4 ms·

I think you're a bit too fixated on corporations. There is nothing magical about being incorporated that suddenly grants you wide control over your elected offi

by bhb916 14y ago

I think you're a bit too fixated on corporations. There is nothing magical about being incorporated that suddenly grants you wide control over your elected official. In fact, any legal entity (individual, corporation, or otherwise) that holds sway over a large swath of votes will possess considerable influence over their representatives. This is the way of democracy.

jiggy2011 14y ago
Well, corporations have a lot more money than you or I do.
gambiting 14y ago
Except that EU countries would never pass a law that prioritizes corporations over citizens. Why is US considering a law that would make breaching ToS a criminal offence? Because people want it? I don't think so. And I have no problem with corporations per se. I know this word is thrown a lot nowadays, and sometimes not rightfully. But in this specific case, it's corporations(and other large institutions) which want to have a free hand in establishing their own laws, which were not voted for, which were not discussed with the public,and which cannot be fought. And it's fine as it is right now - you breach the ToS, they are free to stop doing business with you. But making it a criminal offence? Seriously?
- walshemj 14y ago
  I suspect that the poor bastards who have bank acounts in cyprus aren't feeling top happy abotu the 40% haircut they are getting courtesy of the EU
  - gambiting 14y ago
    The "poor bastards" in Cyprus are(sorry to say this) victims of their own rotten system. For years they were taking all benefits of being in the EU, while giving back very little. For the last decade they were asked repeatedly to impose fair taxes like the rest of the EU. They continuously declined, making Cyprus one of the tax-heavens of the world. Many companies moved to Cyprus purely to avoid taxes in their home countries - which was made possible thanks to EU trade agreements. And when Cyprus economy could not survive this stupid approach any longer, they want help from the EU. So EU is like, you know Cyprus, you did not collect proper taxes in more than a decade, but now you want us to help you with our tax money? Sure,but this cannot happen again, so either you join everyone in the fair game, or get lost.
    - walshemj 14y ago
      True but not everyone is as culpable as some and don't forget the central core made bank flogging high value goods to the periphery that realisticaly they could not afford. I agree with the Guardians finance editor when he described the euro as a bad idea whose time has come. And the problem is if this goes ahead it sets a precedent as various Eu finance types have said that this will be used elsewhere For Americans whats proposed for Cyprus its a bit like the Presidential Executive Order 6102 which confiscated private holdings of gold back in the 30's.
      - gambiting 14y ago
        It's a bit different though. In America the government was taking something you physically owned and you had to give it away under a threat of punishment. What Cyprus did makes sense if you realize something - and it has completely blown my mind because I was not aware of it too - that once you give money to the bank, it's not yours, you do not own it anymore. If you pay 100 pounds into your account, you are giving the bank a loan for a 100 quid, which the bank obliges to repay on demand - as stated in your contract. So when you go to to the bank to withdraw your 100 pounds, it's the bank repaying its debt to you. Therefore Cyprus uses the bank's money to repay its debts - not yours. Sure, they do owe money to the account holders now, but it's identical to a company going bankrupt - they might owe you something,but they physically do not have any money to give back. I am not saying this is a good thing, and I am not supporting it. I am saying that once you realize that money paid into the bank is not yours anymore, it all makes sense.
        bhb916 14y ago
        I don't disagree with what you said (in fact I upvoted it because it's spot on), but this sort of makes FDIC insurance a sham, right? They're basically claiming they will insure your money in a bank until they need it -- then it's fair game. Even if they never do renege on their promise, we are (through taxation) subsidizing people to give their money away to banks.
        14y ago
- dinkumthinkum 14y ago
  Except that EU countries have no problem passing laws that limit free speech that compared to the US seem Orwellian. Get off your high horse. This sort of silly law is not an indictment of American freedom. Your argument or, rather conspiracy theorist claim, if delusional. How many children have been shackled in chains because they visited the New York Times website? A more apt claim would be that the legal system has not really caught up to the way the Internet works. That makes more sense than "blah blah blah I can't wait for American to realize they aren't in the land of the free." What a bunch of jibber jabber. If you want to claim the U.S. has laws and enforcement issues that impact negatively on freedom, fine, but to make this silly claim and then prop up the EU, of all things, as the bastion of freedom is a joke.
charonn0 14y ago
Corporate personhood is accumulating more and more of the rights previously reserved to real persons, but none of the same moral, ethical, or legal inhibitors are effective against them. You can't imprison a corporation when they break the law, and fines simply become a cost of doing business. If they get big enough they gain de facto immunity from prosecution even for serious felonies[1]. [1]: http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/hsbc-exposed-us-finacial-system-to-money-laundering-drug-terrorist-financing-risks http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/med...
- bhb916 14y ago
  Treating corporations as people for legal purposes doesn't concern me -- in fact it's a vital simplification that preserves our rights as individuals. The "de facto" immunity concerns me greatly. You can't imprison a corporation, true, but you can do a lot of other things to enforce laws: you can pierce the corporate veil, you can revoke licenses, and you can imprison executives. Choosing not to take those steps, or creating a system where taking those steps is possible, seems to be the real failure here.

