The Court can consider the laws of other nations in rendering decisions when the laws in question are relevant, since the US signatory status to treaties regarding the establishment of international law makes those laws (of other countries)part of a body of laws constitutionally recognized by the United States.
I'm not holding a seminar here. Look it up.
It is good that you don't hold a seminar because you don't know what the hell you are writing about. What you are saying is that the Supreme Court may consider international law or treaties that has never been ratified by the legislative branch. You probably think that the Supreme Court should apply the Kyoto Protocals although, if I remember correctly, although the Senate hasn't ratified that treaty. Likewise,it appaers you would apply precedent from the international criminal court which also, again if memory serves me correctly, has never been approved.
Tens of millions of americans who can easily identify the confederate flag as the emblem of an enduring terrorist organization, disagree with your opinion, as do I.
In your opinion, a person should be free to terrorize innocent people with the intimidating symbol of an organization that uses murder, rape and torture to bully an entire minority of citizens into accepting second class citizenship. You are entitled to your opinion, but you must also expect others to speak up and point out the racist and terrorist sympathies that you display in having such an opinion.
Tens of millions of americans who can easily identify the confederate flag as the emblem of an enduring terrorist organization, disagree with your opinion, as do I.
The confederate flag was misused. You are ignoring history and you don't give a damn about the law.
I suggest you do some research on your naive assumption that what you advocate is possible, given the current power structures available to corporations.
Beyond that, I note that you are content to allow state governments to charter political entities that have fascist organizational structures, something expressly forbidden by the US constitution.
I guees I shouldn't be surprised that a terrorist sympathizer has such a view.
The Court can consider the laws of other nations inrendering decisions when the laws in question are relevant, Â Â
When the laws are relevant. That would be when considering laws passed by the legislature that have a relevant relationship to the body of laws that US law is a part of via treaty.
Hey, I'm not the one who sympathizes with terrorists. You are the one calling for race war and defending fascism.
you believe in massive government power to implement what you want.
Wrong. I believe in taking massive government power out of the hands of the fascists that you defend. And to repeat what I said when I first came to this thread: there are non-violent ways to do that. To repeat more of what I said: Unless there is some movement towards resolving at least TWO issues, we are on the path that leads to social revolution. To recap what I said before: If you would rather defend the power of fascist corporations instead of defending the constitution, then you are on the wrong side of that issue.
Finally: the TWO issues that must be resolved to avoid social revolution: Corporate governance, and rebuilding the energy structure to eliminate fossil fuels and nuclear power.
you believe in massive government power to implement what you want.
Wrong.
Sorry, dude, the only thing you have advocated is the heavy hand of governmnet forcing the changes you want.
And to repeat what I said when I first came to this thread: there are non-violent ways to do that. To repeat more of what I said: Unless there is some movement towards resolving at least TWO issues, we are on the path that leads to social revolution. To recap what I said before: If you would rather defend the power of fascist corporations instead of defending the constitution, then you are on the wrong side of that issue.
You aren't going to achieve those goals through non-violent means because most people still realize that the result is the abandonment of freedom.
Finally: the TWO issues that must be resolved to avoid social revolution: Corporate governance, and rebuilding the energy structure to eliminate fossil fuels and nuclear power.
Ain't gonna happen. So you better clean your guns.
As we already knew. That is the difference... You actually DO "Hate" Liberals. I only hate the politics of Neo-Conservatism, and the ignorence it requires to spread it's abusive and Un-American message.
Obviously you are lying. My guess is you lie to yourself and you believe the lies.
You aren't going to achieve those goals through non-violent means because most people still realize that the result is the abandonment of freedom.
I find it interesting that defenders of fascism always claim to be on the side of freedom, individual liberty and free markets, while in practice they aggressively oppose all of these things whenever it means limiting the power of fascist corporations. When they speak of freedom, they mean the freedom of corporations to dominate the culture. When they speak of individual liberty, they are speaking of corporations, which are legally recognized as "individuals" but which are, in actuality, groups of individuals exercising political power at the expense of actual individual citizens. When they speak of free markets, they are really speaking of politically connected corporations using their power to crush ACTUAL capitalist competition. Defenders of fascism want corporations to be free to engage in anti-competitive behavior, unfair labor practices, environmental destruction, financial fraud, and corrupt cronyism with their socialist-minded allies in the government.
you better clean your guns.
