PDA

View Full Version : The corporation



Toilet
12-02-2008, 21:55
http://www.onlinedocumentaries4u.com/2008/12/corporation.html

I know this is a remake, but the information is important and the die hard libertarians and capitalists ought to watch it.

I also remade the thread because while lots of dumb threads were unlocked, the previous thread which had the same important information, was not unlocked.

Harijan
12-02-2008, 21:57
http://www.onlinedocumentaries4u.com/2008/12/corporation.html

I know this is a remake, but the information is important and the die hard libertarians and capitalists ought to watch it.

I also remade the thread because while lots of dumb threads were unlocked, the previous thread which had the same important information, was not unlocked.

Hmm odd. You say that all the other dumb threads got unlocked but that the non-dumb thread remained locked.

Perspective is a wonderful dream, is it not?

Rigan Pere
12-02-2008, 22:01
Toilet just go away will you. Post count doesnt mean anything....get that into your head ffs.

Toilet
12-02-2008, 22:01
Hmm odd. You say that all the other dumb threads got unlocked but that the non-dumb thread remained locked.

Perspective is a wonderful dream, is it not?

You say this thread (http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=85848) is not dumb compared to this, then its you who are in the wonderful dream.

Toilet
12-02-2008, 22:01
Toilet just go away will you. Post count doesnt mean anything....get that into your head ffs.

I care shit about post count.

I want to debate this shit.

Bissen
12-02-2008, 22:05
I concur with toilet. Although toilet was a douche poster to begin with, he got great at arguing and making good debate. So shut and the fuck up.

Watch the flick. It's good.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/

Slypieguy
12-02-2008, 22:07
evul corporashunz!!

Harijan
12-02-2008, 22:07
In order to debate this shit I would have to spend almost 3 hour watching a bad and grossly biased Canadian "documentary".

maybe you could summarize that epic windbag of a failed movie for us and then I will use your own argument to ream you a new asshole.

But I am sorry if i don't care enough about your myopic views of corporations to intellectually own your pre-pubic ass.

Go get a job.

Caffy
12-02-2008, 22:07
Since the late 18th century American legal decision that the business corporation organizational model is legally a person, it has become a dominant economic, political and social force around the globe. This film takes an in-depth psychological examination of the organization model through various case studies. What the study illustrates is that in the its behaviour, this type of "person" typically acts like a dangerously destructive psychopath without conscience. Furthermore, we see the profound threat this psychopath has for our world and our future, but also how the people with courage, intelligence and determination can do to stop it.

Wow.

Just wow.

Epic Fail, because a normal fail just won't do.

Toilet
12-02-2008, 22:09
In order to debate this shit I would have to spend almost 3 hour watching a bad and grossly biased Canadian "documentary".

maybe you could summarize that epic windbag of a failed movie for us and then I will use your own argument to ream you a new asshole.

But I am sorry if i don't care enough about your myopic views of corporations to intellectually own your pre-pubic ass.

Go get a job.

You really only need to watch the second part to argue.

Toilet
12-02-2008, 22:10
Wow.

Just wow.

Epic Fail, because a normal fail just won't do.

Watch the fucking movie first, retard, it explains why.

I can be a douche when i feel like trolling, but if you to be douche, dont do it in a debate.

Rigan Pere
12-02-2008, 22:12
I am a douche all the time

Fixed it for you Toilet.

Caffy
12-02-2008, 22:14
Watch the fucking movie first, retard, it explains why.

I can be a douche when i feel like trolling, but if you to be douche, dont do it in a debate.

Nerd rage, deactivate.

You don't need to watch the movie(not documentary) to know it's shit. Two minutes in they declair exactly what their whole purpose is. "Lack of public control of corporations".

A corporation is a business. "The public" has no business controlling companies. Individual people own, operate, and control corporations. If you want a say, buy stock, attend shareholders meetings, and tell them what you think.

If you're too poor to do that, then you're too poor to matter.

Slypieguy
12-02-2008, 22:16
Watch the fucking movie first, retard, it explains why.

I can be a douche when i feel like trolling, but if you to be douche, dont do it in a debate.

Because corporations exist to generate profit and not to be moral crusaders?

Toilet
12-02-2008, 22:17
Nerd rage, deactivate.

You don't need to watch the movie(not documentary) to know it's shit. Two minutes in they declair exactly what their whole purpose is. "Lack of public control of corporations".

A corporation is a business. "The public" has no business controlling companies. Individual people own, operate, and control corporations. If you want a say, buy stock, attend shareholders meetings, and tell them what you think.

If you're too poor to do that, then you're too poor to matter.

Im gonna do like you now, so you can see how dumb you look, talking about anything else than whats really the problem.


If you're too poor to do that, then you're too poor to matter.

Wow

Just wow

Epic egoism, because normal egoism just wont do.

Caffy
12-02-2008, 22:25
Im gonna do like you now, so you can see how dumb you look, talking about anything else than whats really the problem.



Wow

Just wow

Epic egoism, because normal egoism just wont do.

Pft! (http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa234/shredmeiser101/dr.coxposter.jpg)

Toilet
12-02-2008, 22:26
Because corporations exist to generate profit and not to be moral crusaders?

Look at Bolivia to see how your logic is retarded.

Also, i dont care about moral crusaders.

I care about human well being, we dont own the Earth, and thus have no right at all to charge a price for it.

We do not own the things anything is made of, and since we do not own it, we can not sell it without it being stealing.

If somebody made a totally new form of matter that using something new that is not used in atoms, then you own it, until then, its the whole universe of everyone, everything and can NOT be charged for.

Toilet
12-02-2008, 22:27
Fixed it for you Toilet.

The hypocrisy in this post is below the healthy levels.

Seek help.

Caffy
12-02-2008, 22:31
Look at Bolivia to see how your logic is retarded.

Also, i dont care about moral crusaders.

I care about human well being, we dont own the Earth, and thus have no right at all to charge a price for it.

We do not own the things anything is made of, and since we do not own it, we can not sell it without it being stealing.

If somebody made a totally new form of matter that using something new that is not used in atoms, then you own it, until then, its the whole universe of everyone, everything and can NOT be charged for.

Give me your address. Since you don't own anything I'm going to come live in the house you reside in(according to you, it's not your house), eat the food, hog the internet, etc.

Qikdraw
12-02-2008, 22:35
You don't need to watch the movie(not documentary) to know it's shit. Two minutes in they declair exactly what their whole purpose is. "Lack of public control of corporations".

A corporation is a business. "The public" has no business controlling companies. Individual people own, operate, and control corporations. If you want a say, buy stock, attend shareholders meetings, and tell them what you think.

Actually the way I look at the movie (I own the dvd) is not that they want to control companies but that corporations need watching over or what they do to make profits will harm the public. As history has shown us.
Part of the documentary shows the effect of the growth hormone in cows to make them produce milk. If you just watch that part, you'll be off milk for awhile. The cows are in horrible shape and the milk is full of blood and puss. When this was added to the food supply the US was pretty much the only nation to allow it in because there were no long term studies done on the effect to humans. Corporations also fought against having other corps labeling their milk to be growth hormone free. The kicker, there wasn't a milk shortage to make this a must use.

Toilet
12-02-2008, 22:40
Give me your address. Since you don't own anything I'm going to come live in the house you reside in(according to you, it's not your house), eat the food, hog the internet, etc.

No I dont own anything, but as long as we live in a capitalistic society, I can not share anything I have in excess without harming myself, compared to those who dont share.

In a resource based society, I wouldnt own anything, everything would be public, except for my house, which i wouldnt really "own", while I would be able to get a new house, i cannot have more than one, since that would go against the everyone is equal and no one gets any excesses that others dont get.

I have also accepted the fact that im as much worth as soil, if not less.

Without soil, there would be nearly none of the plants today, and if none of them existed, we wouldnt either.

So we are actually worth less than soil, because we require soil to exist, while soil does not require us to exist.

Caffy
12-02-2008, 22:50
Actually the way I look at the movie (I own the dvd) is not that they want to control companies but that corporations need watching over or what they do to make profits will harm the public. As history has shown us.
Part of the documentary shows the effect of the growth hormone in cows to make them produce milk. If you just watch that part, you'll be off milk for awhile. The cows are in horrible shape and the milk is full of blood and puss. When this was added to the food supply the US was pretty much the only nation to allow it in because there were no long term studies done on the effect to humans. Corporations also fought against having other corps labeling their milk to be growth hormone free. The kicker, there wasn't a milk shortage to make this a must use.

I was watching a movie the other day, and this guy in blue tights, with red underwear(ON THE OUTSIDE!!!11one!!) was fucking flying around! It was awesome. I can't believe this guy isn't on the news! I mean if Hollywood could make a movie with him, surely the media could get an interview? I mean, come on, this guy is some sort of Super Man!

You don't believe me? It's 100% fact! I saw it in a movie! Everything in movies is real, and unbias. Look at Michael Moore's flicks. Cuba has the best healthcare in the entire world. True story.

You are really gullible


No I dont own anything, but as long as we live in a capitalistic society, I can not share anything I have in excess without harming myself, compared to those who dont share.

In a resource based society, I wouldnt own anything, everything would be public, except for my house, which i wouldnt really "own", while I would be able to get a new house, i cannot have more than one, since that would go against the everyone is equal and no one gets any excesses that others dont get.

I have also accepted the fact that im as much worth as soil, if not less.

Without soil, there would be nearly none of the plants today, and if none of them existed, we wouldnt either.

So we are actually worth less than soil, because we require soil to exist, while soil does not require us to exist.