by bhb916 14y ago

jiggy2011 14y ago

Well, corporations have a lot more money than you or I do.

gambiting 14y ago

Except that EU countries would never pass a law that prioritizes corporations over citizens. Why is US considering a law that would make breaching ToS a criminal offence? Because people want it? I don't think so. And I have no problem with corporations per se. I know this word is thrown a lot nowadays, and sometimes not rightfully. But in this specific case, it's corporations(and other large institutions) which want to have a free hand in establishing their own laws, which were not voted for, which were not discussed with the public,and which cannot be fought. And it's fine as it is right now - you breach the ToS, they are free to stop doing business with you. But making it a criminal offence? Seriously?

walshemj 14y ago
I suspect that the poor bastards who have bank acounts in cyprus aren't feeling top happy abotu the 40% haircut they are getting courtesy of the EU
- gambiting 14y ago
  The "poor bastards" in Cyprus are(sorry to say this) victims of their own rotten system. For years they were taking all benefits of being in the EU, while giving back very little. For the last decade they were asked repeatedly to impose fair taxes like the rest of the EU. They continuously declined, making Cyprus one of the tax-heavens of the world. Many companies moved to Cyprus purely to avoid taxes in their home countries - which was made possible thanks to EU trade agreements. And when Cyprus economy could not survive this stupid approach any longer, they want help from the EU. So EU is like, you know Cyprus, you did not collect proper taxes in more than a decade, but now you want us to help you with our tax money? Sure,but this cannot happen again, so either you join everyone in the fair game, or get lost.
  - walshemj 14y ago
    True but not everyone is as culpable as some and don't forget the central core made bank flogging high value goods to the periphery that realisticaly they could not afford. I agree with the Guardians finance editor when he described the euro as a bad idea whose time has come. And the problem is if this goes ahead it sets a precedent as various Eu finance types have said that this will be used elsewhere For Americans whats proposed for Cyprus its a bit like the Presidential Executive Order 6102 which confiscated private holdings of gold back in the 30's.
    - gambiting 14y ago
      It's a bit different though. In America the government was taking something you physically owned and you had to give it away under a threat of punishment. What Cyprus did makes sense if you realize something - and it has completely blown my mind because I was not aware of it too - that once you give money to the bank, it's not yours, you do not own it anymore. If you pay 100 pounds into your account, you are giving the bank a loan for a 100 quid, which the bank obliges to repay on demand - as stated in your contract. So when you go to to the bank to withdraw your 100 pounds, it's the bank repaying its debt to you. Therefore Cyprus uses the bank's money to repay its debts - not yours. Sure, they do owe money to the account holders now, but it's identical to a company going bankrupt - they might owe you something,but they physically do not have any money to give back. I am not saying this is a good thing, and I am not supporting it. I am saying that once you realize that money paid into the bank is not yours anymore, it all makes sense.
      - bhb916 14y ago
        I don't disagree with what you said (in fact I upvoted it because it's spot on), but this sort of makes FDIC insurance a sham, right? They're basically claiming they will insure your money in a bank until they need it -- then it's fair game. Even if they never do renege on their promise, we are (through taxation) subsidizing people to give their money away to banks.
        14y ago
dinkumthinkum 14y ago
Except that EU countries have no problem passing laws that limit free speech that compared to the US seem Orwellian. Get off your high horse. This sort of silly law is not an indictment of American freedom. Your argument or, rather conspiracy theorist claim, if delusional. How many children have been shackled in chains because they visited the New York Times website? A more apt claim would be that the legal system has not really caught up to the way the Internet works. That makes more sense than "blah blah blah I can't wait for American to realize they aren't in the land of the free." What a bunch of jibber jabber. If you want to claim the U.S. has laws and enforcement issues that impact negatively on freedom, fine, but to make this silly claim and then prop up the EU, of all things, as the bastion of freedom is a joke.

charonn0 14y ago

Corporate personhood is accumulating more and more of the rights previously reserved to real persons, but none of the same moral, ethical, or legal inhibitors are effective against them. You can't imprison a corporation when they break the law, and fines simply become a cost of doing business. If they get big enough they gain de facto immunity from prosecution even for serious felonies[1]. [1]: http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/hsbc-exposed-us-finacial-system-to-money-laundering-drug-terrorist-financing-risks http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/med...

bhb916 14y ago
Treating corporations as people for legal purposes doesn't concern me -- in fact it's a vital simplification that preserves our rights as individuals. The "de facto" immunity concerns me greatly. You can't imprison a corporation, true, but you can do a lot of other things to enforce laws: you can pierce the corporate veil, you can revoke licenses, and you can imprison executives. Choosing not to take those steps, or creating a system where taking those steps is possible, seems to be the real failure here.