Cervical cancer actually IS caused by BOTH those. Because Cervical cancer is preventable with a vaccine. Now do you think access to preventative care may increase somebody's ability to get a vaccine ? Those two sentences are practically the same thing.
More-over, the lethality of ALL cancers is directly linked to preventative care. The quicker a cancer is detected, the higher your odds of survival - preventative care is the number one way to detect the damn tumour BEFORE It metastasises - i.e. while you can still just cut the fucking thing out.
Are you seriously telling me that you think the wealthiest-most-wall-street cabinet of all time, and the guy who appointed it, is going to do anything to fix that problem ? Dude, no, you're about to see the looting taken to a whole new level. Welcome to the Banana Republic of America.
>it has to do with the overwhelming majority of people not wanting it.
But that is not, and never has been, the case. A vocal minority didn't want it. Hell there are more people newly-insured now thanks to the ACA than there were people who opposed it. If you were right - the republicans would not be waffling about struggling to figure out HOW to repeal the thing. They are waffling because the political fallout of the repeal is going to be huge and if they can't figure out a way to blame democrats for that fallout they are going to lose a shitload of seats - quite possibly their majorities. Much as it pains me to say it, they should just go ahead and do it anyway, because Trump is working as hard as he can to get them all shitcanned in the midterms anyway - so they may as well take the fallout - their gonna be out on their asses in 2018 regardless.
>Democratic ain't perfect, but they will usually compromise to get the job done. I almost wish they would not.
You're about to get your wish. After 8 years of seeing one of the best democrat presidents of all time being obstructed senselessly at every turn, decried as a radical no matter how centrist and bipartisan and moderate he acted... the democrats are done playing nice, they sure as hell aren't going to play nice with the worst republican president of all time. There isn't a democrat anywhere on the hill who hasn't got the message: compromise will lose you, your seat.
In 2010 the Tea Party gained massive influence over politics, despite never being more than about 10% of the people - and never holding more than 10% of the seats on the hill they controlled the entire thing, right down to the power to twice shut down the entire government ! Because the elections that put those 41 people into government sent a clear message to every other republican that if they compromise in any way - they are doomed to lose their seats too.
Now imagine what happens when the 66%-odd of Americans who hold progressive values take the same stance. 3 Million women marched in America this weekend (and another 2 million around the world) - and not just in the big cities. There were small towns where 50% of the population was marching. You think they'll accept compromise with the guy who declared his inauguration-day a "day of patriotic devotion" like the worst kind of banana-republic? With the guy who, on his second day in office, signed a death warrant for millions of women around the world (the global gag order) and is promising to do the same to them (defunding planned parenthood) ?
Between 1968 and 1988 California consistently voted for the republican presidential candidate. They were the second reddest state in the Union after Texas. In 1992 the republican government went too far. They came up with prop-187, a proposition that essentially denied all public services to anybody who was an illegal immigrant. Just like now, the debate was ostensibly about law-and-order, budgets and the like... but it would quickly degenerate into "too many brown people" every time. And just like now - it was filled with flagrant lies: immigration was, in fact, down at the time, the economic difficulties of California at that time had nothing to do with immigration - they were caused by the end of the cold war and the resulting loss of lots of defence jobs in the state, the school overcrowding had nothing to do with immigration (in fact enrollment was lower than in the 1980s), that was caused by the republican government's massive tax and budget cuts having led to lots of schools being closed. The centrist wing of the democratic party at the time tried a campaign that still treated immigrants as lesser - they just didn't think prop-187 was a good solution to the problem (they argued that without healthcare immigrant waiters would make people sick, without schooling their kids would become criminal delingquents etc.) but the liberal wing of the party took a different tack. They embraced diversity - and started building a broad coalition with multiple race groups. African Americans, Asian Americans and Latino-Americans were pulled in - and they did serious work to undermine the effects, including organising free citizens-ship classes and helping latino-Americans to become citizens, then register to vote - more than 10-thousand immigrants became citizens with their help in the first year. By the time of the next election - democrats (And specifically the liberal wing of the party) won the state in a landslide, they've controlled the state houses ever since and the only time they haven't held the governorship was that time with Arnie, and even he had to see all his budgets rejected until he rewrote them into something the liberals could, if not like, at least tolerate. The interesting thing is that, as the democrats ruled California the state went from the worst economic state in it's history post-cold-war to one of the
Yes... some of us are hoping for that, but not for the reason you think. Saying "I told you so" is not the reason - it's because that's the BEST outcome we see. The second-best is another civil war, and the worst-case scenario is world war 3.