Hippie (http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/melchissedec/Cartman_Hippies.jpg)

Slypieguy
12-02-2008, 22:51
No I dont own anything, but as long as we live in a capitalistic society, I can not share anything I have in excess without harming myself, compared to those who dont share.

In a resource based society, I wouldnt own anything, everything would be public, except for my house, which i wouldnt really "own", while I would be able to get a new house, i cannot have more than one, since that would go against the everyone is equal and no one gets any excesses that others dont get.

I have also accepted the fact that im as much worth as soil, if not less.

Without soil, there would be nearly none of the plants today, and if none of them existed, we wouldnt either.

So we are actually worth less than soil, because we require soil to exist, while soil does not require us to exist.


Lol, because communal property doesn't give incentive to place externalities on everyone else.

/endsarcasm

Killuminati
12-02-2008, 22:57
Lawl, tragedy of the commons 4tl

Bissen
12-02-2008, 22:59
The amount of ignorance in here is the size of the US bailout.

Caffy
12-02-2008, 23:02
The amount of ignorance in here is the size of the US bailout.

Silence! (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v443/musicianamedave/butt.jpg)

DoveAlexa
12-02-2008, 23:04
Actually the way I look at the movie (I own the dvd) is not that they want to control companies but that corporations need watching over or what they do to make profits will harm the public. As history has shown us.
Part of the documentary shows the effect of the growth hormone in cows to make them produce milk. If you just watch that part, you'll be off milk for awhile. The cows are in horrible shape and the milk is full of blood and puss. When this was added to the food supply the US was pretty much the only nation to allow it in because there were no long term studies done on the effect to humans. Corporations also fought against having other corps labeling their milk to be growth hormone free. The kicker, there wasn't a milk shortage to make this a must use.

Thank you. Finally a post that’s not saying that people being against irresponsibility in corps makes them poor, stupid, communist, hippies

That’s the main thing, corps are irresponsible, they act like children and never think about the future, past the next quarter. They gladly shit in their own nests, later to find out they ruined their chances at succeeding, while ignoring how much harm they cause to their customers.

Also, with their growth in power, they get around legal restrictions meant to protect us (putting in those dangerous growth hormones) and instead of them being at the mercy of the customer, which is the spirit of competition and capitalism, they run businesses where its like the customers only have the 'privileged' to buy from them.

And I'm not even going into the subtle mind control assholery.

Slypieguy
12-02-2008, 23:14
The amount of ignorance in here is the size of the US bailout.

Maybe if you leave it'll be reduced to the size of the stimulus package

DocGonzo
12-02-2008, 23:14
heh...one thing most don't think about from the Libertarian perspective, is that the corporation is a collective, under the SCOTS ruling, the reasoning behind it was that it took the collective Rights of all the stockholders into itself upon being legally registered...

so, in this instance and in many cases these "collectives" trump individuals...and since the Libertarian postulate is that ALL rights reside in the Individual and eschews the very concept of "collective rights", we face a conundrum indeed

personally, i think there is a problem in that a corp has the rights of an individual in many respects, but cannot be held responsible the way that an individual can

if a corp kills you, it gets a fine...you cannot put a corp in jail

look at worldcom/enron/current bank bail outs

if an individual steals $100 , they risk going to jail....these corps stole literally billions....

not saying all corps or bad, or that business is bad or anything like that, just pointing out that the corp is a legal entity designed to shield it's officers and share holders from being held responsible so the corp entity can behave like a full on sociopath crack addict in pursuit of profit at any cost and then be shielded for being held responsible for any misdeeds

just a Thought...

Arkh
12-02-2008, 23:18
Epic egoism, because normal egoism just wont do.
What's the problem of egoism exactly ? And in detail please.


I care about human well being
More specificaly, you care about what you think is "well being". Short term well being also.


No I dont own anything
Living in your mother's basement ? Then you're a non factor.

Lindorn
12-02-2008, 23:20
It's such a shame when people take well done documentaries like the corporation and relate them to the views expressed in really shitty documentaries (if you could even call this one) like Zeitgeist. Jesus Toilet, the guy is some random dude who makes claims and provides about 0 supporting information for anything. In the corporation they interview real experts and get real data and facts. Zeitgeist adendum interviews some crazy old guy with spaceship wallpaper in his house while he rambles about robots doing all of the work.

That Zeitgeist bullshit is a pipe dream. The Corporation is a great documentary. They don't say jack shit about regulations, they just show you the data as they see it and let you draw your own conclusion. My conclusion is that the corporation is an entity that is forced through the legal bindings it undertakes when it is formed, to achieve profits for its shareholders at any cost, even at the cost of everyone.

That spells a fundamental flaw in the business model of a corporation, moreso than it doesn the need for the government to get involved. The irony about you guys taking this information to back up your socialist propoganda is that the data represented in this documentary, if anything, proves that regulation is NOT the answer. Hell a significant portion of the film refers to how many laws are outright broken in the name of higher profits annually and how the companies involved pay the fines without breaking a sweat.

So the corps are blatantly pissing on the regulations we have now. What makes you think that will change with more regulation?

Floyd
12-02-2008, 23:22
I watched the whole thing and I disagree.

Slypieguy
12-02-2008, 23:25
personally, i think there is a problem in that a corp has the rights of an individual in many respects, but cannot be held responsible the way that an individual can

if a corp kills you, it gets a fine...you cannot put a corp in jail


You can sue it for wrongful death like you could an individual. Jail time for killing someone is a penalty paid to the state for breaking its law, not to the victim, so who cares if a state takes a hefty fine rather than jail time? Worldcom and Enron went under anyway, is that not equivalent to being put in jail?




not saying all corps or bad, or that business is bad or anything like that, just pointing out that the corp is a legal entity designed to shield it's officers and share holders from being held responsible so the corp entity can behave like a full on sociopath crack addict in pursuit of profit at any cost and then be shielded for being held responsible for any misdeeds

just a Thought...

Yes they are made for the purpose of shielding liability. If Joe Entrepreneur could be fined millions of dollars of thrown in jail for any little thing someone in his corporation does, we won't have much incentive for business. And we do have the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil for certain circumstances. And holding shareholders liable could get to the point of absurdity... if you buy a few hundred dollars of GM stock, should you be partially held liable for a mistake the company makes?

Bissen
12-02-2008, 23:28
More specificaly, you care about what you think is "well being". Short term well being also.

So being concerned about the extreme consumption of the planets natural resources and it's longterm effects on all biological life, is short term well being?

And how come corporations have rights, when nature seem to have none?

Caffy
12-02-2008, 23:28
Individuals in those companies broke the law, not the companies themselves.

Those individuals did not pass go. They did not collect $200.

Arkh
12-02-2008, 23:36
So being concerned about the extreme consumption of the planets natural resources and it's longterm effects on all biological life, is short term well being?
Yes. On long term, earth biological life doesn't care. The only specy which really care about human activity effect is human : we fear a planet where we couldn't live with so much thing as atm.
But I'm sure scorpions and cockroaches will survive us.

Dhig
12-02-2008, 23:39
You say this thread (http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=85848) is not dumb compared to this, then its you who are in the wonderful dream.

I have to agree that the topics got worse a few weeks ago.
I dont see anything interesting to discuss, just troll threads poping up nowadays :(

Bissen
12-02-2008, 23:50
Yes. On long term, earth biological life doesn't care. The only specy which really care about human activity effect is human : we fear a planet where we couldn't live with so much thing as atm.
But I'm sure scorpions and cockroaches will survive us.

You do know what being at the top of the food chain in a eco system means?

If you think we can survive without vegetation, then I would ask you to get more educated.

Slypieguy
12-02-2008, 23:51
You do know what being at the top of the food chain in a eco system means?

If you think we can survive without vegetation, then I would ask you to get more educated.

If you think vegetation is going to magically disappear anytime soon, then you need to get more educated

Harijan
12-02-2008, 23:51
There are hundreds of thousands of corporations in America alone. Lets treat them as people for a moment since that seems to be the flavor of the day. Hey, since there are only a couple of hundred thousand of them lets treat them as a minority.

Now lets apply the gross and ignorant generalizations both in the film and expressed here in this thread.

Corporations are bad
Corporations are evil
Corporations are irresponsible children
Corporations have no morals but only want money

Now replace corporation with any other minority group, blacks, jews, mexicans, indians.

Oh Shit, now you all look like a bunch of ignorant racists.

My point is that only a handful of corporations are responsible for the bad rap that all corporations have. The vast majority of corporations are run legally, responsibly and profitably because ultimately, the long-term strategy for every corporation is created by individuals who may, or may not make responsible decisions. Its those people who are making decisions that are to blame if they screw up, not the company itself.

Lets not generalize just because we are too lazy and/or stupid to recognize the difference between a good company and a bad company.

Harijan
12-02-2008, 23:57
And how come corporations have rights, when nature seem to have none?

Hello?

EPA
Kyoto Protocol
Endangered Species Act
Ban on Whaling
The entire fucking island of Madagascar
Its illegal to litter
Its will soon be illegal to use more than your alotted fossil fuels
Its illegal to contaminate ground water, air, or soil.
Its fucking illegal to stir up visible dust while walking or driving around a construction site.
National parks
National forest
Wildlife preserves
Clean water act
Clean energy act

What the fuck are you smoking? We are doing more globally than ever before to guaranty the rights of dear ol' mother earth. Sure Bush fucked things up real good, but we can undo his relatively minor damage with a few terms of democratic presidents.

