Are Corporations and Governments Considered People According to the Bible?

  • News
  • Thread starter RudedawgCDN
  • Start date
A. Taxes, orB. Anarchy?And if your answer is B, how do you expect to live in a modern society without any sort of government?In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of being a socialist and its relation to Jesus' beliefs and the role of government and corporations. It also touches on the idea of taxes being seen as a "gun to the head" and the consequences of not paying them. The conversation ends with a question about whether taxes or anarchy is preferred and how one can live in a modern society without any government.
  • #1
RudedawgCDN
Bible quote: "a rich man will have as much chance getting into heaven as a camel will getting through the eye of a needle".

Jesus believed in taking care of the poor and if you look at the way Jesus lived his life - most people would say he was a socialist.

Now the Religious right wingers will argue that Jesus didn't mean the government, that Jesus meant the "people" should take care of the people.

Ok, so isn't government made up of people?

Isn't that a core Republican argument that corporations are "people"?

Mitt Romney seems to think so.

Right wing talk show hosts seem to think so.

Republicans trying to subvert the democratic process seem to think so.

My question to these same people is if corporations are "people" because corporations are made up of people - then wouldn't governments be "people" to, for the same reasoning?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
How does it follow that taking care of poor people make you a socialist?

Being a socialist means the willingness to use force against a second party so that this second party is compelled to give of his fortune to the benefit of some third party which the first party insists is more deserving of the second party's money than the second party himself.
And of course, the first party will congratulate himself with keeping a small commission from the second party's money for having redistributed some of it to the third party.
 
  • #3
"people", in the sense you seem to be asking about at one level, is a term that describes (1) what we would all agree are people; you and me for example, and (2) WHATEVER the law SAYS is an entity that has the same rights as the entities in (1). If a government wants to write laws saying corporations are people, then LEGALLY, they are. If the government wants to write laws saying the government is a person, then it is. BUT ... all this is a legalistic argument that has nothing to do with right and wrong. You can decide in your heart what the think is right or wrong (and of course, whatever you decide, lots of people will disagree with you), but if you want to argue with the law, you have to go to a lot of work and get it changed.

I believe in this case the folks you are talking about are making a legalistic argument because it fits with their moral argument but you want to engage them in the moral argument directly because you think your view is right.

Good luck with that.
 
  • #4
RudedawgCDN said:
Bible quote: "a rich man will have as much chance getting into heaven as a camel will getting through the eye of a needle".

Jesus believed in taking care of the poor and if you look at the way Jesus lived his life - most people would say he was a socialist.

Now the Religious right wingers will argue that Jesus didn't mean the government, that Jesus meant the "people" should take care of the people.

Ok, so isn't government made up of people?

Isn't that a core Republican argument that corporations are "people"?

Mitt Romney seems to think so.

Right wing talk show hosts seem to think so.

Republicans trying to subvert the democratic process seem to think so.

My question to these same people is if corporations are "people" because corporations are made up of people - then wouldn't governments be "people" to, for the same reasoning?

Is this a real thread or a strawman? Why don't you establish a basis for your given statements/assumptions and support as per guidelines?
 
  • #5
WhoWee said:
Is this a real thread or a strawman? Why don't you establish a basis for your given statements/assumptions and support as per guidelines?

I have to agree, this post feels a lot like someone just throwing a bunch of stuff up against a wall just to see what will stick.
 
  • #6
I incorporated myself a few years ago. I was chairman of the board, I made my father the president, my mother the vice president, brother treasurer, and sister executive director. At the last meeting they voted together to squeeze me out.
 
  • #7
RudedawgCDN said:
Bible quote: "a rich man will have as much chance getting into heaven as a camel will getting through the eye of a needle".

Jesus believed in taking care of the poor and if you look at the way Jesus lived his life - most people would say he was a socialist.

Now the Religious right wingers will argue that Jesus didn't mean the government, that Jesus meant the "people" should take care of the people.

Jesus didn't mean the government should take care of the poor.

Jesus didn't mean that the people should take care of the poor.

