Individual human rights and liberties should transcend or out-rank the rights given to corporations.

Ok, we are getting closer to the issue."..There is absolutely nothing a corporation itself can do to others - it is completely for legal purposes."A case can and has been made to illustrate how many corporations are designed to camouflage illegal activities. An example would be the recent HSBC scandal."I do believe that we need some form of regulations in factories that help keep the air clean and make sure that people are not put into unsafe conditions. There should also be some sort of health regulations that make sure that the food you are getting is well made and no products have any toxic chemicals in it."While you admit that regulation is needed to limit the negative impact of these corporations, it is my assertion that such corporations should be outlawed if their activities are known or proven to be deadly to individuals or the general public. In the same way that GMO production and products have been banned in several countries. In fact, many countries will not accept food exported from the U.S. that contains GMO's. [1] This same food is sold unlabeled in the U.S. to unwitting and financially cornered individuals.At the heart of this debate is the question of whether the profits or profatability of corporations overshadows or overrides the safety or right to life and liberty of the general public. As the profits mainly benefit a small minority of the public (commonly referred to as the 1%) I do not think these corporate-persons deserve such entitlements.It seems relevant to review how these corporate persons received such broad leeway or latitude."After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society. Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*: Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws. Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose. Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose. Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm. Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job. Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making. For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow... In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation. In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court’s decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III...Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passed to circumvent the (Dartmouth College v Woodward) ruling... As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people’s message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state’s powers over “artificial bodies.” But the men running corporations pressed on. Contests over charter were battles to control labor, resources, community rights, and political sovereignty. More and more frequently, corporations were abusing their charters to become conglomerates and trusts. They converted the nation’s resources and treasures into private fortunes, creating factory systems and company towns... The industrial age forced a nation of farmers to become wage earners, and they became fearful of unemployment–a new fear that corporations quickly learned to exploit. Company towns arose. and blacklists of labor organizers and workers who spoke up for their rights became common. When workers began to organize, industrialists and bankers hired private armies to keep them in line. They bought newspapers to paint businessmen as heroes and shape public opinion. Corporations bought state legislators, then announced legislators were corrupt and said that they used too much of the public’s resources to scrutinize every charter application and corporate operation... Corporate executives paid “borers” to infest Congress and state capitals, bribing elected and appointed officials alike...During this time, legislators were persuaded to give corporations limited liability, decreased citizen authority over them, and extended durations of charters. Attempts were made to keep strong charter laws in place, but with the courts applying legal doctrines that made protection of corporations and corporate property the center of constitutional law, citizen sovereignty was undermined. As corporations grew stronger, government and the courts became easier prey. They freely reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution and transformed common law doctrines. One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of “corporate personhood,” thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a “natural person.”... From that point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional “personhood.” Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these “rights,” corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, even judges and the law. A United States Congressional committee concluded in 1941, “The principal instrument of the concentration of economic power and wealth has been the corporate charter with unlimited power….” Many U.S.-based corporations are now transnational, but the corrupted charter remains the legal basis for their existence...[2] "..Without person-hood, you cannot sure the corporation, you have to sue the individual..." The artical you quoted states "..investors in a failed business could land in debtors’ prison if they couldn’t cover the business’s losses. .." Holding the owners and investors responsible for criminal and deadly actions would not bring an end to the economy. When bankers were bailed out, the public took the brunt of the damage. Fathers who owe child support are sent to jail. Accesories to crimes are sent to jail. Why should corporations and their investors be treated any different? Iceland seems to have found a way to survive after punishing corporate criminals. : "Iceland's Supreme Court has upheld convictions of market manipulation for four former executives of the failed Kaupthing bank in a landmark case that the country's special prosecutor said showed it was possible to crack down on fraudulent bankers..."This case...sends a strong message that will wake up discussion,"..."It shows that these financial cases may be hard, but they can also produce results."...the country's efforts contrast with the United States and particularly Europe, where though some banks have been fined, few executives have been tried and voters suffering post-crisis austerity conditions feel bankers got off lightly..."It is dangerous that someone is too big to investigate - it gives a sense there is a safe haven.""[3] .."Think of corporations like a political party...They are for profit and nothing but profit.." I would rather not think of corporations as political parties, as they are for profit not the well being of the society. As stated, we live in a corporatocracy. Giving corporations political power is a danger that was warned against by the founders of the U.S.. "..Corporations are set up for profit. They are not set up for sympathy..." Outlawing deadly corporate activity is not sympathy, it is justice. "Nigeria is a Western African nation with huge oil deposits..." If we are to be honest, the only reason for the world's dependence on oil is because the global elite have a vested interest in its continuance. There are several more ecologically friendly sources currently available. They are kept off the market because they either provide more consumer sovereignty or methods of monopolization have not been formulated by the global corporate barons. "...freedom of religion as an example for my next argument..." As stated, religion does not spread toxic and deadly material that is unavoidabkle into the environment. "..corporations are moving to China due to their low regulations.." While this may be partially true, corporation in the U.S. are mainly moving to avoid paying livable wages to employees in the states and to create tax shelters. http://www.thenation.com... [1]http://reclaimdemocracy.org... [2]http://www.cnbc.com... [3]