09 Mar 10
4 edits
Originally posted by sh76No. You can't just send out an annual statement asking for a general approval to speak.
Let's assume this rule is enacted. Does that mean you agree with me?
If so, that means you agree with me. That proposed rule is a minor tweak. Make that rule and they'll be sending out these consent forms with the yearly proxy solicitations. You'll barely notice the difference.
The consent form would have to include a copy of the proposed advertisment or a detailed description of the proposed lobbying effort. And there would have to be a new consent form for each new act of speech. Just because the shareholders approved of one ad doesn't mean they'll approve a different ad.
Another approach could be to have the annual consent form you describe - BUT there would be a mechanism to require that a corporation immediately stop any act of speech if a certain % of the shareholders objected. There could be a website where any shareholder could go to make such an objection and if the number of objectors reached a certain threshold, the corporation would be legally required to end that particular act of speech.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28024
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesHow about losing the right to speak as corporation because you are receiving limited liability? Full liability is the responsibility of every citizen - I don't get a pass anyway!
No. You can't just send out an annual statement asking for a general approval to speak.
The consent form would have to include a copy of the proposed advertisment or a detailed description of the proposed lobbying effort. And there would have to be a new consent form for each new act of speech. Just because the shareholders approved of one ad doesn't m ...[text shortened]... in threshold, the corporation would be legally required to end that particular act of speech.
10 Mar 10
3 edits
Originally posted by MelanerpesPerhaps they are the statists. The idea that one can seperate corporations and the government is daft. For me, the struggle is small business against big business. As you can see today, big business is favored by governments for a myriad of reasons. The simple fact is that that is where the bulk of the wealth is at. Secondly, it is far easier to control a few large corporations than it is a myriad of small businesses. Just look at the businesses that were "too big to fail". If they do fail government simply steps in and nationalizes them. Heck, those in government can also hire and fire CEO's at that point. In short, it is much easier for government to manipulate production and wealth creation once it becomes centralized. Just look at Red China. Now that the government has centralized the banks to a large extent it is on to health care and insurance companies.
so would you support efforts by the statists to enact regulations to prevent companies like Goldman Sachs from becoming too powerful?
10 Mar 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesSo, the consent forms will be specific. No big deal.
No. You can't just send out an annual statement asking for a general approval to speak.
The consent form would have to include a copy of the proposed advertisment or a detailed description of the proposed lobbying effort. And there would have to be a new consent form for each new act of speech. Just because the shareholders approved of one ad doesn't m ...[text shortened]... in threshold, the corporation would be legally required to end that particular act of speech.
In essence, your answer is yes.
10 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by TerrierJackWell, it's a theory.
How about losing the right to speak as corporation because you are receiving limited liability? Full liability is the responsibility of every citizen - I don't get a pass anyway!
Notice the subtle concession of my underlying point... that corporations have freedom of speech to "lose." 😉
In any case, corporations have full liability to the extent of their assets. It's the shareholders themselves whose liability is (usually) limited to their stake in the company.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28024
10 Mar 10
Originally posted by sh76No - I'm not conceding that point I'm saying that they can't have anything to lose because they do not have the responsibilities of citizenship. It is particularly absurd to argue otherwise because they are an artificial construct. Only flesh and blood and bone can speak. Only flesh and blood and bone can shoulder full responsibility for human actions.
Well, it's a theory.
Notice the subtle concession of my underlying point... that corporations have freedom of speech to "lose." 😉
In any case, corporations have full liability to the extent of their assets. It's the shareholders themselves whose liability is (usually) limited to their stake in the company.
10 Mar 10
Originally posted by sh76Sure. So let's amend that constitution.
A reasonable position, certainly, but quite beside the point of the corporation vs. individual dichotomy (if there really is one).
Under US law, people have the right, under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, to unlimited political speech. There are limitations on financing political campaigns. But for "issue" advertisements and ca ...[text shortened]... ndment or a radical change in First Amendment jurisprudence as it applies to political speech.
10 Mar 10
Originally posted by sh76It doesn't make any sense to assert that something which exists only at the whim of the State has any "rights".
OF course they're free to abolish the corporate form. States can do that any time they choose. But as long as they do exist, what's wrong with extending to their management the right to express themselves on behalf of the corporation?
If the corporate form were abolished, then the businesses would reconstitute as partnerships or sole proprietorships (or LLCS ...[text shortened]... , though.
As for my "senseless" analogy; it's a lot less senseless than the toaster one.
10 Mar 10
Originally posted by no1marauderWe're going in circles.
It doesn't make any sense to assert that something which exists only at the whim of the State has any "rights".
I never meant to assert that the corporation itself has rights. I meant to assert (which I thought I made clear, but maybe I didn't) that the people acting on behalf of the corporation have rights.
These people do not exist merely at the whim of the state. They exist with full human rights because of their status as human beings. Whether they exercise those rights in their personal capacities or in their capacities as managers of a company that they own or manage is, to me beside the point.
10 Mar 10
Originally posted by whodeySo if the big businesses are "the statists" - why then are you supporting those statists in their effort to stop all healthcare reform efforts?
Perhaps they are the statists. The idea that one can seperate corporations and the government is daft. For me, the struggle is small business against big business. As you can see today, big business is favored by governments for a myriad of reasons. The simple fact is that that is where the bulk of the wealth is at. Secondly, it is far easier to control ...[text shortened]... has centralized the banks to a large extent it is on to health care and insurance companies.
10 Mar 10
Originally posted by TerrierJackEurope never had a Glass-Steagall act (in the sense it has universal banking). I think a lot is being made of the effectiveness of the Glass-Steagall act as some sort of panacea, without focusing on specific capital requirements and degrees of leverage.
Glass-Steagall must have worked. The current system has not. Corporation are not people. Governments are instituted among men. This would have been so self-evident to the founders that there would have been no argument or discussion about it. For anyone to even entertain the idea that they are equal to actual humans is to descend to madness. Someone said ...[text shortened]... ople in society." Banks are not evil. What is evil is putting their interests above people.