Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Awesome Republican Primary Thread
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 234 of 1485 (635213)
09-27-2011 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Artemis Entreri
09-27-2011 7:34 PM


personal freedom requires personal responsibility.
So, then, by extension: the freedom of a nation requires national responsibility.
Why do you hate freedom, AE?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Artemis Entreri, posted 09-27-2011 7:34 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 265 of 1485 (637891)
10-18-2011 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by hooah212002
10-17-2011 5:31 PM


How would you sue a corporation if they didn't have legal personhood? How could you have a corporation pay taxes if they didn't have legal personhood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by hooah212002, posted 10-17-2011 5:31 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by hooah212002, posted 10-18-2011 2:54 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 267 of 1485 (637894)
10-18-2011 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by hooah212002
10-18-2011 2:54 PM


Because that's what legal personhood is. Just like how you can't sue a collection of encyclopedias or the color blue or a marriage, you can't just sue a combination of ideas, characteristics, and relationships. Only if that collection is recognized as a discreet legal entity can it appear in court; that's legal personhood.
Similarly, how would a corporation be assessed taxes if it wasn't construed as a discreet legal identity and given a tax ID? That's legal personhood. Our legal system does recognize corporations; that's why they have personhood.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by hooah212002, posted 10-18-2011 2:54 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2011 3:12 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 269 by hooah212002, posted 10-18-2011 3:17 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 268 of 1485 (637898)
10-18-2011 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by crashfrog
10-18-2011 3:01 PM


Another question would be: if corporations didn't have legal personhood, how would you propose to charge them with crimes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2011 3:01 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 3:17 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 271 of 1485 (637928)
10-18-2011 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Nuggin
10-18-2011 3:17 PM


The real question is, how would you propose to sentence them for crimes in which they are found guilty?
Fines, or mandated dissolution. (There's that "death penalty" for corporations that some have asked for. Fine with me!)
If a corporation knowingly causes the deaths of innocent people, how do you put it in jail for the rest of its life?
How would you determine that a corporation acted with malice aforethought while none of its employees did? I'm curious what you think it means for a corporation to "know" something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 3:17 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by hooah212002, posted 10-18-2011 8:54 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 275 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 9:50 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 276 of 1485 (637964)
10-18-2011 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by hooah212002
10-18-2011 8:54 PM


If a coroporation dumps toxic chemicals in an unauthorized area or somewhere that harms or kills people, what happens to them?
Let's unpack this. Walk me through the process by which a corporation does something, as distinguished from the people who work for the corporation doing something. Corporations have no existence apart from the legal fiction that they're discreet units who can own property and delegate agency. It strikes me that the group that seems most often to ascribe to corporations a form of "personhood" they can't meaningfully have are the people, like you, who are supposedly opposed to "corporate personhood."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by hooah212002, posted 10-18-2011 8:54 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by hooah212002, posted 10-19-2011 12:16 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 277 of 1485 (637968)
10-18-2011 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Nuggin
10-18-2011 9:50 PM


You wouldn't have to prove that.
You'd have to prove that in the situation that was specified; that is, where somehow the corporation was guilty of criminal acts while none of its employees were. I don't see how that works. If persons engage in criminality on behalf of the corporation, then they're personally guilty of criminal acts, as are the people who asked/ordered them to do it. What need is there to charge the corporation? That would be like trying to indict the Mafia, as opposed to the human beings who constitute the Mafia. It would be like the police showing up to arrest not you, not your wife, but your marriage. How do you see that working, exactly?
I'm just asking. Corporate "personhood" seems like a red herring, when you really get into it there's no "there" there; and in point of fact, we who are subject to the depredations of corporations actually benefit from their legal personhood. Consider how hard it is to prosecute people for Mafia ties and activity when every single defendant is factually able to claim (as they invariably do) that there's no such thing as "the Mafia." In fact, perhaps the greatest erosion of our American civil rights have resulted from efforts to fight organized crime; civil forfeiture law is a direct result of municipalities working their way around the fact that there's no legal basis to ever conclude that something "belongs to the Mafia." So they've invented a way to charge objects with crimes, regardless of any lack of evidence against the owner, and seize possessions absent any actual conviction. It's much less erosive to civil liberties to have corporations that can legally own things, because seizing those things won't require violating anybody's civil rights.
I have friends who are corporations for the sole purpose of protecting themselves from litigation. If someone tries to sue, the corporation owns exactly 1 clip board and 1 pen.
That's great, but there's a difference between too-clever-by-half junior legal strategies and things that actually work in court. Have any of your friends successfully evaded civil liability this way? I doubt it. And working through a corporate shell would do absolutely nothing to shield them from criminal prosecution, which is what we're all talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 9:50 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 11:18 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 279 of 1485 (637973)
10-18-2011 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Nuggin
10-18-2011 11:18 PM


Except that you already said that the primary threat of criminal prosecution to the "corporation" is to dissolve it.
I didn't say that, because that's stupid. It wouldn't work, anyway.
And you've not yet explained why it's necessary - why does "the corporation" have to be subject to criminal penalties when we can simply charge the employees who acted criminally?
At some point someone comes along and claims that the show was his idea to begin with and decides to sue me, the network, the studio, the stars, etc.
He can't sue me directly, since my name doesn't appear on any of the contracts.
Sure he can sue you, directly. The corporation didn't violate his copyright; you did. You can assign the rights to the show you supposedly created to the corporation, but unless your corporation didn't pay you, you've personally profited from the violation. The original rights holder can go after your deep pockets. The corporation doesn't do shit to protect you; how could it? If all it owns is a folding chair, how is it going to hire a lawyer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 11:18 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 11:44 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 281 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 11:49 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 282 of 1485 (637977)
10-18-2011 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Nuggin
10-18-2011 11:44 PM


Because it's frequently impossible to determine which employees acted criminally.
Then how would you determine which corporation acted criminally? And what does it mean for a corporation to "act" in the first place? Explain how you're not just advocating a standard of "guilt by association."
Which specific employees should be prosecuted for this?
The executives and scientists who knowingly suppressed or fabricated evidence to conceal the harmful effects of tobacco. Which ones were those? I have no idea. But its the responsibility of the government to find out. It perverts justice to say "well, a crime happened but it's too much of a bother to who did it; you're guilty by association so we'll punish you, instead." I don't understand how it's somehow more fair to allow the executives and scientists of a tobacco company to push forward a series of low-paid scapegoats to take all the blame and punishment.
Why not punish it?
Sure! But you're not talking about punishing a corporation, you're talking about criminal sanctions against the people who worked for it, regardless of whether or not they're personally guilty of crimes. And you think it's corporate personhood that somehow threatens civil liberties? Stop being stupid for a second.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 11:44 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Nuggin, posted 10-19-2011 12:01 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 284 of 1485 (637979)
10-19-2011 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Nuggin
10-18-2011 11:49 PM


My corp is paid by the studio to make sure that script X is produced. I didn't write it.
Who wrote it? If its was produced by the corporation, and the corporation's only employee was you, then perforce you're the one who wrote it and therefore you're the one who violated the copyright. If the corporation makes no claim to have produced the script, then one of its employees must have violated the copyright, and the only employee was you so, perforce, you're the one who violated the copyright.
You get zero protection from your shell corporation. The point of a corporation is to shield your assets from the mismanagement of others in your company; it can't shield your assets from your own personal civil liability.
My name does not appear on any contracts.
Well, that's not true at all. Your name appears on the contract between you and your company, the one that allows you to be paid. And you have to be paid, right, because the studio pays your company for the TV show but somehow it has only a folding chair as assets. Where did those assets go? Obviously, they went to you since the point of your fraudulent enterprise was to collect payment but shield yourself from asset seizure. If the company paid you a wage but didn't file a W2, you're both guilty of tax fraud. (Or another way to look at it is that you've been embezzling from your own company.)
So, there's a paper trail between you "producing" a script that violates someone else's copyright, and you being paid for the script and TV show. Therefore you've profited from the violation; you can be named in the suit. They don't even have to subpoena the corporate charter to get your identity, they can just go look it up at the courthouse. (Of course, conveniently, you named the company after yourself so they don't even need to do that.)
I'm an employee. I haven't entered into any contracts.
You've entered into a contract that specifies a work for hire, and NugginCo has reported to the IRS that you were paid such and such amount for that work. That's public information. The suit can go right to you. And make no mistake - even a junior lawyer is going to make sure to attach you to the suit, because you're the one with the deep pockets.
Totally innocent of any wrong doing.
You can make that claim, I guess, but the standard of evidence in a civil trial isn't "beyond reasonable doubt", it's "preponderance of the evidence." Your plaintiff doesn't have to prove beyond a doubt that you violated his copyright; he just has to show that it's more likely that you did than that you didn't, and that he suffered damages as a result. Your corporate shell isn't going to do much to protect you. Your guilt isn't what the court will determine; only your liability. As sole employee of the company, you're definitely going to be solely liable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 11:49 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Nuggin, posted 10-19-2011 12:19 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 285 of 1485 (637980)
10-19-2011 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Nuggin
10-19-2011 12:01 AM


