[bhupy]

> corporations aren't people. If something isn't advantageous to at least one individual decision maker, it won't happen.

By this logic, no collection of people can be considered "people". Indians aren't people, men aren't people, etc etc. As an Indian man, I find that idea absurd.

Unanimity isn't a prerequisite for personhood in the context of whether or not the rights extended to individuals disappear the moment those individuals act as an association/group. Corporations are people because they are groups of people.

[CobrastanJorji]

You're absolutely right. No collection of people is a person. Indians are not a person and do not act uniformly in the interests of India. Are you suggesting that Indians are some sort of hive mind?

[bhupy]

> Indians are not a person and do not act uniformly in the interests of India.

No, but they can act uniformly if they so choose. That's the entire point. The US Constitution doesn't ascribe group assignments, but the argument is that if people self associate into groups (non-profits, corporations, religions, etc) then the rights that extended to them as individuals also extend to them acting as a group.

In other words, I'm not suggesting that Indians are some sort of hive mind, but if one day all of the Indians in America decided to Neuralink themselves into some sort of a hive mind, the rights that extended to each one of them by the US Constitution also extend to them in their hive mind capacity.

As an Indian, I welcome this freedom!

[unchocked]

Corporations, like Indians and men, are groups consisting of people. Corporations, unlike Indians and men, also have the legal status of "personhood".

[bhupy]

> Corporations, unlike Indians and men, also have the legal status of "personhood"

This is purely a semantic argument. At least in America, Corporations aren't classified as "persons" in an official sense; rather the phrase "corporate personhood" refers to the ongoing legal debate over the extent to which rights traditionally associated with natural persons should also be afforded to corporations. In that regard, exactly like Indians and men, the rights traditionally associated with natural persons are also afforded to multiple persons acting as a group. This is just as true for a collection of Indians publishing speech about anti-Asian hate (or Diwali or Bollywood etc etc), just as it is true for a collection of men publishing speech about whatever it is they choose. Under that principle, the SCOTUS has found that Corporations enjoy the same rights to express themselves as an association.

[eyeinthepyramid]

Isn't the better analogy that countries aren't people? Or are you really arguing that America is a person as opposed to a collection of people?

[bhupy]

Well, taking a step back, this is all a very very poor analogy to describe the mechanics behind why the Yahoo Answers team might choose not to maintain static web pages; bringing up Mitt Romney's arguments in that context is...perplexing, to say the least (and probably flame-bait).

But in the spirit of actually engaging with the comment, Mitt Romney's argument is centered around the debate around whether rights that are traditionally afforded to individuals by American law (i.e. the US Constitution) also extend to individuals acting in a group capacity. That is to say, if I got up on a soapbox and started preaching communism, can the US government prevent me from doing that? If you and I decided to create a group and find like-minded people and collectively use our resources to get up on a soapbox and started preaching communism, can the US government prevent us from doing that? The Supreme Court found that the answer to both of those questions is "No", and — importantly — that the answer to the latter question is "No" for the same reason that the answer to the former question is "No".

So taking another step back, arguing that "America is a person" doesn't make much sense in that context, because the argument is about whether "America" has collective rights under American law; it's like dividing by 0. But groups within the US are different; a group of communists talking about how dope they think Marxism is, in a legal sense, is exactly the same as McDonalds Inc talking about how dope burgers are, or Google Inc. talking about how dope search engines are...or even groups of Indians talking about how dope Shah Rukh Khan is. They're all protected by the First Amendment.

[_bohm]

I think GP was just being facetious with the Mitt Romney comment, not trying to start a discussion about corporate personhood, etc., etc.

[TomSwirly]

> By this logic, no collection of people can be considered "people".

Your argument is logically false.

A group of people is not a person. A group of Indians is not a person. Each of them individually has personhood - the group does not.

[amelius]

> corporations aren't people.

Corporations are people whenever it's advantageous to those corporations. In all other situations, corporations are not people.

[umanwizard]

Indians are people, but “India” isn’t a person.