I don't think it is Estonia but it might be but it is one of the ex soviet controled nations the government gives a lot more limited liablity protection to corporations registered in that country. They don't even allow Pierecing the corporate veil which is a English/ American common law standard so that parties connected to a corporation can not use the corporation to commit un just acts.--- In [email protected], "terry12622000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A corporation is a business or non profit organaztion that registers > with a state governments for the purposes of incorporating, > continuing the organaztion beyond the life of its founding > stockholders, other type owners or members, one of the main > advantages of a corporation which may be also shared by registered > limited liablity companies and registered limited liablity > partnerships is limited liablity spelled out in state government > corporate laws and Anglo/ American common law, third party liablity > can be a bonus but, natural law, common law and the 7th amendment in > the bill of rights to the US consitution forbids using corporate > status to escape justice. The 7th amendment says In suits at common > law where the value of the controversy shall exceed 20 dollars, the > right of trial by jury shall be perserved, and no fact tried by a > jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United > States, than according to common law. Some states also have similar > clauses in their state constitution usually in the declaration of > rights section. Thus a state government can not grant third party > limited liablity outright but it can insure the corporation or Limted > liablity company or limited liablity partnership. Nor should the > state demand any waiver against suing for third party liablity to > state residence in exchance for recieving benifits that comes from > state incorporation fees but private insuers should be allowed to ask > for waivers in exchanging compensation for a waiver not to > sue. > I would perfer it be a state tax or fee ( I would also perfer that > the fee not be collected on at least the first 20 million a year in > revenue) and the federal government take its cut from each state > according to the population size of that state but the current 16th > amendment probably only applys to corporations and other privildges > thus an indirect tax not to individuals which would be a direct tax > which the constitution including the 16th amendment does not allow > except such as my stated perference of based on population size. No > popularity should not be the base for the course of action alone and > sure does not justify stealing or extortion but a 80% to 95% > popularity of a revenue source is much more likely to pass than say a > national sales tax or a flat rate tax plus when it is actually a user > fee by choice it is not extortion, clearly if a business or non > profit is forced to incorprate by the state or federal government > that is exortion, if a corporation has a monoply that is also > extortion on the buyer but the answer to that is to end forced > incorporation and end the state backed monoply, in simlar fashion the > federal government should not necessarily stop operating a postal > service but they should end the monoply, I think as long as the state > government does incorpration services the residence of the state > should be compensated either through direct money and or through > services, one big compensation would be to end all taxes on > individuals and non corporations, they can end taxes and fees on > corportions as far as I'm concerned but i'm calling for ending all > taxes on individuals and non corprations first not off corporations > or dividend, interest or capital gains from corporations first, > unless a business is forced to be a corporation by the government > then it is ok to untax them first. Its best that all taxes be ended > at the same time but if someone is exempt from taxes first good for > them they don't have to share my pain as long as they did not help > cause the pain.--- In [email protected], Urmas Järve > <urmasj@> wrote: > > > > What exacly is a corporation and what is a small business? > > > > Also this kind of tax would only be a tax on the minority just like > the first proposed income tax what was ruled unconstitutional. > > > > What would be the "safeguards" of that tax being in place at that > level? The second time income tax was proposed in US it was 2% and > the proponents made fun of their counter parts who argued it could > raise to 20% or more. That argument was considered absurd and look at > where we are now. > > > > Also does popular tax mean it is the right course of action? Does > popular justify stealing? > > > > Best wishes, > > Urmas > > > > On 07/01/2006 19:58, terry12622000 wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "terry12622000" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Polls show that only 5% say corporations pay to many > taxes, so > > > ending > > > > the tax on individuals and non corporations ( which are > mostly > > > small > > > > busineses) would i'm sure be vastly popular. It's > basically the > > > > political wonks who can't see it.