NationStates Jolt Archive

This is usually a great area to study Federal laws..

I believe because of our laws that it is certainly illegal..

Point of discussion..

In 1862 Coprorations was able to lobby and have Congress pass laws that said "A Company or said Corporation shall have a rights of said person"

Meaning - That a Corporation is considered a person under the law- They have the same rights and responsabilities of a person under federal law..


** So with that being said**

Now let's look at the anti-Slavery law..


"Nobody shall EVER take part in the selling, buying or trade of a person, we are all created equal"


So if I read the laws right - Corporations are a person under the law..

and if that is the case..

Then aren't we buying and selling a person with stock?

Which falls victim to the anti-Slavery act?

Troy* :p

When one buys stock in a company, one is not buying that company but rather it is a portion of the annual profites of said company.

In a way, it is rather like a bank loaning money to a person. The person gets cash, but agrees to a fixed payment amount with interest to be repayed to the bank.

The agreed method of repayment is vastly different with stocks, but the concept is the same.

When one buys stock in a company, one is not buying that company but rather it is a portion of the annual profites of said company.

In a way, it is rather like a bank loaning money to a person. The person gets cash, but agrees to a fixed payment amount with interest to be repayed to the bank.

The agreed method of repayment is vastly different with stocks, but the concept is the same.
I don't know about that. I get to vote my shares. If I owned a majority, I'd have a pretty significant say in how the company was run. If I wanted to buy another company and I couldn't get them to agree, I'd buy a majority of their stock. Then I could do what I wanted. The ability to buy and sell property sure means ownership to me.

When one buys stock in a company, one is not buying that company but rather it is a portion of the annual profites of said company.

In a way, it is rather like a bank loaning money to a person. The person gets cash, but agrees to a fixed payment amount with interest to be repayed to the bank.

The agreed method of repayment is vastly different with stocks, but the concept is the same.

That is incorrect. When you buy stock you really are buying part of a company. If you can buy 50%+1 of the stocks then for all intents and purposes you own the company (any decision you make goes, regardless of how others may feel), and if you could buy 100% of the stocks (generally impossible), the company would be completely yours.

This is usually a great area to study Federal laws..

I believe because of our laws that it is certainly illegal..

Point of discussion..

In 1862 Coprorations was able to lobby and have Congress pass laws that said "A Company or said Corporation shall have a rights of said person"

Meaning - That a Corporation is considered a person under the law- They have the same rights and responsabilities of a person under federal law..


** So with that being said**

Now let's look at the anti-Slavery law..


"Nobody shall EVER take part in the selling, buying or trade of a person, we are all created equal"


So if I read the laws right - Corporations are a person under the law..

and if that is the case..

Then aren't we buying and selling a person with stock?

Which falls victim to the anti-Slavery act?

Troy* :p
This is one of those IF and Only If arguments. The converse case doesn't hold, i.e. a person doesn't have the rights of a corporation, so your thesis is wrong. Look at income tax for one instance. I'm sure there's volumes of legal opinions written about it, but 'dammit Jim, I'm an engineer, not a lawyer'.

Here is where your fallacy lies:

... Corporation shall have a rights of said person"
Meaning - That a Corporation is considered a person under the law...


In the first sentence it states Shall have the rights of said person". This does not breathe life into the corporation, it has no heartbeat nor brainwaves.

That it has the same rights, does not mean the conclusion you state in sentence 2 "Considered a person..".

It is too much of a stretch. It does not follow. Non-Sequitur

If corporations were people, they could become US Citizens and vote too...

Corporations are not people. They have some rights as people. But ultimately the underlying people can be held accountable if a "Corporation" acts in such grievace ways as to cause bodily harm and or death. This is also true with economic suffering and damage caused by said corporation. IE Enron.

Back to the main post. The stock market should be tightly regulated. I think for most people its a scam. Because they dont understand the underlying market forces. People should instead invest in property or there personal business.

Actually the law states"A company or Corporation is said Person"

So I guess the definition of person is the actual question, Because all laws that obtain to a person, pertain to a company or corporation..

That includes the anti-slavery act..

So if you disagree with the said Corporation part, Then you diagreement with the words are with Congress who enacted the bill/act in 1862..

:headbang:

Troy*

Here, in Brazil, we have two different types of people when it comes to the law. We have physical people and legal people. The physical person is just what it says, a physical being that you or I would recognise as a person. It is to this legal entity, a physical person, that laws concerning slavery etc. apply.

A legal person, is any entity that can have legal responsability. This means companies, the Government, charitiy organisations, churches etc. They are people under the law, but only in a very restricted sense. They are people in so far as they can be guilty of breaking the law. They are not people as in the physical object. Ownership of a judicial person, as they are called here, is not in contravention of the anti slavery laws as the judical person is not a physical one.

It may be something similar there in the US.

of course the answer could actually be in this simple fact:

Only 5% of the money invested in the Stock Market actually goes to help the company for which the stock is sold..

The rest is in commision and transfer of paper from one person to another..

Troy*

of course the answer could actually be in this simple fact:

Only 5% of the money invested in the Stock Market actually goes to help the company for which the stock is sold..

The rest is in commision and transfer of paper from one person to another..

Troy*
Where does this "common" fact come from? We just raised thirty million dollars by issuing more stock. We bought a company with the proceeds. Wisdom of that whold transaction aside, all the money from the stock sale went into our pockets. We being my company, rather than the employees.

This is another case of, "taking something literally"-itis.

I recommend the patient sticks his/her head in the toilet and flushes several times, then runs into the middle of a busy intersection.