Jesus meant that YOU should take care of the poor and not by stealing other peoples stuff at gunpoint.

Skippy

PS I am not a Christian. I have no religious axe to grind.
 
  • #8
You know, I've noticed something about the Conservatives and Libertarians around me lately. The majority of them talk about taxes as being a gun to your face. Could one of you explain why that is? Are you that eager to feel threatened or do you really think that if you don't pay your taxes you'll get shot?
 
  • #9
Char. Limit said:
You know, I've noticed something about the Conservatives and Libertarians around me lately. The majority of them talk about taxes as being a gun to your face. Could one of you explain why that is? Are you that eager to feel threatened or do you really think that if you don't pay your taxes you'll get shot?

Taxes on an activity (such as earning a living) are enforced by the state. Refusal to pay can eventually lead to criminal sanctions. Resistance will be met by force. Is this crystal clear?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
skippy1729 said:
Taxes on an activity (such as earning a living) are enforced by the state. Refusal to pay can eventually lead to criminal sanctions. Resistance will be met by force. Is this crystal clear?

I still don't see how taxes = "GUN TO THE HEAD!" Maybe it's just the hyperbolic rhetoric. So answer me this:

Would you prefer the government was entirely supported by voluntary donations? How much money do you think the government would have in this situation?
 
  • #11
Char. Limit said:
I still don't see how taxes = "GUN TO THE HEAD!" Maybe it's just the hyperbolic rhetoric. So answer me this:

Would you prefer the government was entirely supported by voluntary donations? How much money do you think the government would have in this situation?

The government survived for over a century without taxing the earning of a livelihood.

As to the "Gun to the head" it really depends on how far you are willing to resist.

Skippy
 
  • #12
arildno said:
Being a socialist means the willingness to use force against a second party so that this second party is compelled to give of his fortune to the benefit of some third party which the first party insists is more deserving of the second party's money than the second party himself.

I mean, come on. Let's just stick to the definitions here. This is a 'not even wrong' message.
At least we could stick to the definition of socialism, and -even that- on the english Wikipedia page, has little bearing to the wide range of main stream socialist parties in western democracies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism" [Broken]

(Not that I am a socialist. I am certainly no capitalist either. Actually, I wouldn't even know what I'ld be in US terms.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
arildno said:
Being a socialist means the willingness to use force against a second party so that this second party is compelled to give of his fortune to the benefit of some third party which the first party insists is more deserving of the second party's money than the second party himself.
And of course, the first party will congratulate himself with keeping a small commission from the second party's money for having redistributed some of it to the third party.

MarcoD said:
I mean, come on. Let's just stick to the definitions here. This is a 'not even wrong' message.
At least we could stick to the definition of socialism, and -even that- on the english Wikipedia page, has little bearing to the wide range of main stream socialist parties in western democracies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism" [Broken]

(Not that I am a socialist. I am certainly no capitalist either. Actually, I wouldn't even know what I'ld be in US terms.)

Regardless of the abstractions and cute phrases used in your definition of socialism, arildno's message catches the essence of socialism. You cam put lipstick on a pig but you still have a pig.

Skippy
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
I smell troll, this guy has almost never contributed to a thread he has started.
 
  • #15
Pengwuino said:
I smell troll, this guy has almost never contributed to a thread he has started.
I agree. I vote this thread dies until we hear from the OP ? Any seconds ?

Rhody... :grumpy:
 
  • #16
MarcoD said:
(Not that I am a socialist. I am certainly no capitalist either. Actually, I wouldn't even know what I'ld be in US terms.)

What else is there? All solutions to real-world problems call upon either socialist or capitalist principles, and in fact, usually both.
 
  • #17
Char. Limit said:
I still don't see how taxes = "GUN TO THE HEAD!" Maybe it's just the hyperbolic rhetoric. So answer me this:

Would you prefer the government was entirely supported by voluntary donations? How much money do you think the government would have in this situation?

