Posted by: "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE" | January 24, 2010

Lytle’s thoughts on Corporate Personhood

Story @

Jeffrey Lytle’s thoughts excerpted below (refer to link):

January 21, 2010 at 1:16 pm

The blue canton within the flag is not big enough to hold all those icons that will represent money and power interests.

January 21, 2010 at 6:55 pm

Hey Rose,

I have to say this about local politics and Supervisors,

there are those that “buy”; there are those who “group-up”; AND, there are those who APPOINT!

If I missed any one entity, I apologize.

January 22, 2010 at 2:03 pm

Unions = 51.5% +/- registered Union Members work for…………………………….


Hmmmm, so public employees have to be protected from their public employers (superiors – Respondet Superior – not tax payers) too – public employers who lobby to set rules for employment practices and standards; yet, break the very rules they enforce upon the private sector? So, are “unions” being used between government(public sector) and the private sector to choreograph a transformation to create something they are yet to reveal to the general public in so far as the type of economy methodology to be used to save the buttox of this country and it’s debt obligations?

Unions do not “realistically” allow for equal rights to work for ALL citizens. Many Corporate Unions play the favortism game. Sorry, but the truth is this – as individuals, if you can’t stand up for yourself against defrauding employers, then don’t work for them, find employment elsewhere – you should not have to pay into a “protection fund”!!!!!!!!!

Trusting another to truly know your soul and feelings over employment related issues is like trusting an unattended kid in a candy store to not eat the candy for which you said not too.

January 24, 2010 at 11:02 am

So, which two corporations are marriage material for the anti prop. 8er’s?

Corporate Personhood is fraud! Worse yet, TREASON

January 24, 2010 at 11:25 am


Why do you think it is ok if there is no limited liability? Corporations are not living people – the people that work for corporations are living people; and, they already have free speech rights.

I WILL NEVER AGREE TO CORPORATE PERSONHOOD, but until the law changes, I must follow the constitution. It is economic and social treason at minimum, pure and simple – but again, laws on the books must change before this issue reverses course.

For the Record – I was against Measure “T” because it was unconstitutional. This is where the fight shall remain for C.P. – in the courts; or, the consumer just needs to decide whether or not they spend their money in a non-corporate fashion. I just don’t see how this issue gets resolved without judicial processes. So, until then, money flows where money goes. Money buys everything, including debt.

January 24, 2010 at 12:13 pm


Huh? I never implied any one individual or group was stupid. As far as disagreement – political, economic, judicial, social and idividual disagreements CAN be tooling used to justify positions – positions which become baseless, unless any argument that “can be made to sound sensible” is made, regardless of the facts. This is what acknowledging other arguments does – it rationalizes a position based on facts presented and the non-facts being usurped into the arguments to justify that argument.

Your post reads like I never have read anything about this issue before. I admit, I have NOT READ EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS; but, I have done my fair share of research and reading to understand the problem created by two unlike entities. We can agree to disagree – real individualism versus fictitious embodiments. Until the laws change, society is compelled to recognize the laws on the books and court decisions even though we disagree.

Change the Law constitutionally or don’t spend your money – these are the minimal choices it appears.

I am open to listening to any arguments supported by acknowledged or proveable facts, which is partly why I love to learn, read and write; and, write, read and learn – communication back and forth is constructive until manipulation becomes involved, then it is deconstructive. I am sure this issue will boil into the future.

January 24, 2010 at 12:29 pm


I whole-heartedly agree! Yet, where do all these arguments, that I am sure both of us have seen in some capacity, flow?

I can tell you where these arguments flow – right back to that which they originated. History is always important!

January 24, 2010 at 1:11 pm

Here is a thought for corporate personhood thinking:

economic versus non-economic

Corporation as an economic tool = individual personhood

each employee/owner of that corporation = individual personhood


An individual = individual personhood

An individual is not 100% an economic entity; rather, an individual is BOTH an economic entity AND a natural entity who should not be punished merely for existing as any human being could or would exist.

Corporate Personhood punishes individuals, period.

******* Acknowledgement to Plain Jane *******

Plain Jane Says:
January 24, 2010 at 1:16 pm

“If I have a right to do something, and you have a right to do something, and we get together and sign a contract establishing “The You and Me Group, Inc.” to do that thing together, it’s not obvious to me that “The You and Me Group, Inc.” doesn’t have the same rights that you and I have. It sounds funny when you call it a person, but that’s just shorthand for saying that our rights don’t end when we sign a contract with one another to collaborate.”

Mitch, no one is saying that people who form corporations should lose their rights. That isn’t the issue. Corporations are property, not people. Giving property the rights of people without the same responsibilities is absurd. An immortal corporate “person” with limited liability but magnified political power is a recipe for disaster, as our founders knew well.

Jeffrey Lytle – Humboldt County 5th District Supervisor candidate



%d bloggers like this: