macro.....

 

A CORPORATION is a legal fiction. It is an entity created by law that exists separately from its incorporators and that functions through people who act as its agents. Like people, corporations have rights and obligations in their own name. They own property, pay taxes, can sue and be sued. But can they commit crimes? If they can, how should the law penalize them for their criminal acts? The courts on both sides of the Atlantic have long struggled and still struggle with these questions because the necessary elements of any crime--an act or omission and a guilty mind--focus on the actions and mental state of a human being and not of a corporate entity.

A corporation is dangerous as a firearm is dangerous.  It is a tool - nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

codify- i see your point.  thanks.

Hayekian in particular will enjoy this one. Might take a block of your time, but not too much.

 

 

Here is the wiki on the author.

 

 

bit of a nut I suppose....

 

I disagree. Based on the premise that "he who has the gold makes the rules" corporations do have, and have often exercised, control and authority over the people of this nation for years. Perhaps not as an entity, but definitely through the corporate leaders and their core beliefs which involve putting money in their own pockets first and foremost.

 

Do I believe that corporations should be punished for seizing the opportunity? No. But I believe they should be prohibited from engaging in the political corruption they have been known to encourage by bribing candidates right and left.

 

What about reducing the power of government to actually do the bidding of either the left or right? I think that's the point. Here is a comment by the author further down.

 

I suspect you did not understand my article or many of the comments.

The 'cause' is that the state offers itself as the mechanism by which you gain advantage over others, rather than the inconvenient give and take of civil interactions such as markets and persuasion.

If you want the state to do what you think are 'good things' above and beyond just defending you from collective threats (i.e violence and plagues), say such as providing jobs, subsidising roads, regulating businesses, preventing people buying Cuban cigars, subsidising healthcare, enforcing educational conscription, deciding the manner in which you can build a house on your own property or whatever else, why should you complain when others with interests different to yours use the same political system to pass laws they like (i.e. controlling the collective means of coercion) to advance their interests? If you can do it, why not them?

THAT is the cause.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at June 8, 2006 10:06 PM

 

about an hour...but good

From the other forum...but think it's so good I'm posting the conclusion part here.

What If Public Schools Were Abolished?

Daily Article | Posted on 4/7/2008 by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

...But let's pretend. Let's say that a single town decided that the costs of public schooling are too vast relative to private schooling, and the city council decided to abolish public schools outright. The first thing to notice is that this would be illegal, since every state requires localities to provide education on a public basis. I don't know what would happen to the city council. Would they be jailed? Who knows? Certainly they would be sued.

But let's say we somehow get past that problem, thanks to, say, a special amendment in the state constitution, that exempts certain localities if the city council approves. Then there is the problem of federal legislation and regulation. I am purely speculating since I don't know the relevant laws, but we can guess that the Department of Education would take notice, and a national hysteria of some sort would follow. But let's say we miraculously get past that problem too, and the federal government lets this locality go its own way.

There will be two stages to the transition. In the first stage, many seemingly bad things will happen. How are the physical buildings handled in our example? They are sold to the highest bidder, whether that be to new school owners, businesses, or housing developers. And the teachers and administrators? All let go. You can imagine the outcry.

With tax-paid schools abolished, people with kids in public schools might move away. Property taxes that previously paid for schools would vanish, so there will be no premium for houses in school districts that are considered good. There will be anger about this. The collapse in prices might seem like robbery for people who have long assumed that high and rising house prices are a human right. For the parents that remain, there is a major problem of what to do with the kids during the day.

With property taxes gone, there is extra money to pay for schools, but their assets have just fallen in market value (even without the Fed), which is a serious problem when it comes to shelling out for school tuition. There will, of course, be widespread hysteria about the poor too, who will find themselves without any schooling choices other than homeschool.

Now, all that sounds pretty catastrophic, doesn't it? Indeed. But it is only phase one. If we can somehow make it to phase two, something completely different will emerge. The existing private schools will be filled to capacity and there will be a crying need for new ones. Entrepreneurs will quickly flood into the area to provide schools on a competitive basis. Churches and other civic institutions will gather the money to provide education.

At first, the new schools will be modeled on the public school idea. Kids will be there from 8 to 4 or 5, and all classes will be covered. But in short order, new alternatives will appear. There will be schools for half-day classes. There will be large, medium, and small schools. Some will have 40 kids per class, and others 4 or 1. Private tutoring will boom. Sectarian schools of all kinds will appear. Micro-schools will open to serve niche interests: science, classics, music, theater, computers, agriculture, etc. There will be single sex schools. Whether sports would be part of school or something completely independent is for the market to decide.

