Peter A wrote:
> In article . com>,
> says...
> > > I think that getting rid of criminal prosecution of corporations might
> > > be a good idea - if, and it's a big if, it could be ensured that the
> > > personal liability for criminal acts was focused on the right people.
> > > After all, if a corp is found guilty of a crime what happens - a fine at
> > > most. You can't send a corp to jail! Who loses? The shareholders, who
> > > usually had no knowledge of or ability to control the illegal activity.
> > > But if responsibility for a corporate criminal act could be put on the
> > > top executives who run the company, and it was them going to jail and
> > > paying fines, then things might well be different.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Peter Aitken
> > > Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm
> >
> > I think your logic is weak, even with the caveats. First, the state's
> > only responsibility is to the welfare of the public. Any level of
> > investment, whether emotional or financial, exceeding that status, as
> > is the case with shareholders, places the burden of risk on those whose
> > investment makes them party to activities associated with that
> > enterprise. This is the existing premise in US civil law. For
> > instance, if I walk into a store and fall down, breaking my leg, I
> > won't prevail in court against the establishment unless I can prove
> > negligence on the part of the business. Since all civil liberties
> > afforded by the Constitution to individuals are also afforded to
> > corporate entities (too bad they aren't *limited* to those rights),
> > corporations may not fairly enjoy a waiver of liability when such
> > rights would consequently provide to them advantages not enjoyed by
> > other citizens. If the argument is that corporations should not be
> > afforded protection as indivduals under Constitutional law, then you
> > have to ask whether such indemnity would not result in an increase of
> > malfeasance on the part of those who might use the corporate vehicle
> > for their own personal gain anyway. In that event, shareholders might,
> > and surely would, suffer even more. There is nothing to prevent market
> > losses simply because legal liability is not a cost. I believe the
> > answer is to allow the courts as wide a discretion as possible in
> > assessting not only who has been harmed, but by whom, and in what
> > proportions. Both the executive and the corporation should be held
> > liable, the one for criminal intent, and the other for failure to
> > exercise internal controls that protect shareholder interests. On
> > another point, it's important to see that when someone commits fraud or
> > some other criminal act representing a corporate enterprise, the
> > damages will almost always exceed what any one individual could
> > possibly be held in judgement for. The right of individuals and
> > corporations to enjoy equal proptection under the law means they also
> > enjoy the burden of liability to their victims, in equal measure.
> > Otherwise, what is the value of courts? I also think of myself as a
> > libertarian (certainly have voted that way), but I can't understand the
> > logic behind the idea that waiving corporate liability could possibly
> > be beneficial to anyone other than the crooks.
>
> You make some interesting points - but you confuse civil liability with
> criminal liability - they are two different things.

No, I didn't confuse the two. My comments made it clear that criminal
liability is only meaningful for individuals. My point was that
corporations should continue to be held civily liable since, as a
vehicle for wrongdoing by individuals, there is often no other way to
redress damages suffered by victims. Individuals should be criminally
liable for their own wrongdoing. Is that confusing?

> Leaving an unmarked
> wet floor opens a corporation to the possibility of the former, if
> someone falls and injures themselves, but not the latter.

Isn't that what I said?

> I agree 100%
> that corps must be subject to civil liability for the consequences of
> their actions. Criminal is another matter. My mind is certainly not made
> up on this, but there are some interesting things aspects to consider -
> which you have ignored.

Perhaps you will elaborate on what I ignored. Meanwhile, the term
"criminally negligent" is meaningless when applied to a corporate
entity, except for the civil liabilities that result. As the other
poster said, corporations don't serve jail time. Don't get bogged down
in semantics.

> Peter Aitken
> Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

In article . com>,
"> wrote:

> PEOPLE! GET A LIFE. ARENT WE IN IT FOR THE SAME CAUSE. PEACE

No, we are not in it for the "same cause....peace."


Think about it, blissninny.


--Tim May

vernon <there@there> wrote:
>Here is the ruler
>Communist Socialist Nazi Liberal Democrat Republican Conservative
>Libertarian Anarchist.

You have no experience or education.

>It goes from complete government control of all to no government.
>
>BTW for the less educated, "Liberal" today does not mean the "Liberal" in
>France a couple centuries ago.