Some of us are business owners or perhaps paid on a performance basis - either way - earnings are difficult to generate and not always predictable. There are no guarantees of success Char, and when you take a risk (sometimes everything) to achieve a goal - you want certainty regarding how much you'll have to pay in taxes now and in the future. Tax strategies are a very large part of business planning. For the persons who don't own a business - recall how disappointed you were the last time a bonus was eaten up by taxes - it can be quite frustrating.

Personally, I don't mind paying my share of taxes - just don't waste my money.
 
  • #18
rhody said:
I agree. I vote this thread dies until we hear from the OP ? Any seconds ?

Rhody... :grumpy:

Agreed.
 
  • #19
@ RudedawgCDN

I think I understand your train of thought:

1) Jesus said that people should help people who need help.
2) The government is made up of people.
3) Therefore "religious right wingers" should be in favor of government welfare to the poor.

Unfortunately, it's much more complicated than that.

I don't think your 'corporations as people' argument clarifies or resolves anything. Obviously, corporations are collectives, but they can be considered as individual persons for legal reasons.

Anyway, apparently "religious right wingers" (taken to be, in political terms, primarily a subset of the republican party) value personal, individual freedom above egalitarian concerns (equality of opportunity, equality of justice, etc.)

The difficulty for the US republic is that it values both of these, necessarily conflicting, ideologies. And some people value one more than the other. So we have competing major political parties. One which emphasizes the ideal of liberty, and one which emphasizes the ideal of equality.

But we live in the real physical world which doesn't really care about either one of those ideologies -- and we've come to realize that, in many cases, if government doesn't help the 'have nots', then it's unlikely that anybody will, and wrt a massive complex society that can lead to all sorts of problems for the 'haves' as well, because we also realize that much of that welfare money gets eventually funneled upstairs, via the general economy, to the 'haves' anyway.

So what's up with the religious right? Are they just ignorant idealogues, or would the country really be better off without governmental welfare for the poor?
 
  • #20
Ivan Seeking said:
What else is there? All solutions to real-world problems call upon either socialist or capitalist principles, and in fact, usually both.

I just don't believe in capitalism. It's a manner of organizing an economy, but -again- it is amoral. To me, you might as well believe in a cash-register.

I think where people mean capitalism, they mostly mean something else. But because they mean something else, there is a stand-still in development of ideologies which may serve the public interest better.

EDIT: I read the Green Book of Gaddafi after I posted on it, or what is probably the first booklet of it. It is a terribly naive vision, but there were some interesting ideas in it. Like, if I got it right, a right for 'free' housing.
 
  • #21
MarcoD: The statement "means of production are publicly or commonly owned" from Wiki means at some point that property must be taken by force by the public body. Remove the possibility of forced taking and there is no socialism.
 
  • #22
mheslep said:
MarcoD: The statement "means of production are publicly or commonly owned" from Wiki means at some point that property must be taken by force by the public body. Remove the possibility of forced taking and there is no socialism.

A causality dilemma. Are goods owned by an individual or by the public first? There is no answer to that, except that your claim has a circular nature and boils down to belief.

(Note, as I stated before, I am not big on socialism, I am not even that big on democracy, or anything except for individual freedoms.)
 
  • #23
MarcoD said:
A causality dilemma. Are goods owned by an individual or by the public first? There is no answer to that, except that your claim has a circular nature and boils down to belief.
No, in the real world, that question has a definitive answer.
 
  • #24
russ_watters said:
No, in the real world, that question has a definitive answer.

Right. Who's real world?
 
  • #25
Yes, an experiment is in order here. On your next stroll (in this world) simply grab for the first wallet or purse you see and report back.
 
  • #26
mheslep said:
Yes, an experiment is in order here. On your next stroll (in this world) simply grab for the first wallet or purse you see and report back.

You like being offensive, right? As I stated, I value maximal free individual life. That leads to, for example, that I like initiatives like free public transport, state owned roads, state owned electricity, etc. I don't mind living in an utopia.
 