If you are an employee of a corporation which is doing the wrong thing under the current system, it's in your best interest to hide it and pocket the extra cash.
What "extra cash"?
you'll either make sure that the corp is not doing the wrong thing or you and everyone else will quit.
Great, I guess, except that the death penalty is unjust to begin with, and collective punishment is illegal. (Cruel, unusual, and we signed treaties prohibiting it equivalent in stature to the US Constitution.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Nuggin, posted 10-19-2011 12:01 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 286 of 1485 (637981)
10-19-2011 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Nuggin
10-19-2011 12:01 AM


If you are an employee of a corporation which is doing the wrong thing under the current system
I keep asking and you keep evading the question. What does it mean for a corporation to "do" something?
Please be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Nuggin, posted 10-19-2011 12:01 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Nuggin, posted 10-19-2011 12:21 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 291 of 1485 (637986)
10-19-2011 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by hooah212002
10-19-2011 12:16 AM


Are you accusing me of not being able to identify an action a corporation can take, before even asking me?
I'm accusing you of ironically reifying corporations in ways that don't make any sense. Ironically, because you claim to be opposed to "corporate personhood."
Bank of America donates half a million dollars to the Mitt Romney campaign fund.
No, you're not answering the question. (I think maybe it's too simple for you to grasp.) But ok, we'll use your example. Bank of America "donates." Well, ok. With what does "Bank of America" hold the pen to sign the check? Please be specific.
Which individual person from GM received the bailout money?
No individual person at GM received the bailout money. How are you not understanding "discreet units who can own property and delegate agency"? Money was transferred from an account in the name of the US Treasury to an account in the name of General Motors.
When you say that a corporation did something, precisely what do you mean? What do you mean by "Koch Industries dumping toxic chemicals in Kansas"? What did the corporation use to lift and open the barrels? Be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by hooah212002, posted 10-19-2011 12:16 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by hooah212002, posted 10-19-2011 12:29 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 293 of 1485 (637988)
10-19-2011 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Nuggin
10-19-2011 12:19 AM


So, if I want to sue Ford for make a crappy car, I should sue Murray the Janitor at Ford Headquarters because he gets paid by Ford with the money they made off selling me the car?
No, you should sue whoever is liable for whatever damages you suffered.
How is Murray directly responsible for this?
You tell me! You're the one who wants to punish him. How did you manage to get the terms of the debate so completely backwards? I don't believe that he's responsible so I don't think he should be punished. Stop for a minute and quit acting like the only way to talk to me is to contradict literally everything I say. That relentless contrarianism never worked for Holmes and he was better at it than you are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Nuggin, posted 10-19-2011 12:19 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Nuggin, posted 10-19-2011 12:40 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 294 of 1485 (637989)
10-19-2011 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Nuggin
10-19-2011 12:21 AM


Re: Bringing it back to the topic
The supreme court has ruled that it is perfectly legal for a corporation to donate unlimited amounts of money to a republican candidate.
That's not the ruling of Citizens United. That's the effect of the ruling of Citizens United.
That is a corporation "doing" something.
Walk me through what the "corporation" is doing. When the corporation writes a check to the Republican candidate for office, how does it hold the pen? Be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Nuggin, posted 10-19-2011 12:21 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Nuggin, posted 10-19-2011 12:41 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024