in the wrong.