  • #27
MarcoD said:
I just don't believe in capitalism. It's a manner of organizing an economy, but -again- it is amoral. To me, you might as well believe in a cash-register.

I think where people mean capitalism, they mostly mean something else. But because they mean something else, there is a stand-still in development of ideologies which may serve the public interest better.

What specifically DO you believe in if not Capitalism? Also, why is Capitalism "amoral"?
 
  • #28
WhoWee said:
What specifically DO you believe in if not Capitalism? Also, why is Capitalism "amoral"?

I believe in individual freedom. The pursuit of 'bling-bling,' I find limits people's freedom. Moreover, since capitalism in essence stems from the concept of ownership, but apart from that doesn't deal with human values, I find it an amoral concept. (In the sense that you have moral (ethics), immoral (contrary to ethics) and amoral (being without ethics).)

I therefor reject, for example, free-market ideologies (or believing in that as a solution to anything) since an ideology like that doesn't have any bearing to humans, and therefor cannot solve any human problem.

Life is not that simple, I believe in a mix of ideas, that we should work towards the best world possible for everyone around, and that that probably only includes a very limited form of capitalism.

(For example, I also reject the principle of borrowing money to people.)

EDIT: I am somewhat like Noam Chomsky, although he is way more radical than me, and arrives at better thought trough conclusions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
MarcoD said:
Right. Who's real world?
There is only one real world. There is no matter of belief here, only factual reality. That seems to be a big problem with many of your posts in this thread: you're arguing theory and belief about things for which an objective reality exists. Like gravity, capitalism doesn't care whether you believe in it or not. It exists either way.
 
  • #30
MarcoD said:
You like being offensive, right?...
The response in one form or another that there is no common reality ("who's real world") must be one the most common methods of derailing discussions. It nicely sidesteps most further logical argument. I attempted to put a stop to it by throwing some humor on the suggestion, not you personally.
 
  • #31
MarcoD said:
I believe in individual freedom. The pursuit of 'bling-bling,' I find limits people's freedom. Moreover, since capitalism in essence stems from the concept of ownership, but apart from that doesn't deal with human values, I find it an amoral concept. (In the sense that you have moral (ethics), immoral (contrary to ethics) and amoral (being without ethics).)

I therefor reject, for example, free-market ideologies (or believing in that as a solution to anything) since an ideology like that doesn't have any bearing to humans, and therefor cannot solve any human problem.

Life is not that simple, I believe in a mix of ideas, that we should work towards the best world possible for everyone around, and that that probably only includes a very limited form of capitalism.

(For example, I also reject the principle of borrowing money to people.)

It sounds as though you aren't sure what you actually believe in - you just know what you don't like - correct?

Unfortunately, I don't think you can cite ethics without a well-defined "concept" of right and wrong in place - a moral compass requires a level of definition beyond a moving target of personal likes and dislikes.
 
  • #32
WhoWee said:
It sounds as though you aren't sure what you actually believe in - you just know what you don't like - correct?

Unfortunately, I don't think you can cite ethics without a well-defined "concept" of right and wrong in place - a moral compass requires a level of definition beyond a moving target of personal likes and dislikes.

Why not? A pragmatist philosopher like Rorty would fervently disagree with that. Even if we don't know what exactly right, or wrong, is, we can simply use it.
 
  • #33
Char. Limit said:
I still don't see how taxes = "GUN TO THE HEAD!" Maybe it's just the hyperbolic rhetoric. So answer me this:

Would you prefer the government was entirely supported by voluntary donations? How much money do you think the government would have in this situation?
I think you may be reading more into it than is there, though I've never heard that specific characterization, that I can remember. Through the rhetoric is the fact that taxes are taken from you by force, if necessary. Stating this fact does not necessarily imply that a person thinks they should be abolished.
 
  • #34
MarcoD said:
Why not? A pragmatist philosopher like Rorty would fervently disagree with that. Even if we don't know what exactly right, or wrong, is, we can simply use it.

Situational ethics may work for a "pragmatist philosopher" - but not going to be very well accepted in the business world - the basis of the OP.
 
