Indeed, personal reasons, more fun to post than sleep, that sort of thing.
"it would have been obvious to anyone with a clue about corporations... that my post was about small time owners being hurt by the elimination of the LLC."
I see this as the detail which would have been best included in the original post, instead of explicitly associating your Mom&Pop being impoverished by "WalMart" moving in next door.
True, it is more related to the subject, but the inclusion of WalMart moving in next door rather distracted from you stated goal.
"If you were to eliminate the LLC, you would make the owners liable for all debts of the company."
Not if the legislation were replaced by explicit contracts and insurance. One wonders how people got along before the LLC legislation. Or didn't you know that this is a relatively new invention?
Could it be that this is related to the "shares of stock" idea? Could it be that shareholders, rather than holding shares of ownership in a company, would own shares of the actual stock thereby insulating Mom and Pop from the debts incurred and so creating the "limited liability" that you favor?
No really, let me flesh this out. Rather than go into debt _at_all_, Mom and Pop use the money from sale of "shares of the stock offered for sale" to avoid being in debt at all. If the stock doesn't sell, let's say because WalMart moves in next door, or sells at a loss, the "share holders" lose some or all of their investment and Mom and Pop lose only what money they themselves put into that unsold stock.
Profits from sale of that stock are shared among the shareholders, so an investment pays off because it was a good investment. Mom and Pop are, of course, major share holders of that stock.
That makes a lot more sense than selling shares in the actual company, and then depending on government legislated limits on liability for insulation against creditors.
Now, tell me again about my "dogma" and "off the wall" ideas. Really. I'm interested in how you think I've been inconsistent.
Anon screams, "THIS IS NOT ABOUT GOING OUT OF BUSINESS."
Unfortunately, that is an obvious reasoning of the posting which brought up the subject you are complaining about:
"So mom & pop running their little grocery on the corner should be forced into poverty because Wal-mart moved in next door and took all their customers away?"
"[F]orced into poverty" by lawsuits, as opposed to "[F]orced into poverty" because of a lack of sales was not specified.
Scream all you want, the fact remains that Sarbanes-Oxley is a government regulation that has a compliance burden that some companies cannot pay. That means going out of business or going private. So it is indeed about "going out of business" and you can stop screaming.
The problem being that business isn't a small part of society. It is a major portion of how people interact.
Most of my interactions with other people, from a subscription to the YMCA to where I stop for cigarettes to the people I work with to the decision to mow my own lawn or hire a gardener, are business related.
The moment I step out of my door, which I bought, the actual number of people I deal with on a purely social level as opposed to the number of farmers, butchers, bakers, candlestick makers that I deal with on a business basis is very close to vanishingly small.
What reason do I have to be able to type to you this message but the ISP who doesn't know me on a social level at all, the Tier1 IP provider that doesn't know I exist at all, the Slashdot administrators trying to make a living by advertisements for which I am merely one few bytes of data in their database?
If it weren't for business, the price of tea in China would be irrelevant. But the fact is that by means of business, the price of tea in China is directly related to the price I see on the box of Oolong on my grocers shelf (who otherwise would have no interaction with me what so ever).
I think you need to look up the word "praxeology".
"I just saw your other post which admits ignorance about corporations, so I'm pretty sure which type of person I'm replying to."
And you're wrong. I suggest that your "anyone with any idea" is the assumption that needs to be addressed.
Your posting was not addressed only to learned economists and business majors. If you meant "forced into poverty by resulting lawsuits" instead of "forced into poverty by a lack of sales", it is my opinion that you should have said so explicitly.
Indeed I am a free-market advocate, because in every instance of abuse I notice the hand of government behind it. Even Microsoft has finally (after being sued for non-existant "monopoly" abuses) figured out how to play the game and are pushing DRM and "Trusted Computing" legislation to crush F/OSS and make them profitable by law.
While I agree with your edited comment, your original had a different meaning, which, please don't be surprised, I also agree with.
Commodities don't make money except in volume. Mom and Pops don't deal in volume, so they have to come up with a different format or they don't survive. That's normal, it's all just business. That's what insurance is for. I also oppose legislation that takes the place of insurance, which seems to be what you say you were originally trying to say.
"Hell, look what we do with Cuba, but oh wait, they don't have massive cheap slave labor and manufacturing to offer."
Exactly. If abusive big business had a desire to do their abusive big business in Cuba, they would twiddle their sock-puppets in Washington and the blockade against Cuba would be dropped in a week.
The abusive Big Media would figure out how to spin it as a humanitarian effort for the poor Cubans.
The fact is that China is rebuilding their infrastructure, after 60 years of demolishing it themselves, on the dollars made by producing cheap commodity products. The error of "America First" types is that is exactly what Germany did, exactly what Japan did, exactly what Taiwan did, exactly what Korea did, exactly what Vietnam and Thailand and India are doing.
If there is any goodness in the world, Africa will be next. I am very much looking for the day that "Made In Uganda" appears on a label in WalMart.
If you want to demolish the socialist system of China, you need to do what happened in the Soviet Union: have the people lose faith in their own government. The only reason any regime is able to remain in power is that people obey orders. If no one obeys, there is no longer any oppression.
Well, good sir, I think you need to go back and change your wording. The other person and I both received the same impression by your post, that the Mom and Pop were going out of business because WalMart moved in next door and undercut their prices.
I have gone back and read it and it seems you used very clear and unambiguous language to mean something other than what you say now you meant to say.
Thank you, indeed it has already been pointed out. And I'm glad to know that the limited liability was not what I thought it was, although now I'm going to have to find out exactly what it is that is "limited" in a "limited liability partnership" since I've seen lots of them recently. Maybe, "My partner did that, you cannot sue me"?
I'm also curious about the elimination of the limit to liability of investors. Regardless of endangering the business model called "stock exchange", what if investors had to actually be careful about what they were buying into? That doesn't sound like such a bad idea.
Also, I could see such a "stock exchange" idea coming out of shares in a literal "stock", investing in a product or venture rather than in the business itself. Then, if that product or venture failed it would have the same effect as the present limit of liability, because it wasn't actually shares of the "company". Hmmm, maybe that's why it's called shares of "stock" in the first place.
Thanks for showing where I was wrong. That means I'm learning something and I like learning. Let's just hope that the next person who wants to point out the error reads your posting.
Very well said. I'm sure the buggy-whip and wooden-wheel manufacturers put out of business by these new-fangled automobiles are not enjoying your posting much.
Or the Hand Loom manufacturers! Entire industries put out of business by the WalMarts of their day.
"You sound like a bitter socialist (and I'm a leftie myself) who's so anti-est that nothing it does can be appreciated."
No, I'm a bitter anarchist who watches as everything government touches turns to poop, which poop is then used by government to justify more intervention, which then turns to poop, which poop is then used...... etc etc etc.
If you try something and it doesn't work, stop trying it. Everybody recognizes the simple logic of not hitting ones self in the head a second time, but somehow government is immune to this logic.
Failed programs get more money, more staff, more power and more regulations to wield. A "successful" government program is the one that wastes the most money doing the greatest amount of damage! Farm subsidies that destroy the "family" farm are a perfect example, since those very subsidies were justified by saying they would save the "family" farms.
The politicians that deliver the greatest subsidies get reelected regardless of the destruction wrought. "Unintended Consequences" is a great book with a prophetic title.
Yes, I'm bitter and disgusted. If you're not, you don't have your eyes open.
Ok, thank you. With that in mind I think it still counts, because if the shareholders knew they were also liable for their share of the companies actions, there would be far more accountability simply because "shareholders" would demand it.
The supposed goal of Sarbox (great name) would be achieved by market forces.
I also expect that, since where there is hazard there is profit, insurance companies would come up with a way to create "shareholder insurance". Interesting thought that.
I recall delivering mainframe connectivity (coax!) to a new executive's PC. The PC was password protected, so I could not verify that the new graphing service was in fact working, since I was not provisioned with anything but a dumb terminal to test the link with and this was maybe the second such PC installed. In other words, the link was up but the gnarly new "service" that was all the rage with the executives could not be confirmed.
When the "enter password" prompt came up, I looked at the secretary and said in all honesty, "That's all I can do, please let me know if it's not working for him."
This "Power Secretary" became furious, punctuating her words with snapping fingers and pointing sharp manicured fingernails at my jugular, "MAKE! IT! WORK!" So I asked, "Do you have the password?" The fury of a Power Secretary who doesn't have everything already planned out cannot be understated.
When the exec entered his password, everything worked fine. That didn't matter at all.
Let's just say I wasn't working there two weeks later. The company somehow discovered that I had more pressing work to sit on my butt in another building doing nothing until it was time for the next round of layoffs. I wasn't surprised when our department was declared "overstaffed" and I was pink-slipped regardless of seniority and prior performance awards.
"In contrast, the CEO of Georgia Pacific explained that his company sold out to private Koch Industries in order to avoid mounting Sarbox costs."
and
"No doubt, a company that had poor controls may have improved them in order to comply with Sarbox. This does not mean that U.S. businesses in aggregate benefited from Sarbox. A law mandating a 45% increase in marketing spending might help some companies too, but it would cripple most others. Even companies with superior internal controls were forced by this perverse law to spend more money on internal controls."
Government regulation always increases costs, because the regulation has costs of compliance.
Crooks don't comply, because they're crooks.
Customers, that's us, end up with higher prices for the things we buy, and higher taxes to pay for all the new auditors.
Martha Stewart goes to jail while the real criminals get away with what they've always gotten away with.
Politicians get reelected for having "done something".
To quote from the movie Spartacus, "I'll take a little republican [style of government, not party] corruption, along with republican freedom!"
Want to really put the screws to "corporate executive" crime? Then eliminate the government granted limited liability that a "corporation" represents. Allow thereby the officers of a company to be directly liable for their decisions, their accounting practices, their performance.
It's easy to follow the Big Lies handed down by the sensationalist press that don't want you looking at their own corporations and unions. S-O doesn't solve anything. It merely adds another layer of bureaucracy to the effort of getting anything accomplished.
