Moving beyond money

[3rdnlng]

TYTT, your lack of ability to read and comprehend would be amazing if I didn't think you were really MDP posing as someone else again. Go back and read over what I wrote, then get back to me again on the inherent evils of corporations. I originally wasn't mocking you but I guess I hit a nerve anyway. I'd give you a hammer so you could build your case, but I'm afraid you would just hurt yourself. BTW, your inability to spell correctly is one of your "tells".

[TakeYouToTasker]

TYTT, your lack of ability to read and comprehend would be amazing if I didn't think you were really MDP posing as someone else again. Go back and read over what I wrote, then get back to me again on the inherent evils of corporations. I originally wasn't mocking you but I guess I hit a nerve anyway. I'd give you a hammer so you could build your case, but I'm afraid you would just hurt yourself. BTW, your inability to spell correctly is one of your "tells".

...

 

That's...

 

That's what you've got? Jesus. You've got less substance than Connor, and none of his extensive research skills.

 

You've picked a fight with the wrong guy. Answer my questions or go home with your tail tucked between your legs.

[Oxrock]

Several points for you to consider if you are assuming this argument:

 

It's logical extension is that all individual rights must be surrendered by the persons forming the corporation in favor of the concept of group rights. This is not the case however, as incorporation does not strip the forming individuals of their rights at all, but instead creates a new person out of thin air, stripping the incorporators not of their rights, but instead relieving them of their responsibilities. This new "person" has no human traits or decision making abilities of it's own, but it assumes the large share of the financial and legal reprecussions of those actual individuals making the decisions.

 

Reprecussions to which those actual individuals making the decisions are less likely to concern themselves with because they are now protected from their ultimate ramifications.

I have incorporated my bar for all the legal reasons you so carefully gathered from the web. And every time we get together as required by law in person, on line, or thru the mail (My wife and I only own 66%) it's quite obvious we are individuals acting as a group no different than unions, fraternal, or religious organizations.

 

Corporations formed explicitly with the aim of promoting a political point of view like Citezens United clearly have their politics out in the open for all the shareholders to see and vote as shareholders do in meetings or with their wallets when they disagree with the direction of the corporation management.

 

I ask you, do you have the same view of unions, fraternal, religious, or other NFP organizations (like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) where persons come together the create one entity?

 

Does this stripping of responsibility apply to these other entities as well?

[3rdnlng]

...

 

That's...

 

That's what you've got? Jesus. You've got less substance than Connor, and none of his extensive research skills.

 

You've picked a fight with the wrong guy. Answer my questions or go home with your tail tucked between your legs.

 

Go back and read over my original response to your statement regarding corporations. You can display your whiny, bitchy little side all you want, but that won't change the fact that I haven't disagreed with anything other than your approach to dealing with others. You don't get to make a statement, start an argument, and then choose what points I need to defend in your fabricated argument. Call me all the names you want and try to sucker me into arguing with your smokescreens. It won't work. You are not the maestro here.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I have incorporated my bar for all the legal reasons you so carefully gathered from the web. And every time we get together as required by law in person, on line, or thru the mail (My wife and I only own 66%) it's quite obvious we are individuals acting as a group no different than unions, fraternal, or religious organizations.

 

Corporations formed explicitly with the aim of promoting a political point of view like Citezens United clearly have their politics out in the open for all the shareholders to see and vote as shareholders do in meetings or with their wallets when they disagree with the direction of the corporation management.

 

I ask you, do you have the same view of unions, fraternal, religious, or other NFP organizations (like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) where persons come together the create one entity?

 

Does this stripping of responsibility apply to these other entities as well?

I take large issue with the concept of limited liability in general, and find the waters of the emerging field of corporate criminal law to be murky at best. So, to answer your question: yes, I do find all of those entities to be problematic.

 

As I hope would be evident from my brief posting history here, there are aspects of the modern corporation that I think make sense, such as pass-through tax liability, property rights, money-as-speech, and the ability to sue for damages; as those are natural extensions of the seperate rights of you and your partners and should not be surrendered simply through your choice to freely associate. However, as individuals you do not have the right to limit your legal and financial liabilities to those you may have harmed and are seeking redress, and as such no such right should be created for you from thin air through a legal arrangement.

 

So, I post a mocking response to your post (even though it was technically correct) and you expose your leftist owned vagina? You are either the most awkward expressing dipschit here on this board or one of the Team Pathetic, playing more games.

Own your words.

 

Now answer the questions, you !@#$ing cartoon.

Edited October 9, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[Oxrock]

I take large issue with the concept of limited liability in general, and find the waters of the emerging field of corporate criminal law to be murky at best. So, to answer your question: yes, I do find all of those entities to to be problematic.

 

I'm glad you are consistent. I disagree with you, but do see your point a view regardless of myself being a part of a very small corporation with dreams of growing big someday.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I'm glad you are consistent. I disagree with you, but do see your point a view regardless of myself being a part of a very small corporation with dreams of growing big someday.

I'm sure that you will. I wish you the best.

[OCinBuffalo]

I take large issue with the concept of limited liability in general, and find the waters of the emerging field of corporate criminal law to be murky at best. So, to answer your question: yes, I do find all of those entities to be problematic.

 

As I hope would be evident from my brief posting history here, there are aspects of the modern corporation that I think make sense, such as pass-through tax liability, property rights, money-as-speech, and the ability to sue for damages; as those are natural extensions of the seperate rights of you and your partners and should not be surrendered simply through your choice to freely associate. However, as individuals you do not have the right to limit your legal and financial liabilities to those you may have harmed and are seeking redress, and as such no such right should be created for you from thin air through a legal arrangement.

Do you also find the current litigiousness of our society problematic? Do you find that the fact that we graduate 2x the number of lawyers we need, and that the first thing they do is try and create the need for their services...problematic?

 

Look, I have a good lawyer, and I need him. But, the SOB is fond of telling me that his services are a "cost of doing business". No, they most certainly are not, they are are protection money. I have to pay it to keep the legions of bad lawyers who are of no use to society away from me.

 

You have identified an effect, and are bitching about it. What about the cause? I've been sued 3 times over nothing. Nothing at all. All 3 never made it past the first day in court. This racket, and that's what it is, needs to be fixed, before any change in corporation law will be tolerated.

 

Why should anyone commit their assets to any group...if they know they can be taken away by some scumbag, when they did nothing wrong. Corporations are the response, not the stimulae.

 

You want to fix corporations? Ban the Trial Lawyers from giving political contributions. They are no different than the government employee unions, in terms of corrupting the process, they just wear nicer clothes. Look at Obamacare: why no tort reform? Do you think that is an accident?

 

While you are at it, ban the major accounting/consulting firms as well(I have worked for 2 of them). These are the people who have created the system you despise, and then they protect us...from the system they created.

 

Why do you think the tax code is what it is? Who do you think wrote it? These clods in Congress, their staff, government employees? Nope. Studs...that work directly for the partners, are who write it, and then turn around and charge $300/hr(minimum) to advise their clients on how to beat it.

 

We can fix a lot of things, but, as you see with Obamacare, when you only fix one side, and blatantly ignore the other...people aren't as stupid as you hoped. You will get nowhere until you commit to solving the whole problem.

Edited October 10, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[TakeYouToTasker]

Do you also find the current litigiousness of our society problematic? Do you find that the fact that we graduate 2x the number of lawyers we need, and that the first thing they do is try and create the need for their services...problematic?

 

Look, I have a good lawyer, and I need him. But, the SOB is fond of telling me that his services are a "cost of doing business". No, they most certainly are not, they are are protection money. I have to pay it to keep the legions of bad lawyers who are of no use to society away from me.

 

You have identified an effect, and are bitching about it. What about the cause? I've been sued 3 times over nothing. Nothing at all. All 3 never made it past the first day in court. This racket, and that's what it is, needs to be fixed, before any change in corporation law will be tolerated.

 

Why should anyone commit their assets to any group...if they know they can be taken away by some scumbag, when they did nothing wrong. Corporations are the response, not the stimulae.

 

You want to fix corporations? Ban the Trial Lawyers from giving political contributions. They are no different than the government employee unions, in terms of corrupting the process, they just wear nicer clothes. Look at Obamacare: why no tort reform? Do you think that is an accident?

 

While you are at it, ban the major accounting/consulting firms as well(I have worked for 2 of them). These are the people who have created the system you despise, and then they protect us...from the system they created.

 

Why do you think the tax code is what it is? Who do you think wrote it? These clods in Congress, their staff, government employees? Nope. Studs...that work directly for the partners, are who write it, and then turn around and charge $300/hr(minimum) to advise their clients on how to beat it.

 

We can fix a lot of things, but, as you see with Obamacare, when you only fix one side, and blatantly ignore the other...people aren't as stupid as you hoped. You will get nowhere until you commit to solving the whole problem.

What you have just touched apon is the concept of primary and secondary regulation. Primary regulations tend to be invisible, since they are accepted as part of the common-sense background by both mainstream political factions, whereas the latter are those regulations introduced to mitigate the bad effects of primary regulation.

 

Let me state outright that I am entirely sympathetic to your argument. The practice of law is largely a hinderance to business and on our economy in general, once we look past basic beneficial structural regulation, as it has attached itself, much like a parasite, to every aspect of industry and life and is not a value add. Lawyers, as they practice today, are essentially nothing more than a hideous combination of extortionists and translators for the lawyers whom have proceeded them, drawing the lifeblood out of industry as they decipher our laws which are now written in a language only they speak. Were I to start a revolution I would begin it with their executions.

 

With that said, and getting back to my origional point, even when secondary regulations do achieve an ameliorative purpose, they generally cause perverse results somewhere else; which is the problem Oxrock and I were discussing. Ideally we would unwind the entire ball of string, stripping away both problems, however I find it important to note that if we are to unravel the knot we must begin somewhere, and I believe it unlikely that beginning would be a salvo fired against the legal profession.

Edited October 10, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[OCinBuffalo]

What you have just touched apon is the concept of primary and secondary regulation. Primary regulations tend to be invisible, since they are accepted as part of the common-sense background by both mainstream political factions, whereas the latter are those regulations introduced to mitigate the bad effects of primary regulation.

 

Let me state outright that I am entirely sympathetic to your argument. The practice of law is largely a hinderance to business and on our economy in general, once we look past basic beneficial structural regulation, as it has attached itself, much like a parasite, to every aspect of industry and life and is not a value add. Lawyers, as they practice today, are essentially nothing more than a hideous combination of extortionists and translators for the lawyers whom have proceeded them, drawing the lifeblood out of industry as they decipher our laws which are now written in a language only they speak. Were I to start a revolution I would begin it with their executions.

 

With that said, and getting back to my origional point, even when secondary regulations do achieve an ameliorative purpose, they generally cause perverse results somewhere else; which is the problem Oxrock and I were discussing. Ideally we would unwind the entire ball of string, stripping away both problems, however I find it important to note that if we are to unravel the knot we must begin somewhere, and I believe it unlikely that beginning would be a salvo fired against the legal profession.

It's not about a salvo for the sake of the salvo. We can't begin with the response, we have to begin with what causes it.

 

You need to recognize the cause/effect relationship for what it is. There is no chicken or egg thing here. Lawyers existed prior to corporations, and corporations are the response.

 

Now what has happened since the ~ the 500s? As government, and law firms, have gotten bigger, and demanded more money, and found new ways to tax and new ways to sue...corporations have responded, and they have gotten bigger, more involved in the political process, and yeah, gone after those politicians that go after them, why the wouldn't they? You think I wouldn't fight for what I have built? They have also innovated to protect their assets.

 

It's nothing more than a 1500-year-old arms race, and none of it is necessary. Economies of scale, in terms of just having an even shot at dealing with all the government and lawyers nonsense, have dictated that corporations must get bigger. That's why everybody in my business is looking to get in, show it working, and immediately sell today, or, they are doing the open-source and/or "5 servers in different countries, all behind proxies = good luck!" thing, so that they can fight these clowns on our playing field, instead of theirs.

 

If you want to start walking this back, even we trade it off, one side, then the next, you have to start with the lawyers and the government.

 

That, and corporations allow groups of individuals to take risks they would never be willing to take on their own. These risks often fail, but, when they don't, they advance society much faster than is possible with an inferior form of collective effort.

[Jauronimo]

It's not about a salvo for the sake of the salvo. We can't begin with the response, we have to begin with what causes it.

 

You need to recognize the cause/effect relationship for what it is. There is no chicken or egg thing here. Lawyers existed prior to corporations, and corporations are the response.

 

Now what has happened since the ~ the 500s? As government, and law firms, have gotten bigger, and demanded more money, and found new ways to tax and new ways to sue...corporations have responded, and they have gotten bigger, more involved in the political process, and yeah, gone after those politicians that go after them, why the wouldn't they? You think I wouldn't fight for what I have built? They have also innovated to protect their assets.

 

It's nothing more than a 1500-year-old arms race, and none of it is necessary. Economies of scale, in terms of just having an even shot at dealing with all the government and lawyers nonsense, have dictated that corporations must get bigger. That's why everybody in my business is looking to get in, show it working, and immediately sell today, or, they are doing the open-source and/or "5 servers in different countries, all behind proxies = good luck!" thing, so that they can fight these clowns on our playing field, instead of theirs.

 

If you want to start walking this back, even we trade it off, one side, then the next, you have to start with the lawyers and the government.

 

That, and corporations allow groups of individuals to take risks they would never be willing to take on their own. These risks often fail, but, when they don't, they advance society much faster than is possible with an inferior form of collective effort.

Fight all you want, but your whole argument is bull ****. You didn't build that.

[OCinBuffalo]

Fight all you want, but your whole argument is bull ****. You didn't build that.

 

My entire family, even the Democrats, agree that my life history and entire existence is an obvious counter to that argument.

[TakeYouToTasker]

It's not about a salvo for the sake of the salvo. We can't begin with the response, we have to begin with what causes it.