--- In > > > > [email protected], "terry12622000" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Actually a corporate tax would not be a tax in most > cases it > > > would > > > > be > > > > > a user fee for the service of incorporating, it > would be a tax > > > when > > > > a > > > > > group was forced to incorporate or when individuals > and groups > > > are > > > > > forced to deal with corporations. Still ending all > direct taxes > > > on > > > > > individuals and noncorporate and non limited > liablity businesses > > > > and > > > > > nonprofits would put the political class > establishment to the > > > test > > > > ( > > > > > can it create enough value to sustain itself) while > freeing up > > > > > billions, possibly into trillions of dollars for > people to > > > > > participate in alternative markets and mutual aid.-- > - In > > > > > [email protected], "John Stroebel" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought of you all as I was readying this > post for a few > > > other > > > > > groups. > > > > > > I thought of the reaction I got over the > federal gov't paying > > > an > > > > > agreed > > > > > > sum (adding up to a pittance) to the Ute people > for a contract > > > > > (treaty) > > > > > > signed in the 20's. Man. Some folks really got > them panties in > > > a > > > > > twist > > > > > > over having to be 'indebted' for THAT deal! ;- ) > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I saw THIS little charm....so why is it > that, I wondered, > > > > that > > > > > > these Libertarians aren't cryin' a river over > an estimated 500 > > > > > BILLION > > > > > > DOLLARS cost for these lil' occupations the > government is > > > > carrying > > > > > out > > > > > > in our name? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ute easier pickins???? > > > > > > > > > > > > ahemmm....the post. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > THREE LIL' LIES WE ALL SWALLOWED > > > > > > > > > > > > hmmm...while I am still wondering, what IS this > course we are > > > > > staying??? > > > > > > > > > > > > The estimated costs for this useless, needless, > obscene war of > > > > > > aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan by > 2007...500 Billion. Wanna > > > > see > > > > > it > > > > > > in digits? $500,000,000,000. > > > > > > > > > > > > But I digress....this is an excellent article > about three > > > > wonderful > > > > > > myths we Americans have fallen for....WMD, > Zarqawi and Iraqi > > > > > > sovereignty. enjoy! ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > (did I say myths? Why of course I meant bald > faced lies. Bush's > > > > > pants on > > > > > > fire.) > > > > > > Cost of wars in Afghanistan & Iraq 2 top > $500 BILLION in 2007 > > > > > Three > > > > > > Iraq Myths That Won't Quit > > > > > > > > > > > > By Scott Ritter > > > > > > > http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13764.htm > > > > > > > > > > > 06/26/06 > > > > > > "AlterNet" -- -- It is hard sometimes to know > what is real and > > > > what > > > > > is > > > > > > fiction when it comes to the news out of Iraq. > America is in > > > > > its "silly > > > > > > season," the summer months leading up to a > national election, > > > and > > > > > the > > > > > > media is going full speed ahead in exploiting > its primacy in > > > the > > > > > news > > > > > > arena by substituting responsible reporting > with headline- > > > grabbing > > > > > > entertainment. So, as America closes in on > the end of June > > > and > > > > > the > > > > > > celebration of the 230th year of our nation's > birth, I thought > > > I > > > > > would > > > > > > pen a short primer on three myths on Iraq to > keep an eye out > > > for > > > > as > > > > > we > > > > > > "debate" the various issues pertaining to our > third year of war > > > > in > > > > > that > > > > > > country. The myth of sovereignty Imagine the > president of the > > > > > United > > > > > > States flying to Russia, China, England, France > or just about > > > any > > > > > other > > > > > > nation on the planet, landing at an airport on > supposedly > > > > sovereign > > > > > > territory, being driven under heavy U.S. > military protection > > > to > > > > > the > > > > > > U.S. Embassy, and then