Three Changes | Bitcointalksearch.org

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: noviapriani on July 16, 2014, 02:09:57 PM

Quote from: sana8410 on July 16, 2014, 02:05:25 PM

Quote from: noviapriani on July 16, 2014, 01:46:48 PM

Sana is agreeing with non-natural personhood for corporations insofar as he agrees that corporations should be able to act as liability-shields for natural persons, but he doesn't agree with constitutional rights being given to corporations. You are wrong, completely wrong, to suggest that he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision. We can fact-check you if you'd like, by simply asking Sana if he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision

He(umair) is indeed wrong.

In his zeal to hype the RFRA as the totality of the Hobby Lobby case, he seems to neglect that the RFRA itself applies to only those with First Amendment rights......

I wonder if the RFRA would apply to corporations. Hmmmmmmmmm

I had actually beat him to that too, and he still either didn't understand the point or ignored it. He then responds to this post saying that 'person' is defined by The Dictionary Act, effectively (and seemingly completely unaware that he was) conceding.

He mentions in the beginning of that thread he had been a lawyer. It makes sense why he gave up on that. He seems to think the job description of a lawyer is to shit your pants and then do as much as you can to strengthen your opponent's argument.

lol

I'm not sure how anyone could claim that only one piece of law played into the Hobby Lobby decision.

Even at first glance, the Hobby Lobby case involved more than the RFRA, because it requires the First Amendment as well. And looking deeper at the case, it is evident that other laws played a part, like:

  1. exemptions in the ACA itself,
  2. the Dictionary Act,
  3. the 14th Amendment,
  4. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (and a variety of related case law),
  5. and even the justices' vague consideration of state laws defining closely-held corporations.

Rigon

sr. member

Activity: 994

Merit: 441

Most controversial:

1. Lower taxes and remove all deductions aka loopholes. No one deserves a tax credit just for wanting a house, a kid, or an ivy league education.

2. Single payer healthcare although for the sake of the economy and choice allow varous options through insurance companies. The big thing would be unhooking healthcare from being still largely based on employers and high deductible plans.

3. Remove finance reform and replace it with full contribution disclosures. It doesn't matter who gives how much to a campaign as long as it's not anonymous.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: sana8410 on July 16, 2014, 02:05:25 PM

Quote from: noviapriani on July 16, 2014, 01:46:48 PM

Sana is agreeing with non-natural personhood for corporations insofar as he agrees that corporations should be able to act as liability-shields for natural persons, but he doesn't agree with constitutional rights being given to corporations. You are wrong, completely wrong, to suggest that he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision. We can fact-check you if you'd like, by simply asking Sana if he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision

He(umair) is indeed wrong.

In his zeal to hype the RFRA as the totality of the Hobby Lobby case, he seems to neglect that the RFRA itself applies to only those with First Amendment rights......

I wonder if the RFRA would apply to corporations. Hmmmmmmmmm

I had actually beat him to that too, and he still either didn't understand the point or ignored it. He then responds to this post saying that 'person' is defined by The Dictionary Act, effectively (and seemingly completely unaware that he was) conceding.

He mentions in the beginning of that thread he had been a lawyer. It makes sense why he gave up on that. He seems to think the job description of a lawyer is to shit your pants and then do as much as you can to strengthen your opponent's argument.

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: noviapriani on July 16, 2014, 01:46:48 PM

Sana is agreeing with non-natural personhood for corporations insofar as he agrees that corporations should be able to act as liability-shields for natural persons, but he doesn't agree with constitutional rights being given to corporations. You are wrong, completely wrong, to suggest that he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision. We can fact-check you if you'd like, by simply asking Sana if he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision

He(umair) is indeed wrong.

In his zeal to hype the RFRA as the totality of the Hobby Lobby case, he seems to neglect that the RFRA itself applies to only those with First Amendment rights......

I wonder if the RFRA would apply to corporations. Hmmmmmmmmm

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: umair127 on July 16, 2014, 01:38:49 PM

Quote from: sana8410 on July 16, 2014, 01:36:29 PM

Quote from: umair127 on July 16, 2014, 01:30:53 PM

Taxing existing larger banks is not going to solve the problem of capital requirements for smaller banks, nor is it going to solve the interest rate problem for savers and borrowers. In fact, it would have the reverse effect--higher taxes will mean less profits for banks, so they will lower the interest rates they pay and increase the interest rates they charge.

As compared to the trillions in wealth lost during the financial crisis of 2008?

I think people would rather pay a few pennies more in bank fees, than to continue with banks allowing their reserves to get so low that they continually risk being unable to fulfill withdrawal requests if defaults spike --- especially when such risk means we can end up with banks failing and 8 million people losing their jobs and for millions to lose their homes, and for every worker in the country having to adjust to a severely depressed economy with lower wages and reduced standards of living.

You do realize that you just agreed with the Hobby Lobby decision, right? You just pointed out the efficacy of the exact law that Hobby Lobby was decided under.

