At 22:32 14/11/2012, Pete Vincent wrote:
(PV) Of course, as one would entirely expect, these initiatives do not
affect the financial liability limitation concept which was the original
purpose of the notion of the corporate entity. They simply, and sensibly,
remove all the unjustified expansions of the immunities and privileges
siezed by the powerful owners of corporations for the purpose of
usurping citizen control over their rapacious activities in pursuit
of unlimited profits without regard for the public or the environment.
It is way, way, past time for this backlash to arise, and the world
will be a far better place for it.
(KH) "Backlash" is much too dramatic to describe corporate
strategies. More often than not, legal restrictions against corporate
greed with respect to the environment or working conditions or poor
product quality -- if they are widely agreed -- automatically become
part of the culture of succeeding generations and don't require
repeated applications of the law. Corporations don't re-open old
battles which they have fought and lost. The only exception to this
-- constant attempts by corporations at reducing taxation -- is only
due to the fact that modern governments never decrease, but always
increase, their tax demands from year to year (either from
bureaucratic expansion and/or popular demand at the ballot box).
(Even under the "small government" Bush administration, public
expenditure rose from 30% to 35% of GDP!)
Besides, who are the "the powerful owners of corporations for the purpose of
usurping citizen control over their rapacious activities"? At worst,
this only really applies in the case of new enterprises still in the
hands of their founders. Most of the owners of the most successful
corporations are citizens themselves (that is, in the investments of
pensions funds). The No.1 corporate problem today is not rapacious
owners (that is, shareholders) but where a business has acquired a
free-loading layer of senior management, such as those of all the
major Western banks in the last 30 years, who've been paying
themselves astronomical salaries as well as, it now turns out,
allowing their reserves to run down to nil and also turning a blind
eye to activities, sometimes criminal, which may be going on below them.
Keith
-Pete
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Keith Hudson wrote:
> At 14:43 14/11/2012, Darryl wrote:
> > We will have to see how this plays out. It may be the beginning
of the fight
> > to remove corporations from the position of suing countries for
restricting
> > profits from polluting or damaging the environment (or running away from
> > their responsibilities to those who gain them their profits). Note: China
> > will be jumping on Canadians very soon regarding the stall of the Oil
> > delivery to the west coast if these corporations are allowed to
continue in
> > their present way.
>
> (KH) This won't play out. It will be invalidated by the courts at
some level.
> All joint stock businesses have to be considered as individual persons in
> order for their joint owners to be accountable in law or to be able to take
> action themselves on behalf of their business. Otherwise, in the case of
> bankruptcy, each and all of the shareholders of a business could
be sued under
> common law right up to the limit of their personal assets -- as
partners of a
> business. The first joint stock business was the Bank of England.
Without this
> huge change in common law and the wider dissemination of limited liability
> then the industrial revolution would never have got off the
ground in the 17th
> century. Any premature attempts at wider industrialization would
have simply
> spluttered and died out -- as indeed happened a few times in England before
> the what might be called the 'real' one took off.
>
> Keith
>
> Darryl
>
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: 'Corporations Are Not People' in Montana, Colorado
> > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:44:23 -0500
> > From: Portside Moderator
> > <mailto:[email protected]><[email protected]>
> > Reply-To: <mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
> > To: <mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 'Corporations Are Not People' in Montana, Colorado
> >
> > Common Dreams staff
> > November 7, 2012
> > <http://www.CommonDreams.org>www.CommonDreams.org
> >
> > http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/07-0
> >
> > In a landslide victory Tuesday night, Montana voters approved
> > an initiative stating "that corporations are not entitled to
> > constitutional rights because they are not human beings" --
> > corporations are not people.
> >
> > The initiative directly challenges the now infamous Citizens
> > United decision, which allows corporations to contribute
> > unlimited amounts of money for campaign groups know as super
> > PACS and 'shadow money' organizations.
> >
> > Initiative 166 will win roughly 75 percent to 25 percent,
> > according to the likely, but not yet final, results,
> > Montana's Billings Gazette reports.
> >
> > The initiative states:
> >
> > "Ballot initiative I-166 establishes a state policy that
> > corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights
> > because they are not human beings, and charges Montana
> > elected and appointed officials, state and federal, to
> > implement that policy. With this policy, the people of
> > Montana establish that there should be a level playing field
> > in campaign spending, in part by prohibiting corporate
> > campaign contributions and expenditures and by limiting
> > political spending in elections..."
> >
> > The measure, proposed by the group Stand with Montanans, will
> > determine state policy on prohibiting corporate contributions
> > and expenditures in state and national elections, and will
> > charge state lawmakers with furthering the state's policy on
> > the matter, asking congressional delegates to support efforts
> > to overrule the Citizens United decision by amending the U.S.
> > Constitution.
> >
> > Similarly, Colorado Amendment 65 looks like a victory. 65
> > instructs Colorado???s congressional delegation to propose and
> > support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that allows
> > congress to overturn Citizens United.
> >
> > Results from the CO Secretary of State show a YES for
> > Amendment 65 with a margin of 73% with 23 of 64 counties
> > reporting.
> >
> > ___________________________________________
> >
> > Portside aims to provide material of interest to people
> > on the left that will help them to interpret the world
> > and to change it.
> >
> > Submit via email: <mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
> >
> > Submit via the Web:
> > <http://portside.org/submittous3>http://portside.org/submittous3
> >
> > Frequently asked questions:
<http://portside.org/faq>http://portside.org/faq
> >
> > Sub/Unsub:
> >
<http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe>http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe
> >
> > Search Portside archives:
> > <http://portside.org/archive>http://portside.org/archive
> >
> > Contribute to Portside:
> > <https://portside.org/donate>https://portside.org/donate
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Futurework mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
>
>
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
