Honsoku
Posts: 422
Joined: 6/26/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
H; you assume that removing their rights result in them having no representation and that is a false premise. Removing rights would only force them to fall back on the privleges once allotted to them in the first place.
MAking small changes does nothing. Putting a bandaid on a cut to cure cancer is a joke frankly. The only way to cure the corporate cancer is to cut it out, remove the cancer and start afresh.
Since you feel removing corporate rights which by default falls back to privileges (since those privileges are still on the books and only ignored as a result of the court ruling), exactly how will this be such a horrible blow to this country? I’ve explained this to you already. Either you see it or you don’t.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Honsoku
It will seriously harm media related industries as they rely on first amendment protections to operate. The first amendment protects the press, and media outlets by extension, from censorship (regardless of whether this is a strict interpretation or not). You pull their first amendment protections, and the government will slowly squash them as they see fit.
quote:
Yes and that is the only "right" afforded to the "press", that does not carry forward to imply or infer they have any other rights beyond freedom of speech as a corporeal human has, such that charters still apply and likewise all other standard privileges still apply as with any other corporation. Where does being the "press" begin and end?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Honsoku
The "being sued is such a privilege" was a joke which apparently fell flat for you. He talked about removing corporate rights, I responded with what I thought he was talking about (the removal of a corporation's legal treatment as a person), you in turned called what I was talking about, privileges. The ability to be sued is a part of the corporation's legal treatment as a person, therefore a "privilege" hence why it was funny.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
They are capable of being taxed and sued as an artificial entity that represents a group of people conducting commerce under that named entity. An easy way to understand this is simply to call a corporation a "straw man".
Being part of a corporation was once upon a time a privilege until this ruling and much of the taxation was paid by them. Specifically war taxes since they got the greatest benifit, and likewise the ability to buy in greater quantity than the private business owner. Hence the privilege and hence the applied "luxury" taxes they had to pay in those days. What purpose does this serve? How does this influence any point of the discussion? I explained a joke and you go on ranting.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Honsoku
There would have to be a monitoring system with your method as well. An even more complicated one as they would have to be looking for more subtle means of influence. A law without policing or enforcement does nothing. Do you think that because there is a law, that magically all that money just looking to buy influence will magically dry up? Of course not, it will find some other means. Where there is a will, there is a way. Do you really think that such a law would be set up in a manner to put the perpetrators out of business? It is far more likely that they would just be fined. The soft money cap is better, as it keeps both corporations and wealthy individuals from overly influencing politics. If you kill the ability of corporations to donate money, what keeps them from just giving the money to an individual to donate?
Read up on on campaign financing laws. Corporations already are not allowed to donate to a specific candidate for federal elections. Non-federal elections are covered by state law.
Pulling a corporation's first amendment rights has no direct bearing on their ability to pollute. Pollution does not constitute free speech.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne Yes and while this is not a cure all for that subtle influence it at least makes it unlawfull and punishable. (in a real republic)
Sure it will find some other way but using a scapel does nothing to get this pointed in the right direction. At least the broadswrd provides a method to make some real change and we would have to deal with their subtlties as they come up.
Not really. Companies would find other legal ways to exercise that influence. Here is the difference in conception. I see a system where changes end up getting magnified and having major unintended consequences as people respond to them. I see a system where small changes cascade through society. You see a system where changes get trivialized. quote:
The whole point here is who has the power. Corporations were always intended by the framers to be subject to the people for the very reasons you mentioned, and that is not the case. We are subject to the corps. If we are subject to the corps, it is because we have chosen to be so. Stop giving them money, and stop electing candidates which support them, and convince others to do the same. quote:
Yes they should FEAR being put out of business. DO you have any idea how many whistle blowers that would create in these corporations trying to protect their interests? The way it is they know they can get away with whatever they want, (att), and everyone keeps it hush hush. Or the fear of being put out of business will illicit the exact opposite response. The corporations will be fanatical at crushing whistle-blowing because it could cost the corporation it's existence. Which do you think is more likely? quote:
Remove their rights and now people will want to protect the corporation from being forced out of business due to corrupt management and while they may still sweep an incident under the table they will dump the perps as they now have incentive to correct the situation rather than depend on gov to bail them out with your money and mine. Unless the perps are the employers. Then they won't force themselves out. Unless you are referring to the shareholders. In that case, why would the shareholders be informed?
quote:
Nobody around to save my business if I go down why should anyone save theirs?
There is always someone or other businesses who will happily step in to fill the gap.
Maybe I was not clear.
They must have the freedom of speech, I assumed we all realized that. Beyond that they should be stripped of the unconstitutional rights given to them by a supreme court that redefined the meaning of the framers. Freedom of speech includes political speech, which puts this right back to where we started, with the government in corporate america’s back pocket. Congrats.
quote:
I make that decision. I am the state. I decide with my votes. (in the republic that we no longer have)
The federal supreme court is the federal government and they are the only ones making the rules now days since congress could care less about protecting our rights and has not cared less since the late 1800's.
That is exactly what is happening, att committed high crimes against the people and congress passes legislation to sweep it under the carpet.
The system as it is has a cancer that needs much more than a broadswword to remove. You are the state along with everyone else, apparently they don’t agree with you. quote:
ORIGINAL: Honsoku
What does all this have to do with anything? Why does their advantage over the small business man matter in this issue? Corporate charters are a state power, not a national one. They decide what the requirements are for a corporation to get chartered. If you don't think the corporations are serving the public good enough, that's the problem of the state they are charted in (probably Delaware). You are going off on a tangent here.
quote:
Yes however case law provided by the federal supreme court trumps the state laws. These battles are always wind up being fought in federal courts and in the case of att who should be run right out of business they get off without even so much as a slap on the hand. That's because the participants keep escalating the case to higher courts. It has no bearing on whose responsibility it is. quote:
I think that any corporation that violates my constitutional rights should have their charter revoked and put squarely out of business.
Right they can go to delaware. lol
This is a good example how broad the cancer really is, and that is is impossible to repair with a scapl. Using a scapel will only give them time to readjust incrementally. Or time for us to adjust incrementally. You seem to have this notion that corporations are malevolent organizations. They are not the modern day boogeyman. quote:
ORIGINAL: Honsoku
It wouldn't rid us of Enrons and Worldcoms as those were accounting scandals, not political bribery ones. Accounting standards are not set by a government agency. It wouldn't magically bring integrity back when there is so much money to be made when one has a lack of it.
quote:
Of course its not a cure all for every problem that exists with corporations but it is certainly a step in the right direction and only proves my point. Your example was totally incorrect, how does that prove anything? You haven’t demonstrated that it is in the right direction at all. By your own words, the change you are seeking leaves in place the very mechanisms which you are railing against.
quote:
There will never be integrity in the media, politics or corporations. never. Integrity has to be legislated for all government.
Corporations are able to donate to the party in which the winning candidate is expected to fill the marker. come on. You can not legislate integrity. More determined people than you have tried. Major corporations tend to split party donations nearly 50/50 so it isn’t like they are putting a specific candidate in office, they are buying influence with the winner.
|
RE: Should Income be capped? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread