Slashdot Mirror


Trust In Virtual Worlds

The Escapist's last issue for the year touches on the currency of Trust in Massively Multiplayer Games. With virtual-world currency gaining ever more value in the real world, in-game scams and lies can be deadly serious. When you give away that Trust, business can boom. From the article: "Their business plan is an ingenious one: Rather than engage in the wars that rage through alliance space, ISS has chosen to take a neutral stance, building a huge player-operated structure known as an 'outpost' that provides repair, refitting and marketing services to all comers. In a star system known simply as KDF-GY, ISS has established a little Switzerland in space, where pilots of rival corps and alliances can dock to do business, sell loot and kit out their battlecruisers for the next engagement. And according to Martin Wiinholt and Shayne Smart, the 30-something players behind Count TaSessine and Serenity Steele, respectively, business is good."

55 comments

  1. Eve..... by MBraynard · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    So promising, but so complicated.

    I recently got my newbie industrial ship blown out of the sky (empty, mind you) in .3 space. Kinda sucks.

    Other things that suck - needing bookmarks. It's a nusance issue where it takes forever to get anywhere unless you go get bookmarks.

    Finally, there is no difinitive 'how to play eve' book. There is info scattered across numerous websites, but the CCP new player guide is awful.

    Finally, you have no control over the design/color of your ship. You can't give it a certain paintjob or put a logo on it.

    1. Re:Eve..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that the OP didn't actually mention the name of the game, the parent post probably shouldn't have been modded offtopic.

    2. Re:Eve..... by DangerSteel · · Score: 1

      The name of the game is in the subject line...Eve.

    3. Re:Eve..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What in GODS NAME were you doing in .3 space?!?!?!?!

      Do you not know how the ratings work?! I played the game for 3 days, it was very clear the lower the number (from 1) the more dangerous it was, and on half the chat channels were people complaining about dying horribly in .5 space.

  2. Linden's mistake by rodentia · · Score: 3, Insightful


    "We want to ensure that new residents have easy access to additional L$ without having to take yet another leap of trust to sign up and give payment information to a third party," said Linden Lab economic czar Lawrence Linden. But residents had already taken that leap of trust with GOM, and been rewarded.

    Indeed. I daresay one would have greater trust in the third party, whose business solely relied upon professional integrity and actual fiduciary trust. Linden as market maker for L$ is the fox guarding the henhouse. GOM had no fiduciary interest in the exchange ratio, merely the conduct of exchanges.

    --
    illegitimii non ingravare
  3. On the subject of trust... by 1WingedAngel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is the same game where one of the best examples of trust betrayed in an online world can be found. The below story is well worth the read and has been cited numerous times as an example of the risk inherent in an online world.
    The Big Scam

    1. Re:On the subject of trust... by Decessus · · Score: 1

      Yes, they mentioned this scam via a link to the same website that you have listed.

    2. Re:On the subject of trust... by 1WingedAngel · · Score: 1

      Yes, they mentioned this scam via a link to the same website that you have listed.

      I missed that the first time. Mayhaps their web designer can lay off on some of the aesthetics for a little more ease of use. The partially underlined links don't stand out all that well.

    3. Re:On the subject of trust... by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      Thanks for sharing - I just finished reading The Big Scam and it's very entertaining!

    4. Re:On the subject of trust... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very compelling, I can almost imagine this fitting into the Usual Suspects story.

      Verbal Kint = HardHead
      Keyset Sose = Nightfreeze

      And poof. Just like that, he's gone.

  4. WoW by steveo777 · · Score: 0
    Yeah, some gnome mage told me that that if me and my who guild gave him a gold piece each, we would get eternal happiness. Some joke that was. One second we're sitting around the gnome handing out buckets of cash in the middle of Mulgore, the next second hundreds of 50+ lvl Taurens overan us and camped our bodies for the next six hours.

    I'm thinking, WTF? That doesn't make me happy.

    --
    This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
  5. Yeah! by chriso11 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Corporations are here to save us! How come I never noticed that before?

    This stuff is cool, but I think that the reason it works is because the virtual corporations still require player support. In the real world, corporations have managed to turn the tables on citizens, so that now the corporations interests supercepe that of citizens.