This attitude is typical of defenders of fascism. They have no hesitation or second thoughts about plunging the country into civil war to protect their privilidge and power. They have no conscience about fomenting wars abroad for imperial gain, either. This is why I am warning that social revolution is inevitable if American values aren't reasserted and the radical elitists dealt with.
The issue on the table is the fascist structure of corporations and the fascist ideology being aggressively pushed by the corporate elite. The ideology is fundamentally unamerican, a threat to representative government and the rule of law.
I find it interesting that defenders of fascism always claim to be on the side of freedom, individual liberty and free markets, while in practice they aggressively oppose all of these things whenever it means limiting the power of fascist corporations.
What I find appalling is that there liars like you accusing those that have a different concept of freedom fascists. I also find it astonshing the number of lies you believe in.
This is why I am warning that social revolution is inevitable if American values aren't reasserted and the radical elitists dealt with.
Sounds like the promotion of treason by a left wing extremist.
The issue on the table is the fascist structure of corporations and the fascist ideology being aggressively pushed by the corporate elite. The ideology is fundamentally unamerican, a threat to representative government and the rule of law. Sorry. I don't see corporate structure as fascist or unamerican. But I do believe your policies are anti-american, a threat to freedom and the rule of law.
Historically, fascists are known for their efforts to call for the government to crush dissent with police state intimidation when challenges to corporate power arise.
In countries where fewer checks and balances (liberal institutions) exist, corporate fascists have an easier time quietly supporting the trampling of human rights to protect their "markets."
That's right. And I'm in good company. Rousseau, Penn, Voltaire, Locke, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Paine, Thoreau, Douglas, Lincoln, Mill, Anthony, Addams, Roosevelt, King, Nader. All extremists. Lucky for you.
You are incapable of dealing with the existing reality.
I don't think that's the real issue that you have. I think you are afraid of the way that I deal with existing reality, since I confront some truths that you find uncomfortable.
Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither. --Ben Franklin
That's right. And I'm in good company. Rousseau, Penn, Voltaire, Locke, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Paine, Thoreau, Douglas, Lincoln, Mill, Anthony, Addams, Roosevelt, King, Nader. All extremists. Lucky for you.
Most of them are nothing like you. I would say you are more like Marx and Lenin.
I don't think that's the real issue that you have. I think you are afraid of the way that I deal with existing reality, since I confront some truths that you find uncomfortable.
I am not afraid of the way you deal with I just recognize it as lunacy. You confront some imagined truths. At the very least the truths you believe in are extremely exaggerated.
Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither.
That's right. And I'm in good company. Rousseau, Penn, Voltaire, Locke, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Paine, Thoreau, Douglas, Lincoln, Mill, Anthony, Addams, Roosevelt, King, Nader. All extremists. Lucky for you.
Most of them are nothing like you. I would say you are more like Marx and Lenin.--jethro bodine
I've studied all of the above, including Marx and Lenin, and your remark is just a resort to name-calling, since you can't refute what I have to say. I think you'd like for me to be a big-government psuedo-socialist, since that is the bogeyman that every knee-jerk reactionary pulls out of the bag in place of an argument, when corporate fascism is challenged. But I am not an advocate of Marxism or Leninism, and I have plenty of criticism for those ideologies. The ideology that I defend is liberalism, and corporate fascism is a direct threat to some of the core principles of liberalism, the most relevant ones being representative government and the rule of law.
YES, I deny that. I do not "generally approve" of Marx and Lenin!
the par I do understand is that you want government to control corporations because you believe that they trample on the masses.
No, I don't advocate that at all. I'm arguing that corporations arepolitical organizations, organs of government! And I am arguing that corporations are allowed to organize as fascist organizations, without meaningful checks and balances. I'm not advocating that corporations become even MORE closely associated with the government! Quite the opposite!
I advocate a market based approach to corporate reorganization. Of course, since the government has aided the current creation of corporate fascist organizations, it should likewise facilitate the transition to a form of corporation that has internal checks and balances.