  • #35
mheslep said:
The response in one form or another that there is no common reality ("who's real world") must be one the most common methods of derailing discussions. It nicely sidesteps most further logical argument. I attempted to put a stop to it by throwing some humor on the suggestion, not you personally.

Ah humor! Excuses then, I misunderstood. Reducing something to a real world perspective is, of course, derailing a discussion too. I believe it and I already said that it boils down to beliefs. You can discuss beliefs, but reducing it to 'I am the only one who stems from the real world, you don't seem to, therefor my view is true" is an ad hominem.

EDIT: Let's stop this thread, at least questioning me. I commented on socialism, and gave some answers to questions what I found on capitalism and socialism. That should be enough.

EDIT: I am not going to respond anymore on this thread but as an example why capitalism is amoral: Do we have a financial crisis? We don't. We have a human crisis. Capitalism just works, but since it was never designed to really solve human problems, it is in need of constant fixing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<h2>1. Are corporations and governments mentioned in the Bible as being considered people?</h2><p>No, the Bible does not specifically mention corporations or governments as being considered people. However, there are passages that discuss the actions and responsibilities of individuals and groups, which can be applied to corporations and governments in certain contexts.</p><h2>2. What does the Bible say about the relationship between corporations and governments?</h2><p>The Bible does not directly address the relationship between corporations and governments. However, it does speak about the responsibilities and duties of both individuals and governing authorities, which can be applied to the relationship between corporations and governments.</p><h2>3. Can corporations and governments be held accountable for their actions according to the Bible?</h2><p>Yes, the Bible teaches that all individuals and groups, including corporations and governments, will be held accountable for their actions before God. This includes being responsible for upholding justice and acting with integrity in all their dealings.</p><h2>4. Are corporations and governments considered equal to individuals in the eyes of God?</h2><p>The Bible teaches that all individuals, regardless of their social status or position, are equal in the eyes of God. However, corporations and governments are not considered equal to individuals as they do not have the same rights and responsibilities as individual human beings.</p><h2>5. Does the Bible condone the actions of corporations and governments?</h2><p>The Bible does not condone any actions that go against God's principles of justice, honesty, and love for others. While there may be examples of corporations and governments acting in line with these principles in the Bible, there are also instances where they are portrayed as acting unjustly or corruptly. Ultimately, the Bible calls for all individuals and groups to act in accordance with God's will and to seek justice and righteousness in all their actions.</p>

1. Are corporations and governments mentioned in the Bible as being considered people?

No, the Bible does not specifically mention corporations or governments as being considered people. However, there are passages that discuss the actions and responsibilities of individuals and groups, which can be applied to corporations and governments in certain contexts.

2. What does the Bible say about the relationship between corporations and governments?

The Bible does not directly address the relationship between corporations and governments. However, it does speak about the responsibilities and duties of both individuals and governing authorities, which can be applied to the relationship between corporations and governments.

3. Can corporations and governments be held accountable for their actions according to the Bible?

Yes, the Bible teaches that all individuals and groups, including corporations and governments, will be held accountable for their actions before God. This includes being responsible for upholding justice and acting with integrity in all their dealings.

4. Are corporations and governments considered equal to individuals in the eyes of God?

The Bible teaches that all individuals, regardless of their social status or position, are equal in the eyes of God. However, corporations and governments are not considered equal to individuals as they do not have the same rights and responsibilities as individual human beings.

5. Does the Bible condone the actions of corporations and governments?

The Bible does not condone any actions that go against God's principles of justice, honesty, and love for others. While there may be examples of corporations and governments acting in line with these principles in the Bible, there are also instances where they are portrayed as acting unjustly or corruptly. Ultimately, the Bible calls for all individuals and groups to act in accordance with God's will and to seek justice and righteousness in all their actions.

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
5
Replies
153
Views
17K
  • General Discussion
Replies
28
Views
9K
Replies
78
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
4
Replies
121
Views
10K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
7
Replies
235
Views
19K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
4K
Back
Top