Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Try selling food out of your kitchen, too. You're be amazed as to the extent to which food safety regulations are tilted towards businesses able to buy expensive, industrial scale equipment. It's not just a matter of keeping things clean, but having specific pieces of equipment or services available, which are much easier to procure as a multinational corporation than it is as a mom and pop shop. Which is too bad, as those small businesses are the ones that employ the most Americans, and keep their money in the community.. It's a bit like income taxes, which purport to be progressive but really impact the middle and upper middle classes the most, as the truly rich don't really live off of income.

Just different ways for the different wings of the elite to screw you over.

I had a front row seat to the state-sponsored destruction of family farming in the early 80's. There is no opportunity for amazement. I lived it.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Not some, Eric. Government establishes the parameters and charters by which modern corporations exist. The term itself if a legal term, which is to say, something defined and enforced entirely by government.

Most of what a corporation does is written by the corporation itself in its own bylaws and internal regulations. The most powerful bosses in society are corporate bosses, and they are also the bosses that rule our politics, because of whom we vote for.

As for the rest, you elect from among the small pile of those already selected for you. It’s an important distinction to make for a slave and sadly not one that is often made, let alone understood. In short, you are allowed the illusion of choice.

People pretty much decide for themselves to get involved in politics, like my own Rep. Anna Eshoo did. she worked in a factory. No-one tapped her on the shoulder and chose her to be a politician. People rise through the ranks and run for office, and people elect them. There's no-one selecting our candidates for us, except for the fact that we the people have decided that the wealthy should have a distinct advantage. we could UN-decide that, by throwing Republicans out of office. They gave us Citizens United, and no-one else. But even then, more money does not guarantee victory if the voters are smart. Witness Meg Whitman vs. Jerry Brown. Whitman lost; the better candidate won.

Of course one could also point out the cowardice implied by taking part in a process that has the ultimate goal of meekly requesting another speak to the powerful in your stead, alongside the stupidity of assuming that particular other has and will continue to have any interests in mind other than his or her own. The simple act of taking part in said process validates and legitimizes every single crime they commit in your name. It is indeed your fault, but not because you vote for the wrong people. It’s your fault because you allow them to exist at all.

It is simple practicality. One person speaking does not a society make. We must appoint people to run government for us. It is amazingly naive for you to trot out that statement again. Didn't you take any civics classes? Young man, you need to go back to school.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Seriously? The Rani quite recently posted a great example on this very thread.

I myself have mentioned on more than one occasion the advent and more recent distortion of Intellectual Property law.

Perhaps a more recent law is more to your liking? We could also delve into state-granted monopoly (try building an electrical generator in your back yard with the intent to sell power and see what happens), tariffs, taxes, zoning, and protection from tort. There are probably thousands of other examples.

I mean you don’t actually think that it’s an accident that McDonald’s (among others) spends millions of dollars lobbying for increased regulation do you?

I understand quite well about what deregulation has accomplished; a government for the corporation. I also understand the growing fascism in this country. But having said this, I also think there are some laws that benefit the citizens. Yes, there are fewer everyday, but *some* still do a decent job. I kinda like the idea that doctors, nurses, daycare centers, and drivers have to be licensed. Not to mention those inconvenient stop lights.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

I had a front row seat to the state-sponsored destruction of family farming in the early 80's. There is no opportunity for amazement. I lived it.

Ooh, farming, there is a much better example. There, the government not only set up standards that supported the wealthy and powerful (corporations), they actively subsidize them. People who want to talk about how "efficient" factory farming is should ask to see it in action without state support for capital expenditures and the like.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Ooh, farming, there is a much better example. There, the government not only set up standards that supported the wealthy and powerful (corporations), they actively subsidize them. People who want to talk about how "efficient" factory farming is should ask to see it in action without state support for capital expenditures and the like.

Factory farming, in most cases, has been the major reason that our food is less safe.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Most of what a corporation does is written by the corporation itself in its own bylaws and internal regulations. The most powerful bosses in society are corporate bosses, and they are also the bosses the rule our politics, because of whom we vote for.

Completely irrelevant insofar as their power (that is the actual power over others) comes only from government mandate through law, regulation and services rendered (see: previous post). The internal day-to-day decisions are generally irrelevant to society as if you don’t like them, you can simply opt out (as in don’t support financially through purchase or labor).

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

People pretty much decide for themselves to get involved in politics, like my own Rep. Anna Eshoo did. she worked in a factory. No-one tapped her on the shoulder and chose her to be a politician. People rise through the ranks and run for office, and people elect them. There's no-one selecting our candidates for us, except for the fact that we the people have decided that the wealthy should have a distinct advantage. we could UN-decide that, by throwing Republicans out of office. They gave us Citizens United, and no-one else. But even then, more money does not guarantee victory if the voters are smart. Witness Meg Whitman vs. Jerry Brown. Whitman lost; the better candidate won.