No, for those who listen to Rush Limbaugh, it doesn't mean
what it actually means today.

--Blair

Logan Shaw wrote:
> HGF wrote:
> > Ok, don't ever prosecute a corporation for crimes cuz they're not a
> > person, then don't let them purchase political candidates under the
> > guise of free speech either...
>
> I thought the whole point of corporations, from a legal standpoint,
> was that they are legally equivalent to a person in many respects.
> They can own property, they can be held liable for things, etc.
>
> - Logan

It's a legal fiction based on the misreading of Santa Clara County v.
Southern Pacific Railroad Company (118 U.S. 394). The argument made by
the Railroad was that under the 14th amendment they could claim an
equal protection right against the actions of Santa Clara County which
was trying to collect taxes for land use according to a formula that
was not applied to other individuals. However, the court ignored that
aspect of the Railroad's case and focused on the fact that the formula
for determining taxes was vague and unenforceable.

Nonetheless, the notion that the 14th amendment applied to corporations
as individuals became an accepted legal fiction.

Of late, this has been extended to include the 1st amendment right of
free speech, as indicated by advertising for political candidates.

The fourth amendment rights have already been asserted to defend
against surprise health inspections.

It will not be long before the second amendment rights are
asserted...then look out!

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:29:12 GMT, in rec.food.cooking,
wrote:

>Tim May wrote:
>>>
>>
>> If you are right that we are already crossing paths, then you and your
>> extended family have already been marked for death.
>>
>>
>>
>> --Tim May
>
> Take is as a compliment that you upset Tim enough to have him make
>his usual empty threats.

He sounds like a silly teenager with no life.

Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/

"Blair P. Houghton" > wrote in message
...
> vernon <there@there> wrote:
>>Here is the ruler
>>Communist Socialist Nazi Liberal Democrat Republican Conservative
>>Libertarian Anarchist.
>
> You have no experience or education.
>
>>It goes from complete government control of all to no government.
>>
>>BTW for the less educated, "Liberal" today does not mean the "Liberal" in
>>France a couple centuries ago.
>
> No, for those who listen to Rush Limbaugh, it doesn't mean
> what it actually means today.
"It doesn't mean what it actually means today????????"
Today is today.
Today's context is what is here and now.
DUUUUHHHH
Please inform those of us who do not listen to your idol, Rush Limbaugh, and
don't care what an entertainer says, what he says.
All I know is that he spends hours making jokes and satire that the fools
get all riled up about because, to them and to them only, they recognize
themselves in his diatribe.

>
> --Blair

"8ackgr0und N015e" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Logan Shaw wrote:
>> HGF wrote:
>> > Ok, don't ever prosecute a corporation for crimes cuz they're not a
>> > person, then don't let them purchase political candidates under the
>> > guise of free speech either...
>>
>> I thought the whole point of corporations, from a legal standpoint,
>> was that they are legally equivalent to a person in many respects.
>> They can own property, they can be held liable for things, etc.
>>
>> - Logan
>
> It's a legal fiction based on the misreading of Santa Clara County v.
> Southern Pacific Railroad Company (118 U.S. 394). The argument made by
> the Railroad was that under the 14th amendment they could claim an
> equal protection right against the actions of Santa Clara County which
> was trying to collect taxes for land use according to a formula that
> was not applied to other individuals. However, the court ignored that
> aspect of the Railroad's case and focused on the fact that the formula
> for determining taxes was vague and unenforceable.
>
> Nonetheless, the notion that the 14th amendment applied to corporations
> as individuals became an accepted legal fiction.
>
> Of late, this has been extended to include the 1st amendment right of
> free speech, as indicated by advertising for political candidates.
>
> The fourth amendment rights have already been asserted to defend
> against surprise health inspections.
>
> It will not be long before the second amendment rights are
> asserted...then look out!
>

Yep, the courts making laws rather than interpreting them. (Against the
people's wishes.)

In article >,
says...
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:29:12 GMT, in rec.food.cooking,
> wrote:
>
> >Tim May wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >> If you are right that we are already crossing paths, then you and your
> >> extended family have already been marked for death.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --Tim May
> >
> > Take is as a compliment that you upset Tim enough to have him make
> >his usual empty threats.
>
> He sounds like a silly teenager with no life.
>
> Doug
>

It's bad enought that austin.general has been taken over by political
nutcases. Must austin.food suffer the same fate?!