How is democratic control over corporations socialism?
Main Entry: socialism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Just because the politicians are elected doesn't make it any less "socialism". Either I retain the power to dispose of my property as I see fit, and face the consequences for my actions, or I do not truly own my property, my production, my labor, my life.
It's just not laissez-faire.
Exactly. The opposite of "laissez-faire" is "socialism".
I'm certainly not going to give up all my rights to a swindler in a suit because I think the government is bloated.
You've already given up all your rights to a swindler in a suit, the politicians themselves.
Abusive corporations have always depended upon government coercion for their positions to abuse. The myth that big government opposes big business is one of the most successful "Big Lies" in America, likely in the entire world.
If you're interested in how big business and big government work together to fleece you, I can suggest you wander through the articles on http://www.fff.org/ and http://www.mises.org/ , LewRockewll.com, or just for one example notice that Enron had based their entire business model on leveraging government "energy credits". Abusive big business *loves* big government, and abusive big government *loves* the campaign contributions of big business.
We really need to start regulating the means by which multi-national corporations do business...
Just another socialist. Socialists always hate how other socialists do things, then try to explain how socialism would work better if only it was this new set of socialists in charge.
The problem being socialism itself. Coercion always causes problems which are used to call for more coercion, ad infinitum. The above is a perfect example. Objecting to a problem caused by government intervention, the socialists calls for yet more government intervention.
Good sir, I just now read your reply in the "natural/unnatural monopoly" discussion back on March 9th. I just want to say I appreciate your input and do wish that I had seen it sooner, before that discussion was archived.
Unfortunately, there are no inter-user messages, I hope this doesn't interrupt the present discussion.
The monumentally stupid thing is that "corporate" doesn't have to do squat! It's like talking about "The Average Person", there is no such thing. Each organization can choose the sub-set of software that works best for them without compromising compatibility with anyone else. Is Linux like using "minority" labor, as long as you don't see Linux in the executive offices it's ok?
What arbitrary authority figure has thrown tablets down from On High declaring that there must be a "standard" desktop that everyone has to use? That's insane!
So darn it just go do it! Use anything at all that uses ODF, and you're sitting pretty with 100% compatibility with everyone else! How about plain text? That's head and shoulders above what tortured compatibility Microsoft EVER provided with their proprietary standards! That's what writing commodity software that uses open standards means! The entire confusion between KDE, GNOME and anything else that is being touted as "desktop" is pure FUD!
The differences between distributions is miniscule. Skype is a perfect example, they offer one static and one dynamic precompiled tar file for any Linux system that, as far as I can tell, "just works".
No wonder the US Government is getting support for building Berlin Walls across the land borders, these so-called "free" people are a bunch of frightened SHEEP!
Actually, I overstate it just a little bit. Real soup-to-nuts business in America (at least) has always been very conservative, meaning that they do not change easily. Look how close to failure IBM had to get before embracing Open Source, which has turned into a massive profit center. Those companies who knowingly adopted Linux "early" did so quietly, because of the competitive advantage it gave them in the server room.
Now it's out of the closet, and let's face it what Joe uses on his desktop isn't going to make squat worth of difference in Joe's productivity.
What is coming is the Vista upgrade and Office 12. Microsoft is finally talking about breaking backward compatibility, which has been the one saving grace of going with Microsoft "on the desktop" up to this point.
Now is the time for IBM, Novell, HP and the mom-and-pop integrator out there to push and push hard: Linux-based systems will give you all the compatibility you want, improve reliability and security, at a fraction of the cost for software and without having to upgrade your existing hardware at all, even for those companies still running Win98 and Win2K systems!
Even a needed service that cannot run on anything but Windows doesn't suffer, because Windows machines integrate flawlessly into Linux-based networks. This fact cannot be overstated!
Compare that to having to not only buy Vista and Office 12 software for every machine, but throw away or upgrade all that perfectly working hardware. I believe the bottom line becomes very compelling if examined as a package rather than one-off.
Linux migration, because of the fact that applications such as Firefox and OpenOffice.org run just fine on existing Windows machines, can be accomplished in stages or as needed without employees being unable to share files. This is an IMPORTANT factor, often overlooked. Migrating 300 employees in a weekend is daunting and very labor intensive. Migrating 20 a week isn't.
Lastly, there's "retraining". The super secret tool in the Microsoft toolbox is the myth that changing versions of Microsoft software doesn't involve any retraining. Balderdash! They know it, businesses know it, now it's time to make them realize that we know it too. Especially with the multi-generation jump from 98/2K to Vista and Office 12! Integrators must offer basic classes or basic materials on "Using KDE" or "Using OpenOffice.org" or "Using Koffice" or whatever is being offered as standardized packages to buyers.
Integrators must convince the buyers that the retraining myth works both ways. Not only does staying with Microsoft not avoid lost p
However, not a Supreme Court Justice (and certainly not writing that as part of a court opinion).
So I gather you didn't look up Kasler's or Levinsons's texts... One of the major frustrations of argument on something like Slashdot is the lack of any ability to ensure that we have a common understanding of the background involved.