That is a part that is absurd.And I am arguing that corporations are allowed to organize as fascist organizations, without meaningful checks and balances. It is because they are in the private sector and exercising their freedom.I'm not advocating that corporations become even MORE closely associated with the government! Quite the opposite! You haven't explained how you are going to change their structure and hence their behavior.
And I'm in good company. Rousseau, Penn, Voltaire, Locke, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Paine, Thoreau, Douglas, Lincoln, Mill, Anthony, Addams, Roosevelt, King, Nader. All extremists. Lucky for you
free thinkers!
hell yea!
that's how we got this country started in the first place...those cool free thinkers.
About Marxism? Well, how about the idea that private property is the root of all evil? That's really the main point of the Communist Manifesto. I think it's a ludicrous idea. But I'm not going to support the idea that every inch of space ought to be fenced, titled and protected with weaponry! There IS such a thing as a "commons," and there is such a thing as common interest. Defending that notion certainly doesn't make one a Marxist! Beyond that, the notion that "the ONLY way to deal with inequality is by armed struggle" is a Marxist idea that I don't approve of. There are other ways. Yet even among the most enlightened liberal thinkers the notion that "the sovereign will is the will of the people" justifies the overthrow of government by fiat. Finally, the Marxist-Leninist construction known as "the dictatorship of the proletariat" is transparent propaganda used to justify fascist rule.
I'm arguing that corporations are political organizations, organs of government!
Since jethro thinks this is absurd, I'll explain. A corporation is chartered by the government. A corporate charter isn't a "business license." It is a special legal delegation of power granted by the state that gives a group of people the right to establish a political organization for a specific purpose. Corporations are political entities from the beginning. Nowadays, due to the application of the above named power, corporations have won the right to establish for ANY purpose, and they have also, gradually, over time, established political practices that have allowed the erosion of the internal checks and balances. My knowledge of the evolution of the corporate entity comes from the book "Taming the Giant Corporation" written by Ralph Nader in 1975. It is very well researched. But my understanding of corporate governance doesn't begin and end with that book. My broad education in political theory has led me to define the corporation as a political entity due to the reality of the way that corporations act within US society and culture: Corporations are political actors. They influence the crafting of legislation. They influence how laws are enforced by participating in administrative rulemaking hearings. They are big political donors to parties and candidates. They influence what information is available to the public. They influence what kind of research is funded at universities. They influence the legal system through friend of the court briefs, expert testimony, and financing law firms that serve their interests. They use their power and influence when they are party to lawsuits or criminal investigations. All of these activities are political activities, and are engaged on a scale that is unmatched by all but the most wealthy families. Corporations aren't just ONE of the political actors, they are THE political actors in US society.
And I am arguing that corporations are allowed to organize as fascist organizations, without meaningful checks and balances.
jethro says that since corporations "are in the private sector" they are free to organize without internal checks and balances. I've already demonstrated, above, that this isn't so. Corporations are very much "in public." In fact, corporate charter grants corporations the power to act within a "limited liability" framework that is not available to capitalist businesses, who assume all risk. The internal checks and balances WERE ORIGINALLY intended to be a check on the power of a corporation: a trade-off in exchange for legal privilidge. That is why boards and laws about shareholder rights exist. But these vestiges of the internal checks and balances originally intended to check the power of a corporation have been eroded, and in most organizations, the oversight of management by the board is a charade, a mockery of an internal check.
You haven't explained how you are going to change their structure and hence their behavior.
No, I haven't. Not on this thread, anyway. I have a model, but explaining it would take up more space than is appropriate on a message board. To be brief, many functions that are external to a corporation could be made internal, devising a complex system of corporate governance with seven co-equal branches. Nothing is being proposed that doesn't already exist. I'm only proposing changing how the existing relationships are defined to create a representative system that divides power. I'm sure that you could think of a large number of objections to such a system. I have. And I have answers to the objections. There are downsides. Such a system would eliminate the ability to become "super-rich." Yet that means that the extraordinary wealth of a few would be available to make life better for everyone. It might sound socialist, but it really isn't. I'm not proposing that the government enforce equality of result. I'm proposing that the vehicle for creating an unjustified inequity be reformed so that it serves all the people well. Since corporations derive their authority from the government, and hence, from the people, this is just.
you don't explain how this is will be achieved.
