> wrote:

>Published on Thursday, June 29, 2006 by CommonDreams.org

>Whole Foods CEO Mackey Endorses Cato Book - No More Corporate Crime
>Prosecutions
>by Russell Mokhiber

>John Mackey is instead a libertarian with right-wing tendencies.
>[snip]
>And he has recently endorsed a book published by the libertarian Cato
>Institute whose author concludes that no corporation should ever be
>prosecuted for crimes - no matter the corporation, no matter the
>crime.

It is my experience that libertarians, more than others,
often think their belief systems have force of law, if only
courts behaved correctly. i.e. they genuinely think gun control
is illegal, that persons are not required to pay income tax, etc.
There's a long list of such nonsense. Not prosecuting corporations
is a new one (to me), but it sounds like more of the same.

Steve

I wrote:

> [snip]

Oops, I didn't notice all the crossposts. I will restrict
myself to ba.food on this thread.

Steve

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote:
>
>>Published on Thursday, June 29, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
>
>>Whole Foods CEO Mackey Endorses Cato Book - No More Corporate Crime
>>Prosecutions
>>by Russell Mokhiber
>
>>John Mackey is instead a libertarian with right-wing tendencies.
>>[snip]
>>And he has recently endorsed a book published by the libertarian Cato
>>Institute whose author concludes that no corporation should ever be
>>prosecuted for crimes - no matter the corporation, no matter the
>>crime.
>
> It is my experience that libertarians, more than others,
> often think their belief systems have force of law, if only
> courts behaved correctly. i.e. they genuinely think gun control
> is illegal, that persons are not required to pay income tax, etc.
> There's a long list of such nonsense. Not prosecuting corporations
> is a new one (to me), but it sounds like more of the same.
>
> Steve
Here is the ruler
Communist Socialist Nazi Liberal Democrat Republican Conservative
Libertarian Anarchist.
You have no experience or education.

Steve Pope wrote:
>
> It is my experience that libertarians, more than others,
> often think their belief systems have force of law, if only
> courts behaved correctly. i.e. they genuinely think gun control
> is illegal, that persons are not required to pay income tax, etc.
> There's a long list of such nonsense. Not prosecuting corporations
> is a new one (to me), but it sounds like more of the same.
>
> Steve
When self-proclaimed libertarian John Malone ran TCI which was, at
the time, the largest cable operator in the country he chanted about
free enterprise and whenever cable regulations were proposed but
whenever he was faced with competition he would say that cable was a
regulated utility.

--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 00:11:30 GMT, George Grapman
> wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:
>>
>> It is my experience that libertarians, more than others,
>> often think their belief systems have force of law, if only
>> courts behaved correctly. i.e. they genuinely think gun control
>> is illegal, that persons are not required to pay income tax, etc.
>> There's a long list of such nonsense. Not prosecuting corporations
>> is a new one (to me), but it sounds like more of the same.
>>
>> Steve
> When self-proclaimed libertarian John Malone ran TCI which was, at
>the time, the largest cable operator in the country he chanted about
>free enterprise and whenever cable regulations were proposed but
>whenever he was faced with competition he would say that cable was a
>regulated utility

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...

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

"Logan Shaw" > wrote in message
...
> 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

Correct. Liability is pretty much limited to the corporation also unless
proof of individual cause is shown. They are a person in the world of
taxation as well.

But
If the government steps in and uses its legal power, it is only expected
that the corporations will use their own.

Oh, yes. It really is "illegal" to "purchase" political candidates,
privately or as a corporation. (Everyone knows how honest politicians are)

It is also mental derangement to assume that whenever we don't get our way,
it is because the "other" guy cheated.

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!

"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...
> >> It is my experience that libertarians, more than others,
> >> often think their belief systems have force of law, if only
> >> courts behaved correctly. i.e. they genuinely think gun control
> >> is illegal, that persons are not required to pay income tax, etc.
> >> There's a long list of such nonsense. Not prosecuting corporations
> >> is a new one (to me), but it sounds like more of the same.
> >>
>
>

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

Peter A wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
> > >> It is my experience that libertarians, more than others,
> > >> often think their belief systems have force of law, if only
> > >> courts behaved correctly. i.e. they genuinely think gun control
> > >> is illegal, that persons are not required to pay income tax, etc.
> > >> There's a long list of such nonsense. Not prosecuting corporations
> > >> is a new one (to me), but it sounds like more of the same.
> > >>
> >
> >
>
> 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.

