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

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

Most people who shop at Whole Foods are liberal yuppies.

They have enough money to spend $9 on a pound of cherries.

They believe that shopping for groceries at Whole Foods instead of
Safeway or Food Lion or Giant or Wal-Mart is the politically correct
thing to do.

They probably believe that the President and CEO of Whole Foods is a
liberal like themselves.

They of course would be wrong.

John Mackey is instead a libertarian with right-wing tendencies.

Mackey says that Milton Friedman is his hero.

He's a devotee of Ayn Rand.

He's opposed to national health insurance.

He's a union buster.

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.

The book - Trapped: When Acting Ethically is Against the Law - is
written by Georgetown University Professor John Hasnas.

"John Hasnas shows that new laws and regulations too often force CEOs
to choose between acting legally and acting ethically," Mackey says
in a blurb on the back cover.

Unlike most books on white collar crime, which tend to rehash bland
academic theories or cut corporate crimes of years past and paste them
with dogmatic rants, Trapped is actually a compelling read with an
original idea sprinkled here and there.

Hasnas' big idea is that the whole system of prosecuting corporate
crime is undermining the liberal principles built into traditional
criminal law and designed to protect individuals against the power of
the state.

The result is that corporations are forced to turn on their own
employees to save their own corporate hide.

Hasnas is a hard line libertarian. He worked for a time as lawyer for
the politically aggressive, right-wing, and privately-held Koch
Industries - one of the nation's largest oil companies.

And instead of concluding that we should fix the criminal justice
system so that corporations and federal prosecutors can no longer gang
up on individual employees - he concludes in his book that
corporations should never be criminally prosecuted - ever.

No matter the crime.

No matter the corporation.

Hasnas wants to do away with corporate criminal liability.

If there is a crime committed by someone within the corporation,
criminally prosecute the individual, he says.

But a corporation can't commit a crime and should not be criminally
prosecuted.

Ever.

We wanted to know: does Whole Foods' CEO Mackey agree -
corporations should never be criminally prosecuted?

No matter the crime?

No matter the corporation?

Does the libertarian John Mackey support the big business funded Cato
Institute and its right wing ideology with cash - or just with
quotes?

Whole Foods spokesperson Kate Lowery did not return numerous calls and
e-mails seeking comment.

------
Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate
Crime Reporter.

> 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

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
>
> Most people who shop at Whole Foods are liberal yuppies.
>
> They have enough money to spend $9 on a pound of cherries.
>
> They believe that shopping for groceries at Whole Foods instead of
> Safeway or Food Lion or Giant or Wal-Mart is the politically correct
> thing to do.
>
> They probably believe that the President and CEO of Whole Foods is a
> liberal like themselves.
>

Lots of unsubstantiated assumptions about who shop and why they shop at
WF.

The classic setting up of straw man.

> They of course would be wrong.
>
> John Mackey is instead a libertarian with right-wing tendencies.
>
> Mackey says that Milton Friedman is his hero.
>
> He's a devotee of Ayn Rand.
>
> He's opposed to national health insurance.
>
> He's a union buster.
>
> 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.
>
> The book - Trapped: When Acting Ethically is Against the Law - is
> written by Georgetown University Professor John Hasnas.
>
> "John Hasnas shows that new laws and regulations too often force CEOs
> to choose between acting legally and acting ethically," Mackey says
> in a blurb on the back cover.
>
> Unlike most books on white collar crime, which tend to rehash bland
> academic theories or cut corporate crimes of years past and paste them
> with dogmatic rants, Trapped is actually a compelling read with an
> original idea sprinkled here and there.
>
> Hasnas' big idea is that the whole system of prosecuting corporate
> crime is undermining the liberal principles built into traditional
> criminal law and designed to protect individuals against the power of
> the state.
>
> The result is that corporations are forced to turn on their own
> employees to save their own corporate hide.
>
> Hasnas is a hard line libertarian. He worked for a time as lawyer for
> the politically aggressive, right-wing, and privately-held Koch
> Industries - one of the nation's largest oil companies.
>
> And instead of concluding that we should fix the criminal justice
> system so that corporations and federal prosecutors can no longer gang
> up on individual employees - he concludes in his book that
> corporations should never be criminally prosecuted - ever.
>
> No matter the crime.
>
> No matter the corporation.
>
> Hasnas wants to do away with corporate criminal liability.
>
> If there is a crime committed by someone within the corporation,
> criminally prosecute the individual, he says.
>
> But a corporation can't commit a crime and should not be criminally
> prosecuted.
>
> Ever.
>
> We wanted to know: does Whole Foods' CEO Mackey agree -
> corporations should never be criminally prosecuted?
>
> No matter the crime?
>
> No matter the corporation?
>
> Does the libertarian John Mackey support the big business funded Cato
> Institute and its right wing ideology with cash - or just with
> quotes?
>
> Whole Foods spokesperson Kate Lowery did not return numerous calls and
> e-mails seeking comment.
>
> ------
> Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate
> Crime Reporter.