    --
    No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
    1. Re:Yeah! by MBraynard · · Score: 1
      This stuff is cool, but I think that the reason it works is because the virtual corporations still require player support. In the real world, corporations have managed to turn the tables on citizens, so that now the corporations interests supercepe that of citizens.

      Sounds like you don't exactly exist in the real world either - maybe Michael Moore's fantasy world.

      All public corporations in the US are owned by citizens. Everything from Wal-Mart to Haliburton (in which Moore owns stock) to MS to whatever boogie man you fantasize about.

      If you feel alianated and out of control of your own life, it's not some corp's fault, it's your own.

    2. Re:Yeah! by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1
      All public corporations in the US are owned by citizens.
      You're an idiot. That isn't true. Even if it was true, the owners of public corporations cannot be held responsible for the actions of those corporations. Any ordinary, practical definition of ownership doesn't apply.
      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    3. Re:Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I own a couple of hundred shares of MSFT and Balmer emails me for advice all the time!

      You are a fucking moron at best. Public ownership of stock is pretty much necessary if you want to have a viable financial life. It doesn't mean we (the public) have any control over what a corporation does.

    4. Re:Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you're such a fan of straw men, I've decided to give you one of your own. From here on out, your post is actually about how you enjoy punching disabled children in the face.

      You sick bastard! Shame on you.

    5. Re:Yeah! by chriso11 · · Score: 1

      Well, then explain how Enron adheres to that view. Or Worldcom. Or Tyco, Aedelphi, and Global Crossing. But it's not just the scandals. Look into ADM (Archer Daniels Midland Corp) sometime. Halliburton and the no-bid contracts are another example. Hey, even Love Canal.

      Next, take a look where all of the corporations are based - try Bermuda, which provides wonderful tax advantages. Look at how many companies are opening up facilities in Ireland, also for tax advantages.

      And no, I don't feel 'alianated' (or even alienated, which is what I assume you meant). If you want to be pollyannaish about corporations, then go right ahead. Just don't expect me to buy into your foolish belief in the boundless benefits that corporations provide us.

      Quite simply, corporations do not have much concerns about the people. Honestly, I am fine with that- corporations exist to make money. However, the large corporations are powerful enough to tilt the political and legal systems in their favor, to a level that is significantly greater than any average person - that is something that I don't think is fair.

      I think that it should be illegal for corporation to lobby or influence the government in any way whatsoever. Why is that fair? From your own statement All public corporations in the US are owned by citizens. If a shareholder cares enough about an issue that affects a corporation he owns part of, then he can directly lobby the appropriate governmental agency on that matter. But I know that will never happen. But I won't be a sucker to your BS dogma that is being spread around either.

      --
      No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
    6. Re:Yeah! by ThreeE · · Score: 0

      Haliburton's contracts were not no-bid. They bid on contracts to provide quick turn services to the DoD at pre-defined rates. Other companies bid -- and there were multiple awards. What you are mistaking for "no-bid" is the DoD executing these contracts at pre-defined rates for previously unknown needs -- for example fuel services in Iraq.

      Please give me one example of a US corporation that is incorporated in Bermuda. No US corporation is incorporated (based) in Bermuda. What you are mistaking for "based" is probably an office. Companies do repatriate funds in interesting ways through Bermuda, the Caymans, and even Ireland, but these are completely legal methods much like you might deduct mortgage interest. Tax avoidance != tax fraud.

      The capital markets and the concept or corporations have provided the engine that has driven our amazing economic progress this century. Do some research and think of the the corporate structure as a technology -- because it really is. To think of corporations as "evil," or "immoral," is like accusing my iPod of a crime. Corporations are run by people -- sometimes bad ones. Corporate financial liability is limited to the assets of the firm. Criminal responsibility is not.

      Respectfully, you comment on corporate influence is a bit naive. Politics is how large numbers of people make decisions. It is not evil or immoral either. If you don't like what is going on, get involved -- get into politics.

    7. Re:Yeah! by MBraynard · · Score: 1
      The way the parent posted, you would have thought that corporations had political power - when all political power is in the hands, for better or worse, of citizens. Corporations cannot vote _at all_.

      I doubt most people here even realy know what a corp is.

    8. Re:Yeah! by ThreeE · · Score: 0

      Why should you have any control of what a corporation does? As a shareholder you do -- as represented by and proportional to your ownership stake and therefore risk. As a citizen, all you can require is for the corporation and its officers to obey the laws. What more control do you want? I'd like to control a Ferrari -- doesn't mean it should happen...