So wait... let me get this straight... you believe in the multiplier effect when Trump does something, didn't you just spend 8 years telling us we can't raise the minimum wage to something sane because the multiplier effect doesn't exist ?!??!?!
Nevermind that Foxxconn first announced this plan back in 2013 - under Obama's watch right ? This new "update" announcement is just a way to score brownie points with the new administration over something they've been busy working on for years.
Oh, and make no mistake, the "alternative facts" thing is not a joke... it's how dictators become dictators: by declaring that truth is whatever they say it is.
They get stopped only if the population is willing to loudly and persistently declare: "There are four lights!"
And that gets hard when lots of the people doing so start going missing...
What a world we now live in... when did conservatives start loving Russia and Nazis ? Seriously ? We can't punch Nazis now ? And they accuse liberals of being too politically correct...
The fact that the state support funding has dried up around the country at the exact same rate that tuition has gone up is complete coincidence of course... right ?
>I'm not sure, it didn't seem like Sanders was the base of the Democratic Party, and he didn't run it for the last year
I saw what seemed to show the exact opposite. If Sanders had a flaw, it was his inability to connect with black voters - even though his policies are right inline with what they've supported ever since MLK. It's not Sanders, the person, that's interesting - but what he told us about the size of the liberal wing of the democratic party. They are probably the biggest single group in the country now - and, at the very least, too big to ignore. Where do you think 3 million marchers this weekend came from to do the largest protest in US history ? Sanders will never be president - I think he'll be too old to run in 2020 - but what he did achieve is to pave the way for somebody like Elizabeth Warren. In 72 hours since the inauguration Trump has declared war on truth itself, killed 40-thousand working families' hopes of ever owning a home, signed a death warrant for millions of women around the world, defunded the violence against women act (which is going to kill a lot of women in America) and congress has passed the REINS act - which will make it impossible for any US federal agency to regulate anything - it's the end of labour law, the end of clean air, the end of actually punishing banks that commit fraud like Merryl-Lynch just did (though I'm hoping the senate will refuse to pass it - they had previously done so, but this not ordinary times anymore).
In just 72 hours - America has been set back over 40 years. Trump is well on track for his plan to set it back 300 years, at this rate he will achieve it by next week.
If you think that is not going to unleash the biggest backlash in history you're in for a shock. Unless he actually goes full dictator and turns elections into complete shams - the next midterm is going to see the republicans get a trouncing that will make what happened to the democrats in 2010 look mild, and Trump has already ensure he will not have a second term if I'm any judge.
Wow... funny how you seem to live in a world where there is no Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France or Netherlands... you know, the kind of countries Bernie Sanders thinks it would be a good idea for the USA to emulate.
Nice strawman you got there, would be a shame it something happened to it.
And frankly even those bad examples you cited are better than Mogadishu - at least they have some law and order, sewage systems, roads... where the government has completely failed - none of those are available and the country is basically a bunch of competing warlords whose competition mostly consists of killing everybody else.
>To those that say it's the Republicans' fault that we have this law, please note that the DMCA was signed by a Democratic president and passed in the Senate unanimously - all 45 Democratic senators wanted this.