Killuminati
12-03-2008, 00:01
I'm starting to agree with Ayn Rand that big business is the most persecuted minority.

Arkh
12-03-2008, 00:05
You do know what being at the top of the food chain in a eco system means?
No. Last time I checked, nothing is on the top of the food chain as everything die to get eaten by some other thing.

Dhig
12-03-2008, 00:13
Hello?

EPA
Kyoto Protocol
Endangered Species Act
Ban on Whaling
The entire fucking island of Madagascar
Its illegal to litter
Its will soon be illegal to use more than your alotted fossil fuels
Its illegal to contaminate ground water, air, or soil.
Its fucking illegal to stir up visible dust while walking or driving around a construction site.
National parks
National forest
Wildlife preserves
Clean water act
Clean energy act

What the fuck are you smoking? We are doing more globally than ever before to guaranty the rights of dear ol' mother earth. Sure Bush fucked things up real good, but we can undo his relatively minor damage with a few terms of democratic presidents.

So what about America using 25% of the worlds oil?
Does that count in your list of preserving mother nature?
And that with only 4% of the worlds population.
That is a great job indeed. Perhaps the politicians should have stimulate the corporations to use less oil long ago?
Anyway, this will take a very long time to reverse for America :sly:

Killuminati
12-03-2008, 00:17
So what about America using 25% of the worlds oil?
Does that count in your list of preserving mother nature?
And that with only 4% of the worlds population.
That is a great job indeed. Perhaps the politicians should have stimulate the corporations to use less oil long ago?
Anyway, this will take a very long time to reverse for America :sly:

ever heard of a paragraph?

DocGonzo
12-03-2008, 00:30
You can sue it for wrongful death like you could an individual. Jail time for killing someone is a penalty paid to the state for breaking its law, not to the victim, so who cares if a state takes a hefty fine rather than jail time? Worldcom and Enron went under anyway, is that not equivalent to being put in jail?

NO...a fine is NOT anywhere near the same as jail time, would you rather pay a fine or do the time yourself?

the max fine for dumping is $25k a day... there are barges that leave NY harbor every day with millions worth of shit on them, they take an EPA guy along and dump, then hand him the check as he write out the ticket

how different would it be if the person who signed off on that activity risked prosecution and jail time instead? that's my point...not regulation, per se...but accountability for criminal behavior that includes jail time

as i showed previously... some guy steals a car, he does 3-5...some CEO steals millions...



Yes they are made for the purpose of shielding liability. If Joe Entrepreneur could be fined millions of dollars of thrown in jail for any little thing someone in his corporation does, we won't have much incentive for business. And we do have the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil for certain circumstances. And holding shareholders liable could get to the point of absurdity... if you buy a few hundred dollars of GM stock, should you be partially held liable for a mistake the company makes?

i'm not talking about tossing shareholders in jail...but if there is no accountability on that level, then there is NO incentive for them to provide oversight when it concerns the Board of Directors who in turn then have no incentive to provide oversight to the CEO...

it's all about accountability and personal Responsibility, imo

show me how you will work towards that and i will sign up, as it stands right now, and as this entire financial disaster proves beyond doubt...the system as it is is hideously broken when it comes to holding folks accountable...

and without that feedback loop, the free market doesn't function properly, since the scofflaws gain unfair advantage over those working hard to do it right...

2 restaurants...one does it all legit, the other hires illegals and buys substandard supplies... we all know who makes more and is thus rewarded for breaking the rules, and if incorporated the risk of their behavior is removed

Harijan
12-03-2008, 00:37
So what about America using 25% of the worlds oil?
Does that count in your list of preserving mother nature?
And that with only 4% of the worlds population.
That is a great job indeed. Perhaps the politicians should have stimulate the corporations to use less oil long ago?
Anyway, this will take a very long time to reverse for America :sly:

I will listen to you when you sell your car and start biking everywhere you fucking hypocrit.

Dhig
12-03-2008, 00:48
I will listen to you when you sell your car and start biking everywhere you fucking hypocrit.

Ok I will tell you how I get to my job.
I use the train!
And to get to the train I use a bike!

I rarely use my car. I find it more expensive to have one then using it.
I never use my car to go shop groceries.

Perhaps that is something Americans should do aswell. Maybe the obesity wouldnt be such a problem.

Slypieguy
12-03-2008, 02:04
NO...a fine is NOT anywhere near the same as jail time, would you rather pay a fine or do the time yourself?

the max fine for dumping is $25k a day... there are barges that leave NY harbor every day with millions worth of shit on them, they take an EPA guy along and dump, then hand him the check as he write out the ticket

how different would it be if the person who signed off on that activity risked prosecution and jail time instead? that's my point...not regulation, per se...but accountability for criminal behavior that includes jail time

as i showed previously... some guy steals a car, he does 3-5...some CEO steals millions...


You can't put a corporation in jail, and I don't see what your alternative is. Put the lowly employee in jail who signed the papers? Put the supervisor who told him to do it in jail? How far up the hierarchy do you go? And as I said, it is a crime against the state if the corporation breaks a criminal law, so if the state wants to accept a fee then that is the state's business (or federal government in the case of federal laws).




i'm not talking about tossing shareholders in jail...but if there is no accountability on that level, then there is NO incentive for them to provide oversight when it concerns the Board of Directors who in turn then have no incentive to provide oversight to the CEO...

it's all about accountability and personal Responsibility, imo

show me how you will work towards that and i will sign up, as it stands right now, and as this entire financial disaster proves beyond doubt...the system as it is is hideously broken when it comes to holding folks accountable...

and without that feedback loop, the free market doesn't function properly, since the scofflaws gain unfair advantage over those working hard to do it right...

2 restaurants...one does it all legit, the other hires illegals and buys substandard supplies... we all know who makes more and is thus rewarded for breaking the rules, and if incorporated the risk of their behavior is removed

The incentive for the shareholders to provide oversight is inherent in their financial interest in the corporation. If the fees for breaking a law aren't big enough to deter, like in the situation you cited above, that's not the corporation's fault. Make the fee scale based on the company's market cap to where it would sting enough that they would stop the activity or something rather than just whining about the evil company dumping in your river. And on top of the fee you have the loss of goodwill, which certainly has a lot of value. The current financial disaster would be a great example of accountability if the government didn't step in and try to take it away by bailing out all the failures. One thing I would like to see more of is executive compensation through stock options rather than salary/bonuses (aka, you fuck up and the stock goes down, you make less)

DocGonzo
12-03-2008, 02:26
You can't put a corporation in jail, and I don't see what your alternative is. Put the lowly employee in jail who signed the papers? Put the supervisor who told him to do it in jail? How far up the hierarchy do you go? And as I said, it is a crime against the state if the corporation breaks a criminal law, so if the state wants to accept a fee then that is the state's business (or federal government in the case of federal laws).

now you see what i mean...where does the personal Responsibility go, IS the quintessential Question here...and, imo, should be a major focal point in looking at the current mess and how to avoid it without "over regulating" or interfering with the Market (at least as much as possible in the non Utopian real world)




The incentive for the shareholders to provide oversight is inherent in their financial interest in the corporation. (http://www.videosift.com/video/Greenspan-Destroys-Deregulation-in-16-Seconds) If the fees for breaking a law aren't big enough to deter, like in the situation you cited above, that's not the corporation's fault. Make the fee scale based on the company's market cap to where it would sting enough that they would stop the activity or something rather than just whining about the evil company dumping in your river. And on top of the fee you have the loss of goodwill, which certainly has a lot of value. The current financial disaster would be a great example of accountability if the government didn't step in and try to take it away by bailing out all the failures. One thing I would like to see more of is executive compensation through stock options rather than salary/bonuses (aka, you fuck up and the stock goes down, you make less)

the link i put in your opening statement is my bit of rebuttal for that Thought, and what i bolded i completely agree with

ejnomad07
12-03-2008, 02:27
Toilet just go away will you. Post count doesnt mean anything....get that into your head ffs.

Hell yeah it does. Jealous of him much?


P.S. Toilet has always been a bad thread maker.

Skree
12-03-2008, 03:59
Yes they are made for the purpose of shielding liability.I would add "and removing accountability". So are you saying they have more rights than individual citizens ? Funny the word corporation doesn't appear once in the constitution.

If Joe Entrepreneur could be fined millions of dollars of thrown in jail for any little thing someone in his corporation does, we won't have much incentive for business.As if no business gets done without a corporation.:lmao:

We poor dumb humans were too stupid to know we had no incentive without a corporation to worship.


And we do have the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil for certain circumstances.Examples ? Not hypothetical "if" examples. I mean actually happened examples. Where the majority stock holders (or any stockholders) were held accountable, not CEO's. They are mostly just the hired guns, well compensated hired guns.

For anyone thinking you can go buy 1000 or even 100,000 shares of a fortune 500 company and actually have any meaningful say-so at any stock holders meeting, well sorry to be the 1 to break it to you, but Santa Clause ain't real.:eek:


And holding shareholders liable could get to the point of absurdity... if you buy a few hundred dollars of GM stock, should you be partially held liable for a mistake the company makes?Using the word "could", you "could" make a case for just about anything. Of course you "could" just as easily determine who the actual controlling stockholders of the corp are and hold them accountable. You know, be responsible for the way you hold people accountable.;)

But then corporations might have to be as responsible as individuals under the constitution. Nahhhh... then all trade and commerce would come to a screeching halt, like before there was such a thing as a "corporation"....oh wait. :lmao:

Skree

Qikdraw
12-03-2008, 22:38
I was watching a movie the other day, and this guy in blue tights, with red underwear(ON THE OUTSIDE!!!11one!!) was fucking flying around! It was awesome. I can't believe this guy isn't on the news! I mean if Hollywood could make a movie with him, surely the media could get an interview? I mean, come on, this guy is some sort of Super Man!