A hundred plus years of law and business practice aren't easily reformed. But to give you an idea where my reasoning leads me: It will be achieved by competition. Look around the world. Which method of social organization is considered superior: monarchy or republic? Republics have triumphed over monarchies and aristocracies in the governance of nation-states. This is why I believe that republican corporations with internal checks and balances will triumph over fascist corporations that have more in common with monarchies and aristocracies. Government and society have contributed (sometimes unwillingly) to the current success of fascist corporations. They will likewise contribute (willingly, I think) to the success of republican corporations. Trust me, this change is coming. My desire is to raise awareness about the way it can evolve, rather than require a bloody social revolution.
There IS such a thing as a "commons," and there is such a thing as common interest. Defending that notion certainly doesn't make one a Marxist!
No, not necessarily. But based on your desire to meddle in private corporate structure it is clear to me that you come down a lot closer to the Marxist idea of common interest than the American idea.
Beyond that, the notion that "the ONLY way to deal with inequality is by armed struggle" is a Marxist idea that I don't approve of.
Oh you have said that you approve of armed struggle if you don't get your way. Well guess what? You aren't going to get your way. So you need to decide which side of the fence you want to be on.
I'm arguing that corporations are political organizations, organs of government! Since jethro thinks this is absurd, I'll explain. A corporation is chartered by the government.
I have a birth certificate so I guess I am a government organ too!
Nowadays, due to the application of the above named power, corporations have won the right to establish for ANY purpose, and they have also, gradually, over time, established political practices that have allowed the erosion of the internal checks and balances.
You keep saying internal checks and balalnces like they are innate and that somehow some evil force has messed with the DNA.
My knowledge of the evolution of the corporate entity comes from the book "Taming the Giant Corporation" written by Ralph Nader in 1975. It is very well researched. Ah, Ralph Nader a living joke.
The notion that "the ONLY way to deal with inequality is by armed struggle" is a Marxist idea that I don't approve of. There are other ways. Yet even among the most enlightened liberal thinkers the notion that "the sovereign will is the will of the people" justifies the overthrow of government by fiat.
I'll be on the side of the fence that defends the constitution from fascism.
Corporations aren't just ONE of the political actors, they are THE political actors in US society.
It is you conspiracy theorists that give liberals a worse name than they should have. Have you ever considered that many corporations may have diametrically oppose interests? Have you considered that many corporations are run by liberals? Oh but they aren't sufficiently liberal in your eyes, right?
The comparison shows you don't know much about corporate charter. I'm not surprised that what you know reflects popular misconceptions that serve the interest of corporations, who cultivate those misconceptions!
The Court can consider the laws of other nations in
rendering decisions when the laws in question are
relevant, since the US signatory status to treaties
regarding the establishment of international law
makes those laws (of other countries)part of a body
of laws constitutionally recognized by the United States.
I'm not holding a seminar here. Look it up.
It is good that you don't hold a seminar because you don't know what the hell you are writing about. What you are saying is that the Supreme Court may consider international law or treaties that has never been ratified by the legislative branch. You probably think that the Supreme Court should apply the Kyoto Protocals although, if I remember correctly, although the Senate hasn't ratified that treaty. Likewise,it appaers you would apply precedent from the international criminal court which also, again if memory serves me correctly, has never been approved.
jethro bodine 11/7/03 9:51am
Tens of millions of americans who can easily identify
the confederate flag as the emblem of an enduring
terrorist organization, disagree with your opinion,
as do I.
In your opinion, a person should be free to terrorize
innocent people with the intimidating symbol of an
organization that uses murder, rape and torture
to bully an entire minority of citizens into accepting
second class citizenship. You are entitled to your opinion,
but you must also expect others to speak up and point out
the racist and terrorist sympathies that you display
in having such an opinion.
Tens of millions of americans who can easily identify
the confederate flag as the emblem of an enduring
terrorist organization, disagree with your opinion,
as do I.
The confederate flag was misused. You are ignoring history and you don't give a damn about the law.
jethro bodine 11/7/03 9:53am
I suggest you do some research on your naive assumption that
what you advocate is possible, given the current power
structures available to corporations.
Beyond that, I note that you are content to allow
state governments to charter political entities
that have fascist organizational structures, something
expressly forbidden by the US constitution.
I guees I shouldn't be surprised that a terrorist
sympathizer has such a view.
