16 Jan
2001
16 Jan
'01
3:55 a.m.
Richard Erlacher wrote:
It's because, not only are other companies as devious, in fact ALL
other
surviving companies are, in their way, as devious, but
that's what
they're
SUPPOSED to be.
No, companies are limited liability constructs of the state. They fall
under the same social contract that the state does, even more so. Yes,
we can, and should, insist that corporations be ethical. The nature of
a corporation's "rights" is quite different than the nature of an
individual's rights. The corporation exists at the pleasure of the
state. Corporations are SUPPOSED to be what the state intends them to
be. The same is not true of individuals. The state has the power to
regulate the ethical behavior of corporations, even to the extent of
demanding that the corporation be altruistic. But altruism is not the
issue with Microsoft. Rather the issue is unethical business practice.
Beyond that, you have not answered my question as to why you are
defending unethical behavior. Why not let those who would promote
ethical behavior take the lead, even if you don't think they have much
chance at success? Why try to shoot them down? What is to be gained by
it?
-- John Tinker
16 Jan
16 Jan
6:02 a.m.
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, John Tinker wrote:
Beyond that, you have not answered my question as to
why you are
defending unethical behavior. Why not let those who would promote
ethical behavior take the lead, even if you don't think they have much
chance at success? Why try to shoot them down? What is to be gained by
it?
John, I've learned that arguing with Richard is like arguing with a wall.
But it's not so much that the wall is incapable of hearing what you have
to say, but that you feel completely stupid for trying to argue with one.
:)
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
7:41 a.m.
Anybody know if our collected resources could
in any way be applied to helping correct Microsoft?
IE can we get a motivation to agree rather than argue?
John A.
8:59 a.m.
YESSSS!!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sellam Ismail" <foo(a)siconic.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: Nuke Redmond!
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, John Tinker wrote:
Festival
Beyond that, you have not answered my question as
to why you are
defending unethical behavior. Why not let those who would promote
ethical behavior take the lead, even if you don't think they have much
chance at success? Why try to shoot them down? What is to be gained by
it?
John, I've learned that arguing with Richard is like arguing with a wall.
But it's not so much that the wall is incapable of hearing what you have
to say, but that you feel completely stupid for trying to argue with one.
:)
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
8:56 a.m.
Starting Saturday, we're all going to get a close up and personal view of an
alternative to your proposed industry-government relationship. What you
propose is a socialist model. A fascist model is one, as in Japan, where
industry enjoys a close relationship with government. Everybody with a
7-figure income and 10^6 kilobucks' net worth will come to appreciate that.
The rest of us can go suck hind teat.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Tinker" <jtinker(a)coin.org>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: Nuke Redmond!
Richard Erlacher wrote:
It's because, not only are other companies as devious, in fact ALL
other
surviving companies are, in their way, as
devious, but that's what
they're
SUPPOSED to be.
No, companies are limited liability constructs of the state. They fall
under the same social contract that the state does, even more so. Yes,
we can, and should, insist that corporations be ethical. The nature of
a corporation's "rights" is quite different than the nature of an
individual's rights. The corporation exists at the pleasure of the
state. Corporations are SUPPOSED to be what the state intends them to
be. The same is not true of individuals. The state has the power to
regulate the ethical behavior of corporations, even to the extent of
demanding that the corporation be altruistic. But altruism is not the
issue with Microsoft. Rather the issue is unethical business practice.
Beyond that, you have not answered my question as to why you are
defending unethical behavior. Why not let those who would promote
ethical behavior take the lead, even if you don't think they have much
chance at success? Why try to shoot them down? What is to be gained by
it?
-- John Tinker
9:09 a.m.
I think we are closer to the facist model than most would like to admit.
Regards,
Jeff
In <002301c07ff6$6d9a8760$1192fea9(a)idcomm.com>om>, on 01/16/01
at 03:09 PM, "Richard Erlacher" <edick(a)idcomm.com> said:
A fascist model is one, as in Japan,
where industry enjoys a close relationship with government. Everybody
with a 7-figure income and 10^6 kilobucks' net worth will come to
appreciate that. The rest of us can go suck hind teat.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey S. Worley
President
Complete Computer Services, Inc.
