Comments on: The Scorpion and the Frog http://whynow.dumka.us/2007/07/08/the-scorpion-and-the-frog/ On-line Opinion Magazine...OK, it's a blog Sat, 11 Feb 2012 03:38:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 By: whig http://whynow.dumka.us/2007/07/08/the-scorpion-and-the-frog/comment-page-1/#comment-27567 whig Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:17:43 +0000 http://whynow.dumka.us/2007/07/08/the-scorpion-and-the-frog/#comment-27567 Bryan, the corporations are <i>running the show</i> now in both parties due to their legal personhood and alleged first amendment rights to pay for political campaigns. Bryan, the corporations are running the show now in both parties due to their legal personhood and alleged first amendment rights to pay for political campaigns.

]]> By: Bryan http://whynow.dumka.us/2007/07/08/the-scorpion-and-the-frog/comment-page-1/#comment-27513 Bryan Mon, 09 Jul 2007 16:33:35 +0000 http://whynow.dumka.us/2007/07/08/the-scorpion-and-the-frog/#comment-27513 They just threw out a century of decisions to allow corporations to impose minimum prices, and 50 years to void <i>Brown v. Board</i>, so <i>stare decisis</i> has lost its sway among the Supremes. Corporations aren't addressed in the Constitution, so it doesn't require that they be addressed by amendment. I don't want the US Constitution to start looking like the Florida constitution with references to fishing nets and pregnant pigs. There needs to be a trade off - if risk is reduced, something must be given up. This current system is adding power to reduced risk and putting competitors at a disadvantage. If Al Capone had incorporated, he wouldn't have gone to jail. The Declaration of Independence wasn't a corporate charter - those guys risked everything. They just threw out a century of decisions to allow corporations to impose minimum prices, and 50 years to void Brown v. Board, so stare decisis has lost its sway among the Supremes.

Corporations aren’t addressed in the Constitution, so it doesn’t require that they be addressed by amendment. I don’t want the US Constitution to start looking like the Florida constitution with references to fishing nets and pregnant pigs.

There needs to be a trade off – if risk is reduced, something must be given up. This current system is adding power to reduced risk and putting competitors at a disadvantage.

If Al Capone had incorporated, he wouldn’t have gone to jail.

The Declaration of Independence wasn’t a corporate charter – those guys risked everything.

]]> By: Steve Bates http://whynow.dumka.us/2007/07/08/the-scorpion-and-the-frog/comment-page-1/#comment-27510 Steve Bates Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:08:31 +0000 http://whynow.dumka.us/2007/07/08/the-scorpion-and-the-frog/#comment-27510 <i>"... all the justices would be reluctant to bash the altar of stare decisis that much. i’m thinking another amendment is the only way to go." - hipparchia</i> As whig pointed out (or at least alluded to), there is an even earlier tradition in the history of American government of deep mistrust of corporations. <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1022-06.htm" rel="nofollow">Here</a> is one article about the emergence of corporations in America, including some thoughts of Lincoln, Rutherford Hayes, T. Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower. I can't find a ref to a compact exposition, but IIRC, our founders, having seen the British royal charters firsthand, were equally suspicious. If we had genuine conservatives on the Court instead of radicals with an agenda, they could easily look to that earlier tradition if they wished. (Well, perhaps not easily...) I am very reluctant about constitutional amendments at this stage. We haven't had any in a long time, and I don't want to give the dominionists any ideas. Promoting any constitutional amendment in essence promotes the whole notion of amending the Constitution, and I can't see any good coming of that in these parlous times. “… all the justices would be reluctant to bash the altar of stare decisis that much. i’m thinking another amendment is the only way to go.” – hipparchia

As whig pointed out (or at least alluded to), there is an even earlier tradition in the history of American government of deep mistrust of corporations. Here is one article about the emergence of corporations in America, including some thoughts of Lincoln, Rutherford Hayes, T. Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower. I can’t find a ref to a compact exposition, but IIRC, our founders, having seen the British royal charters firsthand, were equally suspicious. If we had genuine conservatives on the Court instead of radicals with an agenda, they could easily look to that earlier tradition if they wished. (Well, perhaps not easily…)

I am very reluctant about constitutional amendments at this stage. We haven’t had any in a long time, and I don’t want to give the dominionists any ideas. Promoting any constitutional amendment in essence promotes the whole notion of amending the Constitution, and I can’t see any good coming of that in these parlous times.

