I would vote for the Apathy party, if I could get excited about it.

I WON'T!!!

>> ^peggedbea:

I WON'T!!!


But why not vote your conscience? Something like Freedom Socialist Party?

1. they won't be on the ballot in johnson county, tx... and if they were, they'd get lynched.

2. it's all a scam. i'd rather masturbate at home. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^peggedbea:
I WON'T!!!

But why not vote your conscience? Something like Freedom Socialist Party?

Gross.

Can't go wrong with the Pansexual Peace Party. Well, anything to get rid of your plutocratic bi-monarchy.

The system is broken. No political party has the power to change that. Corporations just have too strong a grip to let go. The only way to force the system to unfuck itself is through mass protests and mass strikes. If a large enough segment of society shut down industry and got out into the streets, change would happen regardless of who is in power out of pragmatic necessity.

See, I think the two parties are part of the problem, and they tend to be pro-corporatist and pro-war.

Obama all the way.

I learned my lesson with 3rd parties in 2000, when I voted Nader. Turns out, Bush and Gore weren't so alike after all.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Kucinich in the primary, Obama in the main election.

>> ^blankfist:

See, I think the two parties are part of the problem, and they tend to be pro-corporatist and pro-war.


It's silly that you would think ANY elected president could change corporatism. Corporatism runs deeper than the president.

>> ^rottenseed:

>> ^blankfist:
See, I think the two parties are part of the problem, and they tend to be pro-corporatist and pro-war.

It's silly that you would think ANY elected president could change corporatism. Corporatism runs deeper than the president.


I doubt any President could do much to change corporatism unless he tried to push it through legislation that all corporate charters would be revoked, because corporations do NOT run deeper than the government. They're government created entities.

Remind me...what steps would a president have to take to push through legislation? Magic? A really stern tone of voice and finger wagging?>> ^blankfist:

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^blankfist:
See, I think the two parties are part of the problem, and they tend to be pro-corporatist and pro-war.

It's silly that you would think ANY elected president could change corporatism. Corporatism runs deeper than the president.

I doubt any President could do much to change corporatism unless he tried to push it through legislation that all corporate charters would be revoked, because corporations do NOT run deeper than the government. They're government created entities.

>> ^rottenseed:

Remind me...what steps would a president have to take to push through legislation? Magic? A really stern tone of voice and finger wagging?>> ^blankfist:
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^blankfist:
See, I think the two parties are part of the problem, and they tend to be pro-corporatist and pro-war.

It's silly that you would think ANY elected president could change corporatism. Corporatism runs deeper than the president.

I doubt any President could do much to change corporatism unless he tried to push it through legislation that all corporate charters would be revoked, because corporations do NOT run deeper than the government. They're government created entities.



It's called Congress. Surely you've heard of the other branches of government?

oh yea! yes yes that's it, ol' chap! Now what if, let's say, we have a situation (let me assure you that this is PURELY hypothetical) wherein the congress is heavily influenced by corporations...how would a president pass legislation against corporatism then?>> ^blankfist:

>> ^rottenseed:
Remind me...what steps would a president have to take to push through legislation? Magic? A really stern tone of voice and finger wagging?>> ^blankfist:
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^blankfist:
See, I think the two parties are part of the problem, and they tend to be pro-corporatist and pro-war.

It's silly that you would think ANY elected president could change corporatism. Corporatism runs deeper than the president.

I doubt any President could do much to change corporatism unless he tried to push it through legislation that all corporate charters would be revoked, because corporations do NOT run deeper than the government. They're government created entities.


It's called Congress. Surely you've heard of the other branches of government?

@blankfist: Three Myths About Political Independents.

For the TL;DR set these are the myths:

1. Independents are the largest partisan group.
   
2. Independents are actually independent.
   
3. Change in the opinions of independents is always consequential.
   

>> ^rottenseed:

oh yea! yes yes that's it, ol' chap! Now what if, let's say, we have a situation (let me assure you that this is PURELY hypothetical) wherein the congress is heavily influenced by corporations...how would a president pass legislation against corporatism then?>> ^blankfist:
>> ^rottenseed:
Remind me...what steps would a president have to take to push through legislation? Magic? A really stern tone of voice and finger wagging?>> ^blankfist:
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^blankfist:
See, I think the two parties are part of the problem, and they tend to be pro-corporatist and pro-war.

It's silly that you would think ANY elected president could change corporatism. Corporatism runs deeper than the president.

