Are you a Donald Trump supporter?

digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15462
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Trump is a xenophobic mind

 Trump is a xenophobic mind rot Jerry Springer politician. But, the GOP has themselves to blame for his success. Long before he started blaming Mexicans  and Muslims and China, the GOP outside McCain said very little to nothing when Obama ran the first time and they used his middle name as a slur. It is perfectly legal for anyone born in the United States of the age requirement as per the Constitution to apply to run for any government office as per "no religious test". No, that is not saying you get the seat automatically, but merely you have the right to make the attempt, and if you get enough votes, you get the office. 

Now dipshit Ted, who is too much of a coward to use his real name Rafael Edweirdo Cruz, said nothing back then although Hawaii is a state, now is having to deal with the fact he was NOT born in the United States. I would still vote for Obama if he were half Cuban half Canadian and still born in Hawaii. Because of economics.

I want Bernie to win the Democratic nomination. He is for workers rights, universal health care, equal pay for women, cheaper or free higher education, and against corporate welfare.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:  Trump is a

Brian37 wrote:

 Trump is a xenophobic mind rot Jerry Springer politician. But, the GOP has themselves to blame for his success. Long before he started blaming Mexicans  and Muslims and China, the GOP outside McCain said very little to nothing when Obama ran the first time and they used his middle name as a slur. It is perfectly legal for anyone born in the United States of the age requirement as per the Constitution to apply to run for any government office as per "no religious test". No, that is not saying you get the seat automatically, but merely you have the right to make the attempt, and if you get enough votes, you get the office. 

Now dipshit Ted, who is too much of a coward to use his real name Rafael Edweirdo Cruz, said nothing back then although Hawaii is a state, now is having to deal with the fact he was NOT born in the United States. I would still vote for Obama if he were half Cuban half Canadian and still born in Hawaii. Because of economics.

I want Bernie to win the Democratic nomination. He is for workers rights, universal health care, equal pay for women, cheaper or free higher education, and against corporate welfare.

You didn't read the article? The GOP isn't the issue with Trump. He appeals to people who want an authoritarian leader. It is sucking up votes from all different parties because there seems to be a previously untapped vein of support in America. It seems that people would prefer a leader which took away their freedoms provided they are made to feel safe.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12893
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian doesn't read. It's too

Brian doesn't read. It's too hard. He prefers to make up his own version of what other people say.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Brian doesn't

Vastet wrote:
Brian doesn't read. It's too hard. He prefers to make up his own version of what other people say.

I noticed.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 The funny thing is, Brian

 The funny thing is, Brian would be a huge Trump supporter if he decided to throw a D in front of his name. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15462
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 Trump is a xenophobic mind rot Jerry Springer politician. But, the GOP has themselves to blame for his success. Long before he started blaming Mexicans  and Muslims and China, the GOP outside McCain said very little to nothing when Obama ran the first time and they used his middle name as a slur. It is perfectly legal for anyone born in the United States of the age requirement as per the Constitution to apply to run for any government office as per "no religious test". No, that is not saying you get the seat automatically, but merely you have the right to make the attempt, and if you get enough votes, you get the office. 

Now dipshit Ted, who is too much of a coward to use his real name Rafael Edweirdo Cruz, said nothing back then although Hawaii is a state, now is having to deal with the fact he was NOT born in the United States. I would still vote for Obama if he were half Cuban half Canadian and still born in Hawaii. Because of economics.

I want Bernie to win the Democratic nomination. He is for workers rights, universal health care, equal pay for women, cheaper or free higher education, and against corporate welfare.

You didn't read the article? The GOP isn't the issue with Trump. He appeals to people who want an authoritarian leader. It is sucking up votes from all different parties because there seems to be a previously untapped vein of support in America. It seems that people would prefer a leader which took away their freedoms provided they are made to feel safe.

 

Which party is he running for? I don't think that overlap is as big as some make it out to be. And if what you are saying is right and people want to give up their freedoms in order to have safety, it is because big business has trianed them by using religion and fear. The parties are NOT the same. The only thing you can accuse the democrats of is allowing themselfs to be held hostage and being forced to play the republican game. Dems have simly been far too compromizing for far too long. I would only blame our voters for too much apathy, especially in midterms. 

And don't try to claim Trump has nothing to do with this, he is a result of all the dog wistle republican code blame the poor, be afraid of the government , be afraid of the outsider, that was going on long before he ran. The GOP was screaming that they would make Obama a 1 term president the day after his first election, IN NOVEMBER, long before he took his first oath.

And what did he inheret? Two failed wars that crashed the economy on top of bad gambling by banks, the housing inidustry and bad managment of the car companies. The weapons industry and big oil got rich off those wars. And friend and foe all invest in fuel and weapons.

 

It isn't that voters really want to give up their freedoms, the GOP scares them into thinking they have their best interest at heart. I can ask my mom who votes republican on mulitple issues and she agrees with me. Gay marriage, yep. Guns, yep. Cost of where she lives too high(she makes plenty, but agrees) yep. The workers there not making enough and not getting enough hours, yep. Cost of health care, yep. A bit torn on getting involved in the East, sometimes yes, sometimes no, depends upon the day. Me, I am torn too, I think we spend too much money on war that coulld be used at home, but also know you cant be an isolationist. But when I mention she is voting for the wrong party, even though she agrees with me on most issues, all the sudden she doesn't want to talk about it.

Trump is a result of voters being told what to think, not to think for themselves. And that propaganda war started with the GOP, Trump simply is more gas on the fire. Sanders ran a state that has never had the private sector die, and and has gotten a D rating from the NRA even though I don't agree with all his votes on that issue. 

The left wants help too, just not the authoritarian crap you are accusing most people of wanting. Only one party wants an authoritarian state and Trump is leading the charge to get there, but he simply uses 1984 Doublespeak WWE pro wrestling mid rot propaganda to get voters to vote against their own self interests.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15462
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 If anything business here

 If anything business here is trying to copy the Chinese athoritarian capitalism here because of the cheap labor over there. The help democrats want or at least should want, is more like the mixed economies of Europe in the form of democratic socialism.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12893
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Patently ridiculous, as

Patently ridiculous, as always.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Which party

Brian37 wrote:

Which party is he running for? I don't think that overlap is as big as some make it out to be. And if what you are saying is right and people want to give up their freedoms in order to have safety, it is because big business has trianed them by using religion and fear. The parties are NOT the same. The only thing you can accuse the democrats of is allowing themselfs to be held hostage and being forced to play the republican game. Dems have simly been far too compromizing for far too long. I would only blame our voters for too much apathy, especially in midterms.  

Let me get this straight. Big business is using religion and fear to train people to want a more authoritarian government? As for the rest of your post, you've left the building.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3682
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
 I'm not sure who would be

 I'm not sure who would be better or worse for the country Trump or Sanders(I think Hillary is doomed to loose, just like in 2008).

If Sanders were elected, at least he may end some corporate welfare. I don't think he could get congress to raise taxes and investors would stop loaning money to a socialist government. He'd be forced to try to get the Fed to print money to finance his socialist utopia, leading to massive inflation.

Trump at least comes close to identifing the country's main problem(excessive immigration leading to population preasures). The solution of building a wall is a ridiculous appeal to idiots. The smugglers can dig tunnels, use submarines, etc. 

No one can talk about the need to jail wealthy corporations and individuals that hire illegal immigrant labor. No one can talk about the H1B visa program being essentially imported slave labor for corporations. So the land of the free will continue to become the land of the slaves as long as these subjects are taboo.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12893
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
One of Sanders things is

One of Sanders things is removing person-hood from corporations, making at least half your post a ridiculously false assertion.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3682
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:One of Sanders

Vastet wrote:
One of Sanders things is removing person-hood from corporations, making at least half your post a ridiculously false assertion.

Corporations are people, the privledged ones. 

What is ridiculous is the limited liability concept. If a company is profitable, the owners can move the corporation's money into their personal portfolio. But if the company has liabilities, the owners can exempt their personal wealth from seizure. Welfare for the rich, has to end.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
 Cruz, Rubio and Trump are

 Cruz, Rubio and Trump are all making promises they will never keep. I think Trump might actually win the nomination, but then Cruz or Rubio will form another party then suck a large portion of the vote from Trump. Then Sanders will win over Clinton and become the president.

This all works if Cruz or Rubio go Independant or form another party.

As for raising taxes for Sanders plans, I find it funny that the GOP seems to talk about lowering taxes but then spending billions on these projects they keep promising. Where will the money come from? The idiots MUST raise taxes to fund the wars and projects, such as building a wall, adding more guards, etc.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: Vastet wrote:One

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
One of Sanders things is removing person-hood from corporations, making at least half your post a ridiculously false assertion.

Corporations are people, the privledged ones. 

What is ridiculous is the limited liability concept. If a company is profitable, the owners can move the corporation's money into their personal portfolio. But if the company has liabilities, the owners can exempt their personal wealth from seizure. Welfare for the rich, has to end.

No they aren't and that is ludicrous to classify them as such.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3682
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote: As

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 

As for raising taxes for Sanders plans, I find it funny that the GOP seems to talk about lowering taxes but then spending billions on these projects they keep promising. Where will the money come from? The idiots MUST raise taxes to fund the wars and projects, such as building a wall, adding more guards, etc.

The cheap solution is jail a few employers of illegal aliens to make them all stop. But our corporate masters must be served by both parties.

Importing foreign slave labor, the American tradition since the 1500s.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:digitalbeachbum

EXC wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 

As for raising taxes for Sanders plans, I find it funny that the GOP seems to talk about lowering taxes but then spending billions on these projects they keep promising. Where will the money come from? The idiots MUST raise taxes to fund the wars and projects, such as building a wall, adding more guards, etc.

The cheap solution is jail a few employers of illegal aliens to make them all stop. But our corporate masters must be served by both parties.

Importing foreign slave labor, the American tradition since the 1500s.

 

Execute all the bastards that cheated and stole from the American tax payers


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:One of Sanders

Vastet wrote:
One of Sanders things is removing person-hood from corporations, making at least half your post a ridiculously false assertion.

It is doubtful that the President has the authority to do anything about it short of a constitutional amendment. The concept of corporate personhood was born in the courts. Though every argument I've seen about why corporate person good should be revoked has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about what it is. Without corporate personhood, there are no corporations without an explicit government law. Could you even begin to imagine the mess if all contracts with or between corporations were invalidated? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Vastet wrote:One

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
One of Sanders things is removing person-hood from corporations, making at least half your post a ridiculously false assertion.

Corporations are people, the privledged ones. 

What is ridiculous is the limited liability concept. If a company is profitable, the owners can move the corporation's money into their personal portfolio. But if the company has liabilities, the owners can exempt their personal wealth from seizure. Welfare for the rich, has to end.

That isn't true. There are many cases where the member(s) can be held personally for the debts of their LLC. Plus, you have a fiduciary duty to the LLC, if you intentionally run it into the ground, you may face fraud charges.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12893
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Corporations are

EXC wrote:
Corporations are people

No, they aren't. People are people. Corporations are corporations.

EXC wrote:
What is ridiculous is the limited liability concept.

What is ridiculous is that assets can be considered a living person.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12893
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Vastet

Beyond Saving wrote:

Vastet wrote:
One of Sanders things is removing person-hood from corporations, making at least half your post a ridiculously false assertion.

It is doubtful that the President has the authority to do anything about it short of a constitutional amendment. The concept of corporate personhood was born in the courts. Though every argument I've seen about why corporate person good should be revoked has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about what it is. Without corporate personhood, there are no corporations without an explicit government law. Could you even begin to imagine the mess if all contracts with or between corporations were invalidated? 

Messy maybe, but certainly not bad. Reducing the power of commercial entities is as necessary as reducing the power of government.

Best situation would be to absolutely destroy all commercial entities and put it in the hands of the people.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3682
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:EXC

Beyond Saving wrote:

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
One of Sanders things is removing person-hood from corporations, making at least half your post a ridiculously false assertion.

Corporations are people, the privledged ones. 

What is ridiculous is the limited liability concept. If a company is profitable, the owners can move the corporation's money into their personal portfolio. But if the company has liabilities, the owners can exempt their personal wealth from seizure. Welfare for the rich, has to end.

That isn't true. There are many cases where the member(s) can be held personally for the debts of their LLC. Plus, you have a fiduciary duty to the LLC, if you intentionally run it into the ground, you may face fraud charges.

Trump had to personally pay the debts for all his corporations that went bankrupt? Did anyone have to personally pay for the sub-prime mortgage fiasco? Is Elizabeth Holmes going to loose all her wealth and go to jail?

No. No. No. America land of corporate privledge. 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Beyond Saving

EXC wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
One of Sanders things is removing person-hood from corporations, making at least half your post a ridiculously false assertion.

Corporations are people, the privledged ones. 

What is ridiculous is the limited liability concept. If a company is profitable, the owners can move the corporation's money into their personal portfolio. But if the company has liabilities, the owners can exempt their personal wealth from seizure. Welfare for the rich, has to end.

That isn't true. There are many cases where the member(s) can be held personally for the debts of their LLC. Plus, you have a fiduciary duty to the LLC, if you intentionally run it into the ground, you may face fraud charges.

Trump had to personally pay the debts for all his corporations that went bankrupt? Did anyone have to personally pay for the sub-prime mortgage fiasco? Is Elizabeth Holmes going to loose all her wealth and go to jail?

No. No. No. America land of corporate privledge. 

Trump was almost a billion in the hole personally over the Taj Mahal, and in all his bankruptcies he gave up a portion of ownership stake. Many owners of LLCs went into personal bankruptcy over the sub prime market. I personally know at least two. I can't speak to Elizabeth Holmes, I haven't paid attention. If she broke a law, she may go to jail. An LLC does not protect you from criminal liability in any way. The only way that any corporation can shield you from criminal liability is that with many people involved, it might be difficult for the prosecutor to prove personal guilt, but you have the same problem with any crime committed by a group, incorporated or not.

The LLC does allow the government to pursue action against the LLC as an entity, so that investors who may be innocent may be liable in terms of future profits, even if they had nothing to do with the matter personally. Or in some cases, even without personal knowledge. The President of AAC Inc. Has been indicted for second degree murder over a case that clearly he had no personal involvement or knowledge except insofar as participation in creating the policy. Furthermore, all corporate officers have been exposed to a class action lawsuit from investors.

Your ignorance proves nothing except your ignorance. Whatever challenges there are to prosecutions has to do with our justice system, which also fails quite often at prosecuting individuals. Corporations are in no way legally exempt. Corporate personhood is actually precisely the doctrine that allows you to sue a corporation for a grievance that occurred at one location, rather than the more arduous task of figuring out the individuals responsible, who may or may not still work at the corporation and may or may not have assets worth taking.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Vastet

Beyond Saving wrote:

Vastet wrote:
One of Sanders things is removing person-hood from corporations, making at least half your post a ridiculously false assertion.

It is doubtful that the President has the authority to do anything about it short of a constitutional amendment. The concept of corporate personhood was born in the courts. Though every argument I've seen about why corporate person good should be revoked has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about what it is. Without corporate personhood, there are no corporations without an explicit government law. Could you even begin to imagine the mess if all contracts with or between corporations were invalidated? 

You don't need to invalidate any of the contracts. Just don't consider a corporation a person. It is an entity, but not a person.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:EXC

Beyond Saving wrote:

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
One of Sanders things is removing person-hood from corporations, making at least half your post a ridiculously false assertion.

Corporations are people, the privledged ones. 

What is ridiculous is the limited liability concept. If a company is profitable, the owners can move the corporation's money into their personal portfolio. But if the company has liabilities, the owners can exempt their personal wealth from seizure. Welfare for the rich, has to end.

That isn't true. There are many cases where the member(s) can be held personally for the debts of their LLC. Plus, you have a fiduciary duty to the LLC, if you intentionally run it into the ground, you may face fraud charges.

If you are wealthy you'll never be punished. those of lesser power and money will be punished.

Beyond Saving wrote:

The only way that any corporation can shield you from criminal liability is that with many people involved, it might be difficult for the prosecutor to prove personal guilt, but you have the same problem with any crime committed by a group, incorporated or not.

So what you are saying is that those who never got punished during the recent Wall Street fumble were protected by their corporation?


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Beyond

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Vastet wrote:
One of Sanders things is removing person-hood from corporations, making at least half your post a ridiculously false assertion.

It is doubtful that the President has the authority to do anything about it short of a constitutional amendment. The concept of corporate personhood was born in the courts. Though every argument I've seen about why corporate person good should be revoked has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about what it is. Without corporate personhood, there are no corporations without an explicit government law. Could you even begin to imagine the mess if all contracts with or between corporations were invalidated? 

You don't need to invalidate any of the contracts. Just don't consider a corporation a person. It is an entity, but not a person.

The only reason they can make a contract is because when a law says a person may or may not do X, it applies to corporations too. That was the purpose of legal personhood for corporations, and remains so today.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Vastet wrote:
One of Sanders things is removing person-hood from corporations, making at least half your post a ridiculously false assertion.

It is doubtful that the President has the authority to do anything about it short of a constitutional amendment. The concept of corporate personhood was born in the courts. Though every argument I've seen about why corporate person good should be revoked has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about what it is. Without corporate personhood, there are no corporations without an explicit government law. Could you even begin to imagine the mess if all contracts with or between corporations were invalidated? 

You don't need to invalidate any of the contracts. Just don't consider a corporation a person. It is an entity, but not a person.

The only reason they can make a contract is because when a law says a person may or may not do X, it applies to corporations too. That was the purpose of legal personhood for corporations, and remains so today.

The problem I have with corporations being a person is that it opens doors to allowing a corporation to gain rights and privileges as a person.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:If you

digitalbeachbum wrote:

If you are wealthy you'll never be punished. those of lesser power and money will be punished.

Proven false by every rich person ever jailed. The only advantage the wealthy have is access to better attorneys, but they have that advantage whether they are being prosecuted in relation to a corporation or as a single individual. A rich person with a DUI is less likely to face the same consequences as someone with a public defender. That has nothing to do with LLCs or legal personhood.

 

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

The only way that any corporation can shield you from criminal liability is that with many people involved, it might be difficult for the prosecutor to prove personal guilt, but you have the same problem with any crime committed by a group, incorporated or not.

So what you are saying is that those who never got punished during the recent Wall Street fumble were protected by their corporation?

No Brian, I said what I meant. They didn't get punished because how do you legally prove fault and how to apportion it? There was no single individual or even group of individuals responsible. It was an accumulation of thousands of decisions made by people at various levels, most of which were completely legal and not malicious. No doubt, the mega corps would have loved to find someone to hang and be the scapegoat.

Tell me, who should have been arrested, why and what evidence is going to pass muster from the courts? How would eliminating corporate personhood make that any easier? The government can't even prove the banks as an organization did anything illegal (because mostly they didn't-morally questionable, sure, but most were tap dancing the line of the law), which is why they just got paltry settlements- something that could only be done because of corporate personhood- you can only sue legal persons.

No corporate personhood, no tobacco class action, really no class actions at all. You would have to find the actual scientist who made false findings, the actual executive who knowingly spread the lie etc. All that persons defense needs to do is demonstrate doubt that the individual on trial was duped by others in the organization, a much easier defense than trying to say nobody within the organization knew. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Beyond

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Vastet wrote:
One of Sanders things is removing person-hood from corporations, making at least half your post a ridiculously false assertion.

It is doubtful that the President has the authority to do anything about it short of a constitutional amendment. The concept of corporate personhood was born in the courts. Though every argument I've seen about why corporate person good should be revoked has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about what it is. Without corporate personhood, there are no corporations without an explicit government law. Could you even begin to imagine the mess if all contracts with or between corporations were invalidated? 

You don't need to invalidate any of the contracts. Just don't consider a corporation a person. It is an entity, but not a person.

The only reason they can make a contract is because when a law says a person may or may not do X, it applies to corporations too. That was the purpose of legal personhood for corporations, and remains so today.

The problem I have with corporations being a person is that it opens doors to allowing a corporation to gain rights and privileges as a person.

Which rights and privileges should they not have?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

If you are wealthy you'll never be punished. those of lesser power and money will be punished.

Proven false by every rich person ever jailed. The only advantage the wealthy have is access to better attorneys, but they have that advantage whether they are being prosecuted in relation to a corporation or as a single individual. A rich person with a DUI is less likely to face the same consequences as someone with a public defender. That has nothing to do with LLCs or legal personhood.

 

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

The only way that any corporation can shield you from criminal liability is that with many people involved, it might be difficult for the prosecutor to prove personal guilt, but you have the same problem with any crime committed by a group, incorporated or not.

So what you are saying is that those who never got punished during the recent Wall Street fumble were protected by their corporation?

No Brian, I said what I meant. They didn't get punished because how do you legally prove fault and how to apportion it? There was no single individual or even group of individuals responsible. It was an accumulation of thousands of decisions made by people at various levels, most of which were completely legal and not malicious. No doubt, the mega corps would have loved to find someone to hang and be the scapegoat.

Tell me, who should have been arrested, why and what evidence is going to pass muster from the courts? How would eliminating corporate personhood make that any easier? The government can't even prove the banks as an organization did anything illegal (because mostly they didn't-morally questionable, sure, but most were tap dancing the line of the law), which is why they just got paltry settlements- something that could only be done because of corporate personhood- you can only sue legal persons.

No corporate personhood, no tobacco class action, really no class actions at all. You would have to find the actual scientist who made false findings, the actual executive who knowingly spread the lie etc. All that persons defense needs to do is demonstrate doubt that the individual on trial was duped by others in the organization, a much easier defense than trying to say nobody within the organization knew. 

Ah. OK. Take the low road.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

If you are wealthy you'll never be punished. those of lesser power and money will be punished.

Proven false by every rich person ever jailed. The only advantage the wealthy have is access to better attorneys, but they have that advantage whether they are being prosecuted in relation to a corporation or as a single individual. A rich person with a DUI is less likely to face the same consequences as someone with a public defender. That has nothing to do with LLCs or legal personhood.

 

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

The only way that any corporation can shield you from criminal liability is that with many people involved, it might be difficult for the prosecutor to prove personal guilt, but you have the same problem with any crime committed by a group, incorporated or not.

So what you are saying is that those who never got punished during the recent Wall Street fumble were protected by their corporation?

No Brian, I said what I meant. They didn't get punished because how do you legally prove fault and how to apportion it? There was no single individual or even group of individuals responsible. It was an accumulation of thousands of decisions made by people at various levels, most of which were completely legal and not malicious. No doubt, the mega corps would have loved to find someone to hang and be the scapegoat.

Tell me, who should have been arrested, why and what evidence is going to pass muster from the courts? How would eliminating corporate personhood make that any easier? The government can't even prove the banks as an organization did anything illegal (because mostly they didn't-morally questionable, sure, but most were tap dancing the line of the law), which is why they just got paltry settlements- something that could only be done because of corporate personhood- you can only sue legal persons.

No corporate personhood, no tobacco class action, really no class actions at all. You would have to find the actual scientist who made false findings, the actual executive who knowingly spread the lie etc. All that persons defense needs to do is demonstrate doubt that the individual on trial was duped by others in the organization, a much easier defense than trying to say nobody within the organization knew. 

No need to reply. I answered my own question.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Agree.

Vastet wrote:
EXC wrote:
Corporations are people
No, they aren't. People are people. Corporations are corporations.
EXC wrote:
What is ridiculous is the limited liability concept.
What is ridiculous is that assets can be considered a living person.
A corporation cannot possibly be a person. A person(s) can "represent" A corporation but a corporation cannot represent a person. A corporation isn't normally owned by one person, but a conglomorate of people (shareholders etc), and what makes a corporation is ---material assets, material assets can't be"a person".  That would be like a pallet of shingles representing the lumber yard. (Sorry about this next statement)(back to civilization). A person is a psychological fact, a pallet of shingels isn't. What happened here is what eventually happens in, and to, all civilizations. The understanding of "Being" gets so skewed that suddenly floks are material assets and the civil mind looses it undertanding of the difference. That's be cause we all become economoc entites rather then people. And again, suddenly "people" become nothing more then material object. Now, you're all very likey aquainted with the phrase---------- our best natural resource is-----you got it---our chilbren. Ever wonder what's gone wrong with the latest generation. There you have it.The supreme court has fallen victim to civil discourse of the ages. We've become so econmically minded life means goodies rather then each other. "we" are life--material things are dead. When we become liked to a natural resoucre we become dead in proper natural understandings of "the self". We become nothing more then hogs at the trouph via intellectual stupidity. Intellegence is not all it's cracked up to be. It works for good and/or evil just as anything else in the universe. The saying is true--you cannot fool mother nature---she kills her rebelious children. (Sorry about the preaching) The supreme court bought into the economic entity trap.

So too with eminent domain. If I am a rich farmer I can go to the county and have them condemn your land and give it to me. I can do more economic good (for the people) then you. They can give me 5 year tax breaks and reap the later taxes for thier coffers, because the county needs a copying machine. Again, economics wins out over rights. The court went out the back door on this one too. They said --it's the place of the states to regulate the process. Well hells bells, if the rich already run the government, who's going to do the regulating. Bullshit, the constitution is a federal document and exits equally in all states. No state has the right to override the constitution.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12893
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Corporate personhood is what

Corporate personhood is what allows people to be criminals and get off scot free. The idea that a corporation can be responsible for decisions a few people within the corporation made is ludicrous. There are thousands if not millions of examples of people getting off by simply letting the corporation take the fall. Lac Megantic being the most recent high profile example I'm aware of.
The responsibility for criminal activity ultimately rests on management. The law should reflect that. One day it hopefully will.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: A

Old Seer wrote:

A corporation cannot possibly be a person. A person(s) can "represent" A corporation but a corporation cannot represent a person. A corporation isn't normally owned by one person, but a conglomorate of people (shareholders etc), and what makes a corporation is ---material assets, material assets can't be"a person".  

Nor can material assets be a corporation. A corporation may own assets, but those assets are in no way part of the corporation. 

 

A corporation is simply a group of people who have a formal agreement to work together towards a mutually agreed end. That is it. Many corporations don't even own assets. For example, suppose you wanted to run a tv advertisement, but you don't have the cash. I have the cash, but I don't have the skills necessary to create an advertisement, but I agree with whatever message you want to create. There are two ways we can do it, I can give you the cash and we can have a handshake agreement over what the content of the message is, but I am out in the cold without a lot of practical recourse if you blow my money and I don't like the result. And you are on your own if you create the advertisement and get sued over something it says. All I did was loan you money, I'm not liable. 
 

So instead of being two separate individuals, we agree to incorporate- create a single entity that consists of me and you. We come to an agreement as to how decisions will be made with the money, how disagreements will be settled and if/when/how other people can become part of the corporation. That way, I don't have to just trust your word that you will spend my money wisely and if you get sued, you have me in the kettle with you. That is all a corporation is, a group of people legally agreeing that they are going to work together towards a specified end. That simple concept applies whether it is me and you, or if it is many thousands of people. Corporate personhood is simply the idea that me and you working together share the same rights and responsibilities we would have if we worked separately. Just because I'm paying for the ad, and you are creating it, doesn't mean that our freedom of speech guarantees disappear. Nor does it mean that our liability for slander disappears. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Corporate

Vastet wrote:
Corporate personhood is what allows people to be criminals and get off scot free.

How?

 

Vastet wrote:

The idea that a corporation can be responsible for decisions a few people within the corporation made is ludicrous.

When you agree to incorporate, you are appointing people to act in your name, why shouldn't you be responsible for people who are acting under your authorization? If I tell my accountant to break the law and I pay him extra for it, shouldn't I be held responsible? Or should rich people get off just because they can always pay enough to get someone to break any law? If I hire a hitman, am I innocent of murder?

 

Vastet wrote:

There are thousands if not millions of examples of people getting off by simply letting the corporation take the fall.

Members of the corporation have legal recourse if they have been wronged. One of the purposes of setting up a corporation is so that you have a legal framework in which to seek restitution if the actions of one of the members harms everyone else. Furthermore, it is extremely common that individuals are charged in addition to the corporation. The difficulty comes in proving an individual guilty, which is a function of a justice system which was intentionally built to protect the rights of defendants. It is easier to prosecute a corporation, thus, the corporation usually pays more. Remove that, and you just have individuals getting away with crimes because of reasonable doubt, and those wronged don't even get a settlement from all the people who funded and built the framework that allowed the individual to break the law. 

 

Vastet wrote:

Lac Megantic being the most recent high profile example I'm aware of. The responsibility for criminal activity ultimately rests on management. The law should reflect that. One day it hopefully will.

Why does it rest on management, but not the people who hired, trained and told management what to do? Who was protected by corporate personhood in the case of Lac Megantic? 9 individuals were arrested and charged. Additionally, the corporations involved are facing class action and individual lawsuits that will total hundreds of millions in liability- a liability you are apparently suggesting shouldn't exist?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3682
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Vastet

Beyond Saving wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Corporate personhood is what allows people to be criminals and get off scot free.

How?

Here is an example. Wealthy corporations contract with small companies that use illegal immigrants to do labor jobs like janitor and maid for the big corporation. These big corpoations are never sued or the officers held criminally liable. Same thing with bribing public official, they use lobbists so they can keep their hands clean legally. They subcontract out all their shady practices.

Incorporation mearly serves as a means for the wealthy to avoid personal liability. Your arguments about legal recourse are bogus. People own houses and cars without having incorporation and they can sue and be sued. There is no rational reason to treat ownership of a business any different than other assests.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Beyond Saving

EXC wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Corporate personhood is what allows people to be criminals and get off scot free.

How?

Here is an example. Wealthy corporations contract with small companies that use illegal immigrants to do labor jobs like janitor and maid for the big corporation. These big corpoations are never sued or the officers held criminally liable. Same thing with bribing public official, they use lobbists so they can keep their hands clean legally. They subcontract out all their shady practices.

The minor corporation rarely gets held liable either. Nor does the rich person who hires an illegal as a maid. Immigration laws are rarely enforced, and when they are, the punishment is rarely significant. That has nothing to do with corporate personhood. If a subsidiary does face a lawsuit, that certainly impacts the parent corporation and there is nothing in the law that prevents individuals in the parent corporation from facing charges if they did something criminal and it can be proven. 

 

Quote:

Incorporation mearly serves as a means for the wealthy to avoid personal liability. Your arguments about legal recourse are bogus. People own houses and cars without having incorporation and they can sue and be sued. There is no rational reason to treat ownership of a business any different than other assests.

That is because individuals own houses and cars, and individuals can be sued. A corporation just allows multiple people to own the car and thus, all of them get sued together if there is a lawsuit over the car. A corporation is just a group of people who decided to put their assets together for a singular purpose. That is it. How fucked up would it be if a Papa John's delivery car caused an accident and you had to sue every single person who partially owned that car as an individual? That is all corporate personhood is- saying the acts of the corporation are unified and all members are liable. You sue the corporation and collect from all of them in one lawsuit, and if applicable seek criminal charges against the actual driver or perhaps the store manager if negligence, unsafe practices, negligent policies etc contributed to the accident.   

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3682
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
 Beyond Saving wrote:The

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

The minor corporation rarely gets held liable either. Nor does the rich person who hires an illegal as a maid. Immigration laws are rarely enforced, and when they are, the punishment is rarely significant. That has nothing to do with corporate personhood. If a subsidiary does face a lawsuit, that certainly impacts the parent corporation and there is nothing in the law that prevents individuals in the parent corporation from facing charges if they did something criminal and it can be proven. 

Because the small company has few if any assets to go after. The people getting rich off of illegal labor just get richer, while illegal activity occurs within their business.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

That is because individuals own houses and cars, and individuals can be sued. A corporation just allows multiple people to own the car and thus, all of them get sued together if there is a lawsuit over the car. A corporation is just a group of people who decided to put their assets together for a singular purpose. That is it. How fucked up would it be if a Papa John's delivery car caused an accident and you had to sue every single person who partially owned that car as an individual? That is all corporate personhood is- saying the acts of the corporation are unified and all members are liable. You sue the corporation and collect from all of them in one lawsuit, and if applicable seek criminal charges against the actual driver or perhaps the store manager if negligence, unsafe practices, negligent policies etc contributed to the accident.   

Bosus argument. A husband and wife are sued jointly for the harm their property car causes. You don't have to sue the husband and wife seperately even though they are not a corporation.

Because of corporate personhood, corporations can buy up land and water rights that middle class individuals can't afford. Saudi Arabia can form a corporation and buy up water rights that were supposed to be for family farms.

www.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/3/1443993/-Saudi-Arabia-has-a-hay-farm-in-Arizona-because-Saudi-Arabia-is-out-of-water-to-grow-hay

When all the groundwater has all been pumped out, the company will declare bankruptcy, no one in Saudi Arabia will be made to pay for the damage.

Face it. Incorporation is special prevlige granted to the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: Bosus argument.

EXC wrote:

 

Bosus argument. A husband and wife are sued jointly for the harm their property car causes. You don't have to sue the husband and wife seperately even though they are not a corporation.

Legally, a marriage is treated like a corporation. You don't have to sue a husband and wife separately, because legally, their assets are combined (incorporated). If me and you, unmarried, purchase a car and get sued, we can't be sued together because our assets are not combined.

 

Quote:

Because of corporate personhood, corporations can buy up land and water rights that middle class individuals can't afford. Saudi Arabia can form a corporation and buy up water rights that were supposed to be for family farms.

Well yeah, one of the most common purposes of a corporation is so that people can combine their assets to purchase things they otherwise couldn't afford. Should only the uber wealthy be capable of having the capital to start businesses? My LLC has far more assets than I could personally afford. That is why my business partners and myself started one. Pooled, we have more than we could separately.

 

Quote:

When all the groundwater has all been pumped out, the company will declare bankruptcy, no one in Saudi Arabia will be made to pay for the damage.

And if a Saudi Prince paid cash without a corporation does that make it less of an issue? That is an argument about environmental and water regulations, not incorporation. Unless you believe that rich people will only make good decisions.

 

Quote:

Face it. Incorporation is special prevlige granted to the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else.

In Ohio it costs $125 to create an LLC. Hardly a "special privilege" for the wealthy, the vast majority of corporations are not set up by the wealthy, they are small businesses. Your ignorance continues to shine. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3682
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Well

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well yeah, one of the most common purposes of a corporation is so that people can combine their assets to purchase things they otherwise couldn't afford. Should only the uber wealthy be capable of having the capital to start businesses? My LLC has far more assets than I could personally afford. That is why my business partners and myself started one. Pooled, we have more than we could separately.

I didn't say outlaw joint ownership of property. People can do that now without incorportation. So this is a strawman argument.

I'm saying outlaw special privledges(like limited liability) that goes with being a corporation. Any special privledges are at the expense of everyone else.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12893
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:How? In

Beyond Saving wrote:
How?

In this particular scenario the rail corporation reduced staff responsible for ensuring railcar safety as well as wages for that staff. The direct result was a devastated town and dozens off deaths. Those responsible get to walk away with all their money by having the corporation declare bankruptcy. Because corporations are people, the ceo and the board who are responsible pay nothing and face no charges. Any claims must be directed at a corporation that has been abandoned and has no remaining assets. The ceo has in fact done this exact same thing at least a dozen times with a dozen corporations. It isn't even the first time there has been a disaster, it's just the first time there was a huge death toll. This prick gets to walk away and do it again, because of corporate personhood.

Beyond Saving wrote:
When you agree to incorporate, you are appointing people to act in your name, why shouldn't you be responsible for people who are acting under your authorization? If I tell my accountant to break the law and I pay him extra for it, shouldn't I be held responsible? Or should rich people get off just because they can always pay enough to get someone to break any law? If I hire a hitman, am I innocent of murder?

You both should. Eliminating corporate personhood allows the rich people who already get off to lose their gravy train, not the opposite.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Members of the corporation have legal recourse if they have been wronged

Not when the corporation declares bankruptcy they don't. And members of the corporation aren't the only ones who lose legal recourse.

Beyond Saving wrote:
One of the purposes of setting up a corporation is so that you have a legal framework in which to seek restitution if the actions of one of the members harms everyone else.

Which only works when the corporation still exists.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Furthermore, it is extremely common that individuals are charged in addition to the corporation.

Not remotely common enough.

Beyond Saving wrote:
The difficulty comes in proving an individual guilty, which is a function of a justice system which was intentionally built to protect the rights of defendants.

And built with the idea of corporate personhood firmly entrenched. If a corporation breaks the law, every member of management above the level responsible bears some responsibility. Codify that into law and you only have to prove the law was broken to convict every one of them in one motion.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Why does it rest on management, but not the people who hired, trained and told management what to do?

Who said anything about letting them off the hook? I didn't. Management, the board, the ceo, and shareholders all are responsible. All of them should pay. Maybe people would start paying attention if their own necks were on the line. If not, oh well. Put them all in jail.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Who was protected by corporate personhood in the case of Lac Megantic? 9 individuals were arrested and charged.

The ceo who created the problem in the first place. And only 3 people were charged. People who bear less responsibility than the guy who shortchanged safety in the company for a few extra bucks.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Additionally, the corporations involved are facing class action and individual lawsuits that will total hundreds of millions in liability- a liability you are apparently suggesting shouldn't exist?

There's only one corporation involved, and it can't even pay the fine Quebec imposed. Those lawsuits won't go anywhere. There's no more assets to divvy up.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving.

I would like to ask some questions being you have corporate experience. I'm asking becasue I can say I don't rightly know for sure. Most of what I understand that is going on with corporations these days is from the news and public discourse.

Q-1 If your corporations is sued for damages and it looses the case, do you and all members (owners) have to pay from your personal assets.

Or

2- are all dammages paid by the cash on hand of the corporation, sale of corporate assets, etc of the corporation itself.

In other terms. Can you as an individual be liable to pay the damages from your personal funds, (thats is-you personal savings and other bank accounts) and is it the same for all the other partners in the corporation.  

Posted in good faith.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:I would like

Old Seer wrote:

I would like to ask some questions being you have corporate experience. I'm asking becasue I can say I don't rightly know for sure. Most of what I understand that is going on with corporations these days is from the news and public discourse.

Q-1 If your corporations is sued for damages and it looses the case, do you and all members (owners) have to pay from your personal assets.

Or

2- are all dammages paid by the cash on hand of the corporation, sale of corporate assets, etc of the corporation itself.

In other terms. Can you as an individual be liable to pay the damages from your personal funds, (thats is-you personal savings and other bank accounts) and is it the same for all the other partners in the corporation.  

Posted in good faith.

 

In general, all damages would be paid by the corporation, and if a plantiff wants to pursue personal assets they would have to list the individuals separately on the lawsuit and prove that they had a personal hand in whatever the alleged wrongdoing was. For example, some of my partners drive cars owned by the corporation. Suppose one of them drives it drunk, causes a major accident and my corporation gets sued, because the corporation owns the car. My personal assets are not liable, unless I am sued personally (suppose for example I provided the alcohol and knowingly allowed my partner to drive the company car drunk). Which is one of the benefits of having a corporation, I don't have to make sure everyone I work with is a complete saint, my gamble is only with the assets I used to fund the corporation. 

However, there are exceptions. If I do something that is fraudulent, negligent or reckless that causes harm to someone OR the corporation, I can be held personally liable. This is where you would get caught if you saw an LLC as a way to shield yourself from laws and emptied the money out of it to avoid a lawsuit. Suppose I knew about the accident, and knew it would be a large lawsuit so I sell everything I can and drain the LLC's accounts before the lawsuit is filed. Then I could be held personally liable, and potentially face jail time for fraud. 

Also, you may face personal liability if you mix your personal finances with the LLC's finances. If I am moving money back and forth between my account and the LLC account without some kind of formal process, I could be held personally liable and the courts will view the LLC as essentially never existing. Furthermore, if you fail to adequately capitalize the LLC and provide enough startup money that the LLC could be reasonably expected to meet its obligations, I could be personally liable. Suppose I failed to purchase adequate liability insurance for the LLC's car and claimed it was self insured, but I didn't set aside enough money to reasonably expect to cover liability, then I could be personally liable. 

On the flip side, the LLC is protected from the personal debts of its members. If one of my partners develops a gambling habit and runs up six figures in debt, those creditors can't come after the corporation. They may be able to go after the partner's ownership stake, but not the assets actually owned by the corporation.  

Setting up an LLC for the purpose of shielding yourself from the law, simply isn't practical. The people who wrote the regulations thought of these things, and the idea exists mostly in the imagination of those who have never consulted a lawyer about setting up an LLC. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I didn't say

EXC wrote:

I didn't say outlaw joint ownership of property. People can do that now without incorportation. So this is a strawman argument.

Which is extremely impractical. I have an LLC with five members. Right now, if we need a new car for the LLC, I can go to the dealership, sign the papers and buy a new car because I have legal authorization to spend the LLC's money. If we just had joint ownership, every single one of us would have to sign every single time we took on a new liability. And that is just a tiny little buisiness. When you get to publicly traded organizations with thousands of individual owners, most of whom have no interest in paying attention to day to day activities, it would be impossible to purchase anything.

 

Quote:

I'm saying outlaw special privledges(like limited liability) that goes with being a corporation. Any special privledges are at the expense of everyone else.

What "special" privilege do I get with my LLC that you don't have as an individual?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: In this

Vastet wrote:
In this particular scenario the rail corporation reduced staff responsible for ensuring railcar safety as well as wages for that staff. The direct result was a devastated town and dozens off deaths. Those responsible get to walk away with all their money by having the corporation declare bankruptcy. Because corporations are people, the ceo and the board who are responsible pay nothing and face no charges. Any claims must be directed at a corporation that has been abandoned and has no remaining assets. The ceo has in fact done this exact same thing at least a dozen times with a dozen corporations. It isn't even the first time there has been a disaster, it's just the first time there was a huge death toll. This prick gets to walk away and do it again, because of corporate personhood.

That Burkhardt wasn't prosecuted has nothing to do with corporate personhood, as evidenced by the individuals who were charged. That decision was made by the prosecutor. If you have a problem with it, focus should be on how prosecution decisions were made. If Burkhardt were looking for protection, making healthy donations to the right politicians would do far more good than expecting protection because of corporate personhood. 

 

Quote:

You both should. Eliminating corporate personhood allows the rich people who already get off to lose their gravy train, not the opposite.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Members of the corporation have legal recourse if they have been wronged
Not when the corporation declares bankruptcy they don't. And members of the corporation aren't the only ones who lose legal recourse.

Burkhardt lost his investment, the same as every other investor. Being the cause of a corporation going bankrupt is probably one of the main reasons that corporate partners sue each other. If fraud or negligence can be proven to be the cause of the bankruptcy, the person can be personally liable. The difficulty is in proving that in court, and you have the difficulty with or without corporate personhood. 

 

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Furthermore, it is extremely common that individuals are charged in addition to the corporation.
Not remotely common enough.

Vote for different prosecutors then. 

 

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
The difficulty comes in proving an individual guilty, which is a function of a justice system which was intentionally built to protect the rights of defendants.
And built with the idea of corporate personhood firmly entrenched. If a corporation breaks the law, every member of management above the level responsible bears some responsibility. Codify that into law and you only have to prove the law was broken to convict every one of them in one motion.

So if a pizza delivery driver drives drunk without the knowledge of managment, everyone from the store manager to the corporate executives are liable? That is one way to make sure no corporation of more than one person exists. I wouldn't trust my best friend with all of my personal assets and potential jail time. Would you?

 

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Why does it rest on management, but not the people who hired, trained and told management what to do?
Who said anything about letting them off the hook? I didn't. Management, the board, the ceo, and shareholders all are responsible. All of them should pay. Maybe people would start paying attention if their own necks were on the line. If not, oh well. Put them all in jail.

When a fine is levied against a corporation, they all DO pay. That money is theirs. When a corporation goes bankrupt, everyone who invested in it loses money. When it pays a fine that leaves them solvent, everyone invested experiences lower returns on their investment. It seems you are just upset that their liability only extends to the amount they invested in the company? Should you be personally liable when a Canadian soldier accidentally kills a civilian?

Quote:

 There's only one corporation involved, and it can't even pay the fine Quebec imposed. Those lawsuits won't go anywhere. There's no more assets to divvy up.

There are many corporations involved besides MMA. Western Petroleum Company, Irving Oil, Canadian Pacific Railway, Union Tank Car Company, Trinity Industries and GE Capital Rail Services are all facing lawsuits and will likely settle. Everything MMA owned has been sold and divvyed up, and there may be more civil lawsuits levied against the individuals involved if anyone thinks there is enough evidence. Burkhardt might be safe from criminal prosecution for whatever reason, but that doesn't guarantee he wont see a civil suit now that the government has released the evidence it collected. 

Bottom line is that corporate personhood isn't preventing any prosecution. The prosecutor can prosecute, and anyone harmed can file a civil lawsuit if they wish. If you have problems with them not doing so, that is a problem with the judicial system, it has nothing to do with corporate personhood. Corporate personhood is just what allowed MMA to get fined so heavily it went bankrupt. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
OK, Thank you.

I had in mind Mitt Romney and how (I suspected worked legal scams) he and his guys made many bucks by borrowing to buy a company, fire everybody then scrap the place and bail out after paying themselves big time. Apparently the creditor didn't loose either --by aquireing the property and selling it for a profit.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3682
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:So if a

Beyond Saving wrote:

So if a pizza delivery driver drives drunk without the knowledge of managment, everyone from the store manager to the corporate executives are liable? That is one way to make sure no corporation of more than one person exists. I wouldn't trust my best friend with all of my personal assets and potential jail time. Would you?

The corporation is financially liable for what their employees do now, right? If the managers and owners knew the driver may do something illegal and did nothing to stop it, they should go to jail. Isn't that the way the law works now?

Should work the same way as a parent letting his child use a car. How would ending corporate privledge change this?

The problem is now is that the driver is often an illegal alien they pay $3/Hr or is an independant contractor(Uber does deliveries now). The owners can put all the profits in the Caymen islands. Then if an accident occurs, just decalare bankrupcy. The owners personal assests are exempt from being taken.

It is a problem of both the laws and enforcing the laws on the books.

We need a Trump/Sanders hybrid to fix things.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Beyond Saving

EXC wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

So if a pizza delivery driver drives drunk without the knowledge of managment, everyone from the store manager to the corporate executives are liable? That is one way to make sure no corporation of more than one person exists. I wouldn't trust my best friend with all of my personal assets and potential jail time. Would you?

The corporation is financially liable for what their employees do now, right? If the managers and owners knew the driver may do something illegal and did nothing to stop it, they should go to jail. Isn't that the way the law works now?

If they have personal knowledge, they are personally liable. If they don't, then they aren't, but the corporation still can (and probably would) be. That is how current law is. Remove corporate personhood, and only the corporation can't be held responsible, only the individuals. Apparently, Vastet thinks that everyone should be personally liable, so the thousands of people who all own stock in Papa Johns would all be liable. At least that is my impression and what I am trying to clarify.  

 

Quote:

Should work the same way as a parent letting his child use a car. How would ending corporate privledge change this?

Exactly which "privilege" are you talking about? What privilege does a corporation have that you don't?

 

Quote:

The problem is now is that the driver is often an illegal alien they pay $3/Hr or is an independant contractor(Uber does deliveries now). The owners can put all the profits in the Caymen islands. Then if an accident occurs, just decalare bankrupcy. The owners personal assests are exempt from being taken.

All of which is against the law. A corporation can't simply move its money overseas to exempt it from bankruptcy. The only purpose of holding money overseas is to minimize domestic taxation, and is really only useful if you actually conduct business overseas, since moving money out of the country is a taxable event. The idea that somehow Uber (or any other taxi company) would be better off declaring bankruptcy rather than settle a lawsuit is absurd. Even if it somehow made sense in some kind of ridiculous situation, moving money for the purposes of hiding it from bankruptcy courts is a felony. Go ask your CPA how you would go about doing such a thing if you want to get a good laugh. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12893
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:That

Beyond Saving wrote:
That Burkhardt wasn't prosecuted has nothing to do with corporate personhood, as evidenced by the individuals who were charged. That decision was made by the prosecutor.

No it wasn't. Corporate personhood made him immune from prosecution. The crown can't charge him.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Burkhardt lost his investment, the same as every other investor.

Pennies on the dollar. I bet his salary more than covered it. Even if not, he lost nothing compared to the people of Lac Megantic. He still walks free and will repeat the exact same scenario again and again.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Being the cause of a corporation going bankrupt is probably one of the main reasons that corporate partners sue each other. If fraud or negligence can be proven to be the cause of the bankruptcy, the person can be personally liable. The difficulty is in proving that in court, and you have the difficulty with or without corporate personhood. 

No. Because of corporate personhood, all corporate decisions are the responsibility of the corporation, except in very few circumstances like fraud. Noone in the company is liable, only the company itself. Remove personhood and that instantly changes.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Vote for different prosecutors then. 

We don't elect judicial system members here, thank the gods. That's one of the most backwards things about the US. Probably a major reason why there's so many problems down there.

Beyond Saving wrote:

So if a pizza delivery driver drives drunk without the knowledge of managment, everyone from the store manager to the corporate executives are liable?

Damn straight they are. If one of your wait staff comes in drunk, you can't tell?

Beyond Saving wrote:

That is one way to make sure no corporation of more than one person exists. I wouldn't trust my best friend with all of my personal assets and potential jail time. Would you?

Sure. I'd keep my eye on him though. If I saw he was doing something illegal I'd report it to the authorities. Which would keep my ass out of jail.

Beyond Saving wrote:
When a fine is levied against a corporation, they all DO pay. That money is theirs.

No it isn't. It's the corporations'. If they want their investment back then they have to sell it. They don't own any corporate assets.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Should you be personally liable when a Canadian soldier accidentally kills a civilian?

Yes, actually. Every Canadian is responsible. They work for us.

Beyond Saving wrote:
There are many corporations involved besides MMA. Western Petroleum Company, Irving Oil, Canadian Pacific Railway, Union Tank Car Company,

CP filed suit for immunity and won. Irving has nothing to do with it, except lost oil. I've heard nothing regarding the others you mention.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Bottom line is that corporate personhood isn't preventing any prosecution. The prosecutor can prosecute, and anyone harmed can file a civil lawsuit if they wish. If you have problems with them not doing so, that is a problem with the judicial system, it has nothing to do with corporate personhood. Corporate personhood is just what allowed MMA to get fined so heavily it went bankrupt. 

Wrong. As I said earlier, corporate personhood makes him immune.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
OK, starting from the beginning.

I went to wikipedea and had a look. I see terrible hypocacy in  the whole idea of "corporation". This is no intent to critisize anyone here, but if you go to wikipedia you'll encounter the term "legal fiction".  Now hold on here for a minute,. if that term is correct then we have absolutly nothing. If the court is operating (providing the "legal fiction " application is true), then how can a fiction be a fact. I'm into this because as my brainski automatically adds things together---something doesn't add up.

On one hand we have Personhood, which divides into two directions. 1- a corporation is a person. 2- a corporation is a "persons'. There's the problem, hypocacy. It can'rt be both unless it's a fiction--which typically menas it can be anything within what regulates it---which means any law made in it's regard can mean anything someone wants it to. It would have to be law that determines what is or isn't, and tha also means that law can be anything it needs to be to make "corporation" work. Which in turn means that a jimmy rigged law will lead to more hypocacy.

The supreme court has to define "what" a person is. If it doesn't ---we have nothing. Making laws will not settle the matter. Now--- as I went over this --it all goes way back to the early 1700s---why--because it's hypocritcal, and hypocacy can only be settled by fact, which in turn means that it wasn't based on fact but mere assumptions way back then. If it wern't hypocitical it would have been settled back in the early 1700s. As far as I know--there is no legal discription of "person" other then  it's an individual. That leaves alot of open territory, because if there were a legal interpretaion of "person" and it were true (not hypocritical) It would ruin the entire systems.

Persons and person cannot be the same entity. It looks as--the total body of persons that make up a corporation is a "person". That can't be--it's the same as one body having multiple brains. I'm not implying that corporation are bad or criminal minded etc. Legal fiction merely opens the way for more controversy as fact will always beat fiction---so the process will go on until---oh----lets say--the years 2525---by that time we won't be under the circumstance. Fiction cannot solve a problem and will produce any oither number of multiple fictions from any angle one wants to see something/anything.

Very simple. If the court has no, or gives no, guidance as to what a person is, then a tree can be a person---well hell--it's physical isn't it. And, if the court does--they have to be absolutly correct, no assumption and no mistake.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12893
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Ultimately the supreme court

Ultimately the supreme court doesn't decide squat. It only has the power to reverse laws that are unconstitutional. The definition of person isn't in the constitution, and therefore it is beyond the scope of the court system. Only the government can choose how to define person, through law.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.