FREEDOM IS RESTORED: 1st AMENDMENT WINS!

@OmSigDAVID,

On this matter I see it kicky's way. And I know we have a corporate manslaughter trial underway in France over the Concorde crash.

But they can't sentence the corporations to jail. Nor, harking back, to a whipping.

It's merely a legal device to ease the pain of those who lost loved ones in the accident, or Act of God. Which cannot be now we live in a Godless world. It must be somebody's fault now and thus compensation is due.

Not long ago, a coach crash down a ravine say, the locals would have rifled all the pockets and baggage, carried off the bits of coach they fancied and left the rest to nature. By the time a skull fetched up on a sandbank downstream, which the barefoot rascals played ball games with, all the inheritances had been settled and many an offspring catapulted into a mansion etc unexpectedly with the grief subsiding because only rich people travelled in coaches near ravines wheras all the Concorde passengers were in debt, or enough of them to cause this legal device to arise, and pinning the blame on a person is well nigh impossible because the corporation has a system of covering everybody's back a bit like musical chairs when you don't take a chair away when the music stops.

If you had thought that the Corporation is very concerned about the safety of its customers, as its PR staff insist, a little too insistently really, you might have been slightly hoodwinked into not considering the system for ensuring every back is covered and ensuring also that the cost of air travel is at a level far higher than would be the case if airlines were run on the same principles that applied to the boat people into Hong Kong.

Having somebody or thing to blame for your boiler exploding has been paid for in advance by you. And me.

So you can see Dave what the progess has been under the Christian dispensation with its enjoining us all to love our neighbours and the gun lobby saying that we don't. Possibly can't.

But it must be said that selling a system of covering everybody's back on a stream of warm syrup about being concerned for the safety of the corporation's customers has improved safety per passenger mile, even on treks to the Poles, and it has the added attraction to the corporation's staff of not only having their backs fireproof but looking virtuous at the same time.

The Chilcot Enquiry, which I am addicted to, is a case in point but in an extreme form. An extremely elaborate rhetoric is being used as an alternative to the shuffling of carpet slippers.

0 Replies

Clunk Click Every Trip.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Spendius, from reading your posts,
its not ez to figure out what the hell u have in mind.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

The last one was a sort of apology for double posting.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Spendius, from reading your posts,
its not ez to figure out what the hell u have in mind.

Do you feel that since corporations are legally the equivalent of people, they should be punished equivalently for crimes? For instance, if a person steals and they go to jail for a year, a corporation that does the same thing should then be put out of business for a year as an equivalent punishment. And if someone dies as a result of a corporation's activities, they should be tried for manslaughter and punished as a person would, by being banned from doing business for a certain time period (whatever the equivalent jail time would be), just as if the crime had been done by a person. What say you about that?

2 Replies

@kickycan,

kickycan wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Spendius, from reading your posts,
its not ez to figure out what the hell u have in mind.

Do you feel that since corporations are legally the equivalent of people, they should be punished equivalently for crimes? For instance, if a person steals and they go to jail for a year, a corporation that does the same thing should then be put out of business for a year as an equivalent punishment. And if someone dies as a result of a corporation's activities, they should be tried for manslaughter and punished as a person would, by being banned from doing business for a certain time period (whatever the equivalent jail time would be), just as if the crime had been done by a person. What say you about that?

Well, the first thing I have to say is that your question is BRILLIANT!!!

As I was reading along, I thought that u were going to ask
whether corporate officers, or the specific clerks or salesmen etc.
who perpetrated the offense shoud be incarcerated.

My goodness! If a natural person had committed the crime
whose penalty is a year in jail, the corporation shoud be treated the same.
Is not working (vacationing) the equivalent of incarceration?
Let 's apply this principle to its next logical order of magnitude:
if General Electric or Ford Motor Co. is convicted of murder,
shoud it be put out of business? It woud seem that the answer is yes.

Maybe the stockholders have a liquidation sale ?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I'm sure you realize that the entire purpose of a Corporation, is so that people won't be held responsible for their nefarious actions?

You would support changing the law to hold them more responsible? Even with all the repercussions of it? I would!

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm sure you realize that the entire purpose of a Corporation, is so that people won't be held responsible for their nefarious actions?

You can’t really be this naïve. Take away corporate protections and every owner is liable for whatever happens. That can only sound good until you’ve considered being that guy. No pools, no equipment rentals, nor roller rinks, no boating supplies, etc-to-eternity would be the result. Not every expensive lawsuit occurs because the defendant did something nefarious.

How precisely would the NAACP fit in your description of having incorporated for the soul purpose of not being held responsible for their nefarious actions? Should they raise money as individuals? Should they owe taxes on the money they raise? Should they not be allowed to file actions as a “juristic or corporate person”? (Welcome back separate but equal!)

What you and Kicky don’t seem to be getting is that in large part: Corporations and Corporate personhood is extremely beneficial for everyone. How long after you became successful in a business would you hold it, if any unforeseen disaster would bankrupt you and your family?