And yet all of those candidates were vetted and supported to varying degrees by the local, regional and national political machinery. One cannot simply walk down to the local democrat headquarters and run for president as a democrat. The people who rise through the ranks are those whom the political royalty class deem worthy. Even the alleged “mavericks” of either party serve as useful error correction by giving any disgruntled peasants (who might be running the risk of a full-blown realization of the game in progress at their expense) a “dark horse” to root for who is allowed to stray marginally off-message.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is simple practicality. One person speaking does not a society make. We must appoint people to run government for us. It is amazingly naive for you to trot out that statement again. Didn't you take any civics classes? Young man, you need to go back to school.

Of course not. One person speaking is one person speaking. That’s all it is supposed to be and frankly represents all of the voice that anyone actually deserves. You represent and speak for yourself. I represent and speak for myself. In the ways that we find we can cooperate, we can choose to do so. In the ways we can’t, we won’t.

As for civics class, I already received my in that class a long time ago.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Factory farming, in most cases, has been the major reason that our food is less safe.

I second that one, Deb and Jordan.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I understand quite well about what deregulation has accomplished; a government for the corporation. I also understand the growing fascism in this country. But having said this, I also think there are some laws that benefit the citizens. Yes, there are fewer everyday, but *some* still do a decent job. I kinda like the idea that doctors, nurses, daycare centers, and drivers have to be licensed. Not to mention those inconvenient stop lights.

No, no Deb. Here is where you start to head off the tracks. Not less regulation. Real, tangible, actual more regulation (as in bigger, better, faster). It's important that you realize this if you want to understand the wrong-parts of how things really operate in the world, and in all honesty I encourage you to delve into corporate law. I cannot stress this enough: The modern corporation exists because of government, law and regulation, not in spite of it. This is perhaps one of the most important realizations a person living in the world today can have.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Completely irrelevant insofar as their power (that is the actual power over others) comes only from government mandate through law, regulation and services rendered (see: previous post). The internal day-to-day decisions are generally irrelevant to society as if you don’t like them, you can simply opt out (as in don’t support financially through purchase or labor).

Saying corporattions need some government laws and services to function, just as all of us do, is not the same as saying government controls corporations. Their power comes through government in so far as we have a money system that is enforced by law. You can't opt out; corporations not only provide the jobs and products that many people use, thus controlling our economy, but they control the environment that is not safe because of their behavior. That extends to global warming, GMOs, factory farming, destruction of communities; well, it's a long, long list. They also control our government (not vice-versa) because of their lobbying and campaign financing. We can change that, but that requires citizen action and voting, which you don't agree with. I know you will go to any length to deny the obvious, so keep going.

And yet all of those candidates were vetted and supported to varying degrees by the local, regional and national political machinery. One cannot simply walk down to the local democrat headquarters and run for president as a democrat. The people who rise through the ranks are those whom the political royalty class deem worthy. Even the alleged “mavericks” of either party serve as useful error correction by giving any disgruntled peasants (who might be running the risk of a full-blown realization of the game in progress at their expense) a “dark horse” to root for who is allowed to stray marginally off-message.

All of that doesn't matter. Anyone can run for office. If you are only concerned about who can be elected president, that's a very narrow concern. But even that depends on people being willing to run. Those who run are those who choose to do so. If they have established themselves as viable candidates, that's because they did the work to do that. Romney made a fortune as an entrepreneur and capitalist pig, and then got himself elected governor. Obama wrote a couple of good books, and then gave a great speech and got himself elected Senator. They paid their dues to run. Powerful people don't make these candidates; they make themselves. If only a certain range of views are acceptable to the voters, that is entirely and only the peoples' fault. The duopoly party system is not good, but the system can be changed.

Of course not. One person speaking is one person speaking. That’s all it is supposed to be and frankly represents all of the voice that anyone actually deserves. You represent and speak for yourself. I represent and speak for myself. In the ways that we find we can cooperate, we can choose to do so. In the ways we can’t, we won’t.

Life on earth requires that cooperation. That's why we have governments. Our ancestors chose our system, and it has been modified ever since according to the wishes of the people. We are not individuals; that is just an erroneous worldview. But then I already know how limited and false your worldview is. That's another can of worms.

As for civics class, I already received my in that class a long time ago.

You flunk! You need to go back again.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I kinda like the idea that doctors, nurses, daycare centers, and drivers have to be licensed. Not to mention those inconvenient stop lights.

Oh and it's a bit of a bummer you prefer these folks to be licensed. I myself prefer them to be exceptional at what they do. Big difference.

Put another way, what's the difference between the licenses of a doctor who got a C average in school and one who got an A average?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

No, no Deb. Here is where you start to head off the tracks. Not less regulation. Real, tangible, actual more regulation (as in bigger, better, faster). It's important that you realize this if you want to understand the wrong-parts of how things really operate in the world, and in all honesty I encourage you to delve into corporate law. I cannot stress this enough: The modern corporation exists because of government, law and regulation, not in spite of it. This is perhaps one of the most important realizations a person living in the world today can have.

I can't speak for Deb, but I find that one of the craziest ideas I have ever heard. So Rockefeller, Ford, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, went to their local government office and said, oh sir, will you set up and run a company for me? I know you'll do it all for me, because copperfield told me that "corporations exist because of government." So when can I start, your honor? I'll be waiting for your call, sir.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You flunk! You need to go back again.

