About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 11:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is such a rotting canard - like the Congress is not at present smothered in special interest? [oh, that's ok, because they not corporation, huh?] This is nothing but a variation of the progressive 'hate business' mentality that's been running amok for the past several years , and now, thanks to the Supreme Court, put back on an evening keel...

Grayson should be pilloried for his thuggie mindset...

Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 11:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Warren, in case you are not aware, Grayson is a particularly repulsive socialist demagog. And it is the fact that Congress regulates industries at the point of a gun that forces businessmen to run advertisements to oppose them. Yes, there are specific businesses which do lobby for inappropriate privileges such as ADM. But they should be individually criticized for their specific crimes, not the entire corporate world for the collusion of certain politicians and pull seekers.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 12:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've sanctioned Robert.... but doesn't your heart go out to all those poor, poor members of congress who are regularly tackled, and held down while evil corporate fat-cats stuff money in the hapless representatives' pockets and threatening to cut out the eyes of their children if they don't vote the right way... or worse, to cut off their campaign funds.
-----------------------

> 545 PEOPLE
> By Charlie Reese
>
> Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and
> then campaign against them.
>
> Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are
> against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
>
> Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation
> and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
>
> You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
>
> You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on
> appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
>
> You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
>
> You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
>
> You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
>
> One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme
> Court Justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are
> directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic
> problems that plague this country.
>
> I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that
> problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its
> Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally
> chartered, but private, central bank.
>
> I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.
> They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a
> senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing.
> I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash.
> The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what
> the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to
> determine how he votes.
>
> Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that
> what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common Con
> regardless of party.
>
> What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive
> amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker,
> who stood up and criticized the President for creating
> deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force
> the Congress to accept it.

> The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole
> responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and
> approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House?
> NancyPelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow
> House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want.
> If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they
> agree to.
>
> It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace
> 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence
> and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that
> is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp
> the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal
> government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to
> exist.
>
> If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
>
> If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
>
> If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.
>
> If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement
> plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
>
> There are no insolvable government problems.
>
> Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they
> hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and
> advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to
> regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not
> let them Con you into the belief that there exists disembodied
> mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that
> prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
>
> Those 545 people. They alone, are responsible.
>
> They, and they alone, have the power.
>
> They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are
> their bosses.
>
> Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
>
> We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
>
>
>
>Written by Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
------------------------

If those slimes of wall street (or the union bosses, or the lobbyists) don't have willing and eager crooks in Washington to bribe, not one dollar goes the wrong way and all non-governmental organizations have to get their money the old-fashioned way - voluntary exchanges between private citizens. That would leave a lot of lobbyists, lawyers, bureaucrats, and government cronies out trying to figure out how to make an honest living.

Former lobbyist asks new employer, "What do I do next?" and is told, "When the little bell goes off, you pull the basket of fries out of the oil and let it drain. And make sure you are always wearing your McDonalds' hat and smiling."


Post 3

Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 12:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What about the Vice President?

Post 4

Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 12:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The who??

Post 5

Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 12:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
further thoughts -

http://volokh.com/2010/01/22/should-people-acting-through-corporations-be-denied-constitutional-rights-because-corporations-are-state-created-entities/

Post 6

Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 11:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Funny, Robert, but he does break Senate ties.

Post 7

Sunday, January 24, 2010 - 3:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
philosborn2001 sent a message using the contact form at http://freespeechforpeople.org/contact.

I listened with great interest to the highly cogent debate hosted by Ian Masters on his "Background Briefing" between conservative constitutionalist professor John Eastman and John Boniface broadcast on KPFK.

The underlying issue, however, the elephant in the bedroom, was ignored.

From the text of the 14th Amendment:

" No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Ordinary flesh and blood persons do not have "limited liability."  True, they can declare bankruptcy, but if they form a contractual association, such as a partnership or a Massachusetts Trust (e.g., Calpers), then the partners or trustees are personally liable for the actions of the trust. If we then assume that the corporation is a "person," how is it consistent with the 14th Amendment that they are granted a special status in this regard?

