At 10:26 AM 3/25/04 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
I also think that some cypherpunks mistake the Corporate State for what
has
been described as Crypto-Anarchy.
Get this through your head: a corporation can't initiate force against
you.
You may not like their product, practices, or price, but no one
Ah Variola...do I detect a wee bit of Knee-jerk in your otherwise
consistently iconoclastic views? Let's take a looksee...
Get this through your head: a corporation can't initiate force against
you.
You may not like their product, practices, or price, but no one is
coercing you at gunpoint.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 02:02:25PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
Get this through your head: a corporation can't initiate force against
you.
You may not like their product, practices, or price, but no one is
coercing you at gunpoint.
Think I'm gonna have to disagree with ya' hear partner.
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Nonsense -- corporations are not humans, they have zero rights.
Unfortunately, there are a whole slew of Supreme Court decisions that say
otherwise - mostly applying the 14th amendment (you know, freeing the
slaves) to grant free speech and other
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 05:27:14PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Nonsense -- corporations are not humans, they have zero rights.
Unfortunately, there are a whole slew of Supreme Court decisions that say
otherwise - mostly applying the 14th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-03-25 22:27Z) wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Nonsense -- corporations are not humans, they have zero rights.
Unfortunately, there are a whole slew of Supreme Court decisions that say
otherwise - mostly applying the 14th amendment (you know,
Harmon Seaver (2004-03-25 23:06Z) wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 05:27:14PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Nonsense -- corporations are not humans, they have zero rights.
Unfortunately, there are a whole slew of Supreme Court
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 11:46:29PM +, Justin wrote:
Why should it be impermissible for corporations to be persons under
the law when parents can be persons on behalf of their minor children?
Why should they be?
In both situations, one or more people are persons only to represent
This is what Major Variola (ret) [EMAIL PROTECTED] said
about corporate vs. state, TD's education on 25 Mar 2004 at 9:16
Get this through your head: a corporation can't initiate force against
you. You may not like their product, practices, or price, but no one
is coercing you at gunpoint
At 10:26 AM 3/25/04 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
I also think that some cypherpunks mistake the Corporate State for what
has
been described as Crypto-Anarchy.
Get this through your head: a corporation can't initiate force against
you.
You may not like their product, practices, or price, but no one
Ah Variola...do I detect a wee bit of Knee-jerk in your otherwise
consistently iconoclastic views? Let's take a looksee...
Get this through your head: a corporation can't initiate force against
you.
You may not like their product, practices, or price, but no one is
coercing you at gunpoint.
11 matches
Mail list logo