    9. Re:Yeah! by eyepeepackets · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "All public corporations in the US are owned by citizens. Everything from
      Wal-Mart to Haliburton (in which Moore owns stock) to MS to whatever boogie man
      you fantasize about."

      Any person on the planet can own stock in publicly traded corporations as I
      understand it, so saying corporations are "owned by citizens" is not technically
      correct.

      What the original poster suggested and the others following refer to is the apparent
      ability of corporations, particularly multi-national corporations, to avoid the
      repercussions of responsibility for their behavior. Such responsibility
      avoidance is, in essence, a variation on the old con known as the "shell game."
      It plays out in corporate and governance thusly: One concentrates authority in a
      small group (corporate board and their purchased politicians) whilst diluting
      responsibility over as large a group as possible (stock holders.) With this
      manner of construct, the authority can pretty much do as it pleases and, when
      things get nasty, the authority points to the responsible body, stock holders.
      But the catch is that only the very biggest of the stock holding groups have a
      voice that will garner a response from the corporate board. Funny how these
      stock holding groups and corporate boards seem to all blend together into a
      rather small group of the same folks.

      As a test of your "responsible citizens" theory of corporate ownership,
      please go buy what shares you can afford of a corporate stock, complain about
      what and how they do, and let us know the result.

      That our governments allow corporations under current law is proof simple that
      the politicians are in their pockets: The entire corporate law/structure is a
      responsibility avoidance device. Companies, whether incorporated or not, are run
      by humans who make decisions with consequences and should be held fully
      accountable and would be if our political systems weren't so very corrupt. Take
      a look at where your congress critter's re-election money comes from for an
      eye-opener than only the willfully ignorant (another definition for the word
      "stupid") can pretend away.

      Caio.

      --
      Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
    10. Re:Yeah! by buffer-overflowed · · Score: 1

      Next time firestone puts out bogus tires that cause a few deaths, let's charge all the shareholders with murder.

      After all, they had control.

      --
      The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
    11. Re:Yeah! by ThreeE · · Score: 0

      By bogus, if you mean that employees of Firestone (I thought they were a Japanese company now?) were criminally negligent in the way the made tires then, yes, you can charge them with murder and other serious, jail time, offensese.

    12. Re:Yeah! by Golias · · Score: 1

      I doubt most people here even realy know what a corp is.

      [Robbins]Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out... and the corporations sit there in their... in their corporation buildings, and... and, and see, they're all corporation-y... and they make money.[/Robbins]

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    13. Re:Yeah! by servognome · · Score: 1

      That our governments allow corporations under current law is proof simple that the politicians are in their pockets:

      Which demonstrates one of the weaknesses of democracy - it only works if there is an educated and interested populace.

      Those in power wish to remain in power, in democracy it means they must campaign to become re-elected. Ideally votes would be based on service to the citizens. However, with apathetic citizens, it becomes who gets the most ads on TV/newspapers/etc to rally an interested minority (rather than majority) of the population.
      Of course politicians will cater to those who can get them re-elected. If getting elected is about TV commercials, then those who supply the money will get preferrential treatment.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    14. Re:Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if it was true, the owners of public corporations cannot be held responsible for the actions of those corporations.

      I'm guessing you've never heard of walking up to somebody and shooting them in the head.

    15. Re:Yeah! by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      Thanks for reminding me. It's been too long since I've listened to "5 million ways to kill a CEO".

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    16. Re:Yeah! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      What more control do you want?

      I want corporate power to be limited to non-governmental roles; no lobbying, no ability to subvert democracy. I want corporations, as artificial beings under the law, to be limited to a 40 year lifespan. I want corporations to *prove* in their charters that they are doing something for the public good, and if found to not be following their charter, their incorporation should be revoked. I want all stockholders of a corporation to be citizens of this nation, and swear loyalty oaths to this country. And finally, I want corporations to be incorporated for a single nation or country only- with no ability to have subsidiaries in other nations.

