A CORPORATION IS NOT A PERSON.

A corporation is a piece of paper. Who's calling a corporation a person? Yes, they are made up of people, what is your point?

The piece(s) of paper to which you refer is merely the legal documentation necessarily filed with any and all required governing bodies to establish a corporation as an entity and not the entity itself. As far as "Who's calling a corporation a person?": the SCOTUS.

Although it's been several days since the original post, on the off-chance you didn't get curious and strike out on your own, for more information see: CORPORATE PERSONHOOD.

I understand the concept and why a corporate entity should be able to enjoy certain rights. Thanks for being polite about it though, it's rare here. Again, what is the message you're trying to convey?

Do you have a problem with the idea of rights in general? Do you dislike the idea of a corporation as a whole? Is it profits and success that bother you? My suspicion is that you're probably just anti-capitalist. Sound about right?

Perhaps you're a proponent of the idea that if only the State controlled everything, there would be peace and harmony for all! Am i getting closer to your ideal system of governance?

My suspicion is that you're probably just anti-capitalist. Sound about right?
You're not even close; capitalism is the natural product of quid pro quo when supply is weighed against demand. If demand is high but supply is low, it's logical that valuation should reflect scarcity via increased cost of obtention. Where supply is high but demand is low, it's also logical that valuation should reflect surplus via decreased cost of obtention. What is illogical is where both supply and demand are high and cost of obtention is still increased.

The message is unambiguous and stated by the title of the meme: a corporation is not a person.

Now, to address your further questions:

Do you have a problem with the idea of rights in general?
No, I'm a strict Constitutionalist. And, as a strict Constitutionalist, for me it follows that, as the most important Rights set forth in the Amendments specify pertinence to the individual Person, and, as a corporation is not a Person, corporations should enjoy no Constitutional Rights which do not function as broad-spectrum regulatives nor should corporations enjoy Constitutional Rights in instances where exercise of said Rights subsumes the Rights of the individual Person.

To wit: an employee of a corporation is a Person who is a corpuscular body of the corporation. As the Person cannot surrender their Constitutional Rights to the corporation, should that corporation publicly endorse a person/place/thing, such endorsement subsumes the Rights of the employed Person IF, by endorsing said person/place/thing, the corporation's publicly voiced endorsement runs contrary to the employed Person's own opinions, as the corporation has effectively spoken for the employed Person and in opposition to the employed Person's opinion. To pare it down: say the group to which you belong states that the group is of the opinion that androphagy is acceptable. The position of androphagic acceptability is not your opinion but the group has spoken for you and, in such instance, trampled your First Amendment Right by naming you adherent to an opinion to which you don't subscribe.

Do you dislike the idea of a corporation as a whole?
No; corporations are a natural extension of business growth and, as such, can be reasoned a managerial necessity.

Is it profits and success that bother you?
Not at all as there would be no point to business if profits were eliminated; by extension, where profits occur, success is simultaneous.

Perhaps you're a proponent of the idea that if only the State controlled everything, there would be peace and harmony for all! Am I getting closer to your ideal system of governance?
No, you're drifting further and further away. Left to self-regulate, business becomes malignant; where profits are all that matter and no rules apply, all is legal in the acquisition of profits regardless how destructive, detrimental or dishonest the means of obtention. Conversely, where population welfare is all that matters, all is provided and controlled by government, there is no incentive to excel, society stagnates and government becomes malignant as the necessities of maintaining production dictate forced labor. The tricky part is striking a balance between extremes; Capitalism must be regulated just enough to keep it from becoming predatory in its pursuit of profit and Socialism must be indulged just enough to keep society running smoothly but not so much as to allow for idle hands. This is where the current governmental model of the United States comes in; what we have is one of the best games running --but it could do with some tweaking on both the Capitalism and Socialism sides by people who aren't wrapped up in partisanship, owned by big-money interests, crazy, stupid or some unfortunate mix of the four. If you've been paying attention to the people in Congress, you've probably figured out that most of its members -both sides of the aisle- are working from that same four-color palette.

Sure, corruption is a problem in pretty much every country on this planet. Yep, there are self-serving, evil, greedy humans out there. No amount of legislation will EVER change that. I disagree with your pessimistic attitude that “left to self-regulate, business [people] becomes malignant.” Nope, most people don’t become “malignant” when left to “self-regulate”. In a capitalist society, I’d argue the opposite is true. Sure, there is a certain percentage of bad apples, but nowhere near the majority, which is what you’re suggesting. When people in pursuit of profits become “destructive, detrimental or dishonest” we have plenty Western Law in place to correct the behavior. The LAST thing we need to counter problems such as corruption is to further inflate the extremely bloated federal government with more regulators and regulations. What would really help out is an honest, non-partisan media, which is completely absent today. I certainly agree with you there, partisanship is out of control, especially the propaganda arm of Left in the USA aka. “The Mainstream Media”. Yep, big-money interests and K street lobbyists wield too much influence as well, agreed. What types of “tweaks” would the non-partisan, financially unmotivated, sane, and brilliant XiaoJia make if they were in charge?

Please provide an example of where capitalism in America is falling short because “supply and demand [of something] are high” and the cost of obtaining said good/service is “still increased.” I’m still leaning towards believing that you aren’t a proponent of capitalism. Stating a rudimentary synopsis of supply & demand isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement on your part.

Do you live in a country where people are not free to leave a job and find employment elsewhere if their current employer endorses “opinions” that are contrary to their beliefs/morals? I can’t agree with your premise that corporate personhood “tramples First Amendment Rights” of its employees. In your hypothetical, an employee of a corporation has had their rights trampled if said corporation publicly voices that cannibalism is acceptable. When a group of people working together as a corporation decide that something as barbaric as eating other people is acceptable, guess what happens? Free people detach themselves from it. They don’t work there, they don’t buy their products or retain their services. I wish you had used a more realistic situation to make your point.