Yeah, but those were the years when the DINOs ran the democrat party with their center-right "suck up to the liberals a little in the primaries then ignore them for 8 years" style of governance...
Those years are well and truly over, Bernie Sanders and Trump both pretty much shattered that consensus.
>All the bad shit we have right now is the result of bi-partisan cooperation among politicians.
Really ? I could have sworn we just had 8 years where not a single bipartisan moment happened, and things which USED to be matters of bipartisan consensus were actively opposed purely because of who was president.
Are you seriously saying that ALL the problems in the USA predate the Obama administration ? Hell even most liberals won't give him that much of a free pass - we tend to think there were a few things we wished he'd done differently.
Bipartisanship is NOT a bad thing, it's not a good thing either. Fundamentalism of any kind - tends to be evil - and that is more commonly associated with obstruction than bipartisanship. It's not an unqualified good, but it is definitely not a bad thing either - whether any particular idea is good or bad, in fact, is entirely divorced from whether it's supported by one party or two. The idea should be judged on it's own merit.
So these publicani came into being for one specific government-issued contract, and was disbanded immediately after it's completion... yes that's *just* like a corporation... oh wait, no, it's NOTHING like a corporation.
Pretty much the same thing we would say if tomorrow Stephen Hawking published a paper proving incontrovertibly that earth is carried through space on the back of a giant unicorn.
Unicorns are pretty awesome ! So would not bombing anybody for four years be.
You're right that fact alone does not make him illegitimate. That fact combined with massive voter disenfranchisement, gerrymandering and a million other dirty republican tricks however, does make him illegitimate. There has never been a more fraudulent election in the USA than this one.
Now all that cheating didn't work by itself. He sure had help from the Democrats running a hugely unpopular candidate. The two of them were both the most unpopular candidates in US history, and her campaign approach had a number of serious errors. I have no doubt she was the lesser of the two evils - what with being sane and all that. She was provably the more honest of the two candidates (damn Trump managed to be most dishonest candidate in history - which is quite an achievement for "not a politician" and seriously how do you get away with taking four different contradictory positions on every policy question - sometimes in the same day ?!?!?!). But frankly she was the only politician he could win against - and it was an extremely narrow victory. Even in the states which made the difference he won by hairline margins.
Ultimately - I came out of this election with the solid realization that the biggest mistake the democratic party ever made was thinking you could send yet another fuck-you to the liberals and go run some center-right neo-liberal candidate when the voters had wanted a democratic socialist. Bernie would have wiped the fucking floor with Trump. Not least is the evidence that a helluva lot of Trump voters were Bernie supporters early on.
Now personally, I think anybody who went from Bernie to Trump is seriously deranged because his proposals are the exact opposite of Bernie's on everything that mattered (the only overlap was on opposing bad trade deals but their ideas on what should exist instead have NOTHING in common) - but had he been an option, those people would not have voted for Trump. If your issue is with bad trade deals and the economic worries of middle America and two politicians are talking about that - you vote for the classy one, not the pussygrabber.
> the exact problem the electoral college was created to prevent. Not it's not ! READ what the founding fathers gave as their reason for it. The EC was created to override the vote of the people in the event the people elected an unfit demagogue to the presidency.
The E.C. has in fact spectacularly failed at what it was created to prevent. What it was created to prevent was Donald J. Trump!
>See, they've legalized this whole get-out-of-jail-free system called bankruptcy...
Yeah... until ordinary people started using it, now there's a huge push (10 bucks says you can instantly guess which party's politicians are driving it) to make it much harder for individuals to go bankrupt - all filled with little exceptions so big corporations can still do it easily.
You know, because paying your future earnings for the rest of your life on a fraudulent debt you can never pay off and basically being forced into indentured servitude stopped being considered a violation of the constitution when FDR died.
So THESE people who DID read something before they signed it, do not get to demand the government give them restitution when the other party flat out failed to live up to their responsibilities as per what was written ?
Fraud is not a crime the government is SUPPOSED to punish ?