When the laws are relevant. That would be when considering
laws passed by the legislature that have a relevant
relationship to the body of laws that US law is a part
of via treaty.
jethro bodine 11/7/03 9:59am
The above post argues that considering laws that aren't
relevant is the aim of considering laws that ARE.
Whatever.
Consider the mentality of a person who needs to advertise that
he supports a terrorist organization. Raving fanatic, I guess.
jethro bodine 11/7/03 10:04am
Misused? So was the swastika. I suppose that
displaying that symbol is really about celebrating
your Germanic heritage, right?
Who do you think falls for that? Get real.
jethro bodine 11/7/03 10:06am
Spoken like a real fascist. Mussolini would be proud.
Social Darwinists everywhere agree with you.
Spoken like a real fascist. Mussolini would be proud.
Social Darwinists everywhere agree with you.
Spoken like a real dipshit. Anytime you want to start the war bring it on, jackass.
So was the swastika. I suppose that
displaying that symbol is really about celebrating
your Germanic heritage, right?
Spoken like someone ignorant of history.
jethro bodine 11/7/03 10:47am
I wonder what really motivates these calls for a race war?
impotence? just guessing....
I wonder what really motivates these calls for a race war?
Not a race war, stupid, but a war based on incompatible ideology and philosophy.
jethro bodine 11/7/03 11:52am
Oh, I see. Your impotence is motivating your call
for a war based on incompatible ideology and philosophy.
You just like the colors on the flag that is the
choice of racist terrorists...
Or do you wave that flag so that no one will mistake
you for someone who believes in equality under the law
and rule of law?
Oh, I see. Your impotence is motivating your call for a war based on incompatible ideology and philosophy.
No you were the one calling for the war. Go back and look. I am just saying the preconditions that you set for that war have been met.
You just like the colors on the flag that is the choice of racist terrorists...
Or do you wave that flag so that no one will mistake you for someone who believes in equality under the law and rule of law?
I am all for equal protection of the law. You don't believe in freedom. Instead you believe in massive government power to implement what you want.
jethro bodine 11/7/03 12:07pm
Hey, I'm not the one who sympathizes with terrorists.
You are the one calling for race war and defending fascism.
Wrong. I believe in taking massive government power out of the hands
of the fascists that you defend. And to repeat what I said when
I first came to this thread: there are non-violent ways to do that.
To repeat more of what I said: Unless there is some movement
towards resolving at least TWO issues, we are on the path that
leads to social revolution. To recap what I said before:
If you would rather defend the power of fascist corporations
instead of defending the constitution, then you are on the wrong
side of that issue.
Finally: the TWO issues that must be resolved to avoid
social revolution: Corporate governance, and rebuilding
the energy structure to eliminate fossil fuels and nuclear
power.
Hey, I'm not the one who sympathizes with terrorists. You are the one calling for race war and defending fascism.
Well, maybe you can fool some people with your lies but we both know that the above is a lie.
you believe in massive government power to implement what you want.
Wrong.
Sorry, dude, the only thing you have advocated is the heavy hand of governmnet forcing the changes you want.
And to repeat what I said when I first came to this thread: there are non-violent ways to do that. To repeat more of what I said: Unless there is some movement towards resolving at least TWO issues, we are on the path that leads to social revolution. To recap what I said before: If you would rather defend the power of fascist corporations instead of defending the constitution, then you are on the wrong side of that issue.
You aren't going to achieve those goals through non-violent means because most people still realize that the result is the abandonment of freedom.
Finally: the TWO issues that must be resolved to avoid social revolution: Corporate governance, and rebuilding the energy structure to eliminate fossil fuels and nuclear power.
Ain't gonna happen. So you better clean your guns.
Abusive and Un-American messages fold? You should know.
You're the king.
As we already knew. That is the difference... You actually DO "Hate" Liberals. I only hate the politics of Neo-Conservatism, and the ignorence it requires to spread it's abusive and Un-American message.
Obviously you are lying. My guess is you lie to yourself and you believe the lies.
I thought I was on your ignore list, fold. See another lie.
jethro bodine 11/7/03 12:58pm
I haven't advocated that at all.