It's obvious you're not by any measure stupid. That's a very good thing and I appreciate it more than you know, seriously, no sarcasm. But if I have to post each and ever text in order to discuss a point, these are going to be very long posts.
Do you recall "US verses Miller", 1939? The A-No.1 case cited for justifying gun control? Boiled down, it goes like this: Because no information was presented to show how a short-barrel shotgun could be used in battle; and because the Supreme Court doesn't do "fact finding", therefore it cannot be determined that a short-barrel shotgun can be privately owned by Americans as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. The case was tossed back to the lower court for the "fact finding", but no "fact finding" case was ever convened.
That's it. It only happened because the defense attorney didn't show up.
By the explicit logic of SOCTUS, anything and everything that could be used by someone during combat applies to the 2nd amendment. Arms has an "expansive" meaning, just like the 9th and 10th amendments guarantee.
Do you like "political thriller" types of books? If so, see if you can find a copy of _Unintended Consequences_ by John Ross. I think it compares very well against even the giants in the field. The most beautiful thing about the book is that every one of the legal references in the book is factually correct (except of course the speculation about what may happen next).
Don't let the size of the book fool you, I know several people who read it in one sitting.
the free market naturally leads to harmful monopolies, "boom and bust" cycles, de-skilling and mechanization, and a lot of other bad things.
Wow. I am impressed. You have listed specific effects of legal restrictions, government control of the money supply, minimum wages, and somehow blamed them on "free" markets. Seriously, I am impressed, I'm not saying that to be sarcastic.
it's a matter of economic fact. Put down that Ayn Rand and start reading the work of some serious economists.
If I post the links, will you bother reading them?
If you are going to restrain your definition of "monopoly" to the physical restraint of the volume of space available to build in, then of course I cannot argue with that. It's a physical constraint.
But a physical constraint is not a monopoly, because even with a physical constraint I can choose not to use it. I can choose to use a helicopter instead of the road, a septic tank and bottled water instead of sewage/water. Oh sure, it would be a herculean effort, but it would be legal for me to do so.
And if I did somehow invent something that mooted that physical restraint, such as cell phones are mooting the "last mile" copper cable monopoly, I would be allowed to deploy it. Where monopolies are enforced, I am not so allowed.
I hope you can see my point as well. To paraphrase George C. Scott, "If oceans and mountains can be overcome, any mere physical constraint to my making a buck can be overcome.":^)
the intent that I see in the Second Amendment was to ensure that members of the state militias...
Then you haven't read anything of the writings of the time it was written, nor the decisions of the SCOTUS concerning it.
I can suggest doing a quick search for "The Resurrection Of The Second Amendment" By Peter Alan Kasler, or "The EMBARRASSING SECOND AMENDMENT" by Sanford Levinson, University of Texas at Austin School of Law.
Please forgive the caps, that was copied and pasted from my archives, and I don't feel like retyping.
"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies in time of peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." -- George Mason, Article 13 of The Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776
The following puts an interesting twist on your (and others) assertions that the Constitution doesn't apply to the states. Of course it does, since in it are restrictions on the governments in states (a republican form of government), no regulation of commerce with other states, and such. Also, if so, why would the first amendment have bothered with "Congress shall make no law" if congress were the only group restrained by the constitution?
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington.
The term "well regulated militia" has never really been defined anywhere.
Then you have never consulted the Oxford English Dictionary, where the term "well regulated" is defined in exactly the way the U.S. Army uses the term today. A soldier learns to "regulate" his rifle by learning how to operate the rifle, set the sights and shoot accurately.
As for "militia", the law has already been posted in this thread. Unless you're female and not in the national guard, incapable, under 17 or over 45, you're in the militia. That's the law.
Goodness, where to begin with the rest...
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." -- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -- George Mason, 3 Elliott, Debates at 425-426
"A militia, when properly formed, Are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms." -- Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." -- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" -- Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principals of the Federal Constitution.", in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56 (New York, 1888).
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." -- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46. at 243-244
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" -- Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these states...Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America." -- Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as th
Slashdot Mirror
"Wow, are you still here?"
... that my post was about small time owners being hurt by the elimination of the LLC."
Indeed, personal reasons, more fun to post than sleep, that sort of thing.
"it would have been obvious to anyone with a clue about corporations
I see this as the detail which would have been best included in the original post, instead of explicitly associating your Mom&Pop being impoverished by "WalMart" moving in next door.
True, it is more related to the subject, but the inclusion of WalMart moving in next door rather distracted from you stated goal.
"If you were to eliminate the LLC, you would make the owners liable for all debts of the company."
Not if the legislation were replaced by explicit contracts and insurance. One wonders how people got along before the LLC legislation. Or didn't you know that this is a relatively new invention?
Could it be that this is related to the "shares of stock" idea? Could it be that shareholders, rather than holding shares of ownership in a company, would own shares of the actual stock thereby insulating Mom and Pop from the debts incurred and so creating the "limited liability" that you favor?