You don't believe me? It's 100% fact! I saw it in a movie! Everything in movies is real, and unbias. Look at Michael Moore's flicks. Cuba has the best healthcare in the entire world. True story.

You are really gullible

Yeah cause fictional character and reality get so confusing sometimes. No wonder you're an idiot.

And the only people in the world who think American healthcare is the best are Americans. Go read the World Health Organization's report on healthcare around the world. Or just go search the net and find all kinds of articles including ones that show American doctors are in a majority in wanting a universal healthcare system. America has great doctors, but the system sucks.

Qikdraw
12-03-2008, 22:52
Thank you. Finally a post that’s not saying that people being against irresponsibility in corps makes them poor, stupid, communist, hippies

Yes well the internet epeens get big because people can say what they want without getting their head handed to them. They think it makes them look cool. Why anyone cares what other anonymous people think of them is beyond me.


That’s the main thing, corps are irresponsible, they act like children and never think about the future, past the next quarter. They gladly shit in their own nests, later to find out they ruined their chances at succeeding, while ignoring how much harm they cause to their customers.

Don't get me wrong though. I have no problems with corporations making money, making huge money, but I do not think they should be doing that while putting our health, and the health of our children at risk. Corporations can still make money while making sure no one is harmed by their products.


Also, with their growth in power, they get around legal restrictions meant to protect us (putting in those dangerous growth hormones) and instead of them being at the mercy of the customer, which is the spirit of competition and capitalism, they run businesses where its like the customers only have the 'privileged' to buy from them.

Corporations and government should be seperate, or you get facism. WHile we are not there, we are close. When Cheney goes behind closed doors to make an energy policy, and doesn't say who he met with, or what they talked about, then oil companies make billions of dollars in record profits, there is something wrong.

With this bailout we've also proven that unrestricted capitalism simply does not work. Now we become a hugely socialist country in bailing out corporations. Which we now know the Bush admin was warned over a year ago about the mortgage mess coming in, but they chose to ignore it. Greed sets in and all a company cares about is making money. While making money is not a bad thing, making it at the ruinous expense of others is.

Slypieguy
12-03-2008, 23:17
I would add "and removing accountability". So are you saying they have more rights than individual citizens ? Funny the word corporation doesn't appear once in the constitution.
As if no business gets done without a corporation.:lmao:

We poor dumb humans were too stupid to know we had no incentive without a corporation to worship.


I don't recall saying corporations have more rights than an individual, just that they help shield liability. If you want to go back to pre-1300s business models, be my guest.



Examples ? Not hypothetical "if" examples. I mean actually happened examples. Where the majority stock holders (or any stockholders) were held accountable, not CEO's. They are mostly just the hired guns, well compensated hired guns.


Walkovszky v. Carlton



For anyone thinking you can go buy 1000 or even 100,000 shares of a fortune 500 company and actually have any meaningful say-so at any stock holders meeting, well sorry to be the 1 to break it to you, but Santa Clause ain't real.:eek:


You do know those types are the vast minority of corporations right? And I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make here... you think if any corporation is too big for any Joe Schmoe to purchase a controlling interest then it has gotten "too big??"



Using the word "could", you "could" make a case for just about anything. Of course you "could" just as easily determine who the actual controlling stockholders of the corp are and hold them accountable. You know, be responsible for the way you hold people accountable.;)


Skree

As I've already said, you can in certain circumstances hold the shareholders personally liable, but it normally only applies to small corporations, which you don't seem to care much about as you appear to be one of the "omg big evul corporashunz" types.

Lindorn
12-04-2008, 00:00
I don't recall saying corporations have more rights than an individual, just that they help shield liability. If you want to go back to pre-1300s business models, be my guest.

That's dumb. Come on man. I feel like you are defending corporations now and undermining your own beliefs in the process. You can't be for individual liberty and be all for corporations pissing all over other people's. Something has to be done here. The fact is that breaking the law cannot be a simply business decision, and for many it is.

What can we do to change that? That's the real question. More regulation won't work. Less regulation won't really do much in the long run either. So what do we do? I mean I respect your spirit to protect liberty, but there comes a point where you are protecting someone elses ability to fuck everyone else over. That's essentially what corporations are doing right now.

I honestly think a few years in the middle of a prison gangbang would do some of these corporate executives some good. How is the guy who writes the corporate order to dump toxic chemicals into a river that gives half of a town in the south (happened) cancer better than a guy who kills someone? Let the fear of sodomy infiltrate our corporations at the deepest level!

Of course none of this will happen until we separate the government from the corporations. And trust me, the socialists giving the government all the power is no different than the corporations having it. They are all on the same team now.

DoveAlexa
12-04-2008, 00:00
Don't get me wrong though. I have no problems with corporations making money, making huge money, but I do not think they should be doing that while putting our health, and the health of our children at risk. Corporations can still make money while making sure no one is harmed by their products.

Agreed (that was easy ;D)



Corporations and government should be seperate, or you get facism. WHile we are not there, we are close. When Cheney goes behind closed doors to make an energy policy, and doesn't say who he met with, or what they talked about, then oil companies make billions of dollars in record profits, there is something wrong.

Again, agreed. I just want transparency.


With this bailout we've also proven that unrestricted capitalism simply does not work. Now we become a hugely socialist country in bailing out corporations. Which we now know the Bush admin was warned over a year ago about the mortgage mess coming in, but they chose to ignore it. Greed sets in and all a company cares about is making money. While making money is not a bad thing, making it at the ruinous expense of others is.
Yeah... if a country really is capitalist, they should let companies that fail, FAIL. There should be the same consequences for a big business being mismanaged (or whatever reason a company may fail) as a small company. If you don't allow that, its not capitalist, and your country is living a lie.

(Hurray for calm discussions ^.^)

Slypieguy
12-04-2008, 00:03
That's dumb. Come on man. I feel like you are defending corporations now and undermining your own beliefs in the process. You can't be for individual liberty and be all for corporations pissing all over other people's. Something has to be done here. The fact is that breaking the law cannot be a simply business decision, and for many it is.

What can we do to change that? That's the real question. More regulation won't work. Less regulation won't really do much in the long run either. So what do we do? I mean I respect your spirit to protect liberty, but there comes a point where you are protecting someone elses ability to fuck everyone else over. That's essentially what corporations are doing right now.

I honestly think a few years in the middle of a prison gangbang would do some of these corporate executives some good. How is the guy who writes the corporate order to dump toxic chemicals into a river that gives half of a town in the south (happened) cancer better than a guy who kills someone? Let the fear of sodomy infiltrate our corporations at the deepest level!

Of course none of this will happen until we separate the government from the corporations. And trust me, the socialists giving the government all the power is no different than the corporations having it. They are all on the same team now.

I didn't say things were perfect atm. I even suggested a remedy to a particular situation earlier in the thread (making penalties scale to market cap, so it isn't just a calculated business decision to break laws at will and pay the fine). I just think the whole "big evil corporations" angle is really tired and played out, and people like to circle jerk to it without anyone educated enough to make any counterpoints.

Lindorn
12-04-2008, 00:12
I didn't say things were perfect atm. I even suggested a remedy to a particular situation earlier in the thread (making penalties scale to market cap, so it isn't just a calculated business decision to break laws at will and pay the fine). I just think the whole "big evil corporations" angle is really tired and played out, and people like to circle jerk to it without anyone educated enough to make any counterpoints.

I agree, but someone like you should just ignore those fools and pretend that you are arguing with someone who has a clue what they are talking about. Just because socialists bitch and moan about corporations without having a clue doesn't mean that corporations arent really a huge scourge on the land. Personally I agree with the documentary's label of "sociopath" for how corporations operate. The documentary at no point says corporations are "evil", but it does say that they are inherently sociopathic in nature.

I think even many of the people within those organizations are good people, but they come together as part of an organization who's goals are achieved through means that reflect such a personality.

DocGonzo
12-04-2008, 00:14
hey now...me and Sly had our dance and sorted some basics out

you know i don't like to fuck with someone too much in one thread, much more fun to spread it out over time... ;)

Killuminati
12-04-2008, 00:16
hey now...me and Sly had our dance and sorted some basics out

you know i don't like to fuck with someone too much in one thread, much more fun to spread it out over time... ;)

how loose is your butt right now?

Slypieguy
12-04-2008, 00:20
I agree, but someone like you should just ignore those fools and pretend that you are arguing with someone who has a clue what they are talking about. Just because socialists bitch and moan about corporations without having a clue doesn't mean that corporations arent really a huge scourge on the land. Personally I agree with the documentary's label of "sociopath" for how corporations operate. The documentary at no point says corporations are "evil", but it does say that they are inherently sociopathic in nature.

I think even many of the people within those organizations are good people, but they come together as part of an organization who's goals are achieved through means that reflect such a personality.

People tend to overlook the concept of goodwill, which is very real and has great value. The market punishes too much sociopathic behavior and rewards those who do the opposite. Why do you think Ben & Jerry's can charge so fucking much for their stupid ice cream? You have investment firms offering "ethical" portfolios or whatever where they won't put your money into any company that is considered morally or ethically "bad." Obviously goodwill doesn't take care of the problem completely (especially for necessities, aka Exxon & Wal-Mart) but it's just another thing that foaming at the mouth haters just ignore entirely.