with some five minutes > notification, > > > > > summoning > > > > > > the highest elected official of that nation to > the U.S. Embassy > > > > for > > > > > a > > > > > > meeting. It would never happen, unless of > course the nation in > > > > > question > > > > > > is Iraq, where Iraqi sovereignty continues to > be hyped as a > > > > reality > > > > > when > > > > > > in fact it is as fictitious as any fairy tale > ever penned by the > > > > > > Brothers Grimm. For all of the talk of a free > Iraq, the fact is > > > > Iraq > > > > > > remains very much an occupied nation where the > United States > > > (and > > > > > its > > > > > > ever decreasing "coalition of the willing") > gets to call all > > > the > > > > > shots. > > > > > > Iraqi military policy is made by the United > States. Its borders > > > > are > > > > > > controlled by the United States. Its economy is > controlled > > > > largely > > > > > by > > > > > > the United States. In fact, there simply isn't > a single major > > > > > indicator > > > > > > of actual sovereignty in Iraq today that can be > said to be free > > > of > > > > > > overwhelming American control. Iraqi ministers > continue to be > > > > shot > > > > > at by > > > > > > coalition forces, and Iraqi police are > powerless to investigate > > > > > criminal > > > > > > activities carried out by American troops (or > their mercenary > > > > > > counterparts, the so-called "Private Military > Contractors"). > > > The > > > > > reality > > > > > > of this myth is that the timeline for the > departure of American > > > > > troops > > > > > > from Iraq is being debated (and decided) in > Washington, D.C., > > > not > > > > > > Baghdad. Of course, as with everything in Iraq, > the final vote > > > > will > > > > > be > > > > > > made by the people of Iraq. But these votes > will be cast in > > > > > bullets, not > > > > > > ballots, and will bring with them not only the > departure of > > > > American > > > > > > troops from Iraq, but also the demise of any > Iraqi government > > > > > foolish > > > > > > enough to align itself with a nation that > violates > > > international > > > > > law by > > > > > > planning and waging an illegal war of > aggression, and continues > > > to > > > > > > conduct an increasingly brutal (and equally > illegitimate) > > > > > occupation. > > > > > > The myth of Zarqawi I have said all along that > the poll figures > > > > > showing > > > > > > Americans to be overwhelmingly against the war > in Iraq were > > > > > illusory. > > > > > > Only 28 percent of Americans were against the > war when we > > > invaded > > > > > Iraq. > > > > > > The ranks have swelled to over 60 percent not > because there has > > > > > been an > > > > > > awakening of social conscience and > responsibility, but rather > > > > > because > > > > > > things aren't going well in Iraq, and there is > increasing angst > > > > in > > > > > the > > > > > > American heartland because we seem to be losing > the war in > > > Iraq, > > > > > and no > > > > > > one likes a loser. So when the word came that > the notorious > > > > > terrorist, > > > > > > Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, was killed by American > military action, > > > the > > > > > > president suddenly had a "good week," and poll > numbers adjusted > > > > > slightly > > > > > > in his favor. However, the facts cannot be > re-written, even > > > by > > > > a > > > > > > slavish American mainstream media. Zarqawi was > never anything > > > > more > > > > > than > > > > > > a minor player in Iraq, a third-rate Jordanian > criminal whose > > > > > exploits > > > > > > were hyped up by a Bush administration anxious > to prove that the > > > > > > insurgency that was getting the best of America > in Iraq was > > > > > > foreign-grown and linked to the perpetrators of > the 9/11 terror > > > > > attacks > > > > > > nonetheless. The reality of just how wrong such > an assessment > > > is > > > > > (and > > > > > > was) has been pounded home in blood. Since > Zarqawi's death, the > > > > > violence > > > > > > has continued to spiral out of control in Iraq, > with Americans > > > > > > continuing to die, Iraqis still being > slaughtered, and Zarqawi > > > > and > > > > > his > > > > > > organization, successor and all, still as > irrelevant to reality > > > > as > > > > > ever. > > > > > > The war against the American occupation in Iraq > is being fought > > > > > > overwhelmingly by Iraqis. The insurgency is > growing and becoming > > > > > > stronger and more organized by the day. This, > of course, is a > > > > > reality > > > > > > that the Bush administration cannot afford to > have the American > > > > > people > > > > > > know about in an election year, as a compliant > media, having > > > sold > > > > > its > > > > > > soul to the devil in hyping of the virtues of > an invasion of > > > Iraq > > > > > back > > > > > > in 2002-2003, continues to dance with the party > that brought > > > them > > > > by > > > > > > supporting the Republican position, by and > large, that the > > > > conflict > > > > > in > > > > > > Iraq is a winnable one for America. Good > ratings, more dead > > > > > Americans > > > > > > (and Iraqis, but who is counting?) and a war > that will never > > > end > > > > > until > > > > > > the United States finally slinks out, defeated, > its tail tucked > > > > > firmly > > > > > > between its legs. The myth of WMD Regardless > of what Sen. Rick > > > > > > Santorum and the lunatic neoconservative fringe > want to think, > > > no > > > > > > weapons of mass destruction have been found in > Iraq. Citing a > > > > > classified > > > > > > Department of Defense report that claims some > 500 artillery > > > > shells > > > > > have > > > > > > been found in Iraq by U.S. forces since the > invasion and > > > > subsequent > > > > > > occupation of Iraq in March 2003, Santorum and > his cronies in > > > the > > > > > > right-wing media have been spouting nonsense > about how Bush got > > > > it > > > > > right > > > > > > all along, that there were WMD in Iraq after > all. He > > > conveniently > > > > > fails > > > > > > to report that there is nothing "secret" about > this data, it > > > has > > > > all > > > > > > been reported before (by the Bush > administration, nonetheless), > > > > and > > > > > that > > > > > > the shells in question constitute old artillery > munitions > > > > > manufactured > > > > > > well prior to 1991 (the year of the first Gulf > War, and a time > > > > after > > > > > > which the government of Saddam Hussein stated -- > correctly, it > > > > > turned > > > > > > out that no WMD were produced in Iraq). The > degraded sarin > > > > nerve > > > > > agent > > > > > > and mustard blister agent contained in the > discovered munitions > > > > had > > > > > long > > > > > > since lost their viability, and as such > represented no threat > > > > > > whatsoever. Furthermore, the haphazard way in > which they were > > > > > > "discovered" (lying about the ground, as > opposed to carefully > > > > stored > > > > > > away) only reinforces the Iraqi government's > past claims that > > > > many > > > > > > chemical munitions were scattered about the > desert countryside > > > in > > > > > remote > > > > > > areas following U.S. bombing attacks on the > ammunition storage > > > > > depots > > > > > > during the first Gulf War. Having personally > inspected scores > > > of > > > > > these > > > > > > bombed-out depots, I can vouch for the veracity > of the past > > > Iraqi > > > > > > claims, as well as the absurdity of the claims > made today by > > > > > Santorum > > > > > > and others, who continue to hold personal > political gain as > > > being > > > > > worth > > > > > > more than the blood of over 2,500 dead > Americans. These three > > > > > myths -- > > > > > > WMD, Zarqawi and Iraqi sovereignty -- are what > members of > > > Congress > > > > > > should be debating in their halls of power, the > American media > > > > > should be > > > > > > discussing either in print or across the > airwaves, and that > > > > > discussion > > > > > > should constitute the foundation of a movement > towards > > > > > accountability, > > > > > > where the citizens of the United States finally > point an > > > > accusatory > > > > > > finger at those whom they elected to represent > them in higher > > > > > office, > > > > > > and who have failed in almost every regard when > it comes to > > > Iraq. > > > > > But > > > > > > then again, silly me for thinking this way, > believing that > > > there > > > > > was an > > > > > > engaged constituency within America that knows > and understands > > > the > > > > > > Constitution of the United States and seeks to > live each day as > > > a > > > > > true > > > > > > citizen empowered by the ideal and values set > forth by that > > > > > document. I > > > > > > had overlooked the Fourth Myth -- that American > citizens are > > > > > engaged in > > > > > > our national debate. Scott Ritter served as > chief U.N. > > > weapons > > > > > > inspector in Iraq from 1991 until his > resignation in 1998. He > > > is > > > > the > > > > > > author of, most recently, " Iraq > Confidential: The Untold > > > Story > > > > > of the > > > > > > Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the U.N. > and Overthrow > > > Saddam > > > > > > Hussein " > > > > (Nation > > > > > > Books, 2005 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > >
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