No really, let me flesh this out. Rather than go into debt _at_all_, Mom and Pop use the money from sale of "shares of the stock offered for sale" to avoid being in debt at all. If the stock doesn't sell, let's say because WalMart moves in next door, or sells at a loss, the "share holders" lose some or all of their investment and Mom and Pop lose only what money they themselves put into that unsold stock.
Profits from sale of that stock are shared among the shareholders, so an investment pays off because it was a good investment. Mom and Pop are, of course, major share holders of that stock.
That makes a lot more sense than selling shares in the actual company, and then depending on government legislated limits on liability for insulation against creditors.
Now, tell me again about my "dogma" and "off the wall" ideas. Really. I'm interested in how you think I've been inconsistent.
Bob-
Anon screams, "THIS IS NOT ABOUT GOING OUT OF BUSINESS."
Unfortunately, that is an obvious reasoning of the posting which brought up the subject you are complaining about:
"So mom & pop running their little grocery on the corner should be forced into poverty because Wal-mart moved in next door and took all their customers away?"
"[F]orced into poverty" by lawsuits, as opposed to "[F]orced into poverty" because of a lack of sales was not specified.
Scream all you want, the fact remains that Sarbanes-Oxley is a government regulation that has a compliance burden that some companies cannot pay. That means going out of business or going private. So it is indeed about "going out of business" and you can stop screaming.
Bob-
"What a waste."
Exactly. Sorry you had to post as an anon, that comment was a real one and deserves respect.
The problem being that business isn't a small part of society. It is a major portion of how people interact.
Most of my interactions with other people, from a subscription to the YMCA to where I stop for cigarettes to the people I work with to the decision to mow my own lawn or hire a gardener, are business related.
The moment I step out of my door, which I bought, the actual number of people I deal with on a purely social level as opposed to the number of farmers, butchers, bakers, candlestick makers that I deal with on a business basis is very close to vanishingly small.
What reason do I have to be able to type to you this message but the ISP who doesn't know me on a social level at all, the Tier1 IP provider that doesn't know I exist at all, the Slashdot administrators trying to make a living by advertisements for which I am merely one few bytes of data in their database?
If it weren't for business, the price of tea in China would be irrelevant. But the fact is that by means of business, the price of tea in China is directly related to the price I see on the box of Oolong on my grocers shelf (who otherwise would have no interaction with me what so ever).
I think you need to look up the word "praxeology".
Bob-
"I just saw your other post which admits ignorance about corporations, so I'm pretty sure which type of person I'm replying to."
And you're wrong. I suggest that your "anyone with any idea" is the assumption that needs to be addressed.
Your posting was not addressed only to learned economists and business majors. If you meant "forced into poverty by resulting lawsuits" instead of "forced into poverty by a lack of sales", it is my opinion that you should have said so explicitly.
Indeed I am a free-market advocate, because in every instance of abuse I notice the hand of government behind it. Even Microsoft has finally (after being sued for non-existant "monopoly" abuses) figured out how to play the game and are pushing DRM and "Trusted Computing" legislation to crush F/OSS and make them profitable by law.
While I agree with your edited comment, your original had a different meaning, which, please don't be surprised, I also agree with.
Commodities don't make money except in volume. Mom and Pops don't deal in volume, so they have to come up with a different format or they don't survive. That's normal, it's all just business. That's what insurance is for. I also oppose legislation that takes the place of insurance, which seems to be what you say you were originally trying to say.
But then it is past 1am, so good night.
Bob-
"Hell, look what we do with Cuba, but oh wait, they don't have massive cheap slave labor and manufacturing to offer."
Exactly. If abusive big business had a desire to do their abusive big business in Cuba, they would twiddle their sock-puppets in Washington and the blockade against Cuba would be dropped in a week.
The abusive Big Media would figure out how to spin it as a humanitarian effort for the poor Cubans.
The fact is that China is rebuilding their infrastructure, after 60 years of demolishing it themselves, on the dollars made by producing cheap commodity products. The error of "America First" types is that is exactly what Germany did, exactly what Japan did, exactly what Taiwan did, exactly what Korea did, exactly what Vietnam and Thailand and India are doing.
If there is any goodness in the world, Africa will be next. I am very much looking for the day that "Made In Uganda" appears on a label in WalMart.
If you want to demolish the socialist system of China, you need to do what happened in the Soviet Union: have the people lose faith in their own government. The only reason any regime is able to remain in power is that people obey orders. If no one obeys, there is no longer any oppression.
Bob-
"That's not what my post was about."
Well, good sir, I think you need to go back and change your wording. The other person and I both received the same impression by your post, that the Mom and Pop were going out of business because WalMart moved in next door and undercut their prices.
I have gone back and read it and it seems you used very clear and unambiguous language to mean something other than what you say now you meant to say.
Bob-
Thank you, indeed it has already been pointed out. And I'm glad to know that the limited liability was not what I thought it was, although now I'm going to have to find out exactly what it is that is "limited" in a "limited liability partnership" since I've seen lots of them recently. Maybe, "My partner did that, you cannot sue me"?
I'm also curious about the elimination of the limit to liability of investors. Regardless of endangering the business model called "stock exchange", what if investors had to actually be careful about what they were buying into? That doesn't sound like such a bad idea.
