Freedom vs There ought to be a law.

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I was listening to a political call in show the other day. I rarely listen to these types of shows but I was driving accross the province and couldn't pick up any other channel. Shocked

An old guy called in and said (paraphrasing here) "Back in the day.... When he first came to Canada and something happened, good, bad or otherwise... People would shrug and say well 'at least we live in a free country'. Now people say 'well there ought to be a law'."
There are laws for everything now and people seem to want more. So, in these litigious times do you think our freedoms have diminished? Do we rely on 'the law' too much? Are we less 'free' or has law given us more freedom. I rarely hear people speak of freedom anymore except in platitudes relating to our geography. Have we forsaken common sense in order to facilitate stupity?
Thanks,
Ceili

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,788 • Replies: 23

No top replies

Whether or not misguided, i think that the flurry of legislation (in the U.S., at least) in the late twentieth century arose from a desire to assure that our "freedoms" were available to everyone, and that no one was exploited. This meant laws to protect us from defective products, because the individual alone cannot combat large, wealthy and therefore powerful corporations. This meant laws to assure that others were free from the fear of persecution or discrimination based upon a description of them (female, gay or of whatever "foreign" descent). This meant laws to attempt more economic equity by preventing fraud and short-circuiting venality in big business and investing.

I would point out how easy fraud and prejudicial oppression were a century ago, and the extent to which governments have attempted to redress those injustices, for however clumsily they may be alleged to have done so. These days, i'd say it is not so much a case of "there oughta be a law," as it is that there ought to be genuine and vigilant enforcement of the body of law already in place.

0 Replies

Setanta- Agree. I think that in the last number of decades, people have given up some of their freedoms for safety and comfort. As a result, apparently, whether promulgated by Republicans or Democrats, the thrust of government is having it control more and more of the lives of its citizens.

The only difference betwwn the two parties, is that they are focused somewhat differently, on different issues. But the intent is exactly the same!

0 Replies

The parties are nearly identical, too, Phoenix. Their partisans rant about the extremist from either end, simply because there is so little difference in the main stream. The first consciously organized party in this country was Jefferson's Republican party. As it fragmented, Jackons created a truly modern, well-organized party which became the Democratic party. John Quincy Adams and his colleagues tried to organize the remainder with those wandering the halls of Congress without a party, but failed. However, the effort was resumed by the Rippon Society, and we got the Republicans.

There is little to choose between the two parties, but that is largely because the Democrats lack the balls to push through the programs they promise, but don't deliver. Sadly, for a generation, Democrats have abandoned the FDR New Deal tradition, and have become wannabe Republicans.

I'm getting ill now, talk to you later . . .

0 Replies

Setanta has said what I would like to have said. I only vote for a major political party's candidate when I feel there is no realistic way around it. The rest of the time I search out third party candidates to "waste" my vote on.

0 Replies

Bookmark

0 Replies

EB, i'm less virtuous than you--sometimes i get so disgusted i just don't vote. I voted for John Anderson, but just didn't vote four years later. I took a pass in 1988, too. But i've been more virtuous since then, for all the damned good it does.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I would point out how easy fraud and prejudicial oppression were a century ago, and the extent to which governments have attempted to redress those injustices, for however clumsily they may be alleged to have done so.

This is a great point. Many of the laws were well intended but badly worded and others were "stretched" to encompass things that were never intended. Once you have a basic law in place it's also usually easier to "tack on" something at a later date without anyone noticing so things kind of "crept up" on people. Another important shift was the use of the courts to stretch the meaning of the laws that were written. It is something that has happen to some extent all along but is much more frequent now thn it ever was.

Ceili wrote:

Have we forsaken common sense in order to facilitate stupity?

I don't know about Canada but this is the case here in MA. The number of state and local laws/ordinances is astounding here. I've never seen anything like it anywhere else.

0 Replies

Also, Fishin', there are many cases in which new legislation or statute is enacted in response to court rulings, in the attempt to accomplish a purpose with language which will withstand judicial scrutiny. Just more law heaped on the pile.

0 Replies

The more corrupt a society, the more numerous its laws.

0 Replies

Apparently there is very little difference between the two countries. I understand why many 'laws' were put in place. But has the basic premise been stretched too far.
Everything must now have a label - don't get shampoo in your eyes, coffee can't be served too hot, fat people need a scapegoat, smokers, gamblers and drinkers sue over bad habits, cameras grace most corners and gathering places yada, yada... Then along comes the patriot act and no real voice of dissention is heard.
Is it fear or have we become desensitized.

Thanks for all the answers so far.
Ceili

0 Replies

The Patriot Act Is Anti-American
"Then along comes the patriot act and no real voice of dissention is heard."

Wrong!!!!

There has been a lot of dissention!!!!

0 Replies

I would very much like to see a well researched history + analysis of the effects on our political system of granting "corporate personhood." If one is looking for major missteps which have led to today's problems, that could well have been a major one.