      In other words, I want corporate law roled back to 1830. Is that too much to ask?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    17. Re:Yeah! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Voting is just for show in the 21st century. Lobbying is where the political power is at; lobbying takes money. Big money. Money that only corporations can amass, not individual shareholders or citizens. Voting is NOTHING in comparison to the legalized bribery of lobbying in our system.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    18. Re:Yeah! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Those in power wish to remain in power, in democracy it means they must campaign to become re-elected.

      Either that, or they're just puppets and the corporations that own the puppets simply pay campaign contributions to all possible sides to make sure that anybody elected will do their bidding no matter what.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  6. Scam by 6350' · · Score: 1

    There were actually two scams of note: both the buy-in scam from some time ago, and the more recent uber-attack in which an entire corporation was taken over, its assets gutted, and it's leader killed in game -- all by a year-long setup from an assasins guild in the game. Absolutely incredible to see this kind of thing possible in a game.

    1. Re:Scam by secolactico · · Score: 1

      There were actually two scams of note: both the buy-in scam from some time ago, and the more recent uber-attack in which an entire corporation was taken over, its assets gutted, and it's leader killed in game -- all by a year-long setup from an assasins guild in the game. Absolutely incredible to see this kind of thing possible in a game.

      I'm sort of familiar with the buy in scam (read about it a while ago). I haven't found info on that corporate takeover thing you mention. Can you provide links? Eve is offering 14 days trial. I'm gonna download that sucker and give it a whirl.

      --
      No sig
    2. Re:Scam by Swanktastic · · Score: 3, Informative

      I happened to read this article while glancing at the magazine rack in a bookstore, and found it a compelling read. If anything, all this publicity about scams/events in EVE would seem to attract players interested in the commercial aspects of MMORPGs, along with your occasional bad apple.

      Someone put scans up, and the site seems to have exceeded bandwidth. Hopefully this Google cache works for you:

      http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:ng1TNWjULLsJ: www.mmodig.com/%3Fp%3D155&hl=en

      Enjoy!

    3. Re:Scam by hardburn · · Score: 1

      Corp takeover. Grabbed an incredible ammount of items. If it had happened to me, I probably would have quit the game instead of trying to start over from scratch.

      --
      Not a typewriter
  7. That's right by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, the article is basically saying that it's a new thing for people in MMOGs to have the level of trust where they'd invest (collectively) thousands of dollars in a cooperative venture (EVE). Especially since that the same time, Linden Labs established a currency trading service, despite a private service being available, because people can't trust other people.

    The difference here is that the entire foundation of success in EVE is trust and cooperation. In order to have the kind of cash necessary to buy shares, you have to have trusted people previously.

    I can't see this working in most other MMOGs, since 'griefing' and scamming are well established in the cultures of WoW and others. Though frowned upon, thiose are games where trust of others is not necessary (as TFA points out, but does not stress).

    Trust is the reason that guilds are successful in MMOGs, as has been discussed many times on /. It's the same principle, just not as fiscally structured as the 'neutral outpost' in EVE.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    1. Re:That's right by Stephenmg · · Score: 1

      Since I play Eve...

      A little background on why people would trust ISS.

      ISS is very large alliance. If they break the trust of other people, it will hurt them in the long run.

      Yes, scamming is part of the game, that is why trust is hard to come by. Its often earned through very hard work.

  8. Not quite by chriso11 · · Score: 1

    Just because corporations cannot vote does not mean they do not influence the political process. Political power is in the hands of elected representatives. When was the last time that a political representative asked all (or even a modest percentage) of his constituants on a particular issue? If you think the DMCA was proposed and pushed by the grassroots, you are sorely mistaken. How about the criminalization of copyright violations? Or the copyright extensions? I just chose this area because it is easiest to highlight the discrepency between citizen interests and corporate interests. There are many other areas of interest, such as taxation.

    Just in case you are among those who don't know what a corporation is (shamelessly ripped from nasd.com)...

    Corporation: A legal entity, allowed by legislation, which permits a group of people, as shareholders (for-profit companies) or members (non-profit companies), to create an organization, which can then focus on pursuing set objectives, and empowered with legal rights which are usually only reserved for individuals, such as to sue and be sued, own property, hire employees or loan and borrow money. Also known as a "company." The primary advantage of for-profit corporations is that it provides its shareholders with a right to participate in the profits (by dividends) without any personal liability because the company absorbs the entire liability of the organization.