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.

In article .com>,
> wrote:
>John Mackey is instead a libertarian with right-wing tendencies.
>Mackey says that Milton Friedman is his hero.
>He's a devotee of Ayn Rand.
>He's opposed to national health insurance.
>He's a union buster.

Hmm... all the more reason to shop at WF, IMO.

I don't agree with doing away with criminal liability for corporations.

But then, who cares?

If I boycotted all stores run or staffed by people who didn't share
my views on politics, law, religion, art, or whatever, I'd starve.

-A

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

In article .com>,
> 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
>
> Most people who shop at Whole Foods are liberal yuppies.
>
> They have enough money to spend $9 on a pound of cherries.
>
> They believe that shopping for groceries at Whole Foods instead of
> Safeway or Food Lion or Giant or Wal-Mart is the politically correct
> thing to do.
>
> They probably believe that the President and CEO of Whole Foods is a
> liberal like themselves.
>
> They of course would be wrong.
>
> John Mackey is instead a libertarian with right-wing tendencies.
>
> Mackey says that Milton Friedman is his hero.
>
> He's a devotee of Ayn Rand.
>
> He's opposed to national health insurance.
>
> He's a union buster.
....

Nothing wrong with these views.

Liberal lefties ought to be exterminated. Nothing wrong with America
that killing 75 million Democraps, inner city welfare mutants, and
other liberal creeps will not help fix.

Those who steal my money to support needle exchanges, welfare
giveaways, minority setasides, and the whole liberal shebang need to be
tortured and then set on fire.

It's why we have guns.


--Tim May

On 2006-06-30, Tim May > wrote:

> It's why we have guns.

The reason I have guns is to protect me and mine from psychopaths
like you.

nb

In article >, says...
> In article .com>,
> > wrote:
> >John Mackey is instead a libertarian with right-wing tendencies.
> >Mackey says that Milton Friedman is his hero.
> >He's a devotee of Ayn Rand.
> >He's opposed to national health insurance.
> >He's a union buster.
>
> Hmm... all the more reason to shop at WF, IMO.
>
> I don't agree with doing away with criminal liability for corporations.
>
> But then, who cares?
>
> If I boycotted all stores run or staffed by people who didn't share
> my views on politics, law, religion, art, or whatever, I'd starve.
>
> -A
>

I want the 14th Amendment modified to include language that makes it
clear we're talking about real human beings when the word 'person' is
used. That way corporation couldn't hide behind the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc.

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

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Published on Thursday, June 29, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
>
> They believe that shopping for groceries at Whole Foods instead of
> Safeway or Food Lion or Giant or Wal-Mart is the politically correct
> thing to do.

Oh shaddap.

In article >, notbob
> wrote:

> On 2006-06-30, Tim May > wrote:
>
> > It's why we have guns.
>
> The reason I have guns is to protect me and mine from psychopaths
> like you.


You don't take my money, tax me, or pass laws favoring "diversities"
(aka colored people) and you and I will not cross paths.

You take my money, taxmy money, or give money to the basic brown types,
you need killing.

The Jews in Europe were the original Marxists. Many of them escaped to
America.


--Tim May

Tim May wrote:
> In article >, notbob
> > wrote:
>> On 2006-06-30, Tim May > wrote:

>>> It's why we have guns.

>> The reason I have guns is to protect me and mine from psychopaths
>> like you.

> You don't take my money, tax me, or pass laws favoring "diversities"
> (aka colored people) and you and I will not cross paths.

I beg to differ. We are already crossing paths, and it's not proving
to be very enjoyable from this end.

- Logan

In article >, Logan Shaw
> wrote:

> Tim May wrote:
> > In article >, notbob
> > > wrote:
> >> On 2006-06-30, Tim May > wrote:
>
> >>> It's why we have guns.
>
> >> The reason I have guns is to protect me and mine from psychopaths
> >> like you.
>
> > You don't take my money, tax me, or pass laws favoring "diversities"
> > (aka colored people) and you and I will not cross paths.
>
> I beg to differ. We are already crossing paths, and it's not proving
> to be very enjoyable from this end.
>

If you are right that we are already crossing paths, then you and your
extended family have already been marked for death.



--Tim May

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.

T wrote:

>
> I want the 14th Amendment modified to include language that makes it
> clear we're talking about real human beings when the word 'person' is
> used. That way corporation couldn't hide behind the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc.