Anyway, the corporation exists for the sole purpose of making profit, by definition. It is supposed to act sociopathic, by definition.

Lindorn
12-04-2008, 00:22
I agree. Thats wrong and unconstitutional/unamerican. Which is why I think some sort of reform in how they do business needs to happen. Either that or the punishment needs to reflect the crime.

Im not going to tell you I think we need a tighter leash for corporations. A tighter leash for them means nothing.

What we need is straight up ownage when they break the law. If people in this country are going away for a decade for selling pot, some corporations should be straight up dissolved and the executives imprisoned for life for some of the shit they have perpetrated.

Slypieguy
12-04-2008, 00:23
I agree. Thats wrong and unconstitutional/unamerican.

What is?

Lindorn
12-04-2008, 00:25
violating another persons right to life liberty and happiness for your own personal gain?

Slypieguy
12-04-2008, 00:31
violating another persons right to life liberty and happiness for your own personal gain?

You would have a point if they weren't breaking laws and paying fines. I would agree that the fines aren't big enough to get the desired goal (deterrence) in many cases, but that's a different discussion.

Lindorn
12-04-2008, 00:34
You would have a point if they weren't breaking laws and paying fines. I would agree that the fines aren't big enough to get the desired goal (deterrence) in many cases, but that's a different discussion.

What does the fact that there are laws, they break them, and they pay fines have to do with whether that behavior is unconstitutional?

Slypieguy
12-04-2008, 00:35
What does the fact that there are laws, they break them, and they pay fines have to do with whether that behavior is unconstitutional?

How specifically is it unconstitutional, and what behavior exactly are you referring to? I'm just talking about corporations breaking state/federal laws/regulations and paying the fines for them. It's like if you think speeding is worth the risk of paying the speeding ticket, that isn't unconstitutional, just a decision you make.

Lindorn
12-04-2008, 00:38
How specifically is it unconstitutional, and what behavior exactly are you referring to? I'm just talking about corporations breaking state/federal laws/regulations and paying the fines for them. It's like if you think speeding is worth the risk of paying the speeding ticket, that isn't unconstitutional, just a decision you make.

The spirit of the constitution is that you can basically do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. That's pretty oversimplified but you get what I'm saying. Dumping chemicals into a river to save cash and giving people cancer is violating their civil liberties. Therefore those actions are unconstitutional.

Just because of the obvious fact that for corporations its all about cost to benefit analysis doesn't change the fact that the behavior is unconstitutional.

EDIT: My intention wasn't to pertain the behavior to the constitution as a document, as much as to say that the behavior is unamerican and constitutionally immoral, and therefore should be stopped.

cosimo84
12-04-2008, 00:42
Amagad that was boring! Couldn't get beyond 15 minutes..geez, what do you think I'm made of raw attention span?

Slypieguy
12-04-2008, 00:43
EDIT: My intention wasn't to pertain the behavior to the constitution as a document, as much as to say that the behavior is unamerican and constitutionally immoral, and therefore should be stopped.

Ok, I got you now, more of a philosophical argument. I agree it should be stopped, but we also shouldn't compromise the limited liability advantages of incorporation. I think making the fees much bigger to where it never works out in the corporation's favor to break the law would be a good way of going about it.

Lindorn
12-04-2008, 00:44
Amagad that was boring. Couldn't get beyond 15 minutes..geez, what do you think I'm made of raw attention span?

I'd say it's say that for you, being an intellectual would be rather boring. I'd just stick with what you are doing now ;)

Killuminati
12-04-2008, 00:46
The real problem is there isn't any property rights recognized for things like rivers. I know this probably is heresy for some of you, but things left in communal ownership, can.. and will be abused.

Lindorn
12-04-2008, 00:46
Ok, I got you now, more of a philosophical argument. I agree it should be stopped, but we also shouldn't compromise the limited liability advantages of incorporation. I think making the fees much bigger to where it never works out in the corporation's favor to break the law would be a good way of going about it.

I agree. I've actually thought of a system where if the behavior went too far, the people could take it to the supreme court and have the organization dissolved, and the assets sold off right under their noses. Hell even let the stockholders take the hit for it so that they actually take some responsibility for what their corporation does. Maybe then they'll make sure to put some oversight on their own financials so that the government doesn't have to come in and babysit them.

cosimo84
12-04-2008, 00:46
I'd say it's say that for you, being an intellectual would be rather boring. I'd just stick with what you are doing now ;)


oooh thank you.

i'm smarter now that you posted that. Thanks for that winking face at the end there,..it helps me to know that you're like a big kid who is going to take care of me and that I can learn from.

Lindorn
12-04-2008, 00:47
The real problem is there isn't any property rights recognized for things like rivers. I know this probably is heresy for some of you, but things left in communal ownership, can.. and will be abused.

Agreed. But if you dump chemicals into a river, and someone is paying for water from that river piped into their house. They drink that water and get cancer, you have at that point infringed on their property without their knowledge, and effectively poisoned them for life.

No different than murder imo.

Killuminati
12-04-2008, 00:52
Agreed. But if you dump chemicals into a river, and someone is paying for water from that river piped into their house. They drink that water and get cancer, you have at that point infringed on their property without their knowledge, and effectively poisoned them for life.

No different than murder imo.

I'm talking about actually owning the body of water. Not people paying for the access to water from the river. I'd find it hard to believe that someone who owns the body of water doesn't have the vested interest in protecting that area since it always is the case when someone physically owns something. When things are left to bureaucrats, you get no real protection from harm because there is no real incentive to actually fix the problem.Their whole job revolves around obtaining more work and not actually protecting property they don't own.

DocGonzo
12-04-2008, 01:01
how loose is your butt right now?

heh..i'm just fine and still virginal...

i wield the Probulator and think that Sly and i have had some decent conversations on a very wide variety of topics without any kind of need for "fucking"....there have been some others i may have been a bit harsh to, but repetitive stupidity can catch me the wrong way sometimes...


I'd find it hard to believe that someone who owns the body of water doesn't have the vested interest in protecting that area since it always is the case when someone physically owns something.

orly? (http://www.videosift.com/video/Greenspan-Destroys-Deregulation-in-16-Seconds) ... :p

cosimo84
12-04-2008, 01:11
...


orly? (http://www.videosift.com/video/Greenspan-Destroys-Deregulation-in-16-Seconds) ... :p

is that english he's speaking?

Killuminati
12-04-2008, 01:16
orly? (http://www.videosift.com/video/Greenspan-Destroys-Deregulation-in-16-Seconds) ... :p

What the hell is that suppose to mean? I find it funny when leftists link that video in such a pathetic attempt at discrediting the free-market. No offense but it shows how ignorant some of you are on the monetary system and the free-market in general. I don't know how many times it has to be repeated, but an ex-fed chairman speaking out against the free-market is highly amusing and silly to use as an argument against deregulation.

Harijan
12-04-2008, 02:04
Ok I will tell you how I get to my job.
I use the train!
And to get to the train I use a bike!

I rarely use my car. I find it more expensive to have one then using it.
I never use my car to go shop groceries.

Perhaps that is something Americans should do aswell. Maybe the obesity wouldnt be such a problem.
You own a car, you drive a car, you complain about other people using gas. You are a fucking hypocrit. Grow up and admit it.

How many KM do you drive a month? How many Litres do you buy? Bet I go much less than you do in my big-ass American pickup truck. Thats right, I am one of those Americans you hate so much, and I will bet my hot-ass that my carbon footprint is smaller than yours.

You have posted like 30 times that America uses 25% of the oil produced. Time for me to call your bullshit. Source it, bitch. Fact of the matter is that whoever produces the most, uses the most. China and India's oil consumption is very quickly closing the gap on the U.S., and the Economist predicts that the U.S. will be number 3 in Oil consumption by 2020.

Now go put that in your tailpipe and smoke it.

DocGonzo
12-04-2008, 02:11
What the hell is that suppose to mean? I find it funny when leftists link that video in such a pathetic attempt at discrediting the free-market. No offense but it shows how ignorant some of you are on the monetary system and the free-market in general. I don't know how many times it has to be repeated, but an ex-fed chairman speaking out against the free-market is highly amusing and silly to use as an argument against deregulation.

learn2hear

where do either myself or Greenspan say anything against the "free market"

listen to EXACTLY what words he uses, he is recognizing the objective fact that people in business who make their money in short term gains do not give a fuck about the long term health of their institution...thus fucking up one of the basic feedback loops that is supposed to self regulate the Market

tl:dr - crooks can fuck shit up if you don't watch them closely

how is that any kind of bash on the "free market", which i consider just as naive and utopian as "pure communisim"...neither have ever existed, and both are just as much utopian pipe dreams that will never see reality as long as people are humans...

Slypieguy
12-04-2008, 02:14
Agreed. But if you dump chemicals into a river, and someone is paying for water from that river piped into their house. They drink that water and get cancer, you have at that point infringed on their property without their knowledge, and effectively poisoned them for life.

No different than murder imo.

Intent? Lacking in the necessary mens rea, if you will

DocGonzo
12-04-2008, 02:16
Intent? Lacking in the necessary mens rea, if you will

and if they know what the results would be?

i can agree with you if they didn't know what could happen...but if they do, and do it anyway...that shows plenty of legal intent...cigarettes anyone?

Killuminati
12-04-2008, 02:18
Good for you. The fact is the opinions of one of the people who caused the economic crisis is pretty worthless.