30 Greenwood Rd.
Asheville, NC 28803
828-277-5959
Visit our website at HTTP://www.Real-Techs.com
THETechnoid(a)home.com
-----------------------------------------------------------
10:14 a.m.
New subject: Nuke Redmond! OT
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
Starting Saturday, we're all going to get a close
up and personal view of an
alternative to your proposed industry-government relationship. What you
propose is a socialist model. A fascist model is one, as in Japan, where
industry enjoys a close relationship with government.
My B.S. is in political science. My hat is off to you, few people use the
term fascist in its true, original sense.
Read "Roots of Totalitarianism" by J. Lucien Radel for a good description.
11:05 a.m.
New subject: Let's get off Nuke Redmond
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
Geez... another one. My BA is in History with a second major in
Political Science. How the hell did I end up doing sysadmin 8-)
I'll have to check the print reference.
As far as what'll happen after Saturday... I propose legislative
gridlock for at least two years... which is why the US elects (IMHO)
divided governments in an attempt to control left and right swings
of govenment without a public consensus.
As much as I hate Microsoft -- could we at least change the subject
line on these messages.
Bill
--
bpechter(a)monmouth.com | FreeBSD since 1.0.2, Linux since 0.99.10
Brainbench MVP | Unix Sys Admin since Sys V/BSD 4.2
Unix Sys.Admin. | Windows System Administration: "Magical Misery Tour"
Starting Saturday, we're all going to get a
close up and personal view of an
alternative to your proposed industry-government relationship. What you
propose is a socialist model. A fascist model is one, as in Japan, where
industry enjoys a close relationship with government.
My B.S. is in political science. My hat is off to you, few people use the
term fascist in its true, original sense.
Read "Roots of Totalitarianism" by J. Lucien Radel for a good description.
11:36 a.m.
New subject: Let's get off Nuke Redmond
> My B.S. is in political science.
Geez... another one. My BA is in History with a
second major in
Political Science. How the hell did I end up doing sysadmin 8-)
And I'm not the only linguist who ended up doing programming work. Larry
Wall is one too :-) Oddly enough, he's also Nazarene.
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- Hidden DOS secret: add BUGS=OFF to your CONFIG.SYS. ------------------------
12:02 p.m.
New subject: Let's get off Nuke Redmond
> My B.S. is in political science.
Geez... another one. My BA is in History with
a second major in
Political Science. How the hell did I end up doing sysadmin 8-)
And I'm not the only linguist who ended up doing programming work. Larry
Wall is one too :-) Oddly enough, he's also Nazarene.
12:35 p.m.
New subject: Let's get off Nuke Redmond
One way of looking at things is that we have all 'got off' on "Nuke
Redmond".....
Regards,
Jeff
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey S. Worley
President
Complete Computer Services, Inc.
30 Greenwood Rd.
Asheville, NC 28803
828-277-5959
Visit our website at HTTP://www.Real-Techs.com
THETechnoid(a)home.com
-----------------------------------------------------------
1:11 p.m.
New subject: [OT] Corporation's rights (was Re: Nuke Redmond!)
John Tinker wrote:
No, companies are limited liability constructs of the
state. They fall
under the same social contract that the state does, even more so. Yes,
we can, and should, insist that corporations be ethical. The nature of
a corporation's "rights" is quite different than the nature of an
individual's rights.
Unfortunately, the U.S. courts have "legislated" that corporations are
"artificial persons", and have the rights thereof. This has caused lots
of problems.
There are people tring to get this fixed. The proposed Citizen's
Sovereignty Amendment would eliminate this nonsense, and return to the
states (under the 10th Amendment) the right to regulate corporations:
http://28th.org/
[Personally I don't think it has a snowball's chance in hell of getting
passed and ratified, but it's a worthy cause.]
11:42 a.m.