]]> By: hipparchia http://whynow.dumka.us/2007/07/08/the-scorpion-and-the-frog/comment-page-1/#comment-27507 hipparchia Mon, 09 Jul 2007 06:39:32 +0000 http://whynow.dumka.us/2007/07/08/the-scorpion-and-the-frog/#comment-27507 <i>It doesn’t require a Constitutional amendment, it only requires a realistic interpretation, something we are not apt to get from the Synod.</i> actually it would require throwing over about 100 years of pro-corporation decisons, and i'd be willing to bet that <i>all</i> the justices would be reluctant to bash the altar of <i>stare decisis</i> that much. i'm thinking another amendment is the only way to go. It doesn’t require a Constitutional amendment, it only requires a realistic interpretation, something we are not apt to get from the Synod.

actually it would require throwing over about 100 years of pro-corporation decisons, and i’d be willing to bet that all the justices would be reluctant to bash the altar of stare decisis that much. i’m thinking another amendment is the only way to go.

]]> By: ellroon http://whynow.dumka.us/2007/07/08/the-scorpion-and-the-frog/comment-page-1/#comment-27505 ellroon Mon, 09 Jul 2007 06:15:09 +0000 http://whynow.dumka.us/2007/07/08/the-scorpion-and-the-frog/#comment-27505 Linked to you, Bryan. And now I get to think about scorpions and corporations and get all steamed up again... Linked to you, Bryan.

And now I get to think about scorpions and corporations and get all steamed up again…

]]> By: whig http://whynow.dumka.us/2007/07/08/the-scorpion-and-the-frog/comment-page-1/#comment-27504 whig Mon, 09 Jul 2007 05:45:37 +0000 http://whynow.dumka.us/2007/07/08/the-scorpion-and-the-frog/#comment-27504 But really, we've just recreated the British East-India Company with our modern corporate forms. But really, we’ve just recreated the British East-India Company with our modern corporate forms.

]]> By: whig http://whynow.dumka.us/2007/07/08/the-scorpion-and-the-frog/comment-page-1/#comment-27503 whig Mon, 09 Jul 2007 05:43:24 +0000 http://whynow.dumka.us/2007/07/08/the-scorpion-and-the-frog/#comment-27503 Of course the insurance system is another matter altogether. Of course the insurance system is another matter altogether.

]]> By: whig http://whynow.dumka.us/2007/07/08/the-scorpion-and-the-frog/comment-page-1/#comment-27502 whig Mon, 09 Jul 2007 05:41:49 +0000 http://whynow.dumka.us/2007/07/08/the-scorpion-and-the-frog/#comment-27502 Nothing prevents a general partnership from having limited partners whose liability is backed by the firm or insurance. A corporation is more analogous to a royal charter. Nothing prevents a general partnership from having limited partners whose liability is backed by the firm or insurance.

A corporation is more analogous to a royal charter.

]]> By: Bryan http://whynow.dumka.us/2007/07/08/the-scorpion-and-the-frog/comment-page-1/#comment-27501 Bryan Mon, 09 Jul 2007 05:25:44 +0000 http://whynow.dumka.us/2007/07/08/the-scorpion-and-the-frog/#comment-27501 As a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist I hate the whole concept of "limited liability." The market is controlled by risk. Risk is the "invisible hand." Profit is justified by risk, so if you limit the risk, you should limit the profit. Since government is protecting the corporation, government has a right to regulate for the common good. It doesn't require a Constitutional amendment, it only requires a realistic interpretation, something we are not apt to get from the Synod. As a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist I hate the whole concept of “limited liability.” The market is controlled by risk. Risk is the “invisible hand.” Profit is justified by risk, so if you limit the risk, you should limit the profit. Since government is protecting the corporation, government has a right to regulate for the common good.

It doesn’t require a Constitutional amendment, it only requires a realistic interpretation, something we are not apt to get from the Synod.

]]> By: whig http://whynow.dumka.us/2007/07/08/the-scorpion-and-the-frog/comment-page-1/#comment-27498 whig Mon, 09 Jul 2007 04:40:30 +0000 http://whynow.dumka.us/2007/07/08/the-scorpion-and-the-frog/#comment-27498 Should we be amending the constitution to make explicit that corporations are not persons entitled to civil rights, but instrumentalities of the state to achieve public purposes? Because that's what they are supposed to be, that's what they should be, and the only reason it seems to be otherwise is the Supreme Court decided at one point that the 14th amendment wasn't so much meant to help the freed slaves as to provide for private wealth to gain further power. Should we be amending the constitution to make explicit that corporations are not persons entitled to civil rights, but instrumentalities of the state to achieve public purposes? Because that’s what they are supposed to be, that’s what they should be, and the only reason it seems to be otherwise is the Supreme Court decided at one point that the 14th amendment wasn’t so much meant to help the freed slaves as to provide for private wealth to gain further power.

]]>