I doubt any President could do much to change corporatism unless he tried to push it through legislation that all corporate charters would be revoked, because corporations do NOT run deeper than the government. They're government created entities.


It's called Congress. Surely you've heard of the other branches of government?



He couldn't. That's the failure of any human government.

But would you rather have a corporatist prez or not? At the very least he could veto pro-corporatist legislation, right?

Corporations are regulated by state and the federal government, not created by them.>> ^blankfist:

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^blankfist:
See, I think the two parties are part of the problem, and they tend to be pro-corporatist and pro-war.

It's silly that you would think ANY elected president could change corporatism. Corporatism runs deeper than the president.

I doubt any President could do much to change corporatism unless he tried to push it through legislation that all corporate charters would be revoked, because corporations do NOT run deeper than the government. They're government created entities.

>> ^longde:

Corporations are regulated by state and the federal government, not created by them.>> ^blankfist:
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^blankfist:
See, I think the two parties are part of the problem, and they tend to be pro-corporatist and pro-war.

It's silly that you would think ANY elected president could change corporatism. Corporatism runs deeper than the president.

I doubt any President could do much to change corporatism unless he tried to push it through legislation that all corporate charters would be revoked, because corporations do NOT run deeper than the government. They're government created entities.



But that's not true. The state isn't just a regulatory service, they give corporations their legitimacy and are the issuer of their charter. I cannot just claim that I'm a corporation, and I certainly cannot do business freely as if I am one, because government would come after me.

so, i'm not sure how many states don't require/allow you to register to vote along certain party lines. i know texas doesn't. i'm sure there are more, but i have no idea how many. i doubt the pie chart would look like this if all registered votes were forced to claim party affiliation when they registered.

in my experience, the people i know who use the label "independent" are people who are mostly apolitical and maybe they vote, but only because they were told it's their right/civic duty. they also tend to vote to trivial things. and not trivial things like "that mans a goddman muslim" but trivial things like "this man feels more presidential".

i don't subscribe to party affiliation, if someone asks me i just tell them "i hate them all equally" or "none of the above" but i'm certainly not apolitical, and i certainly wouldn't use the word "independent"... if talking to someone who i actually want to have a political discussion with i'd probably identify more "anarcha-syndicalist".. or something. that's where the political compass puts me at least.... i really need to hang out more with my local wobblies... but i feel weird going there because i don't have a boss.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^longde:
Corporations are regulated by state and the federal government, not created by them.>> ^blankfist:
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^blankfist:
See, I think the two parties are part of the problem, and they tend to be pro-corporatist and pro-war.

It's silly that you would think ANY elected president could change corporatism. Corporatism runs deeper than the president.

I doubt any President could do much to change corporatism unless he tried to push it through legislation that all corporate charters would be revoked, because corporations do NOT run deeper than the government. They're government created entities.


But that's not true. The state isn't just a regulatory service, they give corporations their legitimacy and are the issuer of their charter. I cannot just claim that I'm a corporation, and I certainly cannot do business freely as if I am one, because government would come after me.


By this standard, all cars are created by the government, because to own a car you need a government issued title to give that ownership legitimacy.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^longde:
Corporations are regulated by state and the federal government, not created by them.>> ^blankfist:
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^blankfist:
See, I think the two parties are part of the problem, and they tend to be pro-corporatist and pro-war.

It's silly that you would think ANY elected president could change corporatism. Corporatism runs deeper than the president.

I doubt any President could do much to change corporatism unless he tried to push it through legislation that all corporate charters would be revoked, because corporations do NOT run deeper than the government. They're government created entities.


But that's not true. The state isn't just a regulatory service, they give corporations their legitimacy and are the issuer of their charter. I cannot just claim that I'm a corporation, and I certainly cannot do business freely as if I am one, because government would come after me.

By this standard, all cars are created by the government, because to own a car you need a government issued title to give that ownership legitimacy.


You're failing to recognize one major difference between cars and corporations. One is a legal entity created under the law. One is not.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^longde:
Corporations are regulated by state and the federal government, not created by them.>> ^blankfist:
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^blankfist:
See, I think the two parties are part of the problem, and they tend to be pro-corporatist and pro-war.

It's silly that you would think ANY elected president could change corporatism. Corporatism runs deeper than the president.

I doubt any President could do much to change corporatism unless he tried to push it through legislation that all corporate charters would be revoked, because corporations do NOT run deeper than the government. They're government created entities.


