John and Ken argue over the conceptual similarities between corporations and individuals. John thinks the idea of corporations as persons is entirely ridiculous. Groups of persons are not the persons themselves. Ken insists that there are many similarities between the activity of groups and individuals - making promises, issuing statements, telling lies - that give the analogy credence. But for John, this can be recognized without conceptually combining the idea of groups and persons. Robert Monks joins the discussion and sides with John, asserting that to call a corporation a person is a dangerous misnomer. He explains how corporations were first introduced by Queen Elizabeth with the purpose of accountability to the public good in mind. This has long since been diluted. For him, the implication that corporations have power in the same way that individuals do is simply wrong. Rather, they are creatures of limited delegated authorities, which is why they cannot vote as persons do and - according to Monks - should not influence politics.
The discussion moves to Citizens United in the second segment. John and Ken question Monks about the Supreme Court’s thinking through the case. They then explore the type of ‘person’ that corporations are. Ken compares them to a person with eternal life. John prefers the view that they are some kind of disabled person, insensitive to human needs and with the sole goal of profit maximization, which Monks takes further and labels as a psychopath. Monks believes that if corporations are solely about wealth creation, their activities should be limited to such an endeavor and not extended to the political realm. However, Ken is not so convinced that political participation is not relevant to wealth maximization since the advocacy of certain candidates does financially benefit corporations - is it not why they do it, after all?
在最后一部分，辩论集中在不同类型的公司。蒙克斯不认为企业与工会有可比性，工会成员可以检查他们支持的议程，并决定他们的钱用在哪里。他认为公司的问题在于所有权。一百万业主实际上根本没有业主，造成非常有限的责任。他希望公司的所有者或股东被要求更多地为公共利益运营。Ken补充说，这是从股东到利益相关者的转变。然而，约翰以大学为例，质疑公司是否真的与财富创造有关。蒙克斯同意有非营利组织和慈善组织，但以营利组织为主。他还对媒体机构进行了区分，后者因其特定的事业而享有言论自由的权利。He thinks even when part of a larger multi-corporation, it is important that a legal differentiation is maintained between the subsidiary and parent comp, where rights can extend to one but not the other.
Roving Philosopher Report(Seek to 5:50): Jill Replobe looks at corporations as artificial persons as depicted in the 2003 documentaryThe Corporationbefore discussing the historical evolution of the idea with UC-Berkeley Law Professor Eric Taley. He explains how the 14th amendment, designed to offer equal rights to former slaves, first became applicable to corporations owing to a minor note made by a law clerk on a court case about railroads and taxes.
60-Second Philosopher(Seek to 48:48): Ian Shoales discusses the changed roles of some of the world’s largest corporations before taking the idea of corporations as persons to its reductio ad absurdum limits.