    --
    No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
    1. Re:Not quite by MBraynard · · Score: 1
      When was the last time that a political representative asked all (or even a modest percentage) of his constituants on a particular issue?

      Yeah, just as dumb as I thought you were.

      They do this every two/four/six years depending on what office they are in. They ask all of their constituents 'Do you like the job I am doing?'

      And anyone is welcome to tell their representative what they think. When was the last time you wrote your representative knew what you think? I doubt you can even name all three of them, much less those for your state gov. I don't even think you are registered to vote.

      You are so out of touch that letting you vote would be dangerous. You had to go look up what a corporation was? Yet you wrote a lot of crap about how you are the expert on them and whatever? You're like the guy from the Southpark episode - 'college educated hippy.' The WORSE kind.

    2. Re:Not quite by ThreeE · · Score: 0

      I'm not going to touch your comment on the political process -- another poster has defined "election" for you.

      Citizen and corporate interests are never going to be perfectly aligned -- hell, citizen interests are never aligned with other citizen interests. So what is your point there? Government representatives strike the balance and if they don't do so to your liking, you should practice what the Iraqis are doing now -- vote. Anything else is just whining. Something my 5 year-old niece does well too.

      I would be particulary interested though if you might expand on your taxation point. Do you think corporations are under taxed? In the US, corporate taxes (state + federal) are about 40%! 40%! These taxes are simply passed on to customers anyway so what the point in raising them (or having them at all). While we are on the subject, in my opinion the ideal tax is purely consumption-based (sales) tax with a fixed refund paid to every filing citizen of, say, $5000. Simple, effective, elective, and not regressive. Never happen, but hey....

    3. Re:Not quite by chriso11 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Microsoft enjoyed more than $12 billion in total tax breaks over the past five years. In fact, Microsoft actually paid no tax at all in 1999, despite $12.3 billion in reported U.S. profits. Microsoft's tax rate for the past two years was only 1.8 percent on $21.9 billion in pretax U.S. profits.

      General Electric, America's most profitable corporation, reported $50.8 billion in U.S. profits over the past five years, but paid only 11.5 percent of that in federal income taxes. That low tax rate reflected almost $12 billion in corporate tax welfare for GE.

      IBM reported $5.7 billion in U.S. profits in 2000, but paid only 3.4 percent of that in federal income taxes. In 1997, IBM reported $3.1 billion in U.S. profits, and instead of paying taxes, got an outright tax rebate. Over the past five years, IBM enjoyed a total of $4.7 billion in corporate tax welfare.

      In the US, corporate taxes (state + federal) are about 40%! 40%!
      Maybe you meant 4%, not 40%?

      even more...
      If big corporations actually paid 35 percent of their U.S. profits in federal income taxes, as the tax code ostensibly requires, corporate income taxes this year would total at least $308 billion. But actual corporate-tax payments this year are expected to be only $136 billion. In other words, this year (and next), for the first time since the early 1980S, corporate-tax loopholes will actually cost the U.S. Treasury more than the amount companies pay in income taxes.

      Check out for more examples.

      How about this?

      The more you learn!

      --
      No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
    4. Re:Not quite by ThreeE · · Score: 0

      You're high.

      From Microsoft's 2005 10-K (that's their annual report to the SEC):

      Our effective tax rate for the full fiscal year 2005 was 26% compared with 33% for fiscal year 2004.

      Furthermore MS isn't typical because they are expensing intangibles (goodwill) from acquisitions which lowers the taxable income.

      You are also high on your "even more" comment -- quoting only federal tax stats. Nice to simply drop the substantial state taxes.

      KPMG found that the United States has the fourth highest corporate income tax rate in the 30-nation Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The combined U.S. federal and average state rate of 40 percent is almost 9 percentage points higher than the average OECD top corporate rate of 31.4 percent.

      Finally, profit != taxable income. There is a big difference.

      The more you learn!

    5. Re:Not quite by chriso11 · · Score: 1

      Profit does not equal taxable income because of accounting games such as Round Island One Ltd., which I mentioned earlier.

      In case you are link-adverse - "Round Island One provides a structure for Microsoft to radically reduce its corporate taxes in much of Europe, and similarly shields billions of dollars from U.S. taxation."

      Do you think that is fair? If so, then I guess you have Leona Helmsley's take on taxes then - Only the little people pay taxes.