Damn you free market fundamentalists are such fucking idiots.
No. The problem here is not the "nanny state" - if anthing it's the government not doing their job well enough. It's the fact that the punishment for fraud is usually smaller than the profits you can make from it. When EVERY fraudster gets to neighbours with Bernie Madoff this shit will end. Your plan would make it worse, because it doesn't matter what the contract says if the other party will not face any negative consequences for flat-out ignoring it.
You're rather misrepresenting history - seeing as corporations weren't invented yet when Justinian was alive, in fact they were only invented about a thousand years later. The Dutch East India Corporation was the first such entity to exist. It had a private army and navy - both among the largest in the world at the time. It came to own about 25% of the land-surface of the earth. People in those places were not "citizens", you know having rights and such, they were divided between "slaves" and "employees". The next two corporations were the British East India Corporation - a direct clone of it's Dutch forebear, though it was more successful and ended up owning well over a third of the world's land surface. The other was the French American Colonial Corporation - which billed itself as a replica of the Dutch forebear, but was nothing but a massive Ponzi scheme from day one. It was founded by a Murderer who had fled Scottland to avoid his execution. It paid old investors purely from money earned from new investors (since it's Louisianna colony never made any money), and when it ran out of those the chairman got himself appointed head of the French central bank and simply printed money to pay investors - rapidly devaluing the currency, destroying the French economy, impoverishing the nation and becoming the single most important cause of the subsequent French revolution.
So right from the start, corporations have been insidious human rights abusers and large-scale committers of fraud. There has yet to be one that isn't all of the above.
Slashdot Mirror
Cervical cancer actually IS caused by BOTH those. Because Cervical cancer is preventable with a vaccine. Now do you think access to preventative care may increase somebody's ability to get a vaccine ? Those two sentences are practically the same thing.
More-over, the lethality of ALL cancers is directly linked to preventative care. The quicker a cancer is detected, the higher your odds of survival - preventative care is the number one way to detect the damn tumour BEFORE It metastasises - i.e. while you can still just cut the fucking thing out.
Are you seriously telling me that you think the wealthiest-most-wall-street cabinet of all time, and the guy who appointed it, is going to do anything to fix that problem ?
Dude, no, you're about to see the looting taken to a whole new level. Welcome to the Banana Republic of America.
Aloota continua.
>it has to do with the overwhelming majority of people not wanting it.
But that is not, and never has been, the case. A vocal minority didn't want it. Hell there are more people newly-insured now thanks to the ACA than there were people who opposed it. If you were right - the republicans would not be waffling about struggling to figure out HOW to repeal the thing. They are waffling because the political fallout of the repeal is going to be huge and if they can't figure out a way to blame democrats for that fallout they are going to lose a shitload of seats - quite possibly their majorities.
Much as it pains me to say it, they should just go ahead and do it anyway, because Trump is working as hard as he can to get them all shitcanned in the midterms anyway - so they may as well take the fallout - their gonna be out on their asses in 2018 regardless.
>Democratic ain't perfect, but they will usually compromise to get the job done. I almost wish they would not.
You're about to get your wish. After 8 years of seeing one of the best democrat presidents of all time being obstructed senselessly at every turn, decried as a radical no matter how centrist and bipartisan and moderate he acted... the democrats are done playing nice, they sure as hell aren't going to play nice with the worst republican president of all time. There isn't a democrat anywhere on the hill who hasn't got the message: compromise will lose you, your seat.
In 2010 the Tea Party gained massive influence over politics, despite never being more than about 10% of the people - and never holding more than 10% of the seats on the hill they controlled the entire thing, right down to the power to twice shut down the entire government ! Because the elections that put those 41 people into government sent a clear message to every other republican that if they compromise in any way - they are doomed to lose their seats too.