As for Kicky’s questions about treating corporate persons the same way under the law; in large part; we already do. See what happens if they discriminate, or someone discriminates against them… or pretty much every other kind of civil dispute. Criminal behavior almost invariably requires intent… and intent is provided by whoever directs the corporate action… so there is no real gap in treatment to be fixed.

I suspect part of the problem is that David is convoluting this issue by playing along with the silly notion of giving corporations a vote. As Thomas has already clarified; voting has never been hinged to citizenship… and in many cases still isn’t… so that whole tangent is just so much nonsense. The concept of corporate personhood dates at least as far back as 1819 (See Dartmouth College v. Woodward)… a time when only a fraction of people in this country could vote (Many State hadn't even done away with land-owning requirements, religious tests, etc., let alone race/sex restrictions.) In that instance, the State wanted to have its way with the little school; but the Supreme Court ruled the Contract Clause of the United States’ Constitution trumped the New Hampshire legislature, thereby reversing the State’s attempt to take control as unconstitutional.

Article I, section 10, clause 1 (Contract Clause) reads: “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”

Since the school’s charter was originally set up by the King of England; obviously by 1819 the charter no longer represented a contract between actual human persons. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution, nonetheless, was that although the school’s charter no longer represented a contract between human persons, it was valid under our Constitution just the same. This is probably the first landmark case involving a juristic person… and there was nothing too nefarious about it. Too many people think Corporations are the boogieman, but this is just plain silly.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

You can’t really be this naïve. Take away corporate protections and every owner is liable for whatever happens.

You don't see a meaningful difference between 'owners' and those who run and actually make decisions for the company? Modern corporations have such a large remove between the two as to make them completely different creatures. And the corporate setup keeps those who make poor decisions from being held responsible for their decisions in our legal system for the most part.

Quote:

How long after you became successful in a business would you hold it, if any unforeseen disaster would bankrupt you and your family?

Unforeseen disasters? I could have sworn that we were talking about Nefarious actions. Big difference.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Actually we were talking about your absurd assertion that "that the entire purpose of a Corporation, is so that people won't be held responsible for their nefarious actions?"

You should simply retract that knee-jerk nonsense rather than attempt to defend it.

1 Reply

@kickycan,

Quote:

Do you feel that since corporations are legally the equivalent of people, they should be punished equivalently for crimes? For instance, if a person steals and they go to jail for a year, a corporation that does the same thing should then be put out of business for a year as an equivalent punishment. And if someone dies as a result of a corporation's activities, they should be tried for manslaughter and punished as a person would, by being banned from doing business for a certain time period (whatever the equivalent jail time would be), just as if the crime had been done by a person.

or at the very least bring back fines in the amounts that would motivate better behaviour. We once did that you know, but for a long time now we have usually used token fines when wrong doing is found.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Actually we were talking about your absurd assertion that "that the entire purpose of a Corporation, is so that people won't be held responsible for their nefarious actions?"

You should simply retract that knee-jerk nonsense rather than attempt to defend it.

Nah, don't think I'm going to do that. Instead, think I'm going to continue with my argument.

It isn't knee-jerk nonsense, it's a lifetime - my entire lifetime - of watching Corporations escape responsibility for their actions.

When Dow Corning is found guilty of illegally dumping materials into the Gulf of Mexico, what happens? They pay a fine. Sometimes a big one. Sometimes they have to pay reparations to families of people who have been killed. But the guy who made the decision? Nothing happens to him. He is insulated. Maybe he is fired but that's about it.

All these Wall-Street firms who were making crazy bets with CDO's and CDS', which lead to our massive recession? What criminal action was taken against the people in those companies who knew what they were doing? Nothing. They wrecked the lives of millions in a very real way by triggering a financial panic; yet practically none of these people will be held personally responsible.

How about Tobacco company execs, who knew their product killed people for decades? How many of them are in jail for intentionally killing their own clients?

I might be more willing to take your point of view seriously if there were not countless examples in our country of the Corporate setup being used to keep people from being held responsible for arguably nefarious actions.

But; let me say, before we get into a big pissing match complete with the trademark 'Bill putdowns' that we all know and love, that I'm not really interested in hearing yet another defense of why Corporations should enjoy arguably more rights in our country then actual citizens do. You could not as a private citizen get away with the actions that Corporations get away with all the time.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

It so follows then that you actually believe the entire purpose of the NAACP's decision to form a Corporation, is so that those people won't be held responsible for their nefarious actions? You have to think clearer than that.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

It so follows then that you actually believe the entire purpose of the NAACP's decision to form a Corporation, is so that those people won't be held responsible for their nefarious actions? You have to think clearer than that.

You've raised a good point and so I will make a concession; I do not believe that non-profit Corporations generally exist to remove the responsibility for nefarious actions, in large part because these Corps have much less reason to engage in such actions - no profit motive.

