U.S. ranked lowest of newborn survival.

[Gulli]

If, as a rational individual, I'd pay you 10 hot dogs for chopping 10 trees, why in hell would I pay someone 1990 hot dogs for chopping the 11th tree?

Because you believe paying 1989 hot dogs for the 11th tree is socialism.

 

[Gulli]

What if the person getting paid 2000 hot dogs chops the trees down 200 times faster and better than the person being paid only 10?

This is physically impossible.

 

[wanamingo]

This is physically impossible.

I like that's what you point out about a world where the jobs are tree chopping and the payment is hotdogs.......

 

[robertamba]

Selfish people only care about themselves and their OWN rights. By definition, you can't be purely selfish and care about the rights of others at the same time. Unless someone forces you to, of course.

After all, that's why criminals go out and commit crimes. They are selfish and do not care for the rights of the people they victimize.

 

[Gulli]

Its an analogy, isnt it?

Should a person who sweeps floors for a living make the same as someone who designs and engineers valves for NASA?

No, the NASA guy completed a very tough university curriculum and so makes 2 or 3 times more. The real question is, should a CEO who did some lame ass business curriculum (compared to what the NASA guy followed) make 200 times more than the NASA guy?

 

[wanamingo]

Isn't a company inherently selfish though? The only point of a corporation is to make money.

 

[Onus]

The word "selfish" has been twisted to serve the interests of parasites and their minions. To be selfish is to have a rational concern with one's long term best interests; it does not mean tromping on others or their rights to get what you want. To expect your own rights to be recognized and respected means you must recognize and respect the rights of others. When a criminal violates another's rights, he implicitly gives up his own. Despite any potential short term gain, that is clearly not in his long term best interests, and is therefor not properly defined as an act of selfishness.
Read the book!

 

[Gulli]

@Gulli
A CEO should make whatever he can get out of the board. However, the buck stops with him. If he screws up he gets fired with no golden parachute. If he really screws up and people are hurt, then criminal charges should be filed. I never understood how a CEO that runs a company into the ground gets to still walk away with millions in severance. So we agree a bit on that.

A CEO is not liable. Only the owner of the business is, a CEO is technically an employee. If there is no single majority shareholder and the CEO "runs" the business then no one is liable (real risk doesn't exist anymore: no one involved can ever loose more than they invested). The board determines how much the CEO gets paid and also his severance check and its conditions, however there is no mechanism preventing the CEO from putting his friends in the board or promising the boardmembers a percentage of his salary. You can guess the result...

 

[wanamingo]

I can't remember the name of the law, but I do remember it was illegally passed when the majority of Congress was not even present to vote.

I believe this was the law that allowed corporations to be defined as people under the 14th amendment

As a matter of interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations. Opponents of corporate personhood seek to amend the U.S. Constitution to limit these rights to those provided by state law and state constitutions.

Others argue that corporations should have the protection of the U.S. Constitution, pointing out that they are organizations of people, and that these people shouldn't be deprived of their human rights when they join with others to act collectively. In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction that allows corporations to sue and to be sued, that provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, that simplified complex transactions that would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and that protects the rights of the shareholders, including the right of association.

 

[Gulli]

The word "selfish" has been twisted to serve the interests of parasites and their minions. To be selfish is to have a rational concern with one's long term best interests; it does not mean tromping on others or their rights to get what you want.

Often it serves one's best interests to trump on other people's rights. Also, one's long term self interests can never reach beyond 80 years or so, while the world will still be there afterwards. This is relevant for environmental issues: will people resist the temptation of making more money when it comes at the price of environmental degradation after their deaths? The answer seems to be no, they don't resist temptation, they'll expect someone else to solve the problem later on or they simply don't care (a lot of evangelicals fall in the latter category because they believe these are the end times).

To expect your own rights to be recognized and respected means you must recognize and respect the rights of others.

Not if you have really expensive lawyers, can buy politicians or if your acts are immoral but technically not illegal.

 

[wanamingo]

Guili make an interesting point about buying lawyers. If a corporation can sue and be sued like normal folks then thats an imbalance right there.

If I wanted to sue Monsanto for giving me cancer (Hypothetical?) I would never win. I might get a settlement out of court for a lot of money (Relatively, just a drop in the bucket for them). So a group of people incorporated will usually be stronger and more efficient than the lone citizen.

How do we defend from Corporate power?

 

[Gulli]

I'm saying they (the President/CEO) should be liable being they are the final decision maker and entrusted by the board to run the company at a profit.

Wouldn't that be nice... (and impossible to get past the republicans).

 

[jsc]

Right and wrong. In America, the protection of the courts and the military are Rights, as defined by the Constitution. Police and fire on the other hand are not rights.

True. There's a long string of Supreme Court and Federal Appellate Courts rulings going back to 1856 stating the the police (or any law enforcement entities) are responsible for protecting society as a whole, but not individuals. Individuals are responsible for their own protection. You can live across the street from a police department and you can call for help. If it takes them 30 minutes to arrive, you cannot sue them because they did not provide protection (e.g., arrive in a timely manner).

Right and wrong. In America, the protection of the courts and the military are Rights, as defined by the Constitution. Police and fire on the other hand are not rights. In early American history and prior to establishing professional and unionized police and fire departments, many towns and cities throughout America did share responsibility for policing themselves and volunteering for the fire brigade.

