- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 9, 2010 at 4:50 pm #594115
JoBParticipantAnd why would we think they represent us?
The recent supreme court ruling that enabled corporations to sink unlimited funds into elections basing it on earlier rulings that equated corporations with people and the resulting mudslinging has left me pondering.
Those supposedly non-activist judges some people wanted because those liberal judges were activists have acted in a big way… by voiding all election reform and making it nearly impossible to pass any that will stand up to the supreme court… they have solidified law giving corporations the legal rights of people without giving them any of the responsibilities.
doesn’t this bother anyone besides me?
I know.. corporations supposedly speak for their shareholders… but only on one issue… profitablility. A shareholder can sue if a company’s policies are not profitable.. but not if they are objectionable.. or injurious to the community.
They are more like mini governments than the democracy represented by that ruling… a shareholders only real input is in electing the board… and in most cases they don’t even have that since the controlling interests in the company elect the board. They are a government whose only goal is to maximize corporate profits and enrich management.
I know.. there used to be a time when those goals were consistent with the communities they inhabited.. when production equaled profits… but those days had ended long before the movies of the president who sold us the trickle down theory entered the endless rerun loop.
Has no-one noticed this isn’t Mayberry any more?
It isn’t the 50s yet we are being sold policies built on the realities of the 50s as though they were relevant… and our elected democrats aren’t shouting foul.
Yes.. they are all entering the fray with their own versions of election finance reform.. but the real issue.. that of giving corporations the rights of citizenship without requiring them to assume the responsibilities… that issue seems to be hidden behind a huge smokescreen.
Where is our common sense? The same people who will defend a corporations right to make money.. after all it is business.. will tell you that we should place our public trust in those same businesses… businesses whose job is to pay their workers as little as possible and to raid the treasuries of their communities through tax advantages and other programs as much as possible and to give as little back to the communities they inhabit as possible.
Does this make sense to you?
I am not anti-business.. but if we are going to give them the rights of citizenship.. then they should also assume responsibilities of citizenship equal to the number of their shares…
Now THAT would be true trickle down
March 9, 2010 at 5:00 pm #689874
dawsonctParticipantYeah, and they have to die after 60-70 years. And if anyone dies or is injured while properly using one of their products, they (the corporate officers) will be held liable for it in our courts. And if there are any corporate mergers, they must declare their sex, because we can’t abide any homosexual corporate mergers.
—
If we can’t do that, then I want to incorporate as a Limited Liability Person.
March 9, 2010 at 5:20 pm #689875
JoBParticipantLOL.. now why didn’t i think of that?
instead of thinking about limiting corporate rights..
i should have been going after their gig.
i want to be a limited liability person too.
it’s a good gig if you can get it.
March 9, 2010 at 5:29 pm #689876
KBearParticipantI saw a great bumper sticker the other day: “If corporations are people, then I support the death penalty.”
March 9, 2010 at 8:01 pm #689877
JoBParticipantMarch 9, 2010 at 9:02 pm #689878 -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.