Holding corporations responsible

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by 804brown, Mar 20, 2012.

  1. 804brown

    804brown Well-Known Member

  2. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    But by legal definition, Corporations are created by the State and without a State, the privilege of incorporation and limited liability would not otherwise exist so now re-ask the question, who is ultimately the one responsible? Did you ever ponder the thought that a State creates a corporation knowing the ill effects but create the corporation anyway for the exclusive benefit of the State itself?

    Seems to me you now face a real dilemma in that you want to empower the State to check the power of Corporations but it's the State who creates the Corporations in the first place. And what relief do you hope to gain with your begging in the face of the huge tax revenues and political power they gain from the corp. presence in the economy? And you still want to insist that is a real free market?

    BTW: I oppose the legal fiction of corp. status because it is a created legal fiction, a state granted privilege and does not come about as an action of natural rights or natural law.
  3. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    If I were to start a business I would incorporate it almost immediatly, and not because incorporation comes with any special political privileges or perks, but because I don't want my new business to cost me the roof over my head along with my other personal assets. Incorporation is meant as a way to encourage business owners and entrepreneurs to take risk without the adverse affects of them being homeless and penny less if someone slips and falls in their establishment and sues them into oblivion. Its one thing to risk the money you put into a business to get it off the ground, but its completely another to risk your own personal financial well being by exposing it to the enormous potential risks of offering a product or service to the public at large.
  4. 804brown

    804brown Well-Known Member

    Brazil did not create Chevron. The good ol USof A did. Until we get to that perfect state (pun intended) of being without ANY state, I think a truly DEMOCRATIC state can and should hold corporations feet to the fire for crimes ,etc!!
  5. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I always knew you and Brett had so much in common, so why can't you two and your cohorts get things done in Washington?
  6. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    What crimes?
  7. island1fox

    island1fox Well-Known Member



    What crimes ?? Let me list a few. Having a working business. Providing a product or service. Creating jobs and employing people. Paying large amount of taxes. Contributing to various charities. Providing investing opportunities and creating wealth and shareowner value.

    Of course like when UPS damages a package or has an "accident" --The looney left --many who support themselves and their families by working for an "evil" Corporation ---cry dishonesty, Crimes, close them all down etc etc etc. Just another "conflict of interest" in their silly and sorry lives.

    Talking about conflicts --was that not Obama and the President of Brazil bragging about the U.S. investment into MORE DRILLING in Brazil.
    Is it not our President and Vice begging Saudi Arabia to DRILL more ???

    Yet will do everything possible to block Drilling where we should be creating jobs --not Brazil and the middle east !!
  8. 804brown

    804brown Well-Known Member

  9. 804brown

    804brown Well-Known Member

  10. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member