I find it interesting that defenders of fascism always claim to be on the side of freedom, individual liberty and free markets, while in practice they aggressively oppose all of these things whenever it means limiting the power of fascist corporations. When they speak of freedom, they mean the freedom of corporations to dominate the culture. When they speak of individual liberty, they are speaking of corporations, which are legally recognized as "individuals" but which are, in actuality, groups of individuals exercising political power at the expense of actual individual citizens. When they speak of free markets, they are really speaking of politically connected corporations using their power to crush ACTUAL capitalist competition. Defenders of fascism want corporations to be free to engage in anti-competitive behavior, unfair labor practices, environmental destruction, financial fraud, and corrupt cronyism with their socialist-minded allies in the government.
This attitude is typical of defenders of fascism. They have no
hesitation or second thoughts about plunging the country into
civil war to protect their privilidge and power. They have no
conscience about fomenting wars abroad for imperial gain, either.
This is why I am warning that social revolution is inevitable if
American values aren't reasserted and the radical elitists dealt
with.
The issue on the table is the fascist structure of corporations and the fascist ideology being aggressively pushed by the corporate elite. The ideology is fundamentally unamerican, a threat to representative government and the rule of law.
I find it interesting that defenders of fascism always claim to be on the side of freedom, individual liberty and free markets, while in practice they aggressively oppose all of these things whenever it means limiting the power of fascist corporations.
What I find appalling is that there liars like you accusing those that have a different concept of freedom fascists. I also find it astonshing the number of lies you believe in.
This is why I am warning that social revolution is inevitable if
American values aren't reasserted and the radical elitists dealt
with.
Sounds like the promotion of treason by a left wing extremist.
The issue on the table is the fascist structure of corporations and the fascist ideology being aggressively pushed by the corporate elite. The ideology is fundamentally unamerican, a threat to representative government and the rule of law. Sorry. I don't see corporate structure as fascist or unamerican. But I do believe your policies are anti-american, a threat to freedom and the rule of law.
jethro bodine 11/11/03 8:17am
Historically, fascists are known for their efforts to call for the government to crush dissent with police state intimidation when challenges to corporate power arise.
In countries where fewer checks and balances (liberal institutions) exist, corporate fascists have an easier time quietly supporting the trampling of human rights to protect their "markets."
It is clear we have no reason to discuss this further. You are an extremist, Taraka. You are incapable of dealing with the existing reality.
jethro bodine 11/11/03 8:31am
That's right. And I'm in good company. Rousseau, Penn, Voltaire, Locke, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Paine, Thoreau, Douglas, Lincoln, Mill, Anthony, Addams, Roosevelt, King, Nader. All extremists. Lucky for you.
I don't think that's the real issue that you have. I think you are afraid of the way that I deal with existing reality, since I confront some truths that you find uncomfortable.
Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither.
--Ben Franklin
You are an extremist
That's right. And I'm in good company. Rousseau, Penn, Voltaire, Locke, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Paine, Thoreau, Douglas, Lincoln, Mill, Anthony, Addams, Roosevelt, King, Nader. All extremists. Lucky for you.
Most of them are nothing like you. I would say you are more like Marx and Lenin.
I don't think that's the real issue that you have. I think you are afraid of the way that I deal with existing reality, since I confront some truths that you find uncomfortable.
I am not afraid of the way you deal with I just recognize it as lunacy. You confront some imagined truths. At the very least the truths you believe in are extremely exaggerated.
Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither.
You have an extremely skewed view of liberty.
That's right. And I'm in good company. Rousseau, Penn, Voltaire, Locke, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Paine, Thoreau, Douglas, Lincoln, Mill, Anthony, Addams, Roosevelt, King, Nader. All extremists. Lucky for you.
I've studied all of the above, including Marx and Lenin, and your remark is just a resort to name-calling, since you can't refute what I have to say. I think you'd like for me to be a big-government psuedo-socialist, since that is the bogeyman that every knee-jerk reactionary pulls out of the bag in place of an argument, when corporate fascism is challenged.
But I am not an advocate of Marxism or Leninism, and I have plenty of criticism for those ideologies. The ideology that I defend is liberalism, and corporate fascism is a direct threat to some of the core principles of liberalism, the most relevant ones being representative government and the rule of law.