And in Tennessee last year, a volunteer fire department let a freeloader's house burn:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/04/video-firefighters-let-home-burn-to-the-ground-because-owner-didnt-pay-annual-75-fee/

Well, then the protection of the courts, police, fire department and military are not a right. Quite contrary to "... the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Unless you are a fetus.

 

[dogman_1234]

That's when the peoples' elected government is supposed to step in. However, if the elected people in government are corrupt and have no moral compass............you see where this is going.

We the people have reached a point where getting a blowjob in the oval office from an intern is actually a resume enhancer.

Regulation? It is good..to a point. it is good as its government. Vote for smarter regs, not more or less.

Liked the last paragraph! 😀

 

[jsc]

"What is the correct name for a group of Baboons" – Answer a "Congress"
Question/answer on radio the other day.

You shouldn't insult baboons like that.


Related:
Do you know how to calculate the collective IQ of a committee?
Take the member with the lowest IQ and divide by the number of members in the committee.
Congress is a really, really large committee.

Vote for smarter regs, not more or less.

Oh, yes. Otherwise you end up with, "We have to pass this bill so you can see what is in it."

 

[dogman_1234]

Oh, yes. Otherwise you end up with, "We have to pass this bill so you can see what is in it."

Can't tell if sarcastic or serious.

 

[Gulli]

Shouldn't the board of directors do that rather than requiring government action? That makes more sense to me. Then again, the board would probably find it difficult to attract the best talent if that were so.

I should clarify: liability (to me) means more than just being fired when you screw up (which wouldn't scare CEOs because they make enough to retire of in one year). I'm talking about the authorities seizing the assets of the CEO, boardmembers and the shareholders (if you buy a piece of ownership you should also take responsibility for any debts) to pay off debts and salaries of employees when necessary (cash problems or bankruptcy). Only this will make them act responsible because they'll actually be taking risks when they do something stupid. This is something only the government could force.

 

[dogman_1234]

jsc was quoting Nancy Pelosi from a press conference. Yes, the former speaker of the house actually said that.

I know. It was on CNN. 😀

Can you believe it!

 

[jsc]

Sarcastic or serious? 50-50. If Pelosi hadn't said it, it would have been sarcasm.

I have always thought that we need to know what is in a bill before we pass it. I also think that if it is too big to understand, it is too big to pass.

 

[Gulli]

Whoa cowboy!! Way to much authoritarian rule for my taste there. Government has no right to seize private assets in such a way, unless criminal activity is taking place. What is considered criminal is debatable of course.

My fear is, the authorities will arbitrarily decide what is criminal and what is not in order to manipulate a private company. You also will have those that will want a "contribution" from said company in order to ward off government scrutiny.

Not sure you understood what I was saying. I am sure you are familiar with the practice of seizing assets from the owner of a business that went under and left debts. It is done by the debtors (after a judge's ruling), not by the government, however the government once upon a time passed the law that gives debotors the right to seize assets.

The thing is business owners are becoming rare, in practice only really small businesses, the so called "mom and pop stores" still have them. Larger businesses have shareholders, an executive board and a CEO, none of whom are legally owners (in fact them not being legally owners and therefore being shielded from debt is one of the primary reason this particular corporate structure came to be). All I propose is for the law to be changed so these people will be treated as business owners: so when things go south they will not just lose their jobs and shares but will also risk losing their personal assets, just like the owner of a mom and pop store would. The government's only role in this is to change the law, not create some kind of mafia-state by seizing assets themselves and without a judge's ruling (where did you get those ideas?). This would provide an incentive for corporations to act responsibly and stay away from Wall Street's casino practices.

 

[Gulli]

Can't tell if sarcastic or serious.

It was a hoax, from Faux News (naturally), a combination of quote mining and outright lies, just google the thing. In fact it appeared here on Tom's hardware before a couple of weeks ago and I debunked it back then, I guess some people didn't take notice.

 

[RetiredChief]

http://www.breitbart.tv/nancy-pelosi-we-need-to-pass-health-care-bill-to-find-out-whats-in-it/#idc-container

They sure did a good job "faking" here Lips.

 

[jsc]

But, but ... that's from Breibart's web site and everyone knows he is one of the those nasty, evil, wicked, Bush loving, Cheney worshipping, right wingers.

So:
youtube/Fox news: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

Brietbart again: http://biggovernment.com/lrlee/2011/08/07/obamacare-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-so-that-you-can-find-out-what-is-in-it/

Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/pelosi-health-care-039we-have-pass-bill-so-you-can-find-out-what-it039

U.S. News: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/03/09/pelosi-pass-health-reform-so-you-can-find-out-whats-in-it

 

[Gulli]

[...] If these men and women at the top had their personal assets at stake, perhaps they would behave more responsibly when conducting the affairs of their businesses.

Precisely, that was the basis of my idea. Now the questions is how many politicians would risk their corporate campaign contributions by voting for my idea (I'm guessing not a single libertarian or republican, with the possible exception of Ron Paul, and maybe half the democrats, so it'll never pass)?

 

[Gulli]

^^Precisely why I want to reduce their power and control over my life. The politicians I mean.

The thing is we live in a catch 22 world: less power to politicians means more power to corporations, and vice versa. At least politicians can't change their laws at every whim and they are still somewhat dependent on voters. Corporations are the same the world over, while there are still pockets of honest states(wo)men (as distinct from politicians) left.