Now imagine what happens when the 66%-odd of Americans who hold progressive values take the same stance. 3 Million women marched in America this weekend (and another 2 million around the world) - and not just in the big cities. There were small towns where 50% of the population was marching. You think they'll accept compromise with the guy who declared his inauguration-day a "day of patriotic devotion" like the worst kind of banana-republic? With the guy who, on his second day in office, signed a death warrant for millions of women around the world (the global gag order) and is promising to do the same to them (defunding planned parenthood) ?
Between 1968 and 1988 California consistently voted for the republican presidential candidate. They were the second reddest state in the Union after Texas. In 1992 the republican government went too far. They came up with prop-187, a proposition that essentially denied all public services to anybody who was an illegal immigrant. Just like now, the debate was ostensibly about law-and-order, budgets and the like... but it would quickly degenerate into "too many brown people" every time. And just like now - it was filled with flagrant lies: immigration was, in fact, down at the time, the economic difficulties of California at that time had nothing to do with immigration - they were caused by the end of the cold war and the resulting loss of lots of defence jobs in the state, the school overcrowding had nothing to do with immigration (in fact enrollment was lower than in the 1980s), that was caused by the republican government's massive tax and budget cuts having led to lots of schools being closed.
The centrist wing of the democratic party at the time tried a campaign that still treated immigrants as lesser - they just didn't think prop-187 was a good solution to the problem (they argued that without healthcare immigrant waiters would make people sick, without schooling their kids would become criminal delingquents etc.) but the liberal wing of the party took a different tack. They embraced diversity - and started building a broad coalition with multiple race groups. African Americans, Asian Americans and Latino-Americans were pulled in - and they did serious work to undermine the effects, including organising free citizens-ship classes and helping latino-Americans to become citizens, then register to vote - more than 10-thousand immigrants became citizens with their help in the first year.
By the time of the next election - democrats (And specifically the liberal wing of the party) won the state in a landslide, they've controlled the state houses ever since and the only time they haven't held the governorship was that time with Arnie, and even he had to see all his budgets rejected until he rewrote them into something the liberals could, if not like, at least tolerate. The interesting thing is that, as the democrats ruled California the state went from the worst economic state in it's history post-cold-war to one of the
Yes... some of us are hoping for that, but not for the reason you think. Saying "I told you so" is not the reason - it's because that's the BEST outcome we see. The second-best is another civil war, and the worst-case scenario is world war 3.
So wait... let me get this straight... you believe in the multiplier effect when Trump does something, didn't you just spend 8 years telling us we can't raise the minimum wage to something sane because the multiplier effect doesn't exist ?!??!?!
Nevermind that Foxxconn first announced this plan back in 2013 - under Obama's watch right ? This new "update" announcement is just a way to score brownie points with the new administration over something they've been busy working on for years.
Oh, and make no mistake, the "alternative facts" thing is not a joke... it's how dictators become dictators: by declaring that truth is whatever they say it is.
They get stopped only if the population is willing to loudly and persistently declare: "There are four lights!"
And that gets hard when lots of the people doing so start going missing...
What a world we now live in... when did conservatives start loving Russia and Nazis ? Seriously ? We can't punch Nazis now ? And they accuse liberals of being too politically correct...
It's worth pointing out that on day 3 Trump declared his inauguration day to be, henceforth, a national "day of patriotic devotion".
Think about that. Welcome to Banana Republic of America.
Somewhere in Pyongyang Kim is beheading half his generals for not thinking of that one !
The fact that the state support funding has dried up around the country at the exact same rate that tuition has gone up is complete coincidence of course... right ?
suicide nets like their Chinese factory does ?
And will they be Trump-branded ?
>I'm not sure, it didn't seem like Sanders was the base of the Democratic Party, and he didn't run it for the last year
I saw what seemed to show the exact opposite. If Sanders had a flaw, it was his inability to connect with black voters - even though his policies are right inline with what they've supported ever since MLK.
