Why Corporations Should Not Have the Same Rights as Living People

Should corporations be granted the same rights as living individuals? This question has sparked much debate, particularly in the realm of corporate governance, legal protections, and ethical considerations. The reasons behind granting such rights are often tied to tax purposes, liability protection, and stock purchases, rather than the corporation itself being a living entity with inherent rights.

The Argument Against

One of the primary arguments against granting corporations the same rights as living individuals is the fundamental nature of corporate identity. A corporation is a legal entity created by people to serve various business purposes. It does not have a life in the sense that a living person does; it is governed by a set of rules and has no right to life or right to speak as a living organism would. Each individual within a corporation does possess these rights, and the rights of the corporation are a collective extension of those individuals' rights.

Right to Life and Legal Personhood

The right to life is a fundamental human right. As a corporation is not a living organism, it inherently does not have a right to life. The suggestion that corporations should have the same rights as living individuals raises significant moral and ethical questions. For instance, if a corporation could be equated to a living person, would this imply that it could have rights to ownership similar to a living person, such as the right to a home or the right to vote? The answer is no, because these rights are intrinsically tied to the existence of a living, breathing individual.

Free Speech and Rights of the Collective

Another aspect is the right to free speech. If a person inside a corporation wields this right, they do so as an individual, and not as a corporate entity. Free speech is a crucial liberty that ensures the public can engage in lively and frank discourse. However, within a corporation, the right to free speech should not override ethical considerations. For example, a corporation might have the right to free speech, but this does not give it the right to speak in ways that harm individuals or society. If a corporation were equivalent to a living person, then the government’s ability to censure speech on the basis of corporate affiliation would become a significant threat to individual freedom of speech.

Barriers to Collective Rights

Consider the scenario where a corporation is deemed to have the same rights as a living individual. If that were the case, the government would face immense challenges in managing collective corporate actions, as it would need to define the limits and scope of corporate rights. Laws would become complex and hard to enforce. For example, if a corporation could be granted standing in court as an individual, it could file lawsuits based on rights, much like a person would. However, this could potentially hinder the government’s ability to enforce laws and regulations that benefit society as a whole.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while corporations play a vital role in our economic and social structures, there is a strong case against equating them with living individuals. The rights of corporations are privileges extended to them by law for specific purposes, such as tax advantages and liability protection. These rights are not inherent in the way human rights are. Therefore, it is essential to maintain a clear distinction between the rights of corporations and the rights of living individuals to ensure a fair and just society.