The Official Status Thread
-
Until they organize themselves into a corporation.
please... i'm not understanding.
when people get together and act as a corporation their actions on behalf of the corporations are considered actions of the corporation and protected by corporate rights, if the corporate rights do not afford any protection for the action then personal rights are applied.
so when acting under and on behalf of a corporation a person is protected by the rights of the corporation and their personal rights
how does that remove their personal rights?
-
Huh? How?
For example, growing wheat to eat yourself won't be anything the Feds can do shit about. The problem isn't that private entities want to influence the law. The problem is that they have to in order to not have their competitors fuck them over.
-
how does that remove their personal rights?
Now you're contradicting yourself...
the one that says corporations are entities entitled to the same rights as any human.....
-
Corporations are ultimately just people doing things in a group instead of as individuals
Not exactly. People doing things in a group instead of as individuals don't generally get limited liability.
-
Not exactly. People doing things in a group instead of as individuals don't generally get limited liability.
I didn't say they were just any old group. So maybe my use of "just" was an exaggeration.
-
that is a thing i said, and i agree with it.
Corporation <> Person
yes. but again. in those paragraphs i quoted that i think fairly clearly state my position that corporate rights can and should be separate from personhood rights...
i'm saying people have a set of rights and they never lose them
corporations have a set of rights that are not necessarily the same as personal rights.
when people get together and act as a corporation their actions on behalf of the corporations are considered actions of the corporation and protected by corporate rights, if the corporate rights do not afford any protection for the action then personal rights are applied.
so when acting under and on behalf of a corporation a person is protected by the rights of the corporation and their personal rights
these ones, to be specific.
i'll stress again that those statements are not a contradiction to my statement that Corporations <>Person but rather an expansion and explanation of my original stance. Where in those statements remove a persons personal set of rights?
-
Huh? How?
The reason companies try to buy politicians is because the federal government has so much power. If we were to reduce the size of the Fed, and take away some of it's powers, then the corporations would have no reason to do so.
Cut back on silly licensing restrictions, and you won't have entrenched interests trying to broaden the restrictions to keep out newcomers. This was most recently demonstrated with the recent overturning of a Texas law that would require a woman who teaches hair braiding to have a facility with 5 sinks, even though hair braiders don't actually wash your hair. Or the Louisiana monks who sold handmade caskets, who ran afoul of a state law--instigated by the funeral industry--that said that you can't sell caskets if you don't run a full-service funeral home, including providing embalming services. To reiterate, if the State doesn't have the power to make such laws, there's no reason for lobbyists to spend money trying to get the laws written in the first place.
Reasonable people can disagree about how much power the State should have, but it's probably better to err on the side of "less".
-
corporate rights can and should be separate from personhood rights.
So...you're not afraid of people acting as a corporation getting the same rights as the people any more?
-
So...you're not afraid of people acting as a corporation getting the same rights as the people any more?
no.
under the set of rules i've been talking about the people still get the same rights as always. the corporation they form when they gather, is an entity that is separate from the people that form it and has a different set of rights. While the people that form the corporation can, should and must always be protected by their personal rights when they act on behalf of the company the can, should and must be protected by those corporate rights first, and then by their personal rights.
with this system in place it is not necessary, and in fact is counterproductive for the corporation to have personhood rights as doing so offers no extra protection to the people that form the corporation. Indeed in such a system the company having personhood extends a whole system of rights to the corporation that were meant for individuals to use and so allow the corporation, with vastly more money than any single individual (including the most wealthy of wealthy) to act in a manner that drowns out the voice of the people who wish to utilize those rights to express their views under the rights that they have been granted.
-
I am glad we are having relevant discourse in a forum specifically created for Discourse
-
I am glad we are having relevant discourse in a forum specifically created for Discourse
we are rather off topic, are we not?
Status: tracking down why we're losing deposit orders in the new system..... I can see i'll need to rewrite this invoicing system from scratch when we finally get that GP Dynamics upgrade approved.