But that's not true. The state isn't just a regulatory service, they give corporations their legitimacy and are the issuer of their charter. I cannot just claim that I'm a corporation, and I certainly cannot do business freely as if I am one, because government would come after me.

By this standard, all cars are created by the government, because to own a car you need a government issued title to give that ownership legitimacy.

You're failing to recognize one major difference between cars and corporations. One is a legal entity created under the law. One is not.


You're failing to realize that "creating" isn't the same as "recognizing under the law".

If I could upvote myself I would...but I can't, so I'm going to go give myself a handjob.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^longde:
Corporations are regulated by state and the federal government, not created by them.>> ^blankfist:
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^blankfist:
See, I think the two parties are part of the problem, and they tend to be pro-corporatist and pro-war.

It's silly that you would think ANY elected president could change corporatism. Corporatism runs deeper than the president.

I doubt any President could do much to change corporatism unless he tried to push it through legislation that all corporate charters would be revoked, because corporations do NOT run deeper than the government. They're government created entities.


But that's not true. The state isn't just a regulatory service, they give corporations their legitimacy and are the issuer of their charter. I cannot just claim that I'm a corporation, and I certainly cannot do business freely as if I am one, because government would come after me.

By this standard, all cars are created by the government, because to own a car you need a government issued title to give that ownership legitimacy.

You're failing to recognize one major difference between cars and corporations. One is a legal entity created under the law. One is not.

You're failing to realize that "creating" isn't the same as "recognizing under the law".


You've made me sigh twice in one day. Kudos.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporations

"...legal entity that is created under the laws of a state designed to establish the entity as a separate legal entity having its own privileges and liabilities distinct from those of its members." (emphasis mine)

@NetRunner, you're obviously tired and need to go outside for a while. Let's put a pin in this conversation and reconvene once you're well rested and back on your game.

And, no, giving @rottenseed a handjob isn't resting.

To me, that's regulation. Of course you could set up a business, and convince people to give you seed money for a share of future profits. That is the essense of a corporation.

On second thought, since owners of corporations have some freedom from being sued, and the court system is run by the government, I can see how corporations' existence depends on government.>> ^blankfist:
>> ^longde:
Corporations are regulated by state and the federal government, not created by them.>> ^blankfist:
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^blankfist:
See, I think the two parties are part of the problem, and they tend to be pro-corporatist and pro-war.

It's silly that you would think ANY elected president could change corporatism. Corporatism runs deeper than the president.

I doubt any President could do much to change corporatism unless he tried to push it through legislation that all corporate charters would be revoked, because corporations do NOT run deeper than the government. They're government created entities.


But that's not true. The state isn't just a regulatory service, they give corporations their legitimacy and are the issuer of their charter. I cannot just claim that I'm a corporation, and I certainly cannot do business freely as if I am one, because government would come after me.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, you're obviously tired and need to go outside for a while. Let's put a pin in this conversation and reconvene once you're well rested and back on your game.
And, no, giving @rottenseed a handjob isn't resting.


Don't listen to him, @NetRunner...we can make this as comfortable and relaxing as you'd like it to be.

I'm a romantic.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:

You're failing to realize that "creating" isn't the same as "recognizing under the law".

You've made me sigh twice in one day. Kudos.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporations
"...legal entity that is created under the laws of a state designed to establish the entity as a separate legal entity having its own privileges and liabilities distinct from those of its members." (emphasis mine)


This is getting quite silly. They're created...by whom? If they're created by government, that means Ford and Microsoft were created by the government, and not Henry Ford and Bill Gates.

If that were the case, how did those people wind up associated with them? Were they appointed by the President? Congress? Governor? State Legislature? Did they win an election?

I know it sounds crazy, but I think the sequence of events was that they started created a business, and then decided to file some paperwork to have it legally recognized as a corporation to get all the legal benefits.

You know, sorta like getting married isn't the same thing as having it be legally recognized, and having it be legally recognized doesn't mean every marriage is "created by" government.

less typey, more tuggy

@NetRunner, it is getting really silly. Government creates corporations through charters. Individuals get together to create the companies that will be incorporated.

It really cannot get simpler. Go outside and give @rottenseed his handjob. Or buttsechs. Whatever.

@blankfist, ahh I see. Read the definition of the word company, meaning #2 to be specific.

Also, see the part titled "Synonyms"? There's only one word listed there: corporation.