That is exactly what you advocate.
jethro bodine 11/11/03 10:38am
YES, I deny that. I do not "generally approve" of Marx and Lenin!
No, I don't advocate that at all. I'm arguing that corporations
arepolitical organizations, organs of government! And I am arguing that corporations are allowed to organize as fascist organizations, without meaningful checks and balances. I'm not advocating that corporations become even MORE closely associated with the government! Quite the opposite!
I advocate a market based approach to corporate reorganization. Of course, since the government has aided the current creation of corporate fascist organizations, it should likewise facilitate the transition to a form of corporation that has internal checks and balances.
That is a part that is absurd.And I am arguing that corporations are allowed to organize as fascist organizations, without meaningful checks and balances. It is because they are in the private sector and exercising their freedom.I'm not advocating that corporations become even MORE closely associated with the government! Quite the opposite! You haven't explained how you are going to change their structure and hence their behavior.
free thinkers!
hell yea!
that's how we got this country started in the first place...those cool free thinkers.
free thinkers? What the hell is a free thinker in your world. And explain how the hell Lincoln was a free thinker.
uh...there are several bona fide freethinkers on that list.
If Lincoln was one or not doesn't change that.
It's obvious that you don't know.
why should I tell you?
besides, I thought you knew what I thought better than I did...you tell me.
Is Soros part of your "free thinkers" club?
THX 1138 "2004 Presidential Race" 11/11/03 1:00pm
not that I can tell...not enough information. He seems way too partisan for it though.
crab's free thinkers club rule #1: must adhere to the party line and never deviate from the talking points memo.
jethro bodine 11/11/03 11:30am
About Marxism? Well, how about the idea that private property is the root of all evil? That's really the main point of the Communist Manifesto. I think it's a ludicrous idea. But I'm not going to support the idea that every inch of space ought to be fenced, titled and protected with weaponry! There IS such a thing as a "commons," and there is such a thing as common interest. Defending that notion certainly doesn't make one a Marxist! Beyond that, the notion that "the ONLY way to deal with inequality is by armed struggle" is a Marxist idea that I don't approve of. There are other ways. Yet even among the most enlightened liberal thinkers the notion that "the sovereign will is the will of the people" justifies the overthrow of government by fiat. Finally, the Marxist-Leninist construction known as "the dictatorship of the proletariat" is transparent propaganda used to justify fascist rule.
Since jethro thinks this is absurd, I'll explain. A corporation is chartered by the government. A corporate charter isn't a "business license." It is a special legal delegation of power granted by the state that gives a group of people the right to establish a political organization for a specific purpose. Corporations are political entities from the beginning. Nowadays, due to the application of the above named power, corporations have won the right to establish for ANY purpose, and they have also, gradually, over time, established political practices that have allowed the erosion of the internal checks and balances. My knowledge of the evolution of the corporate entity comes from the book "Taming the Giant Corporation" written by Ralph Nader in 1975. It is very well researched.
But my understanding of corporate governance doesn't begin and end with that book. My broad education in political theory has led me to define the corporation as a political entity due to the reality of the way that corporations act within US society and culture: Corporations are political actors. They influence the crafting of legislation. They influence how laws are enforced by participating in administrative rulemaking hearings. They are big political donors to parties and candidates. They influence what information is available to the public. They influence what kind of research is funded at universities. They influence the legal system through friend of the court briefs, expert testimony, and financing law firms that serve their interests. They use their power and influence when they are party to lawsuits or criminal investigations. All of these activities are political activities, and are engaged on a scale that is unmatched by all but the most wealthy families. Corporations aren't just ONE of the political actors, they are THE political actors in US society.
jethro says that since corporations "are in the private sector" they are free to organize without internal checks and balances. I've already demonstrated, above, that this isn't so. Corporations are very much "in public." In fact, corporate charter grants corporations the power to act within a "limited liability" framework that is not available to capitalist businesses, who assume all risk. The internal checks and balances WERE ORIGINALLY intended to be a check on the power of a corporation: a trade-off in exchange for legal privilidge. That is why boards and laws about shareholder rights exist. But these vestiges of the internal checks and balances originally intended to check the power of a corporation have been eroded, and in most organizations, the oversight of management by the board is a charade, a mockery of an internal check.
