3 ms·

The court system isn't suited for this anymore. It was a different time in 1776 when corporations were not allowed to live in perpetuity, amassing as much of th

The court system isn't suited for this anymore. It was a different time in 1776 when corporations were not allowed to live in perpetuity, amassing as much of the valuable resources as they can, handing it off to ancestors upon the owners death (sounds a bit like monarchism, IMO). "What your proposing is more like a league which will solidify the rules as they currently exist." According to Thomas Jefferson, this is exactly what Constitution and laws are for. Thomas Jefferson: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

slededit 9y ago
The dutch east india company controlled half the world at one point. Do you really believe today's corporations are more powerful? Your quote says laws should evolve with the people which lends to neither of our arguments as we're discussing how it should evolve not "if".
- tripzilch 9y ago
  "The world" during the high days of the VOC was only 8% of the population today so it's kind of difficult to honestly compare, IMHO. But more importantly, the VOC "perished under corruption" not because it was dragged to court :) It's not really fair to say that "the system" dealt with it when it obviously just succumbed over time under the inevitability of impermanence.
  - slededit 9y ago
    The Dutch east India company had standing armies and war ships. To say that modern companies are more powerfully merely because of population growth is a bit of a stretch. How they came to an end is irrelevant to whether courts are effective referees unless you believe the only fair thing is to destroy large companies.
    - notgoodenuff88 9y ago
      The fact that they had warships is pointless. We've seen companies today tank the global economy for no reason other than their own gambling fetish. People died because of it. Entirely families were wiped out economically. People are dying from lack of preventative healthcare because corporations think it would be too expensive. Corporations don't need literal guns to destroy lives. The courts are bound by laws and their historical interpretation in the court. Judges, scholars, and lawmakers themselves say we need to change the laws. But the location of the goal posts are well known to power players, and how to succeed within. You want free market competition, make them learn them again. We're stagnating because we have to mind the MBAs, and stay within the boundaries they've been told to maintain. We've moved beyond open warfare. The damage is being done in different ways. Set aside your guns fetish; nukes mean that large scale resolution of differences through war is not tenable. It's clear to me this conversation will not go much further. So I'm done with it. TTFN
isleyaardvark 9y ago
Thomas Jefferson had more direct opinions on corporations, having tried (and failed) to add an 11th amendment limiting their power. For example: "I hope we shall take warning from the example [of England] and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and to bid defiance to the laws of their country." https://books.google.com/books?id=KCFfDQAAQBAJ&lpg=PT110&ots=7EHT-8jADH&dq=thomas%20jefferson%20on%20dutch%20east%20india%20company&pg=PT110#v=onepage&q=thomas%20jefferson%20monied%20corporations&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=KCFfDQAAQBAJ&lpg=PT110&ots...

slededit 9y ago

The dutch east india company controlled half the world at one point. Do you really believe today's corporations are more powerful? Your quote says laws should evolve with the people which lends to neither of our arguments as we're discussing how it should evolve not "if".

tripzilch 9y ago
"The world" during the high days of the VOC was only 8% of the population today so it's kind of difficult to honestly compare, IMHO. But more importantly, the VOC "perished under corruption" not because it was dragged to court :) It's not really fair to say that "the system" dealt with it when it obviously just succumbed over time under the inevitability of impermanence.
- slededit 9y ago
  The Dutch east India company had standing armies and war ships. To say that modern companies are more powerfully merely because of population growth is a bit of a stretch. How they came to an end is irrelevant to whether courts are effective referees unless you believe the only fair thing is to destroy large companies.
  - notgoodenuff88 9y ago
    The fact that they had warships is pointless. We've seen companies today tank the global economy for no reason other than their own gambling fetish. People died because of it. Entirely families were wiped out economically. People are dying from lack of preventative healthcare because corporations think it would be too expensive. Corporations don't need literal guns to destroy lives. The courts are bound by laws and their historical interpretation in the court. Judges, scholars, and lawmakers themselves say we need to change the laws. But the location of the goal posts are well known to power players, and how to succeed within. You want free market competition, make them learn them again. We're stagnating because we have to mind the MBAs, and stay within the boundaries they've been told to maintain. We've moved beyond open warfare. The damage is being done in different ways. Set aside your guns fetish; nukes mean that large scale resolution of differences through war is not tenable. It's clear to me this conversation will not go much further. So I'm done with it. TTFN

isleyaardvark 9y ago

Thomas Jefferson had more direct opinions on corporations, having tried (and failed) to add an 11th amendment limiting their power. For example: "I hope we shall take warning from the example [of England] and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and to bid defiance to the laws of their country." https://books.google.com/books?id=KCFfDQAAQBAJ&lpg=PT110&ots=7EHT-8jADH&dq=thomas%20jefferson%20on%20dutch%20east%20india%20company&pg=PT110#v=onepage&q=thomas%20jefferson%20monied%20corporations&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=KCFfDQAAQBAJ&lpg=PT110&ots...