-
Status: About to find out if the output from a Keurig is hot enough to melt Hershey's Kisses.
-
Status: About to find out if the output from a Keurig is hot enough to melt Hershey's Kisses.
Status: @accalia wants to hear about the results.
-
I do taste chocolate but not as much as I expected. I probably have half-melted kisses at the bottom of my mug.
-
Status: Successfully built my project, deploy succeeded, then Visual Studio stopped working.
-
I do taste chocolate but not as much as I expected. I probably have half-melted kisses at the bottom of my mug.
Sounds like you needed to leave it a little longer, and stir thoroughly
-
Also, Windows Error Reporting is taking up 80% plus of the CPU. Whatever I killed, I did it in style
-
It is now cold enough to drink so I don't think it'll be melting anymore.
-
Status: About to find out if the output from a Keurig is hot enough to melt Hershey's Kisses.
The answer is apparently "no".
-
The reason companies try to buy politicians is because the federal government has so much power. If we were to reduce the size of the Fed, and take away some of it's powers, then the corporations would have no reason to do so.
OK, now I see the disconnect. You, @boomzilla and I are not that far apart now that I understand what you were saying.
Yes, if we reduce the scope of federal government then who gives a shit how much money anyone contributes? You will kick the can down the road to more localized elections, but sure.
My comments were assuming that we keep the scope of the federal government the same as it is now, which Citizens United did. That, I have a problem with. Now you are giving too much power to corporations, and allowing them to fund their own corporate welfare laws through campaign contributions.
If you allow corporations nearly unlimited campaign contributions, but do not also gut the government by stripping it of the majority of its power, that is when we have a problem.
-
For example, growing wheat to eat yourself won't be anything the Feds can do shit about. The problem isn't that private entities want to influence the law. The problem is that they have to in order to not have their competitors fuck them over.
OK, seriously, quit bringing this one up. It is just an idiotic ruling, and likely due to some shitty law that Monsanto or Dow Agrosciences paid to have put in place. It is not representative of all rulings.
-
http://persephonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/colbert-popcorn.gif
(i'm going to have to use this meme a lot today aren't i?)
-
(i'm going to have to use this meme a lot today aren't i?)
Possibly. I just started another flame war over in the "I don't know how HTTP or web servers work" thread.
-
Possibly. I just started another flame war over in the "I don't know how HTTP or web servers work" thread.
didn't i already post a popcorn.gif in that thread?
-
Yes. You may need another one.
-
You will kick the can down the road to more localized elections, but sure.
That's fine! If you don't like the rules one locality puts in place, you can move, exactly as the Founders intended! This country was supposed to be n more or less competitive places, not one unit, in most things.
-
Now you are giving too much power to corporations, and allowing them to fund their own corporate welfare laws through campaign contributions.
No. CU, as I said already, balances an unbalanced situation. If you don't shrink government, a better solution would have been to apply the then-existing limits to unions, but that would have been objectively worse.
At least now, corporations have a level playing field with unions, so in that one respect, it's better.
-
OK, seriously, quit bringing this one up. It is just an idiotic ruling, and likely due to some shitty law that Monsanto or Dow Agrosciences paid to have put in place. It is not representative of all rulings.
You are completely wrong. Wickard v Fillburn was
the camel's nose in the tentthe opening of the floodgates to destroying any limits the Federal Government had on regulating commerce.
-
At least now, corporations have a level playing field with unions, so in that one respect, it's better.
One head of Medusa's crown of snakes, but we unleashed the rest of them on the world. Forgive me if I do not exactly feel better about the situation...
-
If you allow corporations nearly unlimited campaign contributions, but do not also gut the government by stripping it of the majority of its power, that is when we have a problem.
But if you start restricting campaign stuff, you're just empowering incumbents. Not that they won't suck up most of the other stuff, but by not allowing anyone else to compete you just make it even worse.