PeterB

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

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

Peter A wrote:

> You make some interesting points - but you confuse civil liability with
> criminal liability - they are two different things. Leaving an unmarked
> wet floor opens a corporation to the possibility of the former, if
> someone falls and injures themselves, but not the latter. 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.


I think the death penalty should be an option in the case of egregrious
economic crimes...

--
Best
Greg

Peter A wrote:

> 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.

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.

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.

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
| eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting

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

George Grapman > writes:

> When self-proclaimed libertarian John Malone ran TCI which was, at
> the time, the largest cable operator in the country he chanted about
> free enterprise and whenever cable regulations were proposed but
> whenever he was faced with competition he would say that cable was a
> regulated utility.


That's known as "gamesmanship." Malone's goal was making money, not
philosophical consistency.



Geoff

--
"Why do we need to mark our territory by spitting lung
tapioca on the wall for all to see?" -- Mike Golobay

"Geoff Miller" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> George Grapman > writes:
>
>> When self-proclaimed libertarian John Malone ran TCI which was, at
>> the time, the largest cable operator in the country he chanted about
>> free enterprise and whenever cable regulations were proposed but
>> whenever he was faced with competition he would say that cable was a
>> regulated utility.
>
>
> That's known as "gamesmanship." Malone's goal was making money, not
> philosophical consistency.
>

Philisophicaly he was playing by "their" (our) rules, both times. (even if
we don't like it)

>
>
> Geoff
>
> --
> "Why do we need to mark our territory by spitting lung
> tapioca on the wall for all to see?" -- Mike Golobay
>

Steve Pope wrote:

> It is my experience that libertarians, more than others,
> often think their belief systems have force of law, if only
> courts behaved correctly. i.e. they genuinely think gun control
> is illegal,

Gun control has its roots in Jim Crow. The CA Dangerous Weapons Code
was written in response to the Black Panthers bearing arms in their
neighborhoods (lawfully).

--
Do not send me email replies -- this is a honeypot
address for spam.

"Michael Sierchio" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Pope wrote:
>
>> It is my experience that libertarians, more than others,
>> often think their belief systems have force of law, if only courts
>> behaved correctly. i.e. they genuinely think gun control is illegal,
>
> Gun control has its roots in Jim Crow. The CA Dangerous Weapons Code
> was written in response to the Black Panthers bearing arms in their
> neighborhoods (lawfully).
>
> --

So, do you have these delusions often?
Roots in Jim Crow? Were you born into a bigoted family.

vernon wrote:

> So, do you have these delusions often?
> Roots in Jim Crow? Were you born into a bigoted family.


My point, my cognitively-impaired friend, is that the
history of gun control in the US is inherently racist.
And therefore misguided, bad, etc. etc.

Abraham Lincoln made men free,
Sam Colt made them equal.


--
Do not send me email replies. This is a honeypot
address for SPAM/UCE.

"Michael Sierchio" > wrote in message
...
> vernon wrote:
>
>> So, do you have these delusions often?
>> Roots in Jim Crow? Were you born into a bigoted family.
>
>
> My point, my cognitively-impaired friend, is that the
> history of gun control in the US is inherently racist.
> And therefore misguided, bad, etc. etc.
>
> Abraham Lincoln made men free,
> Sam Colt made them equal.


Yep, sure. The writers of the constitution were racists. Sure.
Get an education.

You WERE born into a bigoted family.

Michael Sierchio > writes:

[to vernon]

> My point, my cognitively-impaired friend, is that the
> history of gun control in the US is inherently racist.
> And therefore misguided, bad, etc. etc.


Racism is the belief in the superiority of some races in
comparison to others. The word you're grasping about for
is "discriminatory," not "racist." (ObTim: diskimination)

Even if we accept for the purposes of discussion that gun
control laws originally came into being for reasons that
were discriminatory, it doesn't follow that therefore the
laws are discriminatory or otherwise "misguided, bad, etc.,
etc.," *today.* You can't get there from here, intellec-
tually speaking.



Geoff

--
"Why do we need to mark our territory by spitting lung
tapioca on the wall for all to see?" -- Mike Golobay