It's not Sanders, the person, that's interesting - but what he told us about the size of the liberal wing of the democratic party. They are probably the biggest single group in the country now - and, at the very least, too big to ignore. Where do you think 3 million marchers this weekend came from to do the largest protest in US history ?
Sanders will never be president - I think he'll be too old to run in 2020 - but what he did achieve is to pave the way for somebody like Elizabeth Warren. In 72 hours since the inauguration Trump has declared war on truth itself, killed 40-thousand working families' hopes of ever owning a home, signed a death warrant for millions of women around the world, defunded the violence against women act (which is going to kill a lot of women in America) and congress has passed the REINS act - which will make it impossible for any US federal agency to regulate anything - it's the end of labour law, the end of clean air, the end of actually punishing banks that commit fraud like Merryl-Lynch just did (though I'm hoping the senate will refuse to pass it - they had previously done so, but this not ordinary times anymore).
In just 72 hours - America has been set back over 40 years. Trump is well on track for his plan to set it back 300 years, at this rate he will achieve it by next week.
If you think that is not going to unleash the biggest backlash in history you're in for a shock. Unless he actually goes full dictator and turns elections into complete shams - the next midterm is going to see the republicans get a trouncing that will make what happened to the democrats in 2010 look mild, and Trump has already ensure he will not have a second term if I'm any judge.
Wow... funny how you seem to live in a world where there is no Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France or Netherlands... you know, the kind of countries Bernie Sanders thinks it would be a good idea for the USA to emulate.
Nice strawman you got there, would be a shame it something happened to it.
And frankly even those bad examples you cited are better than Mogadishu - at least they have some law and order, sewage systems, roads... where the government has completely failed - none of those are available and the country is basically a bunch of competing warlords whose competition mostly consists of killing everybody else.
Its not an assumption. Its a fact. If you want to live under a government ground to a halt then go to Mogadishu.
>To those that say it's the Republicans' fault that we have this law, please note that the DMCA was signed by a Democratic president and passed in the Senate unanimously - all 45 Democratic senators wanted this.
Yeah, but those were the years when the DINOs ran the democrat party with their center-right "suck up to the liberals a little in the primaries then ignore them for 8 years" style of governance...
Those years are well and truly over, Bernie Sanders and Trump both pretty much shattered that consensus.
>All the bad shit we have right now is the result of bi-partisan cooperation among politicians.
Really ? I could have sworn we just had 8 years where not a single bipartisan moment happened, and things which USED to be matters of bipartisan consensus were actively opposed purely because of who was president.
Are you seriously saying that ALL the problems in the USA predate the Obama administration ? Hell even most liberals won't give him that much of a free pass - we tend to think there were a few things we wished he'd done differently.
Bipartisanship is NOT a bad thing, it's not a good thing either. Fundamentalism of any kind - tends to be evil - and that is more commonly associated with obstruction than bipartisanship.
It's not an unqualified good, but it is definitely not a bad thing either - whether any particular idea is good or bad, in fact, is entirely divorced from whether it's supported by one party or two. The idea should be judged on it's own merit.
I'm pretty sure State governments don't have the authority to actually repeal a federal law.
So these publicani came into being for one specific government-issued contract, and was disbanded immediately after it's completion... yes that's *just* like a corporation... oh wait, no, it's NOTHING like a corporation.
Pretty much the same thing we would say if tomorrow Stephen Hawking published a paper proving incontrovertibly that earth is carried through space on the back of a giant unicorn.
Unicorns are pretty awesome !
So would not bombing anybody for four years be.
The odds of either however, are about the same.
You're right that fact alone does not make him illegitimate.
That fact combined with massive voter disenfranchisement, gerrymandering and a million other dirty republican tricks however, does make him illegitimate. There has never been a more fraudulent election in the USA than this one.
Now all that cheating didn't work by itself. He sure had help from the Democrats running a hugely unpopular candidate. The two of them were both the most unpopular candidates in US history, and her campaign approach had a number of serious errors.