      --
      No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
    6. Re:Not quite by ThreeE · · Score: 0

      All perfectly legal. Sounds like you don't like the way goodwill is amortized and expensed. Talk to the SEC and the Accounting Boards about your gripe -- not MS. MS still pays almost 30% US fed and state taxes in 2005. Again, tax avoidance != tax fraud. Yours biggest gripe seems to be the way MS pays European taxes -- which I cannot comment on -- nor do I care much about.

      Disclaimer: I do believe corporations pay too much taxes. Anything that can be done legally to reduce the amount of taxes paid by corporations is good for economic growth. Hell, that's true for individual taxes too.

    7. Re:Not quite by Swanktastic · · Score: 1

      And anyone is welcome to tell their representative what they think. When was the last time you wrote your representative knew what you think? I doubt you can even name all three of them, much less those for your state gov.

      I think the saddest day in my life as a participant in the democratic process was a discussion I had with a friend who was in a US Sentor's staff.

      They have a whole group of people whose job is to acknowledge that a comment was received from a contituent. "Thank you for your input" type of thing. So, they have the letter-- now what? It goes in the trash. Where do Senator's actually get their information from? Lobbyists and personal friends. A personal interaction is so much more influential to a decision-maker than a statistic. Humans are fallible- we simply don't respond to one stat that so and so people wrote you about an issue the way we do when our close personal friend who happened to be our roomate in college tells us "this decision is going to hurt me personally." Most Senators/Representatives view their election as a mandate to carry out their predispotions as they wish- after all the educated electorate knew all about their opinions when they were elected, right?

      I (US Citizen) live in a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. The point is- Corporations tend to have easier ways for and individual shareholder to get an issue on a proxy ballot than you or I have of actually affecting the way the US government is run.

    8. Re:Not quite by MBraynard · · Score: 1
      Most Senators/Representatives view their election as a mandate to carry out their predispotions as they wish- after all the educated electorate knew all about their opinions when they were elected, right?

      Sounds fine to me. And it sounds like you don't have a very good Senator. I was in a seminar with a guy who did a study on how Congress handles constituent contact and they normally keep tallies on issues and they can be influential. They also almost always give a reply. But one letter is just one letter - if you want influence, you need to organize your precinct and run for precinct president, be a delegate to your county and state convention, and really learn how to fight for your issues.

      I (US Citizen) live in a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. The point is- Corporations tend to have easier ways for and individual shareholder to get an issue on a proxy ballot than you or I have of actually affecting the way the US government is run.

      Not really. Even before I was old enough to vote I organized a group of fellow students, also not old enough to vote, and petitioned our city council to pass an ordinance banning public display of obscenity on clothing. Also, before I could vote, I circulated pamplets on defeating the Clinton healthcare plan throughout my town and got hundreds of letters (which actually do count) into federal representatives urging them to oppose the plan. That battle was won, too.

      In college I did a study of comments submitted to a regulatory agency (they all have public comment periods) and saw exactly how they did influence rule making.

      Ultimately, if a public policy issue IS important enough to you, you will be heard and can have an effect. But that takes effort, and most who whine about it on message boards rarely have any interest in putting in that effort. You know, Bush is Hitler, no war for oil, but Lost is on tonight....

    9. Re:Not quite by chriso11 · · Score: 1

      Well, ok, we are closing on on the fundamental disagreements.

      My assertion is that the loopholes exist at least in part due to corporate influence on the legislative process. While the entire process may be completely legal:
      1) influence legislature to pass favorable laws
      2) reap benefits of new law
      3) repeat

      It does not mean it is 'right', nor fair, nor is what the majority of people want. But you really don't care about that. And economic growth is not the be-all and end-all of our civilization. At the very least, such matters as military defense, scientific exploration, and legal rights all matter. I at least expect you were upset about Supreme Court decision on Eminient Domain in New London, CT? That decision furthers economic growth.

      I disagree with your assertion on taxation of corporations. In the past, corporate taxes were a much larger percentage of the Federal Budget, yet corporate growth was still solid. I also think that a fair level of taxes (which I pay a solid amount of, BTW) is fine. Does that mean I wish to pay more taxes than I do now? No - I want people to pay their fair share. When I see MS performing such tricks, I think it is BS, since such stunts are not available to everyone, only the large corporations.