 

You need to recognize the cause/effect relationship for what it is. There is no chicken or egg thing here. Lawyers existed prior to corporations, and corporations are the response.

 

Now what has happened since the ~ the 500s? As government, and law firms, have gotten bigger, and demanded more money, and found new ways to tax and new ways to sue...corporations have responded, and they have gotten bigger, more involved in the political process, and yeah, gone after those politicians that go after them, why the wouldn't they? You think I wouldn't fight for what I have built? They have also innovated to protect their assets.

 

It's nothing more than a 1500-year-old arms race, and none of it is necessary. Economies of scale, in terms of just having an even shot at dealing with all the government and lawyers nonsense, have dictated that corporations must get bigger. That's why everybody in my business is looking to get in, show it working, and immediately sell today, or, they are doing the open-source and/or "5 servers in different countries, all behind proxies = good luck!" thing, so that they can fight these clowns on our playing field, instead of theirs.

 

If you want to start walking this back, even we trade it off, one side, then the next, you have to start with the lawyers and the government.

 

That, and corporations allow groups of individuals to take risks they would never be willing to take on their own. These risks often fail, but, when they don't, they advance society much faster than is possible with an inferior form of collective effort.

We need to begin with whatever we can begin with in an effot to undo where we stand today, and it is absurd to assert that we should wait and do nothing to solve a problem we both agree exists, and agree on the root cause of, until the world can agree that a government comprised of 95% lawyers is bad. The time or place to strike will never be perfect, and the status quo is unacceptable. Perhaps the elimination of Limited Liability combined with legislation charging the prosecution with all fees plus a substancial penalty including disbarrment for bringing to trial any lawsuit deemed frivolous would be an acceptable jumping off point to begin the unwinding process.

 

To your final point about advancing society, again I am sympathetic to your position. However, I side with Adam Smith on this issue, believing that when a conflict of legal interests between the small and the great arises, the small should generally be given deference when speaking to structural issues of legal protections (as opposed to individual legal proceedings which must proceed impartially on their own merit). Any system which protects a man from his own wrongdoings against a person with real injury, physical or financial, is an unjust system.

Edited October 13, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[OCinBuffalo]

We need to begin with whatever we can begin with in an effot to undo where we stand today, and it is absurd to assert that we should wait and do nothing to solve a problem we both agree exists, and agree on the root cause of, until the world can agree that a government comprised of 95% lawyers is bad. The time or place to strike will never be perfect, and the status quo is unacceptable. Perhaps the elimination of Limited Liability combined with legislation charging the prosecution with all fees plus a substancial penalty including disbarrment for bringing to trial any lawsuit deemed frivolous would be an acceptable jumping off point to begin the unwinding process.

 

To your final point about advancing society, again I am sympathetic to your position. However, I side with Adam Smith on this issue, believing that when a conflict of legal interests between the small and the great arises, the small should generally be given deference when speaking to structural issues of legal protections (as opposed to individual legal proceedings which must proceed impartially on their own merit). Any system which protects a man from his own wrongdoings against a person with real injury, physical or financial, is an unjust system.

The LLC...was created specifically to protect the small...from the big. The S-corp, C-corp etc. is where you want to place your wrath.

 

Unfortunately, as we see with things like Dodd Frank, your intention is to punish the big, but it is tripped up by either monolithic thinking, or, the big's good lawyers, and the "equal protection" clause. You seem oblivious to the fact that the big is either smarter, has more resources, or both, than the small. Or...do you enjoy the fact that 5 banks are now "too big to fail"? That's the deal that was made.

 

When you set out to go after the "big corporations" all you succeed in doing is laying waste to the small businesses, and keeping people out of starting them. The big, are big, and therefore are either tipped off, excluded from, or have the resources to avoid your punishment.

 

Adam Smith would correctly recognize this distinction. My business-illiterate, politically retarded, leftist, scientist cousin...understands this distinction, and gets that it does in fact represent a difference. She is also, but only recently, beginning to understand what "unintended consequences" means.

 

Consider: You and your friends are empowered with making all the rules, and seeing them implemented. There's a good chance at least one of your friends got to that post via corporate support, and, there's an even better chance that most of your friends have other things on their agenda, and will take the pay-off on this, in order to see those other things accomplished.

 

Your efforts will be compromised, before they even start. But, that is how we do things: compromise. It's also how we runs things in business most of the time, unless you are holding most of the cards.

 

In 2008-2010 Obama et al were holding ALL of the cards and Dodd Frank was the result. Even when the "corporation-killers" were completely in control....all they succeeding in doing was empowering the biggest, and killing the smallest. Same thing with Obamacare, where they exempted the big, or their pals, and left the small to deal with idiocy of it.

 

Now, what exactly would Adam Smith have to say about this, in terms of small and big?

Edited October 15, 2012 by OCinBuffalo