Greed is recognized by people who believe in the free-market . We are the only ones who admit it exists as part of human behavior yet we embrace it and understand what true transparency is. If you believe more bureaucrats like Greenspan are needed to keep things stable that is your subjective opinion.

Slypieguy
12-04-2008, 02:19
and if they know what the results would be?

i can agree with you if they didn't know what could happen...but if they do, and do it anyway...that shows plenty of legal intent...cigarettes anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_aforethought

DocGonzo
12-04-2008, 02:29
If you believe more bureaucrats like Greenspan are needed to keep things stable that is your subjective opinion.

never said anything like it...i want complete transparency and criminal prosecution with asset forfeiture...both in business and in government

stick to what i type, and not what you assume and we will get along just fine

Slypieguy
12-04-2008, 02:32
never said anything like it...i want complete transparency and criminal prosecution with asset forfeiture...both in business and in government

stick to what i type, and not what you assume and we will get along just fine

Asset forfeiture? As in an executive fucks up and the whole corporation's assets get liquidated? That's luda

Killuminati
12-04-2008, 02:32
never said anything like it...i want complete transparency and criminal prosecution with asset forfeiture...both in business and in government

stick to what i type, and not what you assume and we will get along just fine

I fail to see how the government will prosecute themselves...

DocGonzo
12-04-2008, 02:33
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_aforethought

Lindorn said murder..i should have been more clear...from criminal negligence to manslaughter..i'm no lawyer, but i'm fairly certain there is a term for exactly what we are talking about...ie:willfully and knowingly being responsible for killing people via negligence or misconduct for monetary gain

it migh tnot be the same legal definition as murder...but EACH and EVERY count should be tried as a federal capital crime, imo

DocGonzo
12-04-2008, 02:36
Asset forfeiture? As in an executive fucks up and the whole corporation's assets get liquidated? That's luda

no..as in the executive responsible gets tried as a fucking criminal and if found guilty HE forfeits the gains from his crime...just like a drug lord... the legal entity of the corp cannot be held legally responsible but the Individuals who are responsible (like the RICO statutes, "kingpin" etc) can and should

and those fuckers should forfeit EVERY DIME earned from their crimes in addition to their jail time

bet that shuts down a shit ton of white collar crime immediately

Slypieguy
12-04-2008, 02:38
no..as in the executive responsible gets tried as a fucking criminal and if found guilty HE forfeits the gains from his crime...just like a drug lord... the legal entity of the corp cannot be held legally responsible but the Individuals who are responsible (like the RICO statutes, "kingpin" etc) can and should

and those fuckers should forfeit EVERY DIME earned from their crimes in addition to their jail time

bet that shuts down a shit ton of white collar crime immediately

I didn't really pay attention to the sentences the Enron guys got, but wasn't it effectively the same as what you just said?

DocGonzo
12-04-2008, 02:45
I didn't really pay attention to the sentences the Enron guys got, but wasn't it effectively the same as what you just said?

not even close...

and where's the prosecutions for the current fiasco? oh, that's right...there's not even any federal investigations...

Slypieguy
12-04-2008, 02:48
not even close...

and where's the prosecutions for the current fiasco? oh, that's right...there's not even any federal investigations...

I thought the Enron guys got some jail time and a fee of millions of dollars?

And yes, no one gets investigated in our current situation, they get free taxpayer money instead. /facepalm

DocGonzo
12-04-2008, 02:55
I thought the Enron guys got some jail time and a fee of millions of dollars?

And yes, no one gets investigated in our current situation, they get free taxpayer money instead. /facepalm

look at eh money involved in the fraud, compare that to the VERY light jail sentences and the tiny fraction the fines were compared to the illegal profits made from various criminal acts

you get caught with an oz of weed, you do 3-5...which is more than any of these fuckers will serve...and when you made hundreds of millions (personally...billions were made from the fraud)...a fee of a million is trivial, isn't it?

Killuminati
12-04-2008, 02:55
plus, the only reason why Enron was finally exposed was because of rating agencies like Moodys which downgraded their rating.


Free-market.. where da true transparency is at son

DocGonzo
12-04-2008, 03:04
plus, the only reason why Enron was finally exposed was because of rating agencies like Moodys which downgraded their rating.


Free-market.. where da true transparency is at son

Moody's did dig up the first bits, but it wasn't until Arthur Anderson's was investigated by the Feds that we started seeing what was really going on

you keep believing in your utopian pipe dream...until you can do away with crooks and sociopaths you can never achieve it, imo

Skree
12-04-2008, 17:51
Walkovszky v. Carlton

As I've already said, you can in certain circumstances hold the shareholders personally liable, but it normally only applies to small corporations, which you don't seem to care much about as you appear to be one of the "omg big evul corporashunz" types.Except you cannot find 1 instance in any post I have ever made on these forums where I call a corporation Evil, unless maybe, once tongue-in-cheek about Microsoft.

That is something blind defenders of corporations use to try to discredit anyone who dares to think the owners of a corporation should be held accountable. Just as I used the word "blind". You use the word "evil".

As to your case you gave as an example:


Justice Fuld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Fuld), for the majority, held that Carlton was not personally liable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkovszky_v._Carlton The corporate veil was not penetrated in your example.

Skree

Tharkon Fargor
12-04-2008, 18:02
The other thread is unlocked :P nub. Awesome movie tho. Really shows how it is just a new system of oppression, and that it has little different to the previous ones.

Harijan
12-04-2008, 18:14
I worked on the Enron Bankruptcy for several years. I was one of the first groups in and last groups out. The consulting firm I worked for was responsible for telling the courts how much Enron was worth if the fraud had never happened. I have been in several working sessions with reporters and writers. I was even part of a group interview with the chick who did that documentary "smartest guys in the room" (nothing from my interview was interesting enough to make it into the show though).

The culpable parties were severely punished on Enron. The jail time was significant even for Fastow who testified for the govt. The only consession the govt gave the CFO was that he and his wife would not serve their jail time at the same time so that at least one parent could be out of jail to raise the kids.

With only one exception all of the guys who were in on the fraud were fined for everything they fraudulently received.

The banks that were in on the Enron fraud had no individuals prosecuted, but the banks did pay Enron shareholders and creditors almost $20 billion to settle their cases with Enron. about $2 billion of that $20 billion went to lawyers and consultants like me. The rest went directly to the people that Enron screwed.

Enron still exists today. It is a viable company that will probably emerge from bankruptcy at some point. The company is very different now, and not one person who was a director or above in the old Enron is still with the company.

Most of those who were prosecuted are now banned from the oil and gas industry, the banking industry, and are not allowed to own stock, commodities, or securities either directly or through any other entity.

The masterminds of the fraud that worked at Enron are all either dead (suicide) or in jail today. The accountants and consultants at Arthur Anderson all had their CPA licenses revoked, the company they owned (AA) was destroyed, and they are all banned from working in accounting or oil and gas.

The investment bankers who participated in the fraudulent deals all lost their jobs and a few of them are banned from any form of securities investing. If there was one weak spot in the Enron punishment, it is that the individual bankers who knowingly participated all lost their jobs, and their careers are over, but none of the served any jail time or had to personally pay money back to the Enron estate. Of course, those guys did not directly make any money from the fraud either. They just got hefty paychecks from their employers.

Lastly, if there is one person responsible for exposing Enron, the guy who broke Enron was an analyst and Goldman (david something). He was assigned to rate the quality and set price targets for Enron stock for Goldman customers. He started digging into their balance sheet and realized that it was a sham. On one of Enron's quarterly investor calls (where they release quarterly results) this analyst started asking very persistent questions about Enron's off-balance sheet financing. The CEO of Enron got agitated and essentially went off on the analyst saying things like he (the analyst) was too stupid to understand something as complicated as Enron's capital structure.

Goldman refused to downgrade Enron even though the analyst had exposed the tip of the iceberg. But it was too late, the can of worms had been opened. To his credit, the analyst refused to bless the Goldman rating for Enron. He was eventually fired/resigned from Goldman because of his refusal to issue a strong buy rating on Enron stock. In the subsequent lawsuit, the analyst settled out of court with Goldman for an undisclosed amount. He doesn't have to work anymore.

After that investor call several reporters and analysts started looking very closely at Enron's balance sheet. About 6 months later Moody's downgraded Enron's credit rating and that is when Enron went into its deathspiral.

Still a free market success story. At the time the analyst started asking questions, the SEC was already investigating Enron for related accounting problems. It was only a matter of time before Enron went down. It just so happens that this single analyst was the trigger.

There was also a reporter for the NYT that consisently hounded Enron for almost a year before Enron actually collapsed. That reporter likes to take credit for bringing down Enron. The problem is that the reporter was smart enough to tell that something wasn't right at Enron, but he was not smart enough to build an argument that would convince anyone of what was going on.

Matriel
12-04-2008, 18:17
http://www.onlinedocumentaries4u.com/2008/12/corporation.html

I know this is a remake, but the information is important and the die hard libertarians and capitalists ought to watch it.

I also remade the thread because while lots of dumb threads were unlocked, the previous thread which had the same important information, was not unlocked.

You do realize that corporations having direct power over people is a product of government right?

The very thing evil libertarians and laissez faire capitalists oppose...

DoveAlexa
12-04-2008, 18:24
I worked on the Enron Bankruptcy for several years. I was one of the first groups in and last groups out. The consulting firm I worked for was responsible for telling the courts how much Enron was worth if the fraud had never happened. I have been in several working sessions with reporters and writers. I was even part of a group interview with the chick who did that documentary "smartest guys in the room" (nothing from my interview was interesting enough to make it into the show though).