The rest of my argument is unchanged.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

It so follows then that you actually believe the entire purpose of the NAACP's decision to form a Corporation, is so that those people won't be held responsible for their nefarious actions? You have to think clearer than that.

You've raised a good point and so I will make a concession; I do not believe that non-profit Corporations generally exist to remove the responsibility for nefarious actions, in large part because these Corps have much less reason to engage in such actions - no profit motive.

The rest of my argument is unchanged.

Really? Does that include Citizens United? The NRA? NAMBLA? <-- These guys are all good; but the 3rd generation mom and pop restaurant and the Veterinarian down from the road from me only incorporated so they won't be held responsible for their nefarious actions?

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

It so follows then that you actually believe the entire purpose of the NAACP's decision to form a Corporation, is so that those people won't be held responsible for their nefarious actions? You have to think clearer than that.

You've raised a good point and so I will make a concession; I do not believe that non-profit Corporations generally exist to remove the responsibility for nefarious actions, in large part because these Corps have much less reason to engage in such actions - no profit motive.

The rest of my argument is unchanged.
Really? Does that include Citizens United? The NRA? NAMBLA? <-- These guys are all good; but the 3rd generation mom and pop restaurant and the Veterinarian down from the road from me only incorporated so they won't be held responsible for their nefarious actions?

Sure and why not? Your mom and pop have the same legal protections as any other for-profit org and all the reason in the world to break the law: profits.

The NRA, Nambla, **** - and let's not **** around, Bill, use their full name please; it loses the special flavor when you do them a favor and leave those last letters off - all have much less reason to break the law: no profit motive.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

You seem to have left out Citizens United in your response (You do recognize them as the reason this thread was posted, right?

And this profit thing… let’s explore that: How about the Catholic Church... or the Satanic Church for that matter? The Church of Scientology? How about the literally thousands of non-profit companies set up for the sole purpose of raising money for charity… and delivering several pennies of every dollar raised to those charities. Do they fit you theory?

1 Reply

First reason is interesting.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You seem to have left out Citizens United in your response (You do recognize them as the reason this thread was posted, right?

No, I didn't. The full name of their group is 'Citizens United, Not Timid,' or ****. An intentional slur of Hillary Clinton, considering that the organization was created for the express purpose of smiling her with a movie full of lies which she would then be beholden to defend against. Why not refer to these guys with their full name when you defend them, Bill?

Quote:

And this profit thing… let’s explore that: How about the Catholic Church... or the Satanic Church for that matter? The Church of Scientology? How about the literally thousands of non-profit companies set up for the sole purpose of raising money for charity… and delivering several pennies of every dollar to those charities. Do they fit you theory?

I don't understand your question here. You seem to believe that my basic premise can be unraveled by raising name after name of different corporations. It doesn't unravel.

I note that you completely skipped over discussing my examples of Nefarious actions by members of corporations who will face no penalty for their actions thanks to the legal protections they get. Are you going to ignore this as if it didn't exist?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You seem to have left out Citizens United in your response (You do recognize them as the reason this thread was posted, right?

No, I didn't. The full name of their group is 'Citizens United, Not Timid,' or ****. An intentional slur of Hillary Clinton, considering that the organization was created for the express purpose of smiling her with a movie full of lies which she would then be beholden to defend against. Why not refer to these guys with their full name when you defend them, Bill?

I was following the Supreme Court's lead and frankly was unaware of their full name. Assholes for sure... but I'm rather militant about assholes' constitutional rights being respected just like everyone elses. It ties in with my whole support of Due Process schtick.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
And this profit thing… let’s explore that: How about the Catholic Church... or the Satanic Church for that matter? The Church of Scientology? How about the literally thousands of non-profit companies set up for the sole purpose of raising money for charity… and delivering several pennies of every dollar to those charities. Do they fit you theory?

I don't understand your question here. You seem to believe that my basic premise can be unraveled by raising name after name of different corporations. It doesn't unravel.

This is because your basic premise was an absurdly broad generalization that does unravel by raising a single exception. That's why I advised you early on to retract it. Wink

Look again:

Quote:

I'm sure you realize that the entire purpose of a Corporation, is so that people won't be held responsible for their nefarious actions?

See?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I note that you completely skipped over discussing my examples of Nefarious actions by members of corporations who will face no penalty for their actions thanks to the legal protections they get. Are you going to ignore this as if it didn't exist?

Since I didn't make any sweeping generalizations here; examples of bad behavior really don't alter my point in the least. Besides, your examples mostly point out a need for better law enforcement, or perhaps even better law-making, but NOT an argument for or against "Corporations"... as corporations, like people, can be good or bad.
The frequently used as nothing more than a Tax-Shelter demarcation, “non-profit”, can too.

1 Reply

FREEDOM IS RESTORED: 1st AMENDMENT WINS!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know