Perhaps you need a refresher course on how statutes work.I'm counting more than 1 piece of legislation already.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: umair127 on July 16, 2014, 01:55:44 PM

Quote from: noviapriani on July 16, 2014, 01:46:48 PM

Sana is agreeing with non-natural personhood for corporations insofar as he agrees that corporations should be able to act as liability-shields for natural persons, but he doesn't agree with constitutional rights being given to corporations. You are wrong, completely wrong, to suggest that he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision. We can fact-check you if you'd like, by simply asking Sana if he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision

You still have not read the decision have you?

Direct quote from the opinion:

"RFRA applies to “a person’s” exercise of religion, 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b), and RFRA itself does not define the term “person.” We therefore look to the Dictionary Act, which we must consult “n determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise.” 1 U. S. C. §1.

Under the Dictionary Act, “the wor[d] ‘person’ . . . include ~~corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.” Ibid."~~

Yes, I have. But you're in the wrong thread.Also that quote agrees with what I just said. Thanks for proving me right again.

umair127

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: noviapriani on July 16, 2014, 01:46:48 PM

Sana is agreeing with non-natural personhood for corporations insofar as he agrees that corporations should be able to act as liability-shields for natural persons, but he doesn't agree with constitutional rights being given to corporations. You are wrong, completely wrong, to suggest that he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision. We can fact-check you if you'd like, by simply asking Sana if he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision

You still have not read the decision have you?

Direct quote from the opinion:

"RFRA applies to “a person’s” exercise of religion, 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b), and RFRA itself does not define the term “person.” We therefore look to the Dictionary Act, which we must consult “n determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise.” 1 U. S. C. §1.

Under the Dictionary Act, “the wor[d] ‘person’ . . . include ~~corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.” Ibid."~~

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Sana is agreeing with non-natural personhood for corporations insofar as he agrees that corporations should be able to act as liability-shields for natural persons, but he doesn't agree with constitutional rights being given to corporations. You are wrong, completely wrong, to suggest that he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision. We can fact-check you if you'd like, by simply asking Sana if he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: umair127 on July 16, 2014, 01:38:49 PM

Quote from: sana8410 on July 16, 2014, 01:36:29 PM

Quote from: umair127 on July 16, 2014, 01:30:53 PM

Taxing existing larger banks is not going to solve the problem of capital requirements for smaller banks, nor is it going to solve the interest rate problem for savers and borrowers. In fact, it would have the reverse effect--higher taxes will mean less profits for banks, so they will lower the interest rates they pay and increase the interest rates they charge.

As compared to the trillions in wealth lost during the financial crisis of 2008?

I think people would rather pay a few pennies more in bank fees, than to continue with banks allowing their reserves to get so low that they continually risk being unable to fulfill withdrawal requests if defaults spike --- especially when such risk means we can end up with banks failing and 8 million people losing their jobs and for millions to lose their homes, and for every worker in the country having to adjust to a severely depressed economy with lower wages and reduced standards of living.

You do realize that you just agreed with the Hobby Lobby decision, right? You just pointed out the efficacy of the exact law that Hobby Lobby was decided under.

I have it on good authority from an accomplished constitutional scholar that Hobby Lobby was decided on the basis of one single piece of legislation from 1993 and absolutely nothing else, because that's how Supreme Court decisions work.

umair127

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: sana8410 on July 16, 2014, 01:36:29 PM

Quote from: umair127 on July 16, 2014, 01:30:53 PM

Taxing existing larger banks is not going to solve the problem of capital requirements for smaller banks, nor is it going to solve the interest rate problem for savers and borrowers. In fact, it would have the reverse effect--higher taxes will mean less profits for banks, so they will lower the interest rates they pay and increase the interest rates they charge.

As compared to the trillions in wealth lost during the financial crisis of 2008?

I think people would rather pay a few pennies more in bank fees, than to continue with banks allowing their reserves to get so low that they continually risk being unable to fulfill withdrawal requests if defaults spike --- especially when such risk means we can end up with banks failing and 8 million people losing their jobs and for millions to lose their homes, and for every worker in the country having to adjust to a severely depressed economy with lower wages and reduced standards of living.

You do realize that you just agreed with the Hobby Lobby decision, right? You just pointed out the efficacy of the exact law that Hobby Lobby was decided under.

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: umair127 on July 16, 2014, 01:30:53 PM

Taxing existing larger banks is not going to solve the problem of capital requirements for smaller banks, nor is it going to solve the interest rate problem for savers and borrowers. In fact, it would have the reverse effect--higher taxes will mean less profits for banks, so they will lower the interest rates they pay and increase the interest rates they charge.

As compared to the trillions in wealth lost during the financial crisis of 2008?

I think people would rather pay a few pennies more in bank fees, than to continue with banks allowing their reserves to get so low that they continually risk being unable to fulfill withdrawal requests if defaults spike --- especially when such risk means we can end up with banks failing and 8 million people losing their jobs and for millions to lose their homes, and for every worker in the country having to adjust to a severely depressed economy with lower wages and reduced standards of living.