0 Replies

Given limited liability legislation, Tart, which was necessary to spur continued individual investiment, which was in turn the fuel for industrial development, the law left no means for making corporations responsible for the effects of their causes. A legal view of a corporation as a discreet entity with assets and responsibilities allows for civil litigation to protect consumers and small government entities such as municipalities and counties, all of whom would otherwise lack the clout and the deep pockets which would be required to affix individual responsibility for a corporate cause and effect. The government can still criminally prosecute the individual officers of a corporation, while that corporation's putative victims have a remedy to get redress from the assets of the corporate entity.

0 Replies

Wouldn't you like to see a really good analysis of the fallout in terms of influence on political outcomes?

0 Replies

Mebbe, i dunno . . . my sweetie just called, so i'm tryin' to talk an' read . . .

0 Replies

You mean you'd rather talk with your sweetie than start the research on OneHundredFiftyYearsOfCorporatePersonhood? Sick!

0 Replies

Okay, okay. I've done it. Here it is. Can sleep now... if I live in Santa Clara...

Orthodoxy has it the Supreme Court decided in 1886, in a case called Santa Clara County v. the Southern Pacific Railroad, that corporations were indeed legal persons. I express that view myself, in a recent book. So do many others. So do many law schools. We are all wrong.
Mr. Hartmann undertook instead a conscientious search. He finally found the contemporary casebook, published in 1886, blew the dust away, and read Santa Clara County in the original, so to speak. Nowhere in the formal, written decision of the Court did he find corporate personhood mentioned. Not a word. The Supreme Court did NOT establish corporate personhood in Santa Clara County.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1226-04.htm

0 Replies

I find this interesting, worth posting.

Quote:

What would be the immediate effect of revoking corporate personhood?

The only immediate effect of revoking corporate personhood, either at the state level or by the Supreme Court, would be to cause the legal status of corporations to revert back to that of artificial entities. (We should refuse to use the old terminology of artificial persons.) They could still be represented in courts by attorneys and would be subject to the law and taxation.
However, a whole body of Supreme Court decisions would have to be re-examined. The ability of States, when granting or renewing corporate charters, to restrict harmful activities of corporations would be greatly enhanced. New legislation to protect the environment, workers, small businesses, and consumers could be enacted without worrying that it would be struck down by the Supreme Court.

How would small businesses be affected?

Small, incorporated businesses would become artificial entities under the law. Most small businesses have gained no meaningful advantage from corporate personhood. Small businesses do not have the kind of money it takes to corrupt the political process that large corporations have. Small businesses would be better situated to protect their interests since laws favoring local businesses over national and international corporations would become legal.
If corporations can't lobby, how can they get laws that are fair to them?
Revoking corporate personhood would not immediately prevent corporations from lobbying, but it would allow laws to be passed (and enforced) that would restrict corporate lobbying and campaign contributions. If a state legislature or Congress is considering legislation that affects a particular industry they would be able to hold hearings and interrogate corporate representatives. If a corporation feels its needs a change in the laws, not for its own profits but in order to insure competition or public safety, it could petition the legislature to hold such a hearing.

What about past harms done by corporate personhood?

That is an interesting question with no certain answer. The Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws (laws that punish for deeds committed before the law was written), and properly so. However, revoking corporate personhood does not create an ex post facto law. It may be possible to force corporations to rectify damage they did to the environment during the era of corporate personhood.

Would the media lose its freedom of the press and free speech?

The ruling that corporate ads on political and social issues is free speech could be overturned, but the corporate media would continue to have freedom of the press. New legislation would be needed to restrict corporations to ownership of a single radio or TV station, newspaper, or magazine and to insure that individual and non-corporate voices could be heard as well.
How will revoking corporate personhood affect non-profit corporations?
Non-profit corporations would continue to operate as the artificial entities that they are. However, it would be possible to restrict for-profit corporations from working for corporate interests.

Why don't unions have corporate personhood?

Unions don't have corporate personhood, even though they are also, legally, artificial entities, because unions have never fought to get it. Unions have largely avoided the court system, correctly seeing it as the home court of their enemies.

Why do you want to restrict the freedom of stockholders and people who work for corporations?

This is a trick question. Corporate lawyers and propagandists will try to get people who work for corporations to support corporate personhood by lying to them about the effects of revocation. In fact individuals, whether they work for corporations or not, will retain all of the freedoms recognized in the constitution. In addition, individuals will have their freedom enhanced by not having their liberty overpowered by the rule of corporations. Only the artificial entity of the corporation will be redefined to have restrictions on its liberty.

Wouldn't we lose the power to tax and regulate corporations?

In the art of lying it is hard to surpass corporate lawyers. They have managed to place in the minds of law students, in the texts of some law books, and in the public mind, the idea that corporate personhood is necessary to bring corporations under rule of law. This is such a big lie it is amazing that they can tell it with a straight face. Corporations were taxed when they were artificial entities, long before they were granted personhood. They were more subject to the rule of law, not less, before receiving personhood. Read up on the history; don't be fooled again.

http://www.iiipublishing.com/afd/santaclara.html

0 Replies

Well, i hadn't known what you meant by "corporate personhood" when you sprung it on me, so my answer was indeed naive. Didn't know you had an axe to grind, Tart.

Just one more reason why i should stick to my former resolution not to respond to anything you post. I don't like being made a sucker so you can bring up your favorite personal rants.

0 Replies

Freedom vs There ought to be a law.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know