Oh yeah, those laws worked out great, didn't they?

Please, take the red pill!

No matter what laws will be passed or not, corporations WILL control the government. Man, what dream world do you live in?! Do you think that there are no ways, but legal ones?

Artur, it's worse than that. Them individuals have too much power. I say, individual donations ought to be banned too!


And just in case mr 'brox has a problem with my comment, no I don't really think individual contributions to anyone ought to be banned.

If a group is exactly the same as an individual, then I could just as easily argue that the government is just a group of people that, like corporations, should be able to do whatever it wants, even if it infringes on the rights of other individuals.

But obviously that's not true, and you would NEVER make that argument in defense of the govt so why pretend like you believe it now?

Well, Dima, my point is not whether it SHALL be banned or not. My point is that it doesn't matter if it's banned or not. Banning marijuana doesn't stop people from smoking it, just like the prohibition didn't stop anyone from drinking...

People from the outside having an influence on the government has always existed, it exists and it will always exist. I don't see a point in arguing WHETHER it is right or not...

Why outlaw murder then? People will always kill people. So why bother? Is that your answer to everything or just this?

I don't oppose drug laws because people will do them anyway. I oppose them because I don't see anything wrong with smoking weed.

We can't extend your logic in that way, however, because there would be no laws against ANYTHING. Not murder. Not theft. Nothing. It makes your argument in this case kind of pointless.

I do not agree that a corporation should be able to infringe on the rights of other citizens, what gave you that idea?

That said, a government is a different beast; it accepts no competetion.

As a counter example, let me give you an analogy of a protest. A protest is a group of individuals, that more or less agreed on the same message. Are you suggesting that protesters should not enjoy the same free speech rights guaranteed to each and every one of those individuals?

Actually, I do make precisely that argument when the natural rights of individuals are not concerned. I support democracy, and I suspect you do as well.

Allow me to disagree. Surely, there is a point in arguing whether something is right or not, even if it continues to happen if you outlaw it.

When you were defending the rights of corporations to write laws that supercede that of citizens, like the copyright law.

Yes, they do that, you said. But "so what."



What does competition have to do with it? We're talking about the rights of the group versus the rights of the individual. And you JUST argued that the rights of the group are the same as the rights of the individual. So why not the govt, which is simply a group of people? Right?

It's precisely because the govt IS a different beast that it's not entitled to do whatever it wants. But a corporation is ALSO a different beast. It is not the same as an individual and is not guaranteed the same rights or priviledges.

For example, individuals are entitled to vote. Corporations aren't. But by your "logic," they SHOULD be. Do you think corporations should be allowed to vote?



The right to protest is conferred upon the individuals, not on the group. Once they incorporate or form a recognized entity the way a union or corporation does, then as the entity, they are no longer entitled to the same rights and priviledges. That's not to say that they should have ALL freedoms or rights taken away, but the rights they have are at the sole discretion of the govt.

Wait....so, Megamoze, you think that corporations shouldn't be allowed to donate, but individuals should? Or did I misread something?

That's right.

To which you retorted that it's going to happen anyway, so why bother to change the law.

To which I retorted that by extension of that logic, we'd have no laws against anything whatsoever, because people are going to do them anyway.

Do corporations not consist of many individuals?

The competition thing is very simple: you cannot opt-out of the government's rules. With the corporation or a union, on the other hand, it's very easy: you do not like their rules? you stop being a member.

Once again, a corporation is a group of individuals, who are willingly participating in it. Each one of those individuals has a right to free speech; hence the corporation has a right to free speech as well.

That's the same analogy that you used in that BOM thread where we had the same exact discussion.

Just like there, I'd like to point out to you, that a group of individuals does not magically get an additional vote, just like it doesn't get an additional million of dollars for simply being a group. However, nothing stops that group to collectively decide how they're going to vote.

There is no need for the government to regulate the creation of corporations and unions. However, it does so, for dubious reasons. Just because a group of protesters does not sign any papers to become that group does not mean that it is qualitatively different from a corporation or a union.

Yes, and those individuals should be allowed to donate to whoever they want.

But a corporation/union exists as an entity unto itself and is not protected by the same rights and priviledges as the individuals that make it up.

Otherwise, you'd have to argue that corporations/unions should be allowed to cast votes in elections because the individuals that make it up are allowed to. But that's not the case because the rights of the entity are different than the rights of the individuals.

Wrong, that's not what I said. I said that if you don't like the law, protest it.

A "copy right" is not a real right; it's a privilege given to companies and individuals to create a monopoly for a period of time. I assume you agree with that privilege in principle; I do not. Given that, it's a rather moot point to me over what period of time you want that monopoly to be created.

Okay, let me put it this way...

I am the head of a corporation. I donate money as an "individual". Well, at least officially...

Get my drift?

Sure you can. You can move to another country.



Hence, nothing. One does not follow the other. The corporation exists as an entity unto itself. We're talking about the rights of that entity, and the rights of the individuals do not automatically confer upon the entity.



There's a BIG difference. A group of people is just a group of people. They aren't recognized in any way as an entity by the govt. If they have a right to protest, it's because the individuals within that group have a right to protest.

Corporations/unions exist as entities APART from the individuals that make them up. They get taxes and tax breaks that do NOT apply to the individuals within that group. Laws apply differently to them.

Otherwise, there would be no need to incorporate at all. But if I, as an individual, operate a business, I am much less protected than if I incorporate my business. And if you've incorporated a business, then you should know that. The law distinguishes between you, the corporation, and you, the individual.

There is a difference between you donating your personal money as an individual, and you donating on behalf of a corporation from the corporation's bank account.

Understand?

You donate from your bank account just to cover it up. In fact the one receiving the donation would know who the money is really coming from.

Oooh, I missed this one.



No, I knew it before.



I have't excluded limited liability partnerships, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.



Disney's rewriting of the copyright law DIRECTLY affects the rights of artists and other individuals. It prevents artists from exercising certain rights by conferring rights that ONLY benefit corporations and/or groups.



That you're a hypocrite.



Are you serious?

That, I agree with.

It hardly ever happens that way under the current system. For one thing, there's no reason to. There's nothing to cover up, and the CEO would much rather give a donation from the corporate coffers than his own bank account. And the donation is going to be a different tax liability for the corporation than it would the CEO. Again, the CEO would rather have the corporate deduction and the corporate financial disclosure than he would on his own private accounts.

If the system were changed to prevent such corporate donations, and the CEO were willing to give up a sizable donation out of his own pocket on behalf of his own business, then that would certainly be his right.

The difference you ask? The decrease in money and access by corporations to politicians, and the huge personal liability that the same access would cost the CEO.

It is by no means a perfect system. But it would be better than what we have now.

Jeebus.

There are HUGE differences between corporate/union donations and donations from individuals within that corporation/union. They are in no way the same thing, either legally or ethically as recognized by the govt.

It's one of the stated reasons, btw, why conservatives want to strictly curtail the rights of unions to donate to political campaigns. I'm sure Krem is no stranger to that argument.

Why his own pocket? He'd get the money from the corporation to his bank account which can be in Luxemburg or Switzerland or whereever. Then he'll donate this money. It doesn't need to be his own money. Where the heck is the problem?