Ugly legislation in the U.S.
Ugly legislation in the U.S.
Posted Jan 26, 2006 3:55 UTC (Thu) by stock (guest, #5849)Parent article: Ugly legislation in the U.S.
After reading this proposal, I really wonder how members of the House and
Congress can keep on yelling, that they are by and for the people. It
should nowadays read : "We the Corporations of the United States of
America ..."
Robert
Posted Jan 26, 2006 23:53 UTC (Thu)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link] (2 responses)
If you go back to the foundation of the US, where phrases such as "government of, by, and for the people" originated, you see that it wasn't about freedom for the vulgar masses. It was about money - colonists wanting to pay less taxes; and business - colonists not being permitted to engage in certain businesses and sell certain products.
Posted Jan 27, 2006 9:45 UTC (Fri)
by ncm (guest, #165)
[Link] (1 responses)
It's perfectly normal for a corporate officer to feel obliged to do something on behalf of the corporation that he or she would do very differently if not so constrained -- and even to do something personally repugnant. (E.g. polluting; using deep-pocket legal tactics against public-interest groups or negligence victims; lobbying for unjust laws.)
The myth that corporations are just groups of people acting in concert is convenient for the maintenance of corporate power, but it has been well over a century since it had any validity. Corporations exercise privileges far beyond anything even an untypically wealthy citizens can draw upon.
Posted Jan 27, 2006 17:30 UTC (Fri)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
The reason my point is relevant is that the previous commenter suggests Congress acts for the benefit of corporations instead of for people, presumably by passing laws that give corporate copyright owners such as Disney more control over how people use the copyright material. I'm pointing out that when Disney's profits go up, people (biological) become richer. Often, it is at the expense of other people, but that doesn't mean you can accuse Congress of not acting for people at all.
The various things you point out about how corporations work don't seem to apply to the issue of whether or not Congress acts to benefit people.
I think if one wants to make a cynical accusation about what motivates Congress, one should leave corporations out of it and say Congress acts for wealthy people and against poor people. At least that wouldn't be invalid on its face. One might be able to argue that Disney's profits wind up mostly in the pockets of wealthy employees and shareholders.
Posted Jan 27, 2006 11:27 UTC (Fri)
by arafel (subscriber, #18557)
[Link]
Try to remember that the Disney corporation is owned and operated by people -- lots of them. Ted Turner is a person. Each member of Congress is a person and was selected by other persons. I don't see any falsehood in saying Congress is by and for the people. The debate is at worst only about which people get what. At best, it's about what regulation gets the most to the most people. E.g. unavailability of copying equipment might make Disney broadcast more stuff for The People.
US Congress by and for the people
No. A corporation is a "legal person" distinct from the "biological persons" that are used as components. (I would say "natural persons", except that corporations have been those, too, since the '20s.) If Ted Turner, in his role as officer of his corporation, acts against the interest of the other stockholders, or in violation of the corporate charter, he can be held liable, even criminally, whatever his compunctions or lack of same. US Congress by and for the people
You start off with "No," and then proceed to say a bunch of stuff completely consistent with what I said -- corporations are owned and operated by people. "No" should be followed by some kind of contradiction.
US Congress by and for the people
Government of the peopleUgly legislation in the U.S.
By a corrupt subset of the people
For the people who can afford the corrupt subset of the people.
-- Chris Newport