No thanks, my tolerance for state propaganda is pretty low these days.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

No, no Deb. Here is where you start to head off the tracks. Not less regulation. Real, tangible, actual more regulation (as in bigger, better, faster). It's important that you realize this if you want to understand the wrong-parts of how things really operate in the world, and in all honesty I encourage you to delve into corporate law. I cannot stress this enough: The modern corporation exists because of government, law and regulation, not in spite of it. This is perhaps one of the most important realizations a person living in the world today can have.

You know Copper, sometimes it's just a fucking brick wall.


Prince

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I can't speak for Deb, but I find that one of the craziest ideas I have ever heard. So Rockefeller, Ford, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, went to their local government office and said, oh sir, will you set up and run a company for me? I know you'll do it all for me, because copperfield told me that "corporations exist because of government." So when can I start, your honor? I'll be waiting for your call, sir.

Actually that's sort of how it works, except for the whole asking the government to "run it for them" part.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

You know Copper, sometimes it's just a fucking brick wall.


Prince

Heh, it is indeed. To Deb's credit though, she is closer than most to clearing enough bricks to squeeze through.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Put another way, what's the difference between the licenses of a doctor who got a C average in school and one who got an A average?

I would prefer either of those, compared to a med student who flunked out and still decided to market him/her self as a doctor. Although I think I've met some of those.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Ooh, farming, there is a much better example. There, the government not only set up standards that supported the wealthy and powerful (corporations), they actively subsidize them. People who want to talk about how "efficient" factory farming is should ask to see it in action without state support for capital expenditures and the like.

There are precious few family farms left in the country at this point and those that are hanging on have a monumentally hard time making a go of it. Dreadfully few Americans have any concept of where food even comes from.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Heh, it is indeed. To Deb's credit though, she is closer than most to clearing enough bricks to squeeze through.

I agree. Deb's pretty cool in my book(for the most part ).


Prince

PS:
To Deb:
I seriously meant no slam on you personally, Deb.
(IMO, we've got a pretty cool history, you and I!)

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

PS:
To Deb:
I seriously meant no slam on you personally, Deb.
(IMO, we've got a pretty cool history, me and you!)

Careful there, Prince, we don't want to start any rumors.

Originally Posted by Deb C

This is a case in point where corporations have more clout than citizens. Factory farming is known for it's abuses, not only of animals, but also the environment and communities where they reside. When oversight and regulations on corporations get watered down in favor of the mega corporation, as they are now, things will only continue to get worse.

But arrogance always leads to overreach, and this preemptive gagging of the press is right up there with gagging the NY Times and Washington Post on the Pentagon Papers. With any luck, this will generate more blowback than protection for the Tyson's of the world.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

But arrogance always leads to overreach, and this preemptive gagging of the press is right up there with gagging the NY Times and Washington Post on the Pentagon Papers. With any luck, this will generate more blowback than protection for the Tyson's of the world.

At least the ACLU is making an attempt to address the problem. If it gets any substantial traction, is a whole other question.

Originally Posted by Deb C

At least the ACLU is making an attempt to address the problem. If it gets any substantial traction, is a whole other question.

To get this resolved in the courts, you need a test case. Apparently, there is one now. Let's see how that's handled.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Would you give some examples of how laws and regulations maintain the wealth of corporations?

The nature of chartering already does that. I'm sure you've heard of "limited liability"? What more fundamental maintenance of wealth and power could there be than a legal regime that lets the wealthy act with protection from the negative consequences of their actions? Everything else beyond that is just details.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

The nature of chartering already does that. I'm sure you've heard of "limited liability"? What more fundamental maintenance of wealth and power could there be than a legal regime that lets the wealthy act with protection from the negative consequences of their actions? Everything else beyond that is just details.

Limited liability allows people to invest without risking more than their investment due to the decisions of management because shareholders have no involvement in the day-to-day operations of a business. Without limited liability, investment would be far riskier than it now is. If you want to work for a giant business you need giant corporations.

The problem is that corporate charters almost never come to an end except through bankruptcy and liquidation or through acquisition of the corporation by another corporation. Repeal of a corporate proxy almost never occurs for corporate misconduct.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Limited liability allows people to invest without risking more than their investment due to the decisions of management because shareholders have no involvement in the day-to-day operations of a business. Without limited liability, investment would be far riskier than it now is.

This is true. Of course, what you are saying is that, without legal protection from the consequences of the actions of the people they give money to, people would have to be a lot more careful who they gave their money to. Which is not only true, but very much exactly the point I was making. Limited liability is a necessary precondition for systemic irresponsible business practices. That is, in fact, the sole point of its existence -- to allow people to be insulated from the consequences of their irresponsible, reckless, negligent, and/or grossly-harmful behavior.

The entire argument for limited liability, stripped of the for-the-serfs'-own-good verbiage, is quite simply, "We [the owners] are much less likely to engage in risky actions unless someone else besides us is forced to assume the risk. But we keep the reward (natch)".