[Bush2000]

It never occurs to people like you that the fight of Capitalism versus Communism is irrelevant.

Irrelevant, that is, until all of your wealth and property is liberated in the interest of "the people".

It has always been a fight between liberalism and authoritarianism. Most people lean toward the latter, not the former. Your corporation-worship puts you squarely into the latter.

Your definition puts you in the former camp, right alongside Al Gore and Ralph Nader and Abbie Hoffman and Che Guevara. Nice cesspool you have there.

Every institution in society must be held to the same ethical standards. Corporations exist because the states allow them to. They are a way of getting around the idea of the owners *gasp* actually being accountable for the actions of their companies.

You see a handful of bigtime losers on the TV and you paint the entire spectrum with the same broad brush. Grow up. The vast majority of corporate officers are ethical. The US has the highest per capita population of lawyers in the world. It's ridiculous. What do you suppose those lawyers are doing? Simple: They're suing somebody. If corporate officers weren't shielded from lawsuits, nobody would bother to form companies. We would be levelled to an agrarian society. The only ones with any money would be the government and the lawyers. Not you. Not me.

[dheretic]

Irrelevant, that is, until all of your wealth and property is liberated in the interest of "the people"

Or you are sued into bankrupcy by an industry trade group trying to use a corrupt law to supress your first amendment right to publish any writing or artistic work that does not endanger the national security of the United States or cause a clear and present danger to public safety. Copyright infringement does neither. It neither puts DoD personnel in danger nor does it present a real physical/psychological danger to the public. Publishing a paper on the flaws of a DRM system is thus perfectly constitutional.

Your definition puts you in the former camp, right alongside Al Gore and Ralph Nader and Abbie Hoffman and Che Guevara. Nice cesspool you have there.

Conservatism (n): Liberalism minus any principles and a deep seated hatred of reason as means of living as an alternative to faith.

If corporate officers weren't shielded from lawsuits, nobody would bother to form companies

I'm not talking about lawsuits. I'm talking about the ability of the government to disband a corporation that has a serious track record of criminal behavior. I'm not talking about Microsoft here, I'm talking about not for profits like the RIAA, BSA and MPAA that act as mercenaries for public corporations like Microsoft, Sony, et al. Of course you cannot easily get rid of a for-profit corporation nothing short of hiring a mercenary army to overthrow foreign governments could justify that. However the state supreme courts should have the authority to kill groups like the **AA in the blink of an eye if they feel that they are fundamentally abusing the law.

When a government becomes abusive of the rights of the people, they have a right to alter or abolish it, but what if a corporation or union becomes abusive of their rights? Should the people have to bend over and take it when faced with SLAPPs (for those who don't know, SLAPP means "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation")?

The US is too soft on high profile criminals. Bill Clinton and Ken Lay should both face the death penalty for their crimes against the people and the public liberty. Obviously the war crimes against our people and the people of countless nations justify the execution of the former, but IMO, the latter should face at least life for his crimes against the stockholders of his company and its workers.