No, I haven't. Not on this thread, anyway. I have a model, but explaining it would take up more space than is appropriate on a message board. To be brief, many functions that are external to a corporation could be made internal, devising a complex system of corporate governance with seven co-equal branches. Nothing is being proposed that doesn't already exist. I'm only proposing changing how the existing relationships are defined to create a representative system that divides power. I'm sure that you could think of a large number of objections to such a system. I have. And I have answers to the objections.
There are downsides. Such a system would eliminate the ability to become "super-rich." Yet that means that the extraordinary wealth of a few would be available to make life better for everyone. It might sound socialist, but it really isn't. I'm not proposing that the government enforce equality of result. I'm proposing that the vehicle for creating an unjustified inequity be reformed so that it serves all the people well. Since corporations derive their authority from the government, and hence, from the people, this is just.
A hundred plus years of law and business practice aren't easily reformed. But to give you an idea where my reasoning leads me: It will be achieved by competition. Look around the world. Which method of social organization is considered superior: monarchy or republic? Republics have triumphed over monarchies and aristocracies in the governance of nation-states. This is why I believe that republican corporations with internal checks and balances will triumph over fascist corporations that have more in common with monarchies and aristocracies.
Government and society have contributed (sometimes unwillingly) to the current success of fascist corporations. They will likewise contribute (willingly, I think) to the success of republican corporations. Trust me, this change is coming. My desire is to raise awareness about the way it can evolve, rather than require a bloody social revolution.
THX 1138 11/11/03 1:01pm
Much of the support for the French Enlightenment came from liberal free-thinking aristocrats.
That might be a fitting analogy to the motivations of Soros.
There IS such a thing as a "commons," and there is such a thing as common interest. Defending that notion certainly doesn't make one a Marxist!
No, not necessarily. But based on your desire to meddle in private corporate structure it is clear to me that you come down a lot closer to the Marxist idea of common interest than the American idea.
Beyond that, the notion that "the ONLY way to deal with inequality is by armed struggle" is a Marxist idea that I don't approve of.
Oh you have said that you approve of armed struggle if you don't get your way. Well guess what? You aren't going to get your way. So you need to decide which side of the fence you want to be on.
I'm arguing that corporations are political organizations, organs of government! Since jethro thinks this is absurd, I'll explain. A corporation is chartered by the government.
I have a birth certificate so I guess I am a government organ too!
Corporations are political entities from the beginning.
Life is all politics from before birth (abortion) until death (Terry Schiavo.) So what?
Nowadays, due to the application of the above named power, corporations have won the right to establish for ANY purpose, and they have also, gradually, over time, established political practices that have allowed the erosion of the internal checks and balances.
You keep saying internal checks and balalnces like they are innate and that somehow some evil force has messed with the DNA.
My knowledge of the evolution of the corporate entity comes from the book "Taming the Giant Corporation" written by Ralph Nader in 1975. It is very well researched. Ah, Ralph Nader a living joke.
jethro bodine 11/12/03 8:17am
The notion that "the ONLY way to deal with inequality is by armed struggle" is a Marxist idea that I don't approve of. There are other ways. Yet even among the most enlightened liberal thinkers the notion that "the sovereign will is the will of the people" justifies the overthrow of government by fiat.
I'll be on the side of the fence that defends the constitution from fascism.
Corporations aren't just ONE of the political actors, they are THE political actors in US society.
It is you conspiracy theorists that give liberals a worse name than they should have. Have you ever considered that many corporations may have diametrically oppose interests? Have you considered that many corporations are run by liberals? Oh but they aren't sufficiently liberal in your eyes, right?
"the sovereign will of the people" a euphemism for what Taraka wants!
jethro bodine 11/12/03 8:19am
The comparison shows you don't know much about corporate charter.
I'm not surprised that what you know reflects popular misconceptions that serve the interest of corporations, who cultivate those misconceptions!
Trust me, this change is coming. My desire is to raise awareness about the way it can evolve, rather than require a bloody social revolution.
Sorry dude, if it comes, which I pray to God that it doesn't, it will only be through violence.
jethro bodine 11/12/03 8:20am
A nugget of wisdom. This is actually a paraphrase of Aristotle, who says, in "The Nicomachaen Ethics,"
Politics is how we decide everything else that we do.