Then let's modify the 10th to include the words "herein specifically"
between "not" and "delegated".

--
The world is a tragedy to those who feel, but a comedy to those who
think. - Horace Walpole

"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.

"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.

"PeterL" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> 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
>>
>> Most people who shop at Whole Foods are liberal yuppies.
>>
>> They have enough money to spend $9 on a pound of cherries.
>>
>> They believe that shopping for groceries at Whole Foods instead of
>> Safeway or Food Lion or Giant or Wal-Mart is the politically correct
>> thing to do.
>>
>> They probably believe that the President and CEO of Whole Foods is a
>> liberal like themselves.
>>
>
> Lots of unsubstantiated assumptions about who shop and why they shop at
> WF.
>
> The classic setting up of straw man.
>


Ya think? Now you spoiled their fun.

"T" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, says...
>> In article .com>,
>> > wrote:
>> >John Mackey is instead a libertarian with right-wing tendencies.
>> >Mackey says that Milton Friedman is his hero.
>> >He's a devotee of Ayn Rand.
>> >He's opposed to national health insurance.
>> >He's a union buster.
>>
>> Hmm... all the more reason to shop at WF, IMO.
>>
>> I don't agree with doing away with criminal liability for corporations.
>>
>> But then, who cares?
>>
>> If I boycotted all stores run or staffed by people who didn't share
>> my views on politics, law, religion, art, or whatever, I'd starve.
>>
>> -A
>>
>
> I want the 14th Amendment modified to include language that makes it
> clear we're talking about real human beings when the word 'person' is
> used. That way corporation couldn't hide behind the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc.
>

I agree, but not for your totally miss educated reasons

"Tim May" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, notbob
> > wrote:
>
>
> The Jews in Europe were the original Marxists. Many of them escaped to
> America.

Yep, they are the root of liberalism in the U.S



>
>
> --Tim May

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.

axlq wrote:

> If I boycotted all stores run or staffed by people who didn't share
> my views on politics, law, religion, art, or whatever, I'd starve.

It's not who staffs them, it's who the executives are, and their whole
attitude. I wouldn't starve, since Costco is a pretty safe place to shop
for me:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Business/story?id=1362779

Look at how many people checking out at WF just have a handful of items.
They are using it as I do, going there for items that simply aren't
available at any other store in the area, or that are much cheaper
there--for me it's yogurt (TJ's and Costco don't have any good yogurt),
corn-syrup-free soda (365 brand is excellent), and grapefruit juice
(about 45% cheaper than Safeway or other supermarkets).

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

These generalizations can be seen by others as angry sterotyping. Yes
it is true that most huge corporations are monsters as well as the
people at the top who own them, including Whole Foods and it's CEO;
However, I believe you (or the originator of this article) are wrong
about WHO shops there and why. The reason why I shop at Whole Foods is
because I live deep in the suburbs and their are no alternatives except
for Safeway and Albertsons who are BIGGER monsters and they do not
offer much organic, vegetarian foods. Since I hold the highest
standards for my daughter and myself and since all i eat is raw foods
(mostly produce) I shop at Whole Foods. They also have whole food
supplements and other items I am unable to find anywhere else. I also
get my 20 Gallons of reverse ozmosis water there, which is very earth
friendly and economical to the alternative- plastic bottle after bottle
of water (which is really just tap water with a fancy bottle and
labe)l. Bottled water is NOT monitored by the EPA; it is only monotored
by the FDA who sets tthe exact same standards on bottle water as they
do municipal tap water. If I had a better choice of where to shop, I
would shop at Rainbow Grocery, A co-op in San Francisco but then I have
to pay for more gas and we all know that that is worse than paying a
few dollars extra for cherries-good cherries that come from LOCAL
farmers. Then best thing we can do for ourselves and the farmers is
promote local farming because if there is ever a catastrohic crisis and
the world market should shut down, believe me, those farmers will be
our best friends and will show us the true laws of supply and demand.
Hey, but I do understand what your point is-the typical shopper is a
married mother who is better off than most. I think it is important to
remind the people that HELLO, Whole Foods is just another corporation
emmersed in shoddy/shady politics.
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
>
> Most people who shop at Whole Foods are liberal yuppies.
>
> They have enough money to spend $9 on a pound of cherries.
>
> They believe that shopping for groceries at Whole Foods instead of
> Safeway or Food Lion or Giant or Wal-Mart is the politically correct
> thing to do.
>
> They probably believe that the President and CEO of Whole Foods is a
> liberal like themselves.
>
> They of course would be wrong.
>
> John Mackey is instead a libertarian with right-wing tendencies.
>
> Mackey says that Milton Friedman is his hero.
>
> He's a devotee of Ayn Rand.
>
> He's opposed to national health insurance.
>
> He's a union buster.
>
> 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.
>
> The book - Trapped: When Acting Ethically is Against the Law - is
> written by Georgetown University Professor John Hasnas.
>
> "John Hasnas shows that new laws and regulations too often force CEOs
> to choose between acting legally and acting ethically," Mackey says
> in a blurb on the back cover.
>
> Unlike most books on white collar crime, which tend to rehash bland
> academic theories or cut corporate crimes of years past and paste them
> with dogmatic rants, Trapped is actually a compelling read with an
> original idea sprinkled here and there.
>
> Hasnas' big idea is that the whole system of prosecuting corporate
> crime is undermining the liberal principles built into traditional
> criminal law and designed to protect individuals against the power of
> the state.
>
> The result is that corporations are forced to turn on their own
> employees to save their own corporate hide.
>
> Hasnas is a hard line libertarian. He worked for a time as lawyer for
> the politically aggressive, right-wing, and privately-held Koch
> Industries - one of the nation's largest oil companies.
>
> And instead of concluding that we should fix the criminal justice
> system so that corporations and federal prosecutors can no longer gang
> up on individual employees - he concludes in his book that
> corporations should never be criminally prosecuted - ever.
>
> No matter the crime.
>
> No matter the corporation.
>
> Hasnas wants to do away with corporate criminal liability.
>
> If there is a crime committed by someone within the corporation,
> criminally prosecute the individual, he says.
>
> But a corporation can't commit a crime and should not be criminally
> prosecuted.
>
> Ever.
>
> We wanted to know: does Whole Foods' CEO Mackey agree -
> corporations should never be criminally prosecuted?
>
> No matter the crime?
>
> No matter the corporation?
>
> Does the libertarian John Mackey support the big business funded Cato
> Institute and its right wing ideology with cash - or just with
> quotes?
>
> Whole Foods spokesperson Kate Lowery did not return numerous calls and
> e-mails seeking comment.
>
> ------
> Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate
> Crime Reporter.

