CAFTA: Can Plutocracy at Home Produce Democracy Abroad?

AmericanEconomicAlert.org ^ | Thursday, July 21, 2005 | Alan Tonelson

[expat_panama]

..the consumers put 'mom-n-pop' on the street...

--and that's only true for the mom-n-pop's that ended up on the street and stayed there.  Most mom-n-pop's are doing better than ever; anyone that's unhappy in times like these has either got to be putting in an awful lot of effort, or is an extraordinarily severe case.

I'm in favor of charity and welfare when it's absolutely necessary; but we're talking import tax assistance here, and as far as I'm concerned those Montana sugar beet farmers are going to have to get along without my forced charity.

[mbraynard]

You may have a point. Though I have about had it with smaller chain bike stores. They charged me $2 for some gel that I normally get for 0.75 on the net. The small shops also tend to have horrid customer service in additional to awful prices.

I can bring my return item into any Wal-Mart and not even have to explain myself and get my money back. Small shop? Forget it. Maybe lucky if you have to pay the 15% restock fee.

[A. Pole]

We must provide the foundation for democracy through smart policy. CAFTA's smart policy.

???

[A. Pole]

They aren't a priviledge, it is a right to organize yourself as you see fit.

Really? So being shielded from personal responsibility is your right and not privilege? Or should the owners/shareholders be liable personally?

[A. Pole]

Now you might say that it is the government that allows the corporation to have the liability and not the individual. Also false.

You are against the personal responsibility in case of business owners.

[Willie Green]

Right. The government is not involved. The governments role here is largely in the capacity of mandating a standard methodology - which is mostly superflous.

You're daft.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Corporations are artificial entities and have no unalienable rights.
The act of incorporation is a contract that investors enter into with the government in order to obtain the privilege of limited personal liability. We the People consent to this contractural arrangement with the expectation that the increased commerce will beneficially enhance the pursuit of happiness of all our citizenry. However, when corporate activity is detrimental to the best interests of We the People, it is a breach of contract, and We the People have the sovereign right to regulate and/or revoke their corporate charter.

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your consul, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget ye were our countrymen."

-- Samuel Adams

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

~Abraham Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.

"Of all forms of tyranny the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny of mere wealth, the tyranny of plutocracy."

~ Theodore Roosevelt

[mbraynard]

Given that I've created two corporations, let me enlighten you.

It isn't the government that absovles the people behind the corporation of personal liability, it is the people who agree to do business with the corporation. Doing business with the corporation is your personal agreement that, if the electric pencil that you buy from Wal-Mart doesn't work right, you won't try to seize Sam Walton's house.

If you were correct that the government did grant 'limited liability' and not the party of agreements with the corporation, then no corporation owner would ever have to give a 'personal gaurantee.' Giving a new corporation a credit line would be just as much of a right of that corporation as a black man sitting at a lunch counter if you were correct.

Corporations are a type of insurance - and while like insurance it is regulated by the government, none of the priviledges of insurance are granted by the government but by the individuals party to the agreements.

[Willie Green]

Pig manure.

[A. Pole]

It isn't the government that absovles the people behind the corporation of personal liability, it is the people who agree to do business with the corporation. Doing business with the corporation is your personal agreement that, if the electric pencil that you buy from Wal-Mart doesn't work right, you won't try to seize Sam Walton's house.

It is because EVERY producer can hide from the personal responsibility easily. Consumers do not have any choice.

[mbraynard]

It is because EVERY producer can hide from the personal responsibility easily. Consumers do not have any choice.

Actually, the corporation's defenses are used more on their consuming end (bad debts) than on their producing end.

And I don't know what you mean about hiding easily. What exactly do you produce?

[A. Pole]

And I don't know what you mean about hiding easily.

You set up the corporation and your personal responsibility is limited.

[mbraynard]

You set up the corporation and your personal responsibility is limited.

No, it's not, and further, when you do earn enough credit for your corporation to have responsibility, it is granted by the other corps/people you do business with.

What kind of personal responsibility do you believe is limited? It principally has to do with debts - and the debts are given to you, when you start, with even more scrutany than a personal debt.