View Poll Results: Do Businesses Have Rights?

Voters
15. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, Businesses Have Rights

    4 26.67%
  • No, Businesses Do Not Have Rights

    11 73.33%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 78

Thread: People Have Rights. Do Businesses Have Rights?

  1. #1

    People Have Rights. Do Businesses Have Rights?

    I dont want to ask any Loaded Questions, or a question that biases what a person might conclude. So in order to not bias this poll, I'll refrain from expressing my point of view until a couple of of points of view have been made.

    With that said, this question is intended to see if people understand what a Right truly is, and what a Right is not.

    NOTE: I believe this is a black and white issue, so there are no two ways about it. Thus, the questions have intentionally been limited to Yes and No only. Yes and No are also up for debate, but Im going to leave the poll at Yes and No. I'll state my reasons for this later, again, with the intent of not biasing anyones conclusions.

    WARNING: As this is intended to create a meaningful debate, please expect that there will be different points of view that directly challenge the statements expressed. This should challenge an individuals IDEA of the Definition of a Right, but should not disparage individuals themselves. So please, no name calling or personal attacks.

    Expect some strong opinions and supporting arguments to be expressed.
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Only individuals have rights. A business is property.
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabal View Post
    Only individuals have rights. A business is property.
    A no-brainer, right? But in practice, we have the Congressional Golden Rule. And the corporations have the gold, so they obviously have the right to make the rules...
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  5. #4
    The owners of businesses have rights.

    But I'm not sure what it means to ask whether the business itself (like, the buildings, the forklifts...?) has rights.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 03-18-2016 at 06:40 PM.

  6. #5
    A business owner need not be involved in setting a company policy but that doesn't make that company policy any less enforceable.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabal View Post
    Only individuals have rights. A business is property.
    I would say a business is a group of individuals.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The owners of businesses have rights.

    But I'm not sure what it means to ask whether the business itself (like, the buildings, the forklifts...?) has rights.
    To me it seems natural to assume that "business" in the OP can only mean the owners of a business.

    What other way is there to make sense of the question?

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    I would say a business is a group of individuals.
    A business is client relations, contracts, assets, capital, a brand, and a product. Individuals within the business are employees or business owners.
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabal View Post
    A business is client relations, contracts, assets, capital, a brand, and a product. Individuals within the business are employees or business owners.
    What about corporations or partnerships that own property and enter contracts? You don't call these entities businesses?

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    To me it seems natural to assume that "business" in the OP can only mean the owners of a business.

    What other way is there to make sense of the question?
    I don't see any.

    But, then again, the question explicitly distinguishes between people and businesses.

    So..?

    Many libertarians seem to be puzzled by the concept of corporations having rights (not realizing that this is just shorthand for the shareholders having rights); I'm assuming that's where the OP's headed.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 03-18-2016 at 07:27 PM.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    What about corporations or partnerships that own property and enter contracts? You don't call these entities businesses?
    Individuals within the business are employees or business owners.
    Partnerships don't have rights. Corporations don't have rights. Businesses don't have rights.

    Individuals have rights.
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabal View Post
    Partnerships don't have rights. Corporations don't have rights. Businesses don't have rights.

    Individuals have rights.
    Right



    But it should be understood that when a person says "McDonald's has the right to raise its prices" this is just shorthand for "the owners of McDonald's have the right to rise their prices."

  15. #13
    Poll should also ask if unions have rights.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddyRey View Post
    Do you think it's a coincidence that the most cherished standard of the Ron Paul campaign was a sign highlighting the word "love" inside the word "revolution"? A revolution not based on love is a revolution doomed to failure. So, at the risk of sounding corny, I just wanted to let you know that, wherever you stand on any of these hot-button issues, and even if we might have exchanged bitter words or harsh sentiments in the past, I love each and every one of you - no exceptions!

    "When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will." Frederic Bastiat

    Peace.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Henry Rogue View Post
    Poll should also ask if unions have rights.
    Coercive unions shouldn't exist at all.

    In principle, one could have voluntary unions...

    And they would "have rights" in the same sense as a business would: i.e. their members/owners would have rights.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Coercive unions shouldn't exist at all.

    In principle, one could have voluntary unions...

    And they would "have rights" in the same sense as a business would: i.e. their members/owners would have rights.
    Not quite the same as a business, closer to a business cartel.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddyRey View Post
    Do you think it's a coincidence that the most cherished standard of the Ron Paul campaign was a sign highlighting the word "love" inside the word "revolution"? A revolution not based on love is a revolution doomed to failure. So, at the risk of sounding corny, I just wanted to let you know that, wherever you stand on any of these hot-button issues, and even if we might have exchanged bitter words or harsh sentiments in the past, I love each and every one of you - no exceptions!

    "When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will." Frederic Bastiat

    Peace.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Henry Rogue View Post
    Not quite the same as a business, closer to a business cartel.
    Yes

    A coercive union is like a coercive cartel.

    A voluntary union would be like a voluntary cartel.

    My point was only that the latter would "have rights" only insofar as its owners/members have rights: as with a business.

    ...or any other kind of organization.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Businesses have rights in the same way minorities have rights.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabal View Post
    Partnerships don't have rights. Corporations don't have rights. Businesses don't have rights.

