LastPommerFan

I have a lot of family and friends from the Boston Area. Tonight has been a special treat. Thank you, Social Media.

I agree, and have no interest in removing the veil that protects shareholders (I would like to see some tighter restrictions on closely held corporations), but I think the example does a good job of showing that there MUST be separation between the owners and organization. I don't think the argument that corporations are owned by people and therefore should be able to operate as freely as people with all the rights of people holds water.

In my scenario, the shareholders, as represented by the board, were the criminals. In the scenario above, if the same actions were taken by an individual, he would lose his business AND go to jail. I am in favor, however, of the corporate veil. I think it should legally separate both the liabilities and rights of the corporation and the the people who own it.

Is this the same liability as an individual would hold?

The owners (the ones who you propose imply rights to the corporation) have no criminal or civil liability as owners once the organization becomes incorporated, how can they extend their rights without extending their responsibilities. e.g. - A pharmaceutical corporate board refuses to approve the investment required to test and control for the safety of their new drug. They are informed of the possibility of their process producing a poisonous compound if not tested and controlled for properly. 5,000 kids die as a result of taking the drug. There is no way to litigate the shareholders for their recklessly negligent homicides.

The corporate veil that allows for large corporations to exist by limiting the liability of the individuals who own the corporation must either be paired with a similar limit on rights or eliminated and liability allow to pass to the owners, no? We can't have rights without liability in the exercise of those rights.

This clap nice bow amazon. I am always repressed tie Marge par Ted knowledge key has come.

I still get uncomfortable when people don't understand how the internet works.

Binoculars and Camo.

At the pace we're going, this will be a perfect bridge to the actually NHL Draft... In Buffalo... In 2016.

Couple days late, but that time we beat the Germans was pretty awesome.

I am in complete agreement that the disparity between top income/corporate profit growth and the stagnation of middle and low income wages is a tragedy, but I disagree with the bolded statement above. Corporations, markets, and capitalism are not members of our society. They are tools that we use to drive our production and consumption of resources and distribute the gains. Only Human Beings can actually benefit from social order (at some point up the investment chain, those corporations are owned by actual people) and as such, only human beings bear the responsibility to be good members of the social order. This is were government works, the State SHOULD BE the method by which all the human beings work to deploy and adjust the tools at our disposal. unfortunately, our government is not run by society at large, but rather has become a tool of the humans that control capital. Thus, the tools have been deployed and adjust in such a way to benefit those with capital while leaving those who only have their labor and time behind. I don't think corporations CAN have a responsibility to society, they're not sentient beings, they are organizational tools. I think society has a responsibility to adjust the way that these tools are used so that they truly benefit as much of society as possible.

Operating from the paradigm that the parents are the beneficiaries of successful children, your argument about unbalanced cost holds true. I would argue that it is foremost the child who benefits, and each child is a single human so the cost would be "equal". After the child, it is society that benefits from their success. The parents do benefit, and they bear most of the labor and time investment in raising the child (if they forego this, they should additionally contribute financially ==> Child Support). But the biggest loser, after the child, resulting from uneducated, malnourished children exposed to danger and crime is certainly society at large, not the parents.

Yes, if you need to purchase labor for your endeavor, the cost of that labor is to support the human being performing the labor. That person has inherent value. individual welfare is essentially trickle up corporate welfare. The State, by supporting the working poor, subsidizes the cost of labor for business. It's insanity, IMO. But the answer isn't to cut the welfare programs and let the people suffer until there is a labor revolt. The answer is to ensure that the Market is functioning with the proper price of labor. A Minimum Living Wage would bring the market closer to this truth. No, I believe that the job should support a single person at 40 hours. I believe that the additional costs children bear on a family (education, health, sustenance, work hours childcare) should be born by society at large, as it is society at large that has the most to gain from successful children. I believe that parenting is a job, that the burden and risk of that endeavor are borne by society and the parents jointly, and that society should compensate all the people who forego additional traditional economic activity in favor of raising these children.

nailed it.

I would agree that it is required. I believe you may be oversimplifying this "choice". This sentence insinuates that those who do not manage reinvention have chosen not to. As you reflect, consider that some, possibly many, who fail to reinvent did not choose that result. I take no issue with the buggy whipper not being paid to make buggy whips that are no longer needed. And the minimum wage isn't really a concern there. We are talking about labor (loading and unloading a fryer, taking customer orders, etc.) that still has a demand.

In order for him to do something more lucrative, there needs to be a labor need in a more lucrative position that is not being met (labor shortage). If there is a labor surplus, someone is going to end up flipping burgers. and good night.

It's not deliberate. Help?

Can we reasonable expect all humans to reinvent themselves 2-3-10 times? are we willing to let them die in poverty if they cant? I believe we've collectively answered these questions as a society. And they were both answered with a resounding "No".

All examples in that line of thinking will assume a labor shortage. The ditch thing was a :P

More than 3 Million people who work in transportation are going to lose their jobs in the next 20 years. The computerized cars won't need to be perfectly safe, they just need to be safer than human drivers, and humans are terrible at driving. Handsomely!

I'm saying if you have a need for labor, you must pay the cost of that labor, and that cost is the amount required for the laborer to live. Paying him less than that is equivalent to stealing his labor, which is slavery. Even if the man is willingly providing you with the labor at an unsurvivable rate, he is doing so because he is either unaware of his human worth, or incapable of defending himself from your aggression. Either way, you are the aggressor, and you should be stopped. (There are a lot of "yous" in this statement, which is an indictment. I am extending the analogy you've provided, not actually accusing you of wage theft.)

This assumes a labor shortage and a need for a ditch.

I disagree. Someone is making a profit utilizing the labor of a man preparing fries. That labor should come at a cost at least enough to allow that man to survive. Anything less is aggression against that man's human worth.

I propose that all human beings have inherent value. One expression of that value is their labor. I believe that 40 hours per week (1/3 of waking hours) is a fair share of our labor to be put toward economic activity. No human should give their fair share of labor for reciprocation that they cannot survive on. Anything less is quasi-slavery.