Since you've basically double-hijacked your own thread, I'll at least toss out a path back to the main topic -- the legal recognition of corporations isn't the problem. The problem is that they get huge amounts of special dispensations from the government, like limitations on the legal liability of the people who actually own and operate them for the things they do.

If one of the chief planks of some right-wing party was to truly eliminate "corporatism", they'd be talking about ending corporate personhood and their limited liability privilege. Instead, they mostly talk about putting limits on what the government can do to police corporate activity, which should rightly be seen as a pro-corporatist move.

There's no such thing as hijacking a thread on VS. This was a political sift talk post, and the conversation was born out of that.

But I agree with your last point. Lifting regulations on business isn't enough. They need to also lift their limited liability and government subsidies. And business should be seen as individuals doing business, not large collectives protected under the law and given certain privileges the rest of us don't share.

@blankfist I guess that's true, thread hijacking is the natural state of all threads here it seems.

I do think that ultimately we see more eye to eye than it looks like to most observers, and while we do have some pretty deep disagreements about fundamentals, there's probably a broad legislative agenda you and I could endorse that the mainstream parties would never go for.

That said, there's a lot of details to work out with what the right way to deal with accountability for corporations really is.

For example, who should individually be held responsible for the Deepwater Horizon incident? Who should have to pay for the damages? If that person can't afford to actually pay the damages, should the corporation's finances cover the shortfall?

I think I'm torn between saying that the CEO needs to be held responsible, and the shareholders need to be held responsible. Maybe the criminal charges hit the CEO, and the monetary compensation hits the shareholders?

@NetRunner, I believe corporations are fictitious entities, and I disagree with any limited liability for individuals. Same goes for DBAs, LLCs, etc. As it stands now, you need them to conduct business (I have an LLC for the film out of necessity), but if we systematically transitioned to a market without government sanctioned limitations of liability, then we'd have a better world for individuals to trade freely without some having unfair advantages and subsidies and other welfare.

As for BP, it's corporate law that's currently held them to limited accountability. Without that law, those damaged by the spill could sue those responsible and be redressed.

Not just the CEO needs to be held accountable, but so does the people involved. It's not good enough to say "I just work here" and move on. I'm not saying the day laborer needs to necessarily shill over money, but certainly when someone purports to be a professional he or she needs to be held responsible for his or her mistakes. This includes people making the decision to drill. If the CEO tells them to drill without the proper booms or whatever, they need to refuse or get some form of indemnification waiver or something. The point is, if a CEO tells you to dump oil in someone's backyard, you'd best know that's not a great idea and you are accountable for your behavior.

What say you on that perspective?

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, I believe corporations are fictitious entities, and I disagree with any limited liability for individuals. Same goes for DBAs, LLCs, etc. As it stands now, you need them to conduct business (I have an LLC for the film out of necessity), but if we systematically transitioned to a market without government sanctioned limitations of liability, then we'd have a better world for individuals to trade freely without some having unfair advantages and subsidies and other welfare.
As for BP, it's corporate law that's currently held them to limited accountability. Without that law, those damaged by the spill could sue those responsible and be redressed.

I agree with what you're proposing there. I tend to think we'd have fewer companies as a result, not more, but I do think it'd be more fair overall.

>> ^blankfist:

Not just the CEO needs to be held accountable, but so does the people involved. It's not good enough to say "I just work here" and move on. I'm not saying the day laborer needs to necessarily shill over money, but certainly when someone purports to be a professional he or she needs to be held responsible for his or her mistakes. This includes people making the decision to drill. If the CEO tells them to drill without the proper booms or whatever, they need to refuse or get some form of indemnification waiver or something. The point is, if a CEO tells you to dump oil in someone's backyard, you'd best know that's not a great idea and you are accountable for your behavior.
What say you on that perspective?


Well, to be honest the people who do that today just get fired.

I'd like to see people empowered to do that, but in practice that either means a raft of regulatory requirements about what people can be fired for, or strong unionization.

I also hear that the reason CEO's (and managers generally) get paid so much is because they're responsible for whatever happens underneath them, whether they personally did it or not. That was certainly the case for me when I've been in management roles in the past.

>> ^NetRunner:

I agree with what you're proposing there. I tend to think we'd have fewer companies as a result, not more, but I do think it'd be more fair overall.


It would be very hard for businesses to get as large as corporations do today without the unfair support of government. This means more competition, and logically as a result more small businesses would sprout up, and therefore more jobs could be created.