The culpable parties were severely punished on Enron. The jail time was significant even for Fastow who testified for the govt. The only consession the govt gave the CFO was that he and his wife would not serve their jail time at the same time so that at least one parent could be out of jail to raise the kids.

With only one exception all of the guys who were in on the fraud were fined for everything they fraudulently received.

The banks that were in on the Enron fraud had no individuals prosecuted, but the banks did pay Enron shareholders and creditors almost $20 billion to settle their cases with Enron. about $2 billion of that $20 billion went to lawyers and consultants like me. The rest went directly to the people that Enron screwed.

Enron still exists today. It is a viable company that will probably emerge from bankruptcy at some point. The company is very different now, and not one person who was a director or above in the old Enron is still with the company.

Most of those who were prosecuted are now banned from the oil and gas industry, the banking industry, and are not allowed to own stock, commodities, or securities either directly or through any other entity.

The masterminds of the fraud that worked at Enron are all either dead (suicide) or in jail today. The accountants and consultants at Arthur Anderson all had their CPA licenses revoked, the company they owned (AA) was destroyed, and they are all banned from working in accounting or oil and gas.

The investment bankers who participated in the fraudulent deals all lost their jobs and a few of them are banned from any form of securities investing. If there was one weak spot in the Enron punishment, it is that the individual bankers who knowingly participated all lost their jobs, and their careers are over, but none of the served any jail time or had to personally pay money back to the Enron estate. Of course, those guys did not directly make any money from the fraud either. They just got hefty paychecks from their employers.

Lastly, if there is one person responsible for exposing Enron, the guy who broke Enron was an analyst and Goldman (david something). He was assigned to rate the quality and set price targets for Enron stock for Goldman customers. He started digging into their balance sheet and realized that it was a sham. On one of Enron's quarterly investor calls (where they release quarterly results) this analyst started asking very persistent questions about Enron's off-balance sheet financing. The CEO of Enron got agitated and essentially went off on the analyst saying things like he (the analyst) was too stupid to understand something as complicated as Enron's capital structure.

Goldman refused to downgrade Enron even though the analyst had exposed the tip of the iceberg. But it was too late, the can of worms had been opened. To his credit, the analyst refused to bless the Goldman rating for Enron. He was eventually fired/resigned from Goldman because of his refusal to issue a strong buy rating on Enron stock. In the subsequent lawsuit, the analyst settled out of court with Goldman for an undisclosed amount. He doesn't have to work anymore.

After that investor call several reporters and analysts started looking very closely at Enron's balance sheet. About 6 months later Moody's downgraded Enron's credit rating and that is when Enron went into its deathspiral.

Still a free market success story. At the time the analyst started asking questions, the SEC was already investigating Enron for related accounting problems. It was only a matter of time before Enron went down. It just so happens that this single analyst was the trigger.

There was also a reporter for the NYT that consisently hounded Enron for almost a year before Enron actually collapsed. That reporter likes to take credit for bringing down Enron. The problem is that the reporter was smart enough to tell that something wasn't right at Enron, but he was not smart enough to build an argument that would convince anyone of what was going on.
Thank you ^.^
//cookie for you <3

Slypieguy
12-04-2008, 18:34
Except you cannot find 1 instance in any post I have ever made on these forums where I call a corporation Evil, unless maybe, once tongue-in-cheek about Microsoft.

That is something blind defenders of corporations use to try to discredit anyone who dares to think the owners of a corporation should be held accountable. Just as I used the word "blind". You use the word "evil".

As to your case you gave as an example:

The corporate veil was not penetrated in your example.

Skree

Oops, I accidentally grabbed the wrong case :p That one was an example of when piercing doesn't work (undercaptialization alone isn't enough). But clearly you can see from your own link that the doctrine is real and can be applied to real situations.

Killuminati
12-04-2008, 18:35
Moody's did dig up the first bits, but it wasn't until Arthur Anderson's was investigated by the Feds that we started seeing what was really going on

you keep believing in your utopian pipe dream...until you can do away with crooks and sociopaths you can never achieve it, imo

Yup, in order to stop the crooks and sociopaths from getting their way, a coercive monopoly which has no competitors must be assumed to guarantee order and stability and to keep people from doing harm to each other. Sounds like a plan.

Slypieguy
12-04-2008, 18:37
Yup, in order to stop the crooks and sociopaths from getting their way, a coercive monopoly which has no competitors must be assumed to guarantee order and stability and to keep people from doing harm to each other. Sounds like a plan.

lolz, but the government wouldn't harm anyone... because it isn't a single person, but an entity made by a large group of voters... man that sure does sound like something else :p

DocGonzo
12-04-2008, 18:39
Yup, in order to stop the crooks and sociopaths from getting their way, a coercive monopoly which has no competitors must be assumed to guarantee order and stability and to keep people from doing harm to each other. Sounds like a plan.

again, you make assumptive assertions which i have never typed...

never did i give any proposed solution, merely outlined the problem

you appear to agree on the problem, at least in part...do you have a suggestive solution? or just utopian snarking?

Killuminati
12-04-2008, 18:43
again, you make assumptive assertions which i have never typed...

never did i give any proposed solution, merely outlined the problem

you appear to agree on the problem, at least in part...do you have a suggestive solution? or just utopian snarking?

I didn't agree on anything. I was commenting on the rating agencies hand in bring Enron down. I don't really know much about the accounting firm so I couldn't comment further on that.

Slypieguy
12-04-2008, 18:53
again, you make assumptive assertions which i have never typed...

never did i give any proposed solution, merely outlined the problem

you appear to agree on the problem, at least in part...do you have a suggestive solution? or just utopian snarking?

You did seem to be discounting the Moody's guy and giving the fed all the credit, insinuating that the government is more apt to handle such things

Toilet
12-04-2008, 20:02
You do realize that corporations having direct power over people is a product of government right?

The very thing evil libertarians and laissez faire capitalists oppose...

I have nothing against either libertarians or capitalism.

But its a matter of values, really.

If you like being creative, playing games, making music, making games, making art, aswell as being social and meeting new people, you are going to prefer socialism, because then you wont have to work, and thus you get more time for being creative.

If you like working and especially physical work, you are going to prefer capitalism, because while there is a big psychological reward for being creative, and especially if you show it to others and they like it, the reward for hard physical work only becomes as big if you get money or another physical reward for it.

omnigol
12-04-2008, 20:06
If you like being creative, playing games, making music, making games, making art, aswell as being social and meeting new people, you are going to prefer socialism, because then you wont have to work, and thus you get more time for being creative.

If you like working and especially physical work, you are going to prefer capitalism, because while there is a big psychological reward for being creative, and especially if you show it to others and they like it, the reward for hard physical work only becomes as big if you get money or another physical reward for it.

Man I love the internet, otherwise I don't think I'd ever have gotten to hear someone say this.

Slypieguy
12-04-2008, 20:07
I have nothing against either libertarians or capitalism.

But its a matter of values, really.

If you like being creative, playing games, making music, making games, making art, aswell as being social and meeting new people, you are going to prefer socialism, because then you wont have to work, and thus you get more time for being creative.

If you like working and especially physical work, you are going to prefer capitalism, because while there is a big psychological reward for being creative, and especially if you show it to others and they like it, the reward for hard physical work only becomes as big if you get money or another physical reward for it.

What in the fuck? Most ignorant and incorrect post ever. Someone sticky this as a reminder of how not to fail on forumfall.

Killuminati
12-04-2008, 20:08
Yah, its funny since there isn't such a thing as entrepreneurial ingenuity under socialism.

Toilet
12-04-2008, 20:10
Yah, its funny since there isn't such a thing as entrepreneurial ingenuity under socialism.

There is.

There is the reward of helping people and showing people something you are proud of.

Those are only beaten by sexual stimulation.

Toilet
12-04-2008, 20:11
What in the fuck? Most ignorant and incorrect post ever. Someone sticky this as a reminder of how not to fail on forumfall.

Creative people are bound to prefer socialism, because then they can be as creative as they want.

If you deny that, you are the most ignorant and incorrect ever.

Killuminati
12-04-2008, 20:12
you shouldn't troll so hard.

Dimgo
12-04-2008, 20:28
Creative people are bound to prefer socialism, because then they can be as creative as they want.

If you deny that, you are the most ignorant and incorrect ever.
You can be creative as you want in a libertarian society

Slypieguy
12-04-2008, 20:33
Creative people are bound to prefer socialism, because then they can be as creative as they want.

If you deny that, you are the most ignorant and incorrect ever.

Yea, like you could come up with a super creative way to start a new power company and... oops :(

DocGonzo
12-04-2008, 20:40
You did seem to be discounting the Moody's guy and giving the fed all the credit, insinuating that the government is more apt to handle such things

not at all...full credit to the Moody's guy for finding the original problem and having the sheer ballls to stand up to his bosses about it

my point was who did the investigations that found the criminality...and who prosecuted the criminals?

not the private sector...right?

that's my point

Arkh
12-04-2008, 20:42
Creative people are bound to prefer socialism, because then they can be as creative as they want.

If you deny that, you are the most ignorant and incorrect ever.
I deny it.
In a socialist society, artistic creation is in part dictated by the state : if you don't do what the government like, you aren't helped financialy. The ending point being the art used as a mean of propaganda.

In a liberal (yeah, I'm getting back this word) society, you can be creative cause even if your sponsor direct what you have to make, you can change sponsor. Competition FTW.

Matriel
12-04-2008, 21:05
I have nothing against either libertarians or capitalism.

But its a matter of values, really.