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

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.

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

"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.

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

Tim May > wrote in
:

[snip]

> If you are right that we are already crossing paths, then you and your
> extended family have already been marked for death.

Cain't ya just feel the loooove.

IBM

Al Eisner wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, 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.
>
> But civil liability might go away first -- take a close look at some
> of the tort "reform" measures in Congress.

Take a close look at the "tort reform" that's already happened in may
states. Here, in Texas, it's gone well past the point of the absurd.

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

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

"Geoff Miller" > wrote in message
...

> The Black Panthers were essentially a violent street gang; the color
> of their skin was irrelevant. When they began carrying weapons openly
> and sometimes confronting police with them, it couldn't have failed to
> of lawmakers. Therefore it's inaccurate to say that gun control laws
> in California have any connection whatsoever with Jim Crow.

I totally agree. In '67 The Panthers went to Sacto and marched armed into
the Capitol building. If a White counter-culture group would have done that,
the result would have been the same. Indeed, white-trash biker types were
grandstanding with firearms at the time, which also served as an impetus for
stricter gun control laws. Moreover, the seminal act for stricter gun
control laws in the 60's was the murder of JFK.

> (Not that Jim Crow laws were a feature of mid-1960s California, in any
> case.)

Well, yes and no. If "Jim Crow" is being used, as it typically does, to
describe de jure discrimination in the Southern states, then "Jim Crow" is
an overstatement. At worse, by the mid-1960's in Calif. the discrimination
was de facto...Sins of legislative omission, rather than commission.

Ciccio

"Geoff Miller" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> vernon <there@there> writes:
>
>> Here is the ruler
>> Communist Socialist Nazi Liberal Democrat Republican Conservative
>> Libertarian Anarchist.
>> You have no experience or education.
>
>
> Oh, the irony!
>
> First of all, the nationalist aspect of Nazism (it was called
> "*National* Socialism," you'll recall) places is well on the
> right side of the "ruler." Leftists are more focused on class
> than on nationalism.
>
> Secondly, "Democrat" and "Republican" are political parties,
> not discrete political orientations, and as such don't belong
> on the ruler at all -- unless the ruler is redefined exclusively
> in terms of political parties. Democrats are liberals, and
> Republicans are conservatives -- but with a range of belief on
> either side.
>
> Third, anarchists are extreme leftists, not extreme rightists.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
>
>
>
> Geoff
>
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.

Wikipeadia????


HA HA hA hA hA hA ha ha ha ha ha ha

Too bad you have so little knowledge of governing systems that you can't
even read a definition correctly


an·ar·chism n.
1.. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and
undesirable and should be abolished.
2.. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some
anarchists.
3.. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: "He was
inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity"
(Bertrand Russell).

"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
>