Also, I could see such a "stock exchange" idea coming out of shares in a literal "stock", investing in a product or venture rather than in the business itself. Then, if that product or venture failed it would have the same effect as the present limit of liability, because it wasn't actually shares of the "company". Hmmm, maybe that's why it's called shares of "stock" in the first place.
Thanks for showing where I was wrong. That means I'm learning something and I like learning. Let's just hope that the next person who wants to point out the error reads your posting.
Bob-
Very well said. I'm sure the buggy-whip and wooden-wheel manufacturers put out of business by these new-fangled automobiles are not enjoying your posting much.
Or the Hand Loom manufacturers! Entire industries put out of business by the WalMarts of their day.
"You sound like a bitter socialist (and I'm a leftie myself) who's so anti-est that nothing it does can be appreciated."
No, I'm a bitter anarchist who watches as everything government touches turns to poop, which poop is then used by government to justify more intervention, which then turns to poop, which poop is then used...... etc etc etc.
If you try something and it doesn't work, stop trying it. Everybody recognizes the simple logic of not hitting ones self in the head a second time, but somehow government is immune to this logic.
Failed programs get more money, more staff, more power and more regulations to wield. A "successful" government program is the one that wastes the most money doing the greatest amount of damage! Farm subsidies that destroy the "family" farm are a perfect example, since those very subsidies were justified by saying they would save the "family" farms.
The politicians that deliver the greatest subsidies get reelected regardless of the destruction wrought. "Unintended Consequences" is a great book with a prophetic title.
Yes, I'm bitter and disgusted. If you're not, you don't have your eyes open.
Bob-
Ok, thank you. With that in mind I think it still counts, because if the shareholders knew they were also liable for their share of the companies actions, there would be far more accountability simply because "shareholders" would demand it.
The supposed goal of Sarbox (great name) would be achieved by market forces.
I also expect that, since where there is hazard there is profit, insurance companies would come up with a way to create "shareholder insurance". Interesting thought that.
Bob-
I recall delivering mainframe connectivity (coax!) to a new executive's PC. The PC was password protected, so I could not verify that the new graphing service was in fact working, since I was not provisioned with anything but a dumb terminal to test the link with and this was maybe the second such PC installed. In other words, the link was up but the gnarly new "service" that was all the rage with the executives could not be confirmed.
When the "enter password" prompt came up, I looked at the secretary and said in all honesty, "That's all I can do, please let me know if it's not working for him."
This "Power Secretary" became furious, punctuating her words with snapping fingers and pointing sharp manicured fingernails at my jugular, "MAKE! IT! WORK!" So I asked, "Do you have the password?" The fury of a Power Secretary who doesn't have everything already planned out cannot be understated.
When the exec entered his password, everything worked fine. That didn't matter at all.
Let's just say I wasn't working there two weeks later. The company somehow discovered that I had more pressing work to sit on my butt in another building doing nothing until it was time for the next round of layoffs. I wasn't surprised when our department was declared "overstaffed" and I was pink-slipped regardless of seniority and prior performance awards.
Still hurts after 15 years.
Bob-
Exactly. This article from November says exactly the same thing:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/004345.asp
"In contrast, the CEO of Georgia Pacific explained that his company sold out to private Koch Industries in order to avoid mounting Sarbox costs."
and
"No doubt, a company that had poor controls may have improved them in order to comply with Sarbox. This does not mean that U.S. businesses in aggregate benefited from Sarbox. A law mandating a 45% increase in marketing spending might help some companies too, but it would cripple most others. Even companies with superior internal controls were forced by this perverse law to spend more money on internal controls."
Government regulation always increases costs, because the regulation has costs of compliance.
Crooks don't comply, because they're crooks.
Customers, that's us, end up with higher prices for the things we buy, and higher taxes to pay for all the new auditors.
Martha Stewart goes to jail while the real criminals get away with what they've always gotten away with.
Politicians get reelected for having "done something".
To quote from the movie Spartacus, "I'll take a little republican [style of government, not party] corruption, along with republican freedom!"
Want to really put the screws to "corporate executive" crime? Then eliminate the government granted limited liability that a "corporation" represents. Allow thereby the officers of a company to be directly liable for their decisions, their accounting practices, their performance.
It's easy to follow the Big Lies handed down by the sensationalist press that don't want you looking at their own corporations and unions. S-O doesn't solve anything. It merely adds another layer of bureaucracy to the effort of getting anything accomplished.
Bob-
Anyone who believes what the SPLC has written has failed to examine the site themselves.
It's easy to repeat what others tell you. Looking for yourself is dangerous, you might inadvertently learn something.
How is democratic control over corporations socialism?
Main Entry: socialism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Just because the politicians are elected doesn't make it any less "socialism". Either I retain the power to dispose of my property as I see fit, and face the consequences for my actions, or I do not truly own my property, my production, my labor, my life.
It's just not laissez-faire.
Exactly. The opposite of "laissez-faire" is "socialism".
I'm certainly not going to give up all my rights to a swindler in a suit because I think the government is bloated.
