Why or why not?
details are awesome =)
thanks for any answers you may have
2006-12-26 12:41:22 · 6 answers · asked by mike m 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Yes, I would even say that corporations are not people and should not have the same rights and should have no part in election funding. "We the People" in the form of government should be able to oversee corporation`s activities to insure no harm is done in anyway to humans and limit and corporation that may grow more powerful then government.
2006-12-26 12:50:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well in the 1880s the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment could be applied to corporations (meaning just as if they were individuals) therefore, of course they should held to the same standards. If they get the advantages of individual status they should also receive the treatment of individuals.
2006-12-26 12:44:35 · answer #2 · answered by Mr. Curious 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they should and a corporate manslaughter was introduced into the english legal system a few back. However corporations mask who is actually in charge to make it very difficult to punish someone specifically e.g a prison sentence. The only real punishment the courts can inflict on companies are fines e.g exxon mobil being fined 2.5 billion dollars for their part in an oil spill in1988. For most corporations though these fines do not damage them in any way, so there is no real way of punishing corporations. In the case of exxon mobil though they will get their punishment when peak oil comes about, although so will all of us
2006-12-26 12:57:32 · answer #3 · answered by vkfpbwoldwf 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
An auto company knows if they spend more money on building a car, less people will die. For an individual to choose to build a cheaper car that would be affordable to people, this would be manslaughter. But it is right to offer affordable cars, and there is no limit to how much would have to be spent to make a car as safe as possible.
Corporations need to have a tighter rein, but to hold them to the standard of an individual in all cases would be counter productive.
2006-12-26 12:48:52 · answer #4 · answered by tenbadthings 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I thoroughly agree that firms could be held to a similar ethical standards as persons. we could take the corporate examine as an occasion. Say I wrote a examine to a supplier, signed it and introduced it in replace for products. shouldn't that money be obtainable in the economic business enterprise on the time the examine became introduced? inspite of each and every thing I did obtain products for my checking draft. a individual who signs and indicators the corporate examine lots of the time and in maximum STATES, won't be able to be held criminally to blame for the examine of it comes returned as inadequate money. the seller that gained the undesirable examine is out of things and centers, precise? Why shouldn't they be entitled to accumulating on the examine as they could with a individual? inspite of each and every thing the seller did obtain a fraudulent examine. this is basically one occasion and that i've got many many greater. Take Care
2016-10-28 10:37:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are misunderstanding a very important fact. Corporations are run by individuals.
2006-12-26 12:47:56 · answer #6 · answered by Mr. Right 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