>> ^NetRunner:
Well, to be honest the people who do that today just get fired.
I'd like to see people empowered to do that, but in practice that either means a raft of regulatory requirements about what people can be fired for, or strong unionization.
I also hear that the reason CEO's (and managers generally) get paid so much is because they're responsible for whatever happens underneath them, whether they personally did it or not. That was certainly the case for me when I've been in management roles in the past.


I don't see why we'd need regulatory requirements or unionization. Most of the responsibility would be held at the top levels, such as CEOs or COOs or supervisors or whomever. And this can all be decided by some form of conflict resolution whether that be the courts or arbitration. But my point was that people couldn't escape liability just because they're employed. If your boss told you to murder someone, for instance, you know that to be wrong and would hopefully not follow through. But if you did murder someone, obviously you'd be held accountable, right? kind of the same idea. Maybe not exactly, but it's close enough.

If a business spilled oil like BP did, then all the parties involved would be liable within reason. If you were hired to clean the toilets on the rig, then you're probably not going to be responsible in any direct or indirect way. But if you are hired as a professional to do a specific job like supervising the boom or drilling or whatever, and that contributed somehow to the spill, then you're probably going to inherit some substantial responsibility. And I think that's more than fair.

I wish I could vote for this song for president... http://videosift.com/video/the-80-s-look-awesome-Operator-by-Midnight-Star

>> ^blankfist:

It would be very hard for businesses to get as large as corporations do today without the unfair support of government. This means more competition, and logically as a result more small businesses would sprout up, and therefore more jobs could be created.

I think taking away the liability limits ultimately raises the barrier for creating a new business, since it increases the potential downside risk of any new investment, and worse, makes predicting the worst case scenario nigh impossible.

The knock on effects of that would be that investors would be more reluctant to invest, meaning that interest rates would go up, and the tolerance for risk would go down.

In some sense I think we'd see companies that are larger, but also "flatter" in a sense. I'm thinking more McDonalds, Best Buy, and Amazon, and a lot less heavy industry with big, expensive, dangerous, illiquid capital investment.

I sorta say "so what, it's more fair, and restrains corporations' flagrant disregard for safety and the environment".

However, for people who want to see a bazillion small businesses, I think you want the limited liabilities there to help people simplify their risk assessments.
>> ^blankfist:

I don't see why we'd need regulatory requirements or unionization. Most of the responsibility would be held at the top levels, such as CEOs or COOs or supervisors or whomever. And this can all be decided by some form of conflict resolution whether that be the courts or arbitration.

Well, courts are guided by law in those sorts of determinations, arbitration is more guided by the relative strength of the bargaining positions of the participants (i.e. little people get reliably crushed).

Which is to say, we'd need to set some sort of standard on how accountability works, or it'll only be the guy following orders who gets the short end of the stick.

>> ^blankfist:
But my point was that people couldn't escape liability just because they're employed. If your boss told you to murder someone, for instance, you know that to be wrong and would hopefully not follow through. But if you did murder someone, obviously you'd be held accountable, right? kind of the same idea. Maybe not exactly, but it's close enough.

For something as serious and obvious as murder, sure.

But say my boss tells me not to order the scheduled maintenance for critical safety equipment because "it's not in the budget"? If things go wrong later, am I to be held responsible because my idiot boss didn't budget for proper maintenance? Do I really need to constantly present my boss with waivers from legal liability for every decision I think has a potential risk? Can he fire me for demanding them too often?

>> ^blankfist:
If a business spilled oil like BP did, then all the parties involved would be liable within reason. If you were hired to clean the toilets on the rig, then you're probably not going to be responsible in any direct or indirect way. But if you are hired as a professional to do a specific job like supervising the boom or drilling or whatever, and that contributed somehow to the spill, then you're probably going to inherit some substantial responsibility. And I think that's more than fair.


I agree with that, but in my experience as a technical professional, I have to say that unsafe shit is almost exclusively something that happens when management refuses to pony up the cash to do things the right way.

But let's look at the other side of the coin. For the sake of argument, let's pretend management didn't do anything obviously wrong on Deepwater Horizon, and it was just some guy out on the rig who just made a stupid mistake and caused the whole thing to happen.

Should that guy bear all of the financial liability alone, while the CEO's, shareholders, and the company itself are held blameless?

I say even in that case, the blame needs to go upward -- management hired the guy, and someone higher up approved the process that was susceptible to massive damage coming from one guy's human error. They're the ones who put the oil rig in his hands, they're the ones responsible for the damage he did with it.