And no longer will the "elementary, middle school, high school" model be the only one. Classes will not necessarily be grouped by age alone. Some will be based on ability and level of advancement too. Tuition would range from free to super expensive. The key thing is that the customer would be in charge.

Transportation services would spring up to replace the old school-bus system. People would be able to make money by buying vans and providing transportation. In all areas related to education, profit opportunities would abound.

After this phase two, this town would emerge as one of the most desirable in the country. Educational alternatives would be unlimited. It would be the source of enormous progress, and a model for the nation. It could cause the entire country to rethink education. And then those who moved away would move back to enjoy the best schools in the country at half the price of the public schools, and those without children in the house wouldn't have to pay a dime for education. Talk about attractive!

So which town will be the first to try it and show us all the way?

http://www.mises.org/story/2937

It occurred to me once, that were I earning tips instead of a teacher's salary, I'd have been rich.  My sons, while in high school earned more money bagging groceries for tips on a Saturday than I did after teaching high school 7 to 3 each day for two weeks.  They laughed heartily at my first paycheck, which up until that very moment after four years of college, I was very proud. 

 

Good thing I enjoyed the job.  Besides, I was in Hawaii then, and I don't surf.

 

I'm not bored, just curious and a little opinionated:

Corporations can't vote, so they should not have been granted any citizen styled status by our Supreme Court.

 

 

 

Think you have to take the good with the bad here, no "cherry picking" what you like that benefits and leaving out what may bring harm your way.

 

 

I don't see the harm in corporations or their strong influence on governing entities and policies.  Their lobbyists are well informed of both sides of any given issue related to them, so I don't see the harm in them, either.  My issue with them is with their campaign contributions direct and indirect, and the influence their contributions has on who gets elected. 

 

My main problem is with our elected representatives.  Corporate interests are not always bad, sometimes they're right in line with the interests of the people.  Knowing the difference between what's good for the people they represent and what in reality, exploits the people is where there seems to be an utter lack of judgement in Congress, state legislatures, county commissions and city councils.  I'm all for the prosperity of business, but totally opposed to corporate welfare in any form.  Shoot, I didn't like welfare when it was for teen mothers, but at least I understood the good intentions, why that happened, why it failed.  Legislators and bureaucrats being generous to corporations at our expense puzzles me.  Can they really be bought so cheap?  Apparently so.

 

They can count on us to pay no attention.

 

 

 

An opinion not worth a nickel, but there it is.

 

 

I'm not saying people within corporations shoud be exempt from criminality. Far from it! But how can a corporation be guilty of a crime? All it amounts to is an assn. of people. So if harm is done, nail the people involved.

 

From above link message 14.

 

Corporations are made up of a collective of souls that make decisions which are criminal. 

 

I agree:  nail the people involved.  The deep pockets of corporations, compared to those of the people involved make the corporation a target.

 

To be held personally responsible for what a group of corporate executives decide and you carry out at their direction.... guess that's what the courts and juries puzzle over and decide.

 

City contracts with management have a save from harm, hold harmless, or something clause.  Pretty sure the people involved in corporate decisions have similar protective devices. 

 

Just a few other thoughts. 

 

Lawsuits--they're not always frivolous--that put companies out of business, leaving the guilty  free to find employment doing the same or similar elsewhere, not to mention the job loss of innocent workers, are not getting at the problem.

 

Not too fond of anything England has done historically, (people don't come first in England), corporations have the means to reconcile the damages, whereas the people making decisions are quickly dispatched to jail with nothing left to ease the pain of their victims.  After a couple years in jail they are free to go about their lives, and the damaged lives of their victims and their victim's children proceed, injured still. 

 

Still ticks me off that Life magazine went bankrupt after taking my money for a three year subscription.  They never delivered and when Life was brought back they didn't offer to reimburse or send me the subscription I paid for all those many years ago.  LOL

 

Bottom line, damage is done and some entity should pay; better it be the corporation than the public. 

 

In Japan, you personally present gifts to your victim.  The court takes that into consideration, and judgements are made according to your abilities:  a taxi driver who ran into a little girl was required to drive her to school each day, when she had recovered enough to attend school, again. 

 

How does alleviating the cares of corporations about lawsuits reconcile the lives of people victimized by corporate people, adequately?

It doesn't.

 

 

I dunno fer sure...but was it Icelandic Law?