Please contain your postings to the proper newsgroups so that those of
us who don't want to hear it don't have to killfile 10+ people.

How about austin.politics?

On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 09:53:49 -0700, in rec.food.cooking, vernon wrote:

>
>"Geoff Miller" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> vernon <there@there> writes:
>>
>>> Here is the ruler
>>> Communist Socialist Nazi Liberal Democrat Republican Conservative
>>> Libertarian Anarchist.

Libertarian control would not be what I call a free society.

Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/

"Doug Weller" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 09:53:49 -0700, in rec.food.cooking, vernon wrote:
>
>>
>>"Geoff Miller" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>> vernon <there@there> writes:
>>>
>>>> Here is the ruler
>>>> Communist Socialist Nazi Liberal Democrat Republican Conservative
>>>> Libertarian Anarchist.
>
> Libertarian control would not be what I call a free society.
>

DUUHHH
Libertarian means VERY limited control by any government.

Doug Weller wrote:

> Libertarian control would not be what I call a free society.
>
> Doug


http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/libertarianism.html

What do libertarians want to do?

Help individuals take more control over their own lives. Take the state
(and other self-appointed representatives of "society") out of private
decisions. Abolish both halves of the welfare/warfare bureaucracy
(privatizing real services) and liberate the 7/8ths of our wealth that's
now soaked up by the costs of a bloated and ineffective government, to
make us all richer and freer. Oppose tyranny everywhere, whether it's
the obvious variety driven by greed and power-lust or the subtler,
well-intentioned kinds that coerce people "for their own good" but
against their wills.

"George" > wrote in message
...
> Doug Weller wrote:
>
>> Libertarian control would not be what I call a free society.
>>
>> Doug
>
>
> http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/libertarianism.html
>
> What do libertarians want to do?
>
> Help individuals take more control over their own lives. Take the state
> (and other self-appointed representatives of "society") out of private
> decisions. Abolish both halves of the welfare/warfare bureaucracy
> (privatizing real services) and liberate the 7/8ths of our wealth that's
> now soaked up by the costs of a bloated and ineffective government, to
> make us all richer and freer. Oppose tyranny everywhere, whether it's the
> obvious variety driven by greed and power-lust or the subtler,
> well-intentioned kinds that coerce people "for their own good" but against
> their wills.

Yuppers.
Yet all that is "available" now to those in need would still be available
with about 1/10 the cost.

No prescription (controlled) drugs.
Flat transaction tax.
Hospitals run by non-profit humanitarian organizations OR big profit.
Abortion, a non issue one way or the other.
Those who are a danger to society "removed" from society.
Schools privatized and yet supported.
No government forced religion like secular humanism.
Psychologists almost non-existent.
Government protection or control of medical Doctors eliminated. Thievery
and malpractice still punished.

Albert Nurick > writes:

> How do you regulate a corporation which determines it's profitiable to
> break serious civil laws and just keep paying the fines?

> An example that comes to mind is that of Larry Ellison of Oracle, who
> ignored noise regulations and had his pilot land Ellison's jet at all
> hours of the night. The fine was less serious to Ellison than losing a
> penny would be to you or I.

Far from holding that against Ellison, I'm inspired to better myself
so that fines, if not quite as painless to me as they are to Larry,
would at least be reduced to mere annoyances.


> The way you stop this sort of behavior (and public disruption) is to
> toss Ellison in the county lockup for 48 hours each time he violates
> the ordinance. My guess is that he'll figure out a less disruptive way
> to travel.

But then we have the matter of making the punishment fit the crime.
G-Vs aren't very noisy, especially when they're throttled back for
landing. Would be you as supportive of the idea of tossing some
Mexican or black kid in the county slammer for 48 hours for blasting
obnoxious thumpa-thumpa "music" from his car? I'd say that was the
greater offense to public peace and quiet, personally, but I suspect
you'd object that that'd be a gross injustice.

You know what I think? I think you're just suffering from class
resentment.



Geoff

--
"The greatest threat to the war on terrorism isn't the Islamic
insurgency; our military can handle the savages. It's traitorous
liberals trying to lose the war at home." -- Ann Coulter