You've already given up all your rights to a swindler in a suit, the politicians themselves.
Abusive corporations have always depended upon government coercion for their positions to abuse. The myth that big government opposes big business is one of the most successful "Big Lies" in America, likely in the entire world.
If you're interested in how big business and big government work together to fleece you, I can suggest you wander through the articles on http://www.fff.org/ and http://www.mises.org/ , LewRockewll.com, or just for one example notice that Enron had based their entire business model on leveraging government "energy credits". Abusive big business *loves* big government, and abusive big government *loves* the campaign contributions of big business.
Bob-
We really need to start regulating the means by which multi-national corporations do business...
Just another socialist. Socialists always hate how other socialists do things, then try to explain how socialism would work better if only it was this new set of socialists in charge.
The problem being socialism itself. Coercion always causes problems which are used to call for more coercion, ad infinitum. The above is a perfect example. Objecting to a problem caused by government intervention, the socialists calls for yet more government intervention.
Actually, the release of new hardware should drop the price of dual and quad 939 motherboards to buyable levels, as well as the dual core 939 CPUs.
It's not like the 939 performance has dropped, only that the bleeding edge has cut another swath. Let them go, and enjoy the savings!
Bob-
Good sir, I just now read your reply in the "natural/unnatural monopoly" discussion back on March 9th. I just want to say I appreciate your input and do wish that I had seen it sooner, before that discussion was archived.
Unfortunately, there are no inter-user messages, I hope this doesn't interrupt the present discussion.
Peace, may your aim never waver,
Bob-
The monumentally stupid thing is that "corporate" doesn't have to do squat! It's like talking about "The Average Person", there is no such thing. Each organization can choose the sub-set of software that works best for them without compromising compatibility with anyone else. Is Linux like using "minority" labor, as long as you don't see Linux in the executive offices it's ok?
What arbitrary authority figure has thrown tablets down from On High declaring that there must be a "standard" desktop that everyone has to use? That's insane!
So darn it just go do it! Use anything at all that uses ODF, and you're sitting pretty with 100% compatibility with everyone else! How about plain text? That's head and shoulders above what tortured compatibility Microsoft EVER provided with their proprietary standards! That's what writing commodity software that uses open standards means! The entire confusion between KDE, GNOME and anything else that is being touted as "desktop" is pure FUD!
The differences between distributions is miniscule. Skype is a perfect example, they offer one static and one dynamic precompiled tar file for any Linux system that, as far as I can tell, "just works".
No wonder the US Government is getting support for building Berlin Walls across the land borders, these so-called "free" people are a bunch of frightened SHEEP!
Actually, I overstate it just a little bit. Real soup-to-nuts business in America (at least) has always been very conservative, meaning that they do not change easily. Look how close to failure IBM had to get before embracing Open Source, which has turned into a massive profit center. Those companies who knowingly adopted Linux "early" did so quietly, because of the competitive advantage it gave them in the server room.
Now it's out of the closet, and let's face it what Joe uses on his desktop isn't going to make squat worth of difference in Joe's productivity.
What is coming is the Vista upgrade and Office 12. Microsoft is finally talking about breaking backward compatibility, which has been the one saving grace of going with Microsoft "on the desktop" up to this point.
Now is the time for IBM, Novell, HP and the mom-and-pop integrator out there to push and push hard: Linux-based systems will give you all the compatibility you want, improve reliability and security, at a fraction of the cost for software and without having to upgrade your existing hardware at all, even for those companies still running Win98 and Win2K systems!
Even a needed service that cannot run on anything but Windows doesn't suffer, because Windows machines integrate flawlessly into Linux-based networks. This fact cannot be overstated!
Compare that to having to not only buy Vista and Office 12 software for every machine, but throw away or upgrade all that perfectly working hardware. I believe the bottom line becomes very compelling if examined as a package rather than one-off.
Linux migration, because of the fact that applications such as Firefox and OpenOffice.org run just fine on existing Windows machines, can be accomplished in stages or as needed without employees being unable to share files. This is an IMPORTANT factor, often overlooked. Migrating 300 employees in a weekend is daunting and very labor intensive. Migrating 20 a week isn't.
Lastly, there's "retraining". The super secret tool in the Microsoft toolbox is the myth that changing versions of Microsoft software doesn't involve any retraining. Balderdash! They know it, businesses know it, now it's time to make them realize that we know it too. Especially with the multi-generation jump from 98/2K to Vista and Office 12! Integrators must offer basic classes or basic materials on "Using KDE" or "Using OpenOffice.org" or "Using Koffice" or whatever is being offered as standardized packages to buyers.
Integrators must convince the buyers that the retraining myth works both ways. Not only does staying with Microsoft not avoid lost p
However, not a Supreme Court Justice (and certainly not writing that as part of a court opinion).
So I gather you didn't look up Kasler's or Levinsons's texts... One of the major frustrations of argument on something like Slashdot is the lack of any ability to ensure that we have a common understanding of the background involved.
It's obvious you're not by any measure stupid. That's a very good thing and I appreciate it more than you know, seriously, no sarcasm. But if I have to post each and ever text in order to discuss a point, these are going to be very long posts.