    Individuals have rights.
    How can you have one without the other? If individuals have rights, don't those rights include the right to enter contracts with one another to pool resources and delegate the authority to make decisions about the use of those resources to some board?

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    How can you have one without the other? If individuals have rights, don't those rights include the right to enter contracts with one another to pool resources and delegate the authority to make decisions about the use of those resources to some board?
    whaaaaa?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    whaaaaa?
    Take freedom of speech for example. You can't abridge corporations' freedom of speech without abridging the freedom of speech of their owners. Can you?

  24. #21
    Briefly:

    A company does not need Rights to set rules.

    A company does not need Rights to have a reasonable expectation of payment.

    (Im about 10 posts behind, so just food for thought while the debate continues...)

    ---

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    How can you have one without the other? If individuals have rights, don't those rights include the right to enter contracts with one another to pool resources and delegate the authority to make decisions about the use of those resources to some board?
    Technically, I think this falls under Contract Law. Both individuals that enter into the contract / agreement have the right to do so, and most things they come up with under that contract / agreement can be expected to be fulfilled, but not as a "Right", but legal and reasonable expectation.

    Theres exceptions to every rule. One of those exceptions is changing the terms and conditions of a contract without the approval of the other party. As an example of an unlawful contract, an initial contract / agreement is made where a pie is sold for one dollar, and money shall not be paid but upon receiving the pie. Guy makes a pie, then demands 10 dollars for the pie instead of one dollar. If the other guy did not agree to this change in the contract, that change is summarily dismissed.

    Even in this case, there is a reasonable expectation of commensurate compensation, but that expectation in and of itself is not a Right, it exists only as a part of the terms of that contract / agreement, and are limited in scope to that which was defined by the contract / agreement. Thus, a one time shot does not grant either party an expectation of more pies to be produced. It really depends on the agreement the two people made.
    Last edited by DamianTV; 03-19-2016 at 01:27 AM.
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

  25. #22
    Business can't vote. Only people can vote.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Many libertarians seem to be puzzled by the concept of corporations having rights (not realizing that this is just shorthand for the shareholders having rights)
    I own a dog. He doesn't have rights.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Take freedom of speech for example. You can't abridge corporations' freedom of speech without abridging the freedom of speech of their owners. Can you?
    Corporations can't speak. They are contracts that exist because of government. I don't believe that rights come from government.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    individuals have rights

    corporations are fictions of a fictional government and have fictional entitlements

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Technically, I think this falls under Contract Law. Both individuals that enter into the contract / agreement have the right to do so, and most things they come up with under that contract / agreement can be expected to be fulfilled, but not as a "Right", but legal and reasonable expectation.

    Theres exceptions to every rule. One of those exceptions is changing the terms and conditions of a contract without the approval of the other party. As an example of an unlawful contract, an initial contract / agreement is made where a pie is sold for one dollar, and money shall not be paid but upon receiving the pie. Guy makes a pie, then demands 10 dollars for the pie instead of one dollar. If the other guy did not agree to this change in the contract, that change is summarily dismissed.

    Even in this case, there is a reasonable expectation of commensurate compensation, but that expectation in and of itself is not a Right, it exists only as a part of the terms of that contract / agreement, and are limited in scope to that which was defined by the contract / agreement. Thus, a one time shot does not grant either party an expectation of more pies to be produced. It really depends on the agreement the two people made.
    Yes, but what follows from the allowance of contracts like this is that individuals, who have rights, can exercise those rights through that business created by contract. You can't abridge the rights of the business without abridging the rights of individuals.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    individuals have rights

    corporations are fictions of a fictional government and have fictional entitlements
    That's like saying that marriages are fictions.

    But marriages aren't fictions. It's true that the state as we know it illegitimately involves itself in marriage. But without that involvement of the state marriages would still exist. And it's the same with corporations.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Corporations can't speak. They are contracts that exist because of government. I don't believe that rights come from government.
    They don't exist because of government. Without any government there would still be corporations. And of course they can speak. Abridging their freedom of speech was the whole point of McCain-Feingold.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    I dont want to ask any Loaded Questions, or a question that biases what a person might conclude. So in order to not bias this poll, I'll refrain from expressing my point of view until a couple of of points of view have been made..
    Courts have ruled that businesses have less rights than individuals. Because business is simply a group of people banded together for a common purpose, those people have the right to speak freely and petition the government. But their right to be free from warrantless searches is greatly diminished.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    individuals have rights

    corporations are fictions of a fictional government and have fictional entitlements
    That's wrong. Even in anarchy corporations would exist. It is simply a method of ownership sharing. If 2 or more people get together and own a business, it is a form of a corporation. Of course the government gives these partnerships different names in order to tax them differently, but under it all the basic premise applies - a corporation is just a group of people who have banded together and invested financially in order to pursue a common goal.

    As I am sure many of my fans know, it repulses me to see people on these forums vehemently fighting against free speech.

    To the OP, I didn't answer your quiz because it's misleading. "A business" can't have anything - it's not alive. But the people who own the business have the rights, and they do not lose those rights when they elect to speak as a group to serve their common interest.
    Last edited by angelatc; 03-19-2016 at 09:41 AM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •