|
| Thread: Corporations.... |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · NEXT» |
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
posted August 19, 2012 08:00 PM |
|
|
Corporations....
A corporation is created under the laws of a state as a separate legal entity that has privileges and liabilities that are distinct from those of its members. Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like natural persons ("people"). Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state and they can themselves be responsible for human rights violations...In other words, corporations can sue and be sued, however if a person kills someone he goes to prison, if corporation kills someone it pays a fine 
Corporations have no obligations towards the society, its only obligation is towards shareholders which means - maximizing profit !!!!
If you (corporation) break the law you will pay a fine (wont be held responsible as an individual) basically - killing a person = 1mil fine, preventing it by changing the flawed parts in your car = 7mil loss.... 1mil or 7mil loss ? you do the math
If you dont break the law you're ok to do whatever, but what laws are corporations facing anyhow ? Laws are restrictive, specific, laws are based on recommendations of experts (which happen to be working for those corporations) and are passed by politicians (who are being elected with the help of those corporations) so what laws are corporations really facing ?
The world is run by corporations 
Do you feel like corporations have any impact on your life ? Do you like the system as it is or do you believe that the system should change and that corporations should :
1. See themselves as members of a community, responsible for the common good, rather than as solo economic actors responsible only for their self-enrichment.
2. Consider the impact of their actions on others.
3. Formulate their mission and their purpose in terms of serving others.
Discuss 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 19, 2012 08:11 PM |
|
|
Suppose your dog mauls someone to death. You are held responsible because you own the dog and are solely responsible for controlling its actions. You could've used your ownership of the dog to prevent the death - by keeping the dog on a leash, for example.
With a corporation, it's more complicated. Many people and groups own stock in the corporation (and so are partial owners), but don't have enough of it to influence what the corporation does. If you own 1% of a corporation that murders someone, can you really be held responsible? You couldn't have used your ownership to prevent it. A corporation is an abstract entity, so it can't be sent to prison. Instead, it's fined heavily, which is all that can be done.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted August 19, 2012 08:18 PM |
|
|
System
Thank you for making this thread,Smithey!
Specificaly the experts and politicians that are held in corporation pockets "like so many nickels and dimes" is very important to discuss in the means of what we as citizens and individuals with human rights have to face and deal with!
I saw some of the Zeitgeist movies and I especialy would recommend the film about the monetary system explained in details-its about how our debts grow and grow and who has the advantage of making us pay for what he did.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted August 19, 2012 08:47 PM |
|
Edited by smithey at 15:11, 20 Aug 2012.
|
Quote:
Suppose your dog mauls someone to death. You are held responsible because you own the dog and are solely responsible for controlling its actions. You could've used your ownership of the dog to prevent the death - by keeping the dog on a leash, for example.
With a corporation, it's more complicated. Many people and groups own stock in the corporation (and so are partial owners), but don't have enough of it to influence what the corporation does. If you own 1% of a corporation that murders someone, can you really be held responsible? You couldn't have used your ownership to prevent it. A corporation is an abstract entity, so it can't be sent to prison. Instead, it's fined heavily, which is all that can be done.
Let me answer that by using your own example, you and your wife own the dog however you take it out alone, you choose to not keep it on the leash, who is responsible ? you or both you and your wife ?
Decision makers should be held responsible in my opinion...
Edit - @master_learn, add the link to the movie so people can check it out if they want to 
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted August 19, 2012 08:54 PM |
|
|
They can also search it if they want to,why to help them stay lazy?
And the change of the subject is one of the weapons that corporations use,so its easy for the subject of this thread to become our relations with dogs,taxes,services and so on and on...
So what strategy should we make?
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 19, 2012 09:32 PM |
|
|
The people making the decisions in corporations are held accountable by the government if they make illegal decisions or if they are negligent. You can find numerous instances of CEOs being sent to jail. The common stockholder does not control the corporation and should not be punished for something the CEO did.
Please refer to the link below from the Communist Broadcasting System (CBS.) It will give some CBS guy's top 10 CEO's in prison list.
Clicky
Oh, profit is not a dirty word. Most people have jobs as a result of companies making a profit. If a company makes no profit they go out of business and neither the owner(s) nor the workers will have an income from it.
Companies have all sorts of legal, community relations, customer relations, and moral/ethical concerns that they try to address as best they can. Companies want to maintain a good relation with the law for obvious reasons. They want a good relation with the local community to attract and keep customers as well as for tax abatement purposes and other considerations, and they want to maintain a good relationship with their customers to get word of mouth advertising and to keep their current customers. Corporations are not the big bad evil demon Marxists like to portray them as.
Of course sometimes the person in charge of decision making is a bad guy just like sometimes the guy working on the assembly line is a bad guy.
____________
Revelation
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted August 19, 2012 09:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
the Communist Broadcasting System (CBS.)
Communist???
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted August 19, 2012 09:43 PM |
|
|
|
Pay no attention, for Elodin most people outside Texas are communists.
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted August 19, 2012 10:25 PM |
|
|
LOL, communism .... Didnt see that one coming lol'd 
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 20, 2012 02:28 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 14:33, 20 Aug 2012.
|
that makes little sense. people do stuffs, not corporations. people should be blamed. it's like punishing the car for murder instead of the driver.
Quote:
With a corporation, it's more complicated. Many people and groups own stock in the corporation (and so are partial owners), but don't have enough of it to influence what the corporation does. If you own 1% of a corporation that murders someone, can you really be held responsible? You couldn't have used your ownership to prevent it. A corporation is an abstract entity, so it can't be sent to prison. Instead, it's fined heavily, which is all that can be done.
yes, but it's probably not all that can be done. the police is supposed to be able to retrieve a murderer. why shouldn't it be able to do so when a corporation is involved? it should be possible to determine the cause of the death and find the responsibles. for example if the corporation murder the workers by making them manipulate dangerous chemicals, you could probably find who took the decision to use those chemicals.
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted August 20, 2012 03:10 PM |
bonus applied by Corribus on 21 Aug 2012. |
Edited by smithey at 15:11, 20 Aug 2012.
|
......
Before 1886: When Only Humans Had Human Rights
After 1886: After the Corporate Theft of Human Rights
Rights and Privileges
Only humans were “endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights” and those human rights included the right to free speech, the right to privacy, the right to silence in the face of accusation, and the right to live free of discrimination or slavery.
While to this day unions, churches, governments, and small unincorporated businesses do not have “human rights” (but only privileges humans give them), corporations alone have moved into the category with humans as claiming rights instead of just privileges.
Politics
In many states, it was a felony for corporations to give money to politicians, political parties, or try to influence elections: “They can’t vote, so what are they doing involved in politics?!”
Corporations claimed the human right of free speech, expanded that to mean the unlimited right to put corporate money into politics, and have thus taken control of our major political parties and politicians
Business
States and local communities had laws to protect and nurture entrepreneurs and local businesses, and to keep out companies that had been convicted of crimes.
Multi-state corporations claimed such laws were “discrimination” under the 14th Amendment (passed to free the slaves) and got such laws struck down; local communities can no longer stop a predatory corporation.
War
Government, elected by and for “We, The People,” made decisions about how armies would be equipped and, based on the will of the general populace, if and when we would go to war. Prior to WWII there were no permanent military manufacturing companies of significant size.
Military contractors grew to enormous size as a result of WWII and a permanent arms industry came into being, what Dwight Eisenhower called “the military/industrial complex.” It now lobbies government to buy its products and use them in wars around the world.
Regulation
Corporations had to submit to the scrutiny of the representatives of “We, The People,” our elected government.
Corporations have claimed 4th Amendment human right to privacy and used it to keep out OSHA, EPA, and to hide crimes.
Purpose
Corporations were chartered for a single purpose, had to also serve the public good, and had fixed/limited life spans.
Corporations lobbied states to change corporate charter laws to eliminate “public good” provisions from charters, to allow multiple purposes, and to exist forever.
Ownership
Just as human persons couldn’t own other persons, corporations couldn’t own the stock of other corporations (mergers and acquisitions were banned).
Corporations claim the human right to economic activity free of regulatory restraint, and the still-banned-for-humans right to own others of their own kind.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 20, 2012 03:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Corporations claimed the human right of free speech, expanded that to mean the unlimited right to put corporate money into politics, and have thus taken control of our major political parties and politicians
I suppose the CEO could as well put his personnal money into politics, and is it wrong?
but if he uses corporate money, it's a kind of theft?
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted August 20, 2012 03:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Corporations claimed the human right of free speech, expanded that to mean the unlimited right to put corporate money into politics, and have thus taken control of our major political parties and politicians
I suppose the CEO could as well put his personnal money into politics, and is it wrong?
but if he uses corporate money, it's a kind of theft?
Apple Ceo makes 1-1.5Mil per year
Apple as a corporation makes more than 100Bil per year
You do the math regarding the funds at disposal, influence etc.....
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 20, 2012 03:49 PM |
|
|
|
of course it's a too great opportunity for some politicians. no surprise that they can't solve any real problem.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 20, 2012 03:50 PM |
|
|
The problem with Capitalism is that it quickly becomes Corporatism, which sucks.
The problem with Socialism is that it sucks by default.
Life kinda sucks sometimes 
Capitalism could only work if there was no inheritance. Otherwise, there's no "free market", merely a playground for the biggest, oldest and richest corporations.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 20, 2012 03:55 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 16:04, 20 Aug 2012.
|
Quote:
Actually, these CEOs risked way more wealth than they stood to gain by their fraudulent actions. I don't think any amount of money or power would have fulfilled the needs that made them commit these acts.
weird.
it's like the contrary of the dilbert principle. the most dangerous people get elevated to the highest positions.
Quote:
I saw some of the Zeitgeist movies and I especialy would recommend the film about the monetary system explained in details-its about how our debts grow and grow and who has the advantage of making us pay for what he did.
I've seen some movies like that. in french of course. what about the "traité de lisbonne"? in european union at least, it's not an accident that debts grew to such amounts, politicians did it on purpose.
and the fact that the richer people or entities are, the less tax they have to pay, and the more gifts they receive...
(dommforge, you spoke with the terrorist leader at the top of the liberty statue in deus ex?)
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 20, 2012 04:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Capitalism could only work if there was no inheritance. Otherwise, there's no "free market", merely a playground for the biggest, oldest and richest corporations.
That's not true at all; new technology provides an ever changing landscape for the emergence of new corporations (and the death of old ones that do not evolve).
Consider:
Emergence of Google, Microsoft, Facebook.
Death of Blockbuster, Borders.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted August 21, 2012 01:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I saw some of the Zeitgeist movies and I especialy would recommend the film about the monetary system explained in details-its about how our debts grow and grow and who has the advantage of making us pay for what he did.
I like the Zeitgeist, but I don't like the "hammering" or "repeating" that is in the ones I have seen. The main point is completely covered in roughly 20 minuttes, and the rest of the video turns out to be a larger repeition of that, with some spice.
But as for the actual topic. Corporations ruling the goverment with defacto influence is not that different from the nobility ruling a country with defacto nepotism. Incomptente will happen, people will be trampled, regulations will be made to ensure the real rulers more profit, and the list goes on. Even today, there exists modern indirect democracies where the bulk of the parties are ruled by nepotism, resulting in a mess where we sort of always get incompetent people ruling the goverment. Even look back at history, weither its nobles, senators or politicans, it tends to be a line in the bane of nations.
So for arguments sake, lets say that its a problem with the power structure we have, and based on history, it will end badly sooner or later.
As for corporations and profit vs the good of the people? I hate artifical shortening, and I hate when products gets reduced spesifications due tripolies or duepolies in various markeds.
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 21, 2012 01:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Emergence of Google, Microsoft, Facebook.
Death of Blockbuster, Borders.
I don't even know what Blockbuster or Borders is 
The corporations you pointed out were mostly pioneers in that branches, so... not really the best examples. I would agree with you if there was something to succeed Google or Microsoft... but yeah, not going to happen. Why? Because small successful firms are absorbed into corporations or destroyed in an unfair fight against them, simple as that.
Example: Who's going to end Google's dominance on search engines? nobody. Google will simply eat everything with lawsuits or just by buying it off. Besides, think of the marketing. How much a little firm has to go through to even be known in a world where giant corporations like Google exist? It's a task that's not possible for anybody "regular". Maybe a rich, bored Russian/Arabian oil lord will try search engines instead of football clubs one day and a rival will be born, but regular people? hah. Not a chance. Free market my @ss when the chance of success is tied closely to inheritance possibilities. The later you got born compared to a branch's "boom", the smaller your chances are to ever make something of your own in that branch.
As for facebook, it lives as long as people consider it trendy. It will die off one day probably when the majority hops into another trend-bus.
Besides, think of it: the most successful people/ideas/firms/whatever, what do they usually have in common? They started in an environment where competition was either non-existent, or similar in power/age. In a "rivalry" against an already established, big corporation that has lived several generations, what are your chances? Zero.
Would you deny we live in corporatism, Corribus?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Vindicator
Supreme Hero
Right Back Extraordinaire
|
|
posted August 21, 2012 02:48 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't even know what Blockbuster or Borders is
Blockbusters was a movie store that refused to buy Netflix (or something) and was cornered out by the cheaper stuff online that you can order right from home. Borders was a book store that failed to adapt to the internet and refused to sell stuff online.
____________
|
| |
|
|