OK, seriously, quit bringing this one up. It is just an idiotic ruling,
Yes, it's idiotic. But it's law.
It is not representative of all rulings.
That's not why I bring it up.
and likely due to some shitty law that Monsanto or Dow Agrosciences paid to have put in place
Wrong wrong wrong wrong. It's about depression era shit telling farmers not to grow too much food.
-
Wrong wrong wrong wrong. It's about depression era shit telling farmers not to grow too much food.
As someone finally mentioned the specific ruling, I looked it up and you are correct. I still don't agree with the ruling, but a little bit of clarity can go a long way towards the debate.
-
I still don't agree with the ruling
No one who believes that the rule of law is important agrees with the ruling. But the power grab is no less real.
-
Forgive me if I do not exactly feel better about the situation...
I thought I qualified it fairly well. :) Generally, a level playing field is to be preferred. That's really the only way CU is a victory, but I think it's still fairly important.
"Shall not be infringed" is actually a pretty straightforward statement that requires a team of lawyers to change the meaning of.
-
>Polygeekery:
If you allow corporations nearly unlimited campaign contributions, but do not also gut the government by stripping it of the majority of its power, that is when we have a problem.But if you start restricting campaign stuff, you're just empowering incumbents. Not that they won't suck up most of the other stuff, but by not allowing anyone else to compete you just make it even worse.
This too. There were plenty of right-leaning sites (non-left-leaning ones, too) that talked about the way CU could be used specifically to cripple the campaign of a challenger.
-
Generally, a level playing field is to be preferred.
Better to have checks and balances than not if you can't deal with the root of the problem. Of course, public sector unions should be criminal. They are definitely conspiracies against the public.
the way CU could be used specifically to cripple the campaign of a challenger.
Campaign finance laws should pretty much always be viewed as incumbent protection laws.
-
It's about depression era shit telling farmers not to grow too much food.
Well, specifically WWII, but the Depression was still going on.
To be specific, just in case @polygeekery or anyone else isn't familiar with it, the Supreme Court ruled that it was legal for the Federal Government to tell a guy he was not allowed to grow wheat (corn?) to feed his own cows, cows that were being raised solely to support himself. The larger context was that the Fed, to keep grain prices artificially high, told farmers they were not allowed to grow more than a certain amount of wheat. The result of this was Wickard had too many cows to feed without buying grain from others, which is an affront to liberty. And as mentioned, it was the basis for much further abuse of the Constitution.
-
Status: Observing a ton of rankling on this site.
-
Status: Observing a ton of rankling on this site.
Status: Giving as good as I get
Soon-to-be-status: Driving a stupidly-upgraded and very tail-happy Kei car on GT6
-
-
i'm not a car nutter..... what does that mean?
It basically means, when I put the power down coming out of a corner, the arse kicks out and I spin.That is, the car's tail gets all waggly
-
-
isn't that a bit unsafe?
Well, I didn't name the car Malicious Maria for nothing... ;)
-
Only if you don't know how to handle it.
-
Only if you don't know how to handle it.
i see..... i'll stick with a stock prius. it ain't fancy or fun but it gets me from Point A to Point B without questions.
-
Status: Working with my lawyer on a contract for a new venture. Legalese is worse than Brainfuck as a language.
-
. it ain't fancy or fun but it gets me from Point A to Point B without questions.
Life's too short for "no fun".
-
Life's too short for "no fun".
yes. but i don't want to die in a fireball.
besides i have TONS of fun once i get to Point B
-
yes. but i don't want to die in a fireball.
You do know I'm talking about driving a car in a game, right? My real car is a Fiesta with a dead engine.
-
You do know I'm talking about driving a car in a game, right? My real car is a Fiesta with a dead engine.
.... nope.
i assumed GT6 was one of your weirdly named highways out that way.
like I-95 or I-20
-
You're not going sideways in a Fiesta.
Then again, you're not going forwards in yours either.