To wit, in fact the state fiat limited liability is a license to steal, in the form of risks taken on the basis of immunity from consequences.  All risks that exceed the cap of the corporate assets are treated actuarially as equal to that cap, as the actual exposure is ltd.  Thus, as an example of the economic principle involved, for a nuclear power plant, the risks that exceed the congressionally mandated cap of $800million per incident are treated as equal to the limit.  Given that they are all equal, how does the corporate management deal with them?

It does so quite rationally by comparing the risk to the cost.  Those risks that can be dealt with cheaply are given preference, while those that are most expensive are simply ignored.  Thus, every test that I have heard of regarding security at these plants with regard to a determined terrorist attack has failed miserably, as protection against a sophisticated attack would be extremely expensive.

Thus, the unpaid risk taken by the corporation - which is a real thing that cannot simply be legislated out of existence - is shifted to the general public, who now have an inferior status, forbidden by the 14th Amendment, as a direct consequence.

These risks typically involve 1/10000 likelihood events, but when you have hundreds of thousands of corporations, then it is a sure bet that some of them will hit the jackpot, and then you have Bhopal or Exxon/Valdez or a successful attack on a major nuclear power plant that costs tens or hundreds of $billions.

In the long term, the only solution to this problem is the abolition of the corporation as such, as it is only that limited liability that makes it attractive as a form of business organization. However, there is a further implication that is essential to understand.

The corporation emerged as a favored business model because of a breakdown in the court systems.  It was the move of the courts from the Common Law model of strict equity to a model in which huge punitive damages could be assessed as social engineering that made ltd so essential.

As part and parcel of this same "Progressive" model of essentially fascism (state corporatism) the corporate replacement of the Trust and other business models which were based on private contracts was supposed to result in an economy that served the public interest.  However, the real backers of the "Trust Busting" that led directly to massive incorporation, were themselves the Rockefellers, DuPonts, etc., who understood that they would ultimately control the process via the regulatory Boards and other mechanisms, whose members would be selected via politics, which in turn would be bought and sold for their benefit.

To undercut this entire century-long process of corporatization, along with abolition of the corporation as a legal entity, it will also be necessary to reset the courts to the English Common Law form, in which punitive damages are entirely outlawed or severely capped, say to no more than double the actual damages.

Without this additional measure, it will be impossible to pass any amendment or legislation which will be correctly seen as undermining the general economy.  I.e., businesses have to control risk in order to function.

So, a general amendment that satisfies the criteria I outlined in brief above might include language such as:

"No person or association of persons shall be immune to any degree to the costs or consequences of their actions by legal fiat.  No person or association of persons shall be liable for damages in excess of actual damages and related costs of recovery for which they are responsible."

There's probably better wording.  However, that should take care of both the corporations - by eliminating limited liability - and the limitation of risk to something that can be dealt with via normal business procedures and mechanisms, such as insurance.

Thanks for your attention.


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Sunday, January 24, 2010 - 4:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Ordinary flesh and blood persons do not have 'limited liability.'"

So they have infinite liability? What does that mean? Not only blood from a stone, but an ocean of blood from a stone? All things human, even justice, are finite. Even a mass murderer can only be executed once.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 1/24, 7:14pm)


Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Monday, January 25, 2010 - 6:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ordinary flesh and blood persons do not have "limited liability."
Yes, they do. For example, I own common stock in several publicly-traded corporations (w/o being employed by them). If one of them loses in a huge lawsuit, the winner cannot come after my other assets. The lawsuit may cause the value of my stock to plummet, but no more. On the other hand, the winner may be able to go after the personal assets of the executives or directors of the corporation. If limited liability were as limited as much as you portray it, there would be no need for this kind of insurance.


(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 1/25, 6:04am)


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.