Killing Korporations: Charter Revocation as a Remedy

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


That's AWESOME. I'm a Marxist and I don't even have a beard! So what "ist" are you then if you don't give a rat's ass about low-level employees who, again, have nothing to do with a corporation's evil practices? If I'm an "ist" you're an "ist". Be fair.

Originally posted by Blender Ace
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

That's AWESOME. I'm a Marxist and I don't even have a beard! So what "ist" are you then if you don't give a rat's ass about low-level employees who, again, have nothing to do with a corporation's evil practices? If I'm an "ist" you're an "ist". Be fair.

First of all, if "low level employees" think they are not a part of the problem by working for a criminal corporation, and let me be clear here, because this thread is about dealing with corporations that are criminal, not corporations in general, but the criminal ones, and anyone employed with those criminal organizations is no different than low level thugs and goombahs that work for the mafia.

As to your "ist" game, you bet I am an "ist" and am on record in this site for being one, and that is a capitalist.

[edit on 24-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
So that I may better understand your point of view, can you give me an example of a criminal corporation?

Originally posted by Blender Ace
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

So that I may better understand your point of view, can you give me an example of a criminal corporation?

I am having a hard time believing that you do want to "better understand (my) point of view" since I all ready did give examples of criminal corporations, one of the most egregious in my estimation being Monsanto, and of course, BP could very well be one too. Certainly their thuggish attitudes about closing public beaches and denying media access is arguably criminal, and given the number of threads on BP in this site, I assure you I am not alone in arguing that BP is most likely criminal.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
BP? So everyone who works for BP -- from top executives to the entry-level mail clerks, from scientists to roughnecks to janitors -- they're all in on the criminal enterprise? Would you include investors, as well? And what about people who invest in a mutual fund that happens to invest in BP?

Just getting a feel for where you draw the line.

reply to post by Blender Ace


Where do you draw the line? Do you think people who invest in terrorist organizations are not culpable? Do you think the gofers and guys who clean the toilets for gangsters are really just innocents who just want a job? You don't think they're looking for "advancement"? Where do you draw the line?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Blender Ace

 

Where do you draw the line? Do you think people who invest in terrorist organizations are not culpable? Do you think the gofers and guys who clean the toilets for gangsters are really just innocents who just want a job? You don't think they're looking for "advancement"? Where do you draw the line?

Okay, I'll answer your question first...I guess... I think if you can prove someone has invested in a terrorist organization willfully, then yes they should be held culpable. My key word is prove. If you can't, then no.

The gangster gopher, it depends on whether or not his "gopher-ing" involved an illegal act. Illegal act = culpable. So a drug mule should be held accountable for that illegal act, but NOT be grouped with the gangsters as far as punishment. As for the janitor, probably not. He's scrubbing toilets, which is not connected to gangsters acts. If he witnesses illegal activity and does not report it, then he should be held appropriately accountable -- but not be grouped in with the gangsters.

reply to post by Blender Ace


Here is the point, regardless of who is actually culpable for a crime, it is a fallacious argument to assert that we shouldn't revoke a charter from a corporation that has engaged in criminal activity because all the honest Joe's would either loose their jobs or their investment.

I have news for you, part of investing means taking the risk of loosing that investment. Further, there are plenty of people who upon learning that the corporation they have stock in has been engaged in criminal activity or even a misuse and abuse of their charter, will dump that stock in protest, regardless of how well it was doing. There are also good and ethical people who upon learning the company they work for is engaged in criminal activity, walk away from that job and find another way to support themselves. But those are the ethical people.



[edit on 24-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Aw, I answered your questions...

Well okay, then I disagree with your point. Your solution punishes people who I maintain are not culpable and/or who have not gone through any sort of due process to prove their culpability. Honestly, suggesting that a gang's janitor is just as "guilty" as the gang itself is ridiculous.

I do believe the people proven to be responsible for directing the corporation into "criminal acts" should be punished and done so severely. (I abhor the notion that "white collar" crime is not as bad as violent crime. Crime is crime.)

I do not believe the free market will simply provide jobs for thousands of employees who have lost their jobs because you've revoked their employer's charter. Sure, many many people lose their jobs because of mass lay-offs or companies going under, but it's never ever a healthy thing for an economy or a society.

reply to post by Blender Ace


Your contention that a revocation of a corporate charter "punishes" employees who work for that corporation is a fallacious argument. If a corporation has its charter revoked it is because it misused and abused the terms of the charter that granted it the right to exist to begin with, so if there is any punishment of employees due to revocation of charter it is due to the malfeasance of the corporation itself and the corporation who punished their own employees by acting in such a way.

Further, simply because people would be displaced because of charter revocation simply ignores the fact that corporations displace employees constantly through downsizing, layoff's and outsourcing. This is the risk one takes when working for any business whether it be a corporation, limited partnership, or flat out ownership of business, that those who have taken employment can, for a myriad of reasons loose their jobs.

Your attempt to frame it as "punishment" is simply an emotional appeal where you justify malfeasance in the name of job security, a job security that doesn't exist to begin with.

Amazing thread!

I simple can't add anything substantive really...

JPZ I appreciate your hard work and desire to bring people together.
I think the ultimate truth is that we have to make the difference, be informed
and STOP TRANSACTING WITH THE ENTITIES we DISTRUST, Abstinence
whenever possible. With the government, pay your crap on time, don't let them ding you with their arbitrary penalties because that only equals more $$$, for more BS. I believe these are simple ways to walk the walk... It may sound like pissing into the ocean, but you have done your part.

I can imagine the impact just one charter revocation would have or one twenty year
sentence for a politician or CFO

Thanks again, APPLAUSE are in order and pardon for taking so long



[edit on 26-6-2010 by Janky Red]

Saved for later reading.

And bumped back to the top.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

It is a sort of neurosis with people today that they will complain about banking institutions and continue to do business with them. I operate my own business as a freelance writer and I would much prefer to be paid cash for my services than by a check, but it is difficult to get people to pay in cash, and here's the kicker; Because of my efforts to boycott banks, I do not want to do business with them, so when people insist they want to pay by check, I ask them to go get a money order and most agree to this. The irony of this, is that a money order takes more effort to get than simply paying me with cash. How ridiculous is that? It seems most people only do business with banks so they complain about them.

This is a very important point in that most employees and recipients of government benefits are required to maintain a bank account for direct deposit of those payments, thus allowing the fractional banks to loan up to ten times the amount deposited back into the economy. It doesn't matter that this is money that does not exist.

Perhaps that's why so many people think they can do nothing but continue to do business with banks and complain. This is true even for those who keep a minimal amount in their accounts for bill paying purposes, the minute that deposit is posted it becomes a bank asset and is available to create a loan to some other poor schmuck.