Posted on 06/23/2014 5:11:27 AM PDT by xzins
I don't see how that argues against a corporation enjoying 1st amendment protections. The focus is on the incredible amount of things which a corporation CAN do just as individuals can. I see no reason why I should lose any basic right when I act collectively that I enjoy when I act individually.
That is a far cry from "surrendering your rights to the government."
It's not only a far cry, it's entirely irrelevent.
You're merely discussing one of the mechanisms of indemnification (and there are hundreds, if not thousands - enough to keep entire legal industries wealthy).
What I am talking about is the price of entry.
You want to play the corporation game, you surrender your rights and exchange them for privileges. That is the flat-out, inescapable, rock-solid, unchanging truth. Corporations have no rights. "Corporate rights" are NOT the same as the Constitutional acknowledgement of pre-existing human natural rights. Rather, corporate "rights" are in fact "privilege grants" from the government that may be changed or rescinded at any time by the government.
And THAT is exactly "surrendering your rights to the government."
So what options should one take to form a business that avoids all this convolution while still possibly protecting oneself from personal liability for purely business decisions?
That's a different question - but the crux of the matter.
In fact, businesses need a way of legitimately reducing personal liability - within proper limits. Current corporate law is what has been offered for this purpose, by people who didn't give a damn about business protection. All they cared about is finding a mechanism whereby people would voluntarily surrender their rights. They found one.
And now we have the country we have.
It's a bad situation. Because now the courts have ruled that the government can presume incorporation and hold people to corporate laws, and they have to prove they don't apply - but these same courts don't acknowledge any method to do so. And so you see millions of people screaming about their rights, and the courts uniformly ruling that they have none. it happens every day, and no one asks why or how. They just assume "criminality." But it's not criminal - it's got a method. A reliable method attorneys count on in order to do their work.
Yes, the system can be reigned in. In fact, it is extremely easy to reign it in, and no change in corporate law needs take place. The only thing that has to happen is that the government must be banned from presuming corporate status. In every case, it must be forced to prove corporate status, before it can apply corporate law.
In a single stroke, MOST of the laws of this country would be blocked - and EVERY Leftist law.
But that would take people waking up and learning what the problem is, and how it works.
Hehe. Good luck.
5-4 for Hobby Lobby
Is assuming personal liability your only "good" option to overreaching government interference?
How about going back to contractual law that might allow a business to claim protection from personal liability unless recklessness or negligence?
When corporations were first formed in the US, shareholders actually were personally liable for the company. This was a big deal, people were very wary of this whole indemnification thing. They rightly saw it as a way for criminals to escape justice. So back then, say you had a dollar in stock in JP Morgan, and the company was convicted of a crime or sued and lost - you would be personally liable, to the limits of your one dollar share.
Of course, corporate owners, operators and lawyers then ran for Congress, got in and changed the laws to be more and more and more protective, until we ended up... here... wherever we are.
Ironically, personal liability is currently in many ways technically safer than incorporating, because all of the courts are now corporate administrative courts. They can still sit in common law if they so choose, but they - never - so choose. Again, back in the 1800’s common law courts and administrative courts were two completely different animals (as, in fact, they actually are - their jurisdictional powers and presumptions are 180 degrees opposite one another). So today if you are not a corporation, and run a business, and someone sues you, you can simply point out that you are not a corporate entity, and therefore the laws they are invoking to sue you dont apply to you.
Problem is, on the State level, there’s no fixed method to do this like on the federal level. And on any level, the actual definitions of these terms are written in Sanskrit, scrambled in PGP, printed out on toilet paper and thrown into the ocean. So you can spend a lot of money trying to prove you are not a corporation, and the government never has to prove you are one - even if you have no incorporation papers. It’s that crazy.
Yet, ultimately, it’s also that simple. The Big Lie is always simple. It’s just... BIG.
I can’t say I know what to do about it. For me it’s like one of those two faces vs. wine glass visual puzzles - once you see the wine glass, you always see the wine glass. Well, it’s the same with this subject. They always use corporate terms very carefully, and peculiar parts of legal construction, etc. It’s just “the way it’s done.”
As for contract law liability limitations to recklessness and negligence, yeah, they apply. It’s just that the whole fabric of the court system is caught up in corporate applications of these issues, and once you step into a court without carefully declaring “special appearance,” the court “presumes” you’ve admitted you are a corporation. And then game over.
They might be evil, but they’re not stupid. Many generations of legal minds went into creating this web, motivated by a lot of power and a lot of money. If you look at is from a purely structural point of view, it’s actually quite brilliant. Too bad it’s being used so inappropriately.
However, I always go back to "natural law" and if nothing else, common law, to see what it "should" be. To me for now what it "should" be looks like some kind of contractual agreement where managing shareholders should be liable but not non-managing shareholders, and nuke all this corporate law crap.
I had a law teacher who didnt want to just come out an explain the difference between corporate and common law jurisidiction. So in response to various assignments, I would wax eloquent about various defense and justification arguments, oblivious.
All I ever got back was "see me."
Drove me mad. I would parse out every little detail, justify every claim and part of my argument, nail it to the wall.
All I ever got back was "doesn't matter."
Difficult time.
That was the original difference between preferred and common stock, respectively.
Now, not so much. LOL
I gotta tell you. If we nuked all the commercial and Constitutional-related laws passed since around 1900, I think we’d be so much better off.
And here I am working on passing the bar. Maybe I can do some good somewhere, I hope.
Knowledge is power. Take in information, test it, keep what sticks, and ask questions. If you're going into law, remember the bottom line is... the bottom line - Mr. Green. The hardest, most intricate legal questions can be deciphered by applying the master legal key: "Cui bono?"
Oh, and learn the rules of construction until you mutter them in your sleep. Absolutely nothing will help you as much as being able to decipher legal construction. In fact, you can make a career out of doing nothing but that.
You mean like what I'm studying now, the maxims of construing contracts that are ambiguous or missing terms?
Yep, and definitions based on jurisdiction, especially jurisdiction generated by the use of terms of art that are restricted to a certain usage.
Never, ever believe a term is missing or ambiguous. It’s ALWAYS there - somewhere. The moment you discover something missing or ambiguous, then as Sherlock Holmes would say, “the game’s afoot!”
For example, if you aren’t careful about the meaning of “common” terms, those are exactly the terms that will trip you up. A nasty contract won’t call attention to itself. It won’t say that you are agreeing to be subject to the “photon confabulator.” No - it will say you are agreeing to be subject to “release from all obligation.”
Then on page 23, it will talk about “proprietary meanings” of supplemental terms.
Then on page 14, it will talk about the “groupings” of supplemental terms.
Then on page 29 it will define term groupings as “including release as acceptance of disconnection from indemnification.”
LOL
Thanks. Think I’ll pass. Maybe I’ll shoot for simple wills and trusts. Something where my wife and I can be free to pursue other things as well.
You mean designing safes? Or cracking them?
LOL, don't mind me. Best of luck.
Sounds like designing and cracking safes would be easier than designing and cracking CCC's (convoluted corporate contracts).
:-)
Without doubt! : )
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.