New subject: [OT] Corporation's rights (was Re: Nuke Redmond!)
At 04:11 PM 1/16/2001 -0800, Eric Smith wrote:
There are people tring to get this fixed. The proposed
Citizen's
Sovereignty Amendment would eliminate this nonsense, and return to the
states (under the 10th Amendment) the right to regulate corporations:
http://28th.org/
[Personally I don't think it has a snowball's chance in hell of getting
passed and ratified, but it's a worthy cause.]
Actually it might get passed without that last clause. Why artifically deny
the citizens the right to purchase (or do commerce with) a corporation that
does not have a US office? It purports to give jurisdiction over the
corporate entity thus US laws could be made to apply to said entity, but
while necessary it is clearly insufficient (in particular web sites that
provide "data" as a service but are only on the web, not instantiated in
offices locally) and the clause's presence is not helpful.
--Chuck
1:33 p.m.
New subject: [OT] Corporation's rights (was Re: Nuke Redmond!)
This sort of thing scares me quite a bit, mainly because some states,
notably Texas, would be likely to go totally fascist while others, might
well go the other way. I don't find comfort in either extreme.
There's plenty of case law that supports one notable difference between the
rights of an individual and that of the "artificial person" built in to a
corporation. That difference, and it's probably not the only one, is that
while you can't punish a person for being stupid, though you can make
him/her liable to injured parties, while corporate entities can be penalized
for failing to behave responsibly, even in a technical sense. I'only sure
of one thing, however, and that's that it's never that simple.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Smith" <eric(a)brouhaha.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Cc: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 5:11 PM
Subject: [OT] Corporation's rights (was Re: Nuke Redmond!)
John Tinker wrote:
No, companies are limited liability constructs of
the state. They fall
under the same social contract that the state does, even more so. Yes,
we can, and should, insist that corporations be ethical. The nature of
a corporation's "rights" is quite different than the nature of an
individual's rights.
Unfortunately, the U.S. courts have "legislated" that corporations are
"artificial persons", and have the rights thereof. This has caused lots
of problems.
There are people tring to get this fixed. The proposed Citizen's
Sovereignty Amendment would eliminate this nonsense, and return to the
states (under the 10th Amendment) the right to regulate corporations:
http://28th.org/
[Personally I don't think it has a snowball's chance in hell of getting
passed and ratified, but it's a worthy cause.]
17 Jan
17 Jan
2:45 p.m.
New subject: [OT] Corporation's rights (was Re: Nuke Redmond!)
In my experience, the best resource bar none on corporate personhood and
its disastrous effects on American society is the Program on Corporations,
Law & Democracy. You can check them out at http://www.poclad.org I have
attended several POCLAD conferences, and read many of their
publications. I cannot recommend them highly enough.
Arthur Clark
At 04:11 PM 1/16/01 -0800, you wrote:
John Tinker wrote:
No, companies are limited liability constructs of
the state. They fall
under the same social contract that the state does, even more so. Yes,
we can, and should, insist that corporations be ethical. The nature of
a corporation's "rights" is quite different than the nature of an
individual's rights.
Unfortunately, the U.S. courts have "legislated" that corporations are
"artificial persons", and have the rights thereof. This has caused lots
of problems.
There are people tring to get this fixed. The proposed Citizen's
Sovereignty Amendment would eliminate this nonsense, and return to the
states (under the 10th Amendment) the right to regulate corporations:
http://28th.org/
[Personally I don't think it has a snowball's chance in hell of getting
passed and ratified, but it's a worthy cause.]
8588
days inactive
8589
days old
14 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
aclark＠envirolink.org -
cmcmanis＠mcmanis.com -
edick＠idcomm.com -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
foo＠siconic.com -
jim＠calico.litterbox.com -
John.Allain＠Donnelley.InfoUSA.Com -
jtinker＠coin.org -
pechter＠pechter.dyndns.org -
spectre＠stockholm.ptloma.edu -
THETechnoid＠home.com -
thompson＠mail.athenet.net