      But, I expect we are at an impass - I doubt that you will be swayed by any further arguements from me, and I'm sure that you are in the complementary position. But now we both know what the axioms are of this discussion.

      --
      No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
    10. Re:Not quite by ThreeE · · Score: 0

      I think your last paragraph is spot on.

      As you suspect, we have some fundamental disagreements:

      1) I don't think it is wrong, unfair, or even bad that corporations attempt to influence legislation. Often, corporations are closest to an issue to provide legislators real information. Any information provider to a legislator will have a bias. In fact, knowledge and bias go hand-in-hand. It also seems unrealistic to say that only unemployed individuals can lobby. It is ultimately up to the elected representative to know when they are receiving good or bad information.

      2) There is nothing wrong with corporations benefiting from new laws. What is wrong, and I think we can agree on, is when this benefit causes wider costs to uninvolved parties. This is complicated though -- there are very few uninvolved parties. When a car manufacturer benefits from a less restrictive pollution law, people benefit from, say, less expensive cars. But they also see an increase in respiratory illness -- for example.

      3) Shareholder value is all that I want corporations to think about (except being legal). Corporations will do more good by pursuing shareholder value and more evil by pursuing something else, say, full employment. Some things are not managed well by corporations -- these include national defence for example. These things should be agressively trimmed to a minimum list and handed over to a government buearucracy.

    11. Re:Not quite by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Not really. Even before I was old enough to vote I organized a group of fellow students, also not old enough to vote, and petitioned our city council to pass an ordinance banning public display of obscenity on clothing. Also, before I could vote, I circulated pamplets on defeating the Clinton healthcare plan throughout my town and got hundreds of letters (which actually do count) into federal representatives urging them to oppose the plan. That battle was won, too.

      Both of which probably required more money than the average citizen can lay his hands on. But what a selfish prick you are- destroying the health of millions so that your socio-economic class can be taxed less.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    12. Re:Not quite by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      1) I don't think it is wrong, unfair, or even bad that corporations attempt to influence legislation. Often, corporations are closest to an issue to provide legislators real information. Any information provider to a legislator will have a bias. In fact, knowledge and bias go hand-in-hand. It also seems unrealistic to say that only unemployed individuals can lobby. It is ultimately up to the elected representative to know when they are receiving good or bad information.

      In a democracy, any bias towards money-as-power and against the common citizenry is *bad information*. I don't want only unemployed individuals lobbying either- but I do want every lobbyist to only be lobbying for *themselves* with *their own money*. One great way to do this would be to limit all political campaign contributions to $1.

      2) There is nothing wrong with corporations benefiting from new laws. What is wrong, and I think we can agree on, is when this benefit causes wider costs to uninvolved parties. This is complicated though -- there are very few uninvolved parties. When a car manufacturer benefits from a less restrictive pollution law, people benefit from, say, less expensive cars. But they also see an increase in respiratory illness -- for example.

      Corporations should neither need nor benefit from new laws unless the law was passed for a purpose unrelated to the corporation. Corporations should also be limited to the business listed in their charters.

      3) Shareholder value is all that I want corporations to think about (except being legal). Corporations will do more good by pursuing shareholder value and more evil by pursuing something else, say, full employment. Some things are not managed well by corporations -- these include national defence for example. These things should be agressively trimmed to a minimum list and handed over to a government buearucracy.

      Concentration on shareholder value vs the public good will always result in evil to the citizenry. As far as I'm concerned, public corporations should be banned from selling stock for exactly that reason.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    13. Re:Not quite by MBraynard · · Score: 1
      Both of which probably required more money than the average citizen can lay his hands on. But what a selfish prick you are- destroying the health of millions so that your socio-economic class can be taxed less.

      Actually, the first one didn't cost me anything and the second thing cost me $70 for 1500 fliers.

      Technically, we weren't lobbying against 'a plan' but we were lobbying against provisions in the plan that would kill unborn children and euthanize (a pretty European word for kill) elderly people at taxpayer expense.

      Further, my family was so poor at the time that I think the socio-economic class I was in at the time was paying almost no taxes - and the Church's who distributed them (including several all-black congregations) were in the same boat as us - but we didn't think those in higher socio-economic classes should have their earned wealth looted from them, especially to pay to kill off other people.

