Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
GM Bailout/ Chapter 11
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 542818" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /> I think in reality that probably best describes for all practical purposes where we all are in some degree. </p><p> </p><p>I noticed your link on capitialism quotes a lot of Ayn Rand. Contary to the myth making of one Obama fan here, I care very little for Rand other than maybe an interesting fiction book or 2. Her cheerleading of 19th century "capitialism" IMO is cheerleading merchantilism which is not true free market. Rand even champions the use of the State's force powers to advocate her economic ideas and I'm opposed to that use. Rand IMO would champion our global expansion for it's economic idealism but this also breaks completely down in that as our State advances our will over a geographic area, this in turn destroys the property and culture rights of the invaded peoples. I find it comical but tragic that people here will scream bloody murder about southern invaders coming here and changing our culture and yet will champion our own nationbuilding which is doing the very same thing abroad. The words of a wise man come to mind who said, "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword!"</p><p> </p><p>The concept of corporation dates back to the Roman empire and it's use among western civilization has come about as this practice followed the Roman church and the fragmentation of the old empire. In medieval times, corporations were granted special if not monopoly status not unlike the kinds of status and titles of nobility granted under fuedalism. It's history and understanding is well worth study and I'd encourage you or anyone to do.</p><p> </p><p>At the Randian link, I found the following most interesting:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The right to form or in essense become a corporation is an inalienable right. Now I find that very interesting to say the least. The term "inalienable" or the more correct term IMO, "unalienable" is most known from it's use in the Declaration of Independence and refers to a right not granted by an man, group of men or other earthly power but is derrived from God or Nature's God itself. This thinking comes to us in the American tradition from Locke who extolled the right to life, liberty and property and in the Declaration content, read what is said after the words "unalienable rights" where you will find the Locke ideal openly expressed in a broad explaination of "unalienable". In other words, the above statement suggests the right to "incorporate" comes from God as an expression of man's freedom and individual sovernity. But look back at the link and read the very next paragraph.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>A corporation's creation comes about as an act of the State itself and not a result of a natural occurence among free acting peoples. From it's beginnings in the Roman empire to our western law of today, corporations only come into being by an act of the State itself. If corporations had natural rights as our Randian asserts, then why in 1886' did SCOTUS in <a href="http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html#118US394" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO. 118 US 384</span> </a>declare that under the 14th amendment a corporation was a person with the same rights as a natural person. Why did it take the 14th amendment to do this if as our Randian states instead of the rights of the organic constitution is what he/she alleges is true? Just a little food for thought. BTW: Some scholars have alleged the 14th amendment was more about securing special status for corporate interests that were a rising tide at the time than about citizenship to freed slaves. Considering where we are today, I'm not so much inclined to disagree as I once was.</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /></p><p> </p><p>I'll leave you with a link to an article written by Professor Roderick Long of Auburn University. Professor Long professes to be a "left-libertarian" and I point this out only because when everyone was taking the infamous political quiz to see where they rank, if I remember correct, you fell also into that general area not far from Jones. As such, consider <a href="http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/11/10/roderick-long/corporations-versus-the-market-or-whip-conflation-now/" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">this article</span> </a>an intro to Professor Long and maybe another intro to his further writing and ideas found <a href="http://praxeology.net/" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">here</span></a> and <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long-arch.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">here</span></a>.</p><p> </p><p>BTW: I saw that thread on union membership and I to believe it should be voluntary but I also believe that if one chooses to not avail him/herself of union membership, then said union is also under no obligation whatsoever to cover, represent or in any other way benefit said employee who declines union membership. I've found over the years that most union folk I talk with rightly condemn union "freeloaders" but who in turn openly and sometimes with hostile reaction oppose the idea of just cutting these freeloaders completely loose to the whims of their own choices. Of course they rightly fear the company using that person to sweeten a deal that undercuts the union's contract so instead of the worker/employee being able to get the best for themselves, it comes down to a system of force if you will backed by State sanctioned law that either compells employee into the union plan or compells the union to support freeloader if he/she chooses to not take that path. Now this sets up a conflict as both the union or the corporation lobby for more gov't intervention that benefits their own self interests at the sacrifice of the opposing self interest. Also the cost of gov't itself in these actions is past on to the larger collective body who in many cases has no real stake or benefit in the matter. This uses the force of gov't to extract property in the form of taxes from individuals to pay for a form of welfare for others so they can benefit. Corporations complain about unions but in truth, they laid the seed from which unions sprang so there you go!</p><p> </p><p>Another fact IMO that we are a long, long way from true free markets as the State under it's central planning powers directs all outcomes sometimes at the behest of special interests whether they be private or otherwise!</p><p> </p><p>JMO which I'm sure many here will not like.</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 542818, member: 2189"] :happy-very: I think in reality that probably best describes for all practical purposes where we all are in some degree. I noticed your link on capitialism quotes a lot of Ayn Rand. Contary to the myth making of one Obama fan here, I care very little for Rand other than maybe an interesting fiction book or 2. Her cheerleading of 19th century "capitialism" IMO is cheerleading merchantilism which is not true free market. Rand even champions the use of the State's force powers to advocate her economic ideas and I'm opposed to that use. Rand IMO would champion our global expansion for it's economic idealism but this also breaks completely down in that as our State advances our will over a geographic area, this in turn destroys the property and culture rights of the invaded peoples. I find it comical but tragic that people here will scream bloody murder about southern invaders coming here and changing our culture and yet will champion our own nationbuilding which is doing the very same thing abroad. The words of a wise man come to mind who said, "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword!" The concept of corporation dates back to the Roman empire and it's use among western civilization has come about as this practice followed the Roman church and the fragmentation of the old empire. In medieval times, corporations were granted special if not monopoly status not unlike the kinds of status and titles of nobility granted under fuedalism. It's history and understanding is well worth study and I'd encourage you or anyone to do. At the Randian link, I found the following most interesting: The right to form or in essense become a corporation is an inalienable right. Now I find that very interesting to say the least. The term "inalienable" or the more correct term IMO, "unalienable" is most known from it's use in the Declaration of Independence and refers to a right not granted by an man, group of men or other earthly power but is derrived from God or Nature's God itself. This thinking comes to us in the American tradition from Locke who extolled the right to life, liberty and property and in the Declaration content, read what is said after the words "unalienable rights" where you will find the Locke ideal openly expressed in a broad explaination of "unalienable". In other words, the above statement suggests the right to "incorporate" comes from God as an expression of man's freedom and individual sovernity. But look back at the link and read the very next paragraph. A corporation's creation comes about as an act of the State itself and not a result of a natural occurence among free acting peoples. From it's beginnings in the Roman empire to our western law of today, corporations only come into being by an act of the State itself. If corporations had natural rights as our Randian asserts, then why in 1886' did SCOTUS in [URL="http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html#118US394"][COLOR=red]COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO. 118 US 384[/COLOR] [/URL]declare that under the 14th amendment a corporation was a person with the same rights as a natural person. Why did it take the 14th amendment to do this if as our Randian states instead of the rights of the organic constitution is what he/she alleges is true? Just a little food for thought. BTW: Some scholars have alleged the 14th amendment was more about securing special status for corporate interests that were a rising tide at the time than about citizenship to freed slaves. Considering where we are today, I'm not so much inclined to disagree as I once was. :happy-very: I'll leave you with a link to an article written by Professor Roderick Long of Auburn University. Professor Long professes to be a "left-libertarian" and I point this out only because when everyone was taking the infamous political quiz to see where they rank, if I remember correct, you fell also into that general area not far from Jones. As such, consider [URL="http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/11/10/roderick-long/corporations-versus-the-market-or-whip-conflation-now/"][COLOR=red]this article[/COLOR] [/URL]an intro to Professor Long and maybe another intro to his further writing and ideas found [URL="http://praxeology.net/"][COLOR=red]here[/COLOR][/URL] and [URL="http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long-arch.html"][COLOR=red]here[/COLOR][/URL]. BTW: I saw that thread on union membership and I to believe it should be voluntary but I also believe that if one chooses to not avail him/herself of union membership, then said union is also under no obligation whatsoever to cover, represent or in any other way benefit said employee who declines union membership. I've found over the years that most union folk I talk with rightly condemn union "freeloaders" but who in turn openly and sometimes with hostile reaction oppose the idea of just cutting these freeloaders completely loose to the whims of their own choices. Of course they rightly fear the company using that person to sweeten a deal that undercuts the union's contract so instead of the worker/employee being able to get the best for themselves, it comes down to a system of force if you will backed by State sanctioned law that either compells employee into the union plan or compells the union to support freeloader if he/she chooses to not take that path. Now this sets up a conflict as both the union or the corporation lobby for more gov't intervention that benefits their own self interests at the sacrifice of the opposing self interest. Also the cost of gov't itself in these actions is past on to the larger collective body who in many cases has no real stake or benefit in the matter. This uses the force of gov't to extract property in the form of taxes from individuals to pay for a form of welfare for others so they can benefit. Corporations complain about unions but in truth, they laid the seed from which unions sprang so there you go! Another fact IMO that we are a long, long way from true free markets as the State under it's central planning powers directs all outcomes sometimes at the behest of special interests whether they be private or otherwise! JMO which I'm sure many here will not like. :wink2: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
GM Bailout/ Chapter 11
Top