If you like being creative, playing games, making music, making games, making art, aswell as being social and meeting new people, you are going to prefer socialism, because then you wont have to work, and thus you get more time for being creative.

If you like working and especially physical work, you are going to prefer capitalism, because while there is a big psychological reward for being creative, and especially if you show it to others and they like it, the reward for hard physical work only becomes as big if you get money or another physical reward for it.

What? I mean seriously, I have no words.

Lethn
12-04-2008, 21:08
I have nothing against either libertarians or capitalism.

But its a matter of values, really.

If you like being creative, playing games, making music, making games, making art, aswell as being social and meeting new people, you are going to prefer socialism, because then you wont have to work, and thus you get more time for being creative.

If you like working and especially physical work, you are going to prefer capitalism, because while there is a big psychological reward for being creative, and especially if you show it to others and they like it, the reward for hard physical work only becomes as big if you get money or another physical reward for it.

Okay, I seriously wasn't going to post in this thread because I figured leaving the political flaming to Matriel is the best thing to do since I don't know a terrible deal about politics yet, nor do I really want to in honesty.

But fuck, even I know the real meanings of Capitalism and Libreterians ( did I even spell that right? ) stop watching so much fox news.

Toilet
12-04-2008, 21:08
You can be creative as you want in a libertarian society

Not so.

You have to be concerned with making money.

Toilet
12-04-2008, 21:09
Okay, I seriously wasn't going to post in this thread because I figured leaving the political flaming to Matriel is the best thing to do since I don't know a terrible deal about politics yet, nor do I really want to in honesty.

But fuck, even I know the real meanings of Capitalism and Libreterians ( did I even spell that right? ) stop watching so much fox news.

I dont even watch fox news, but i bet you do, retarded british person who hates EA.

DoveAlexa
12-04-2008, 21:11
Wait, people are still talking about this?

Toilet
12-04-2008, 21:11
Yea, like you could come up with a super creative way to start a new power company and... oops :(

Or, you could offer your super creative new power idea to the state and it could thus provide it TO EVERYONE, becoming very popular in the process.

Real happiness comes from people liking what you are and who you do, not how many money you have or what job you have.

Toilet
12-04-2008, 21:12
I deny it.
In a socialist society, artistic creation is in part dictated by the state : if you don't do what the government like, you aren't helped financialy. The ending point being the art used as a mean of propaganda.

In a liberal (yeah, I'm getting back this word) society, you can be creative cause even if your sponsor direct what you have to make, you can change sponsor. Competition FTW.

In a socialistic society, everyone would be able to get the products they need in order to be creative, because that makes people happier and makes society more stable.

Be it clay, computers, pencils, whatever.

Dimgo
12-04-2008, 21:13
Not so.

You have to be concerned with making money.
No, you dont have to, where you got that? You can live without being concerned with making money but someone else has to work for you

Toilet
12-04-2008, 21:15
No, you dont have to, where you got that? You can live without being concerned with making money but someone else has to work for you

In a capitalistic society, you need to make money, or get it in some form.

That stops a lot of creativity, imo.

Arkh
12-04-2008, 21:16
In a socialistic society, everyone would be able to get the products they need in order to be creative, because that makes people happier and makes society more stable.

Be it clay, computers, pencils, whatever.
Then, your perfect society can't be run by humans. Or not more than 1 generation.

Toilet
12-04-2008, 21:19
Then, your perfect society can't be run by humans. Or not more than 1 generation.

It can.

Ultimate happiness can only be gotten through two things: Love and recognition from fellow humans.

The ultimate socialistic society would be much more stable than a capitalistic society, and the people would be more happy aswell as smarter, because everyone would get the best education possible.

Matriel
12-04-2008, 21:24
Ultimate happiness can only be gotten through two things: Love and recognition from fellow humans.

I'm curious what makes you the authority on ultimate happiness. I think it's a very individual thing and thus something that an across the board collectivist theory can't provide.

Arkh
12-04-2008, 21:24
Not everyone need the same thing to be happy. It's one of the flaws of your reasoning. Just read "the road to serfdom" to understand some of the reasons making socialism a sure way to totalitarian society.

Slypieguy
12-04-2008, 21:31
Or, you could offer your super creative new power idea to the state and it could thus provide it TO EVERYONE, becoming very popular in the process.

Real happiness comes from people liking what you are and who you do, not how many money you have or what job you have.

But you said I was free to exercise my creativity however I wanted in your socialist paradise :(

And who are you, the government, or anyone else to tell me what makes me happy?

I'm afraid you have rocketed through the atmosphail over the course of this thread, sir.

Toilet
12-04-2008, 22:30
I'm curious what makes you the authority on ultimate happiness. I think it's a very individual thing and thus something that an across the board collectivist theory can't provide.

Its not me, its the brain scientists who have decided that.

We have evolved to enjoy having sex, and to be rewarded for helping others and making other people happy, because if they like you, you can trust them.

Toilet
12-04-2008, 22:31
But you said I was free to exercise my creativity however I wanted in your socialist paradise :(

And who are you, the government, or anyone else to tell me what makes me happy?

I'm afraid you have rocketed through the atmosphail over the course of this thread, sir.

Finding a smart way to make money is not creativity, the product is the creative part, not the fact you can make money from it.

Its the brain scientists who can tell you what makes you happy.

Edit: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/4/0/4/p94040_index.html

Arkh
12-04-2008, 22:38
Finding a smart way to make money is not creativity, the product is the creative part, not the fact you can make money from it.

Its the brain scientists who can tell you what makes you happy.

But the brain scientist can also explain to you that at least 1% of the population is not concerned. Sociopath, psychopath : all you need for making bad leaders.
And what's even more interesting is that psychopaths, as they don't have any mean of knowing what's bad or wrong, love the law. They need it to guide their act and to say to them what's right.

Toilet
12-04-2008, 22:41
But the brain scientist can also explain to you that at least 1% of the population is not concerned. Sociopath, psychopath : all you need for making bad leaders.
And what's even more interesting is that psychopaths, as they don't have any mean of knowing what's bad or wrong, love the law. They need it to guide their act and to say to them what's right.

You would of course test those who wish to be leaders, so you only get those who think human life comes before everything thats related to personal gain.

Slypieguy
12-04-2008, 22:46
Finding a smart way to make money is not creativity, the product is the creative part, not the fact you can make money from it.

Its the brain scientists who can tell you what makes you happy.

Edit: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/4/0/4/p94040_index.html

I see, now you get to define creativity too. You're on a roll. I think you would be in the vast minority if you were to posit that an innovative business plan in any industry wasn't a product of "creativity."

And I've taken a class from one of your "brain scientists," and even she admitted that psychology is only a half-science, at best. Hard sciences get things wrong enough as it is, so I certainly don't want some pseudo-scientists deciding what's best for me.

I'm still finding it hard to believe that you aren't trolling, but I'll keep playing along.

Killuminati
12-04-2008, 22:47
Yah, psychology, sociology, and all that shit is a joke.

Arkh
12-04-2008, 22:47
You would of course test those who wish to be leaders, so you only get those who think human life comes before everything thats related to personal gain.
I'm for random leader choosing.
Elections are already a random system, but only used with those you don't want as leaders : those who want the job.

Edit : and anyone can learn how to cheat a test. Or if they're not supid, they get the people they need as testers.

Toilet
12-04-2008, 22:55
Edit : and anyone can learn how to cheat a test. Or if they're not supid, they get the people they need as testers.

Learn to brain scan.

Postalmanx07
12-04-2008, 22:57
Interesting website. I'll add it to my favorites.

Toilet
12-04-2008, 22:58
I see, now you get to define creativity too. You're on a roll. I think you would be in the vast minority if you were to posit that an innovative business plan in any industry wasn't a product of "creativity."

And I've taken a class from one of your "brain scientists," and even she admitted that psychology is only a half-science, at best. Hard sciences get things wrong enough as it is, so I certainly don't want some pseudo-scientists deciding what's best for me.

I'm still finding it hard to believe that you aren't trolling, but I'll keep playing along.

Define what you mean by an innovative business plan?

The product?

The way the business is run?

Tell me, because the "innovative business plan" ought be useful for something else than a business, and you can thus still remain creative.

Slypieguy
12-04-2008, 23:09
Define what you mean by an innovative business plan?

The product?

The way the business is run?

Tell me, because the "innovative business plan" ought be useful for something else than a business, and you can thus still remain creative.

I guess you don't know what a business plan is? :\

Hell it doesn't matter what it is... you said that your socialist utopia was the best place for creative people and you're already telling me i cant do shit without even knowing what it is. Innovative product? Innovative method of selling it? Innovative way of producing it? Doesn't matter, all stem from creativity.

Silverhandorder
12-05-2008, 02:01
Quite honestly who can trust gov't? I would trust a corporation before I would trust government t accomplish something.

Matriel
12-05-2008, 02:07
Its not me, its the brain scientists who have decided that.

We have evolved to enjoy having sex, and to be rewarded for helping others and making other people happy, because if they like you, you can trust them.

So, brain scientists have done studies on every single individual on the planet and determines what makes each of them happy and that is an across the board fit? Excuse me while I call you crazy.

Slypieguy
12-05-2008, 02:08
Quite honestly who can trust gov't? I would trust a corporation before I would trust government t accomplish something.

They are both run by people, and so both flawed, but at least one of them has incentive to do its job well.

Silverhandorder
12-05-2008, 02:12
They are both run by people, and so both flawed, but at least one of them has incentive to do its job well.

And one of them, the corporation, can not initiate force against me.