I have no doubt she was the lesser of the two evils - what with being sane and all that. She was provably the more honest of the two candidates (damn Trump managed to be most dishonest candidate in history - which is quite an achievement for "not a politician" and seriously how do you get away with taking four different contradictory positions on every policy question - sometimes in the same day ?!?!?!). But frankly she was the only politician he could win against - and it was an extremely narrow victory. Even in the states which made the difference he won by hairline margins.
Ultimately - I came out of this election with the solid realization that the biggest mistake the democratic party ever made was thinking you could send yet another fuck-you to the liberals and go run some center-right neo-liberal candidate when the voters had wanted a democratic socialist. Bernie would have wiped the fucking floor with Trump. Not least is the evidence that a helluva lot of Trump voters were Bernie supporters early on.
Now personally, I think anybody who went from Bernie to Trump is seriously deranged because his proposals are the exact opposite of Bernie's on everything that mattered (the only overlap was on opposing bad trade deals but their ideas on what should exist instead have NOTHING in common) - but had he been an option, those people would not have voted for Trump.
If your issue is with bad trade deals and the economic worries of middle America and two politicians are talking about that - you vote for the classy one, not the pussygrabber.
> the exact problem the electoral college was created to prevent.
Not it's not ! READ what the founding fathers gave as their reason for it. The EC was created to override the vote of the people in the event the people elected an unfit demagogue to the presidency.
The E.C. has in fact spectacularly failed at what it was created to prevent. What it was created to prevent was Donald J. Trump!
>See, they've legalized this whole get-out-of-jail-free system called bankruptcy...
Yeah... until ordinary people started using it, now there's a huge push (10 bucks says you can instantly guess which party's politicians are driving it) to make it much harder for individuals to go bankrupt - all filled with little exceptions so big corporations can still do it easily.
You know, because paying your future earnings for the rest of your life on a fraudulent debt you can never pay off and basically being forced into indentured servitude stopped being considered a violation of the constitution when FDR died.
So THESE people who DID read something before they signed it, do not get to demand the government give them restitution when the other party flat out failed to live up to their responsibilities as per what was written ?
Fraud is not a crime the government is SUPPOSED to punish ?
Damn you free market fundamentalists are such fucking idiots.
No. The problem here is not the "nanny state" - if anthing it's the government not doing their job well enough. It's the fact that the punishment for fraud is usually smaller than the profits you can make from it.
When EVERY fraudster gets to neighbours with Bernie Madoff this shit will end. Your plan would make it worse, because it doesn't matter what the contract says if the other party will not face any negative consequences for flat-out ignoring it.
You're rather misrepresenting history - seeing as corporations weren't invented yet when Justinian was alive, in fact they were only invented about a thousand years later. The Dutch East India Corporation was the first such entity to exist. It had a private army and navy - both among the largest in the world at the time. It came to own about 25% of the land-surface of the earth. People in those places were not "citizens", you know having rights and such, they were divided between "slaves" and "employees".
The next two corporations were the British East India Corporation - a direct clone of it's Dutch forebear, though it was more successful and ended up owning well over a third of the world's land surface. The other was the French American Colonial Corporation - which billed itself as a replica of the Dutch forebear, but was nothing but a massive Ponzi scheme from day one. It was founded by a Murderer who had fled Scottland to avoid his execution. It paid old investors purely from money earned from new investors (since it's Louisianna colony never made any money), and when it ran out of those the chairman got himself appointed head of the French central bank and simply printed money to pay investors - rapidly devaluing the currency, destroying the French economy, impoverishing the nation and becoming the single most important cause of the subsequent French revolution.
So right from the start, corporations have been insidious human rights abusers and large-scale committers of fraud. There has yet to be one that isn't all of the above.
If your "brag" is demonstrably false - that is more commonly known as "fraud" - which is illegal when us mere mortals do it.