Do you recall "US verses Miller", 1939? The A-No.1 case cited for justifying gun control? Boiled down, it goes like this: Because no information was presented to show how a short-barrel shotgun could be used in battle; and because the Supreme Court doesn't do "fact finding", therefore it cannot be determined that a short-barrel shotgun can be privately owned by Americans as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. The case was tossed back to the lower court for the "fact finding", but no "fact finding" case was ever convened.
That's it. It only happened because the defense attorney didn't show up.
By the explicit logic of SOCTUS, anything and everything that could be used by someone during combat applies to the 2nd amendment. Arms has an "expansive" meaning, just like the 9th and 10th amendments guarantee.
Do you like "political thriller" types of books? If so, see if you can find a copy of _Unintended Consequences_ by John Ross. I think it compares very well against even the giants in the field. The most beautiful thing about the book is that every one of the legal references in the book is factually correct (except of course the speculation about what may happen next).
Don't let the size of the book fool you, I know several people who read it in one sitting.
Bob-
the free market naturally leads to harmful monopolies, "boom and bust" cycles, de-skilling and mechanization, and a lot of other bad things.
Wow. I am impressed. You have listed specific effects of legal restrictions, government control of the money supply, minimum wages, and somehow blamed them on "free" markets. Seriously, I am impressed, I'm not saying that to be sarcastic.
it's a matter of economic fact. Put down that Ayn Rand and start reading the work of some serious economists.
If I post the links, will you bother reading them?
Business Cycle Primer http://www.mises.org/story/606
Murrey Rothbard Monopoly and Competition http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp
A Critique of Neoclassical and Austrian Monopoly Theory http://www.mises.org/story/1800
Politics Causes Unemployment http://www.mises.org/story/1782
Abolish the FDA http://www.lewrockwell.com/grichar/grichar17.html
If you are going to restrain your definition of "monopoly" to the physical restraint of the volume of space available to build in, then of course I cannot argue with that. It's a physical constraint.
:^)
But a physical constraint is not a monopoly, because even with a physical constraint I can choose not to use it. I can choose to use a helicopter instead of the road, a septic tank and bottled water instead of sewage/water. Oh sure, it would be a herculean effort, but it would be legal for me to do so.
And if I did somehow invent something that mooted that physical restraint, such as cell phones are mooting the "last mile" copper cable monopoly, I would be allowed to deploy it. Where monopolies are enforced, I am not so allowed.
I hope you can see my point as well. To paraphrase George C. Scott, "If oceans and mountains can be overcome, any mere physical constraint to my making a buck can be overcome."
Bob-
the intent that I see in the Second Amendment was to ensure that members of the state militias...
Then you haven't read anything of the writings of the time it was written, nor the decisions of the SCOTUS concerning it.
I can suggest doing a quick search for "The Resurrection Of The Second Amendment" By Peter Alan Kasler, or "The EMBARRASSING SECOND AMENDMENT" by Sanford Levinson, University of Texas at Austin School of Law.
Please forgive the caps, that was copied and pasted from my archives, and I don't feel like retyping.
"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people
trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free
state; that standing armies in time of peace should be avoided as
dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under
strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
-- George Mason, Article 13 of The Virginia Declaration of Rights
of 1776
The following puts an interesting twist on your (and others) assertions that the Constitution doesn't apply to the states. Of course it does, since in it are restrictions on the governments in states (a republican form of government), no regulation of commerce with other states, and such. Also, if so, why would the first amendment have bothered with "Congress shall make no law" if congress were the only group restrained by the constitution?
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule
of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm
the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some
general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of
inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be
appealed to as a restraint on both."
-- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert
commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position
of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President
Washington.
The term "well regulated militia" has never really been defined anywhere.
... Whenever
... Notwithstanding
... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the
Then you have never consulted the Oxford English Dictionary, where the term "well regulated" is defined in exactly the way the U.S. Army uses the term today. A soldier learns to "regulate" his rifle by learning how to operate the rifle, set the sights and shoot accurately.
As for "militia", the law has already been posted in this thread. Unless you're female and not in the national guard, incapable, under 17 or over 45, you're in the militia. That's the law.
Goodness, where to begin with the rest...
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to
arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."
-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a
few public officials."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliott, Debates at 425-426
"A militia, when properly formed, Are in fact the people themselves...
and include all men capable of bearing arms."
-- Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters
from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.
Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people,
they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army
upon their ruins."
-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor
debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750,
August 17, 1789
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as
they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in
America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole
body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to
any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in
the United States"
-- Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principals of
the Federal Constitution.", in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on
the Constitution of the United States, at 56 (New York, 1888).
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government
to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable
to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of
citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use
of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess
over the people of almost every other nation.
the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe,
which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the
governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-- James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist
Paper No. 46. at 243-244
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and
every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright
of an American
hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust
in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people"
-- Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by
the General Government; but the best security of that right after all
is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has
always distinguished the free citizens of these states...Such men form
the best barrier to the liberties of America."
-- Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them,
may attempt to tyrannize, and as th