      So was Cartman right? Are you a 'college educated hippie?' - the worse kind? Don't you have a drum circle to attend? You really know nothing, and you don't know that you know nothing about nothing, which would make you dangerous, but you don't do anything but rant on /., which makes you impotent (thankfully).

    14. Re:Not quite by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the first one didn't cost me anything and the second thing cost me $70 for 1500 fliers.

      For the people that universal health care would have helped, $70 is a week's groceries- or a week's heating bill. When you're too poor to invest, you're too poor to lobby.

      Technically, we weren't lobbying against 'a plan' but we were lobbying against provisions in the plan that would kill unborn children and euthanize (a pretty European word for kill) elderly people at taxpayer expense.

      Yep, I'm sure that's what you thought. Isn't it interesting how we are able to rationalize our inhumanity to our fellow man as saving other fellow men?

      Further, my family was so poor at the time that I think the socio-economic class I was in at the time was paying almost no taxes - and the Church's who distributed them (including several all-black congregations) were in the same boat as us - but we didn't think those in higher socio-economic classes should have their earned wealth looted from them, especially to pay to kill off other people.

      If you were able to spend $70 on fliers, then yes, your family was earning enough to pay taxes.

      So was Cartman right? Are you a 'college educated hippie?' - the worse kind? Don't you have a drum circle to attend? You really know nothing, and you don't know that you know nothing about nothing, which would make you dangerous, but you don't do anything but rant on /., which makes you impotent (thankfully).

      You know nothing about me- I work for a living.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    15. Re:Not quite by MBraynard · · Score: 1
      For the people that universal health care would have helped, $70 is a week's groceries- or a week's heating bill. When you're too poor to invest, you're too poor to lobby.

      I scraped the money up I got from mowing lawns. I was 14 at the time and it was important and educational to me.

      You really can't lecture me or anyone else about humanity. Socialist medicine is ruinous to a nation's healthcare system and it's medical research and the economy. Everyone in Europe is realizing this and also in Australia where they are pushing for more private inscentives. But I'm not going to get in the dumpster with you and debate Marxist medicine with you. You already lost that debate and I won - way back in 1993. And you got a Republican House and Senate, now in it's tenth year, all for your troubles.

      Besides, if you dislike it so much, why don't you move somewhere else ... PLEASE. And no, you don't work for a living. I'm not falling for that.

    16. Re:Not quite by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Socialist medicine is ruinous to a nation's healthcare system and it's medical research and the economy.

      See my latest Journal Entry- by any real measure Europe has longer lifespans and a more robust economy than the United States. If anything our private healthcare system is a millstone that is dragging American corporations down and making us uncompetitive with the rest of the world.

      You already lost that debate and I won - way back in 1993.

      Too bad by 2001 your "win" was already turning into a major loss- and today, in 2006, more than 62 million Americans have no health care system at all.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    17. Re:Not quite by MBraynard · · Score: 1
      Maybe you should compare Europeans to white Americans alone.

      62 mill is another lie. If you are poor, you have medicaid, particularly children. And really, if you are an adult without healthcare, either you don't want it or you need to get a job that offers it and stop whining.

      AAHH. I made a mistake. Your name - I should have known nothing you would say would be anything other than lies. Not replying anymore. Your typical tactic is to just bury people under your excrement of deceptions.

    18. Re:Not quite by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should compare Europeans to white Americans alone.

      Well, in that case, the Europeans really win out hands down- their lifespans are a good 10 years above your average white American.

      62 mill is another lie. If you are poor, you have medicaid, particularly children.

      Not at all true- especially after the last round of cuts to medicaid. There are plenty of people who monthly have to choose between insurance premiums and mortgage payments.

      And really, if you are an adult without healthcare, either you don't want it or you need to get a job that offers it and stop whining.

      Spoken like somebody who hasn't had their company go bankrupt out from under them in the last 5 years. Few private corporations today are stupid enough to damage profits by offering health insurance; there's a labor surplus in the United States and it's cheaper to make your employees pay their own premiums.

      AAHH. I made a mistake. Your name - I should have known nothing you would say would be anything other than lies. Not replying anymore. Your typical tactic is to just bury people under your excrement of deceptions.

      Funny how we what we see in text-based communications is just a mirror of our own perceptions.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.