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote

You are conflating a corporation's state law charter with the question of whether it has federal constitutional rights.

I'm not conflating anything.
I destroyed your silly suggestion that corporations would suddenly lose the ability to enter into contracts.

Quote

That Arizona law, or any state law for that matter, would not give a corporation federal due process rights or protect it from abrogation of its contracts by the federal government.

Except that Federal law recognizes protections for corporations.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1

Your histrionics aside, corporations aren't losing a single thing that they need to function properly.

umair127

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Taxing existing larger banks is not going to solve the problem of capital requirements for smaller banks, nor is it going to solve the interest rate problem for savers and borrowers. In fact, it would have the reverse effect--higher taxes will mean less profits for banks, so they will lower the interest rates they pay and increase the interest rates they charge.

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: umair127 on July 16, 2014, 01:22:58 PM

Quote from: sana8410 on July 16, 2014, 01:19:14 PM

Quote from: umair127 on July 16, 2014, 01:18:09 PM

Quote from: sana8410 on July 16, 2014, 01:16:23 PM

.... such abilities would not be eliminated because corporations would retain those powers through EXACTLY THE AUTHORIZATION WHICH ALREADY EXIST.

For example:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatD...10&DocType=ARS

As stated before:

Quote

Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

You are conflating a corporation's state law charter with the question of whether it has federal constitutional rights. That Arizona law, or any state law for that matter, would not give a corporation federal due process rights or protect it from abrogation of its contracts by the federal government.

So what?

So you would vastly increase the cost of bureaucracy and you likely would still get lesser qualified candidates even with the higher salary because workers desire lateral mobility.
What do you do for a living?

I like how you attempt to wedge in some idiotic claim that candidates would be "lesser qualified", when even you yourself have posted that the only change required is to raise wages.
The ONLY necessary difference would be an increase in wages for regulators. And the costs today of regulators being offered incentives from companies they regulate isn't exactly a boon to the taxpayer as it is, especailly when it comes to the revolving door with Wall Street banks.

umair127

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: sana8410 on July 16, 2014, 01:19:14 PM

Quote from: umair127 on July 16, 2014, 01:18:09 PM

Quote from: sana8410 on July 16, 2014, 01:16:23 PM

.... such abilities would not be eliminated because corporations would retain those powers through EXACTLY THE AUTHORIZATION WHICH ALREADY EXIST.

For example:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatD...10&DocType=ARS

As stated before:

Quote

Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

You are conflating a corporation's state law charter with the question of whether it has federal constitutional rights. That Arizona law, or any state law for that matter, would not give a corporation federal due process rights or protect it from abrogation of its contracts by the federal government.

So what?

So you would vastly increase the cost of bureaucracy and you likely would still get lesser qualified candidates even with the higher salary because workers desire lateral mobility.
What do you do for a living?

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: umair127 on July 16, 2014, 01:18:09 PM

Quote from: sana8410 on July 16, 2014, 01:16:23 PM

.... such abilities would not be eliminated because corporations would retain those powers through EXACTLY THE AUTHORIZATION WHICH ALREADY EXIST.

For example:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatD...10&DocType=ARS

As stated before:

Quote

Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

You are conflating a corporation's state law charter with the question of whether it has federal constitutional rights. That Arizona law, or any state law for that matter, would not give a corporation federal due process rights or protect it from abrogation of its contracts by the federal government.

So what?

umair127

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: sana8410 on July 16, 2014, 01:16:23 PM

.... such abilities would not be eliminated because corporations would retain those powers through EXACTLY THE AUTHORIZATION WHICH ALREADY EXIST.

For example:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatD...10&DocType=ARS

As stated before:

Quote

Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

You are conflating a corporation's state law charter with the question of whether it has federal constitutional rights. That Arizona law, or any state law for that matter, would not give a corporation federal due process rights or protect it from abrogation of its contracts by the federal government.

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

.... such abilities would not be eliminated because corporations would retain those powers through EXACTLY THE AUTHORIZATION WHICH ALREADY EXIST.

For example:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatD...10&DocType=ARS

As stated before:

Quote

Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

umair127

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: sana8410 on July 16, 2014, 12:17:47 PM

Quote from: noviapriani on July 15, 2014, 02:16:34 PM

Quote from: sana8410 on July 14, 2014, 01:55:32 PM

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

The effects of your first suggestion would be disastrous and as others have pointed out would eliminate freedom of the press for newspapers. It would also eliminate due process, contract rights, etc. It's simply a pie-in-the-sky idea that would never work.

Your second idea is perhaps worse. Government already has a terrible time attracting and retaining professionals because of lower pay and opportunity. Right now the main incentive to go into public service is the experience. Your proposal devalues the experience completely. Who in the right mind would work for the government under your proposal?

Your last proposal will lower already minuscule interest rates for savers and will make loans more expensive. And ignores the real problem: the Fed's balance sheet.

It doesn't eliminate any of those things. Who would? The right kind of people -- which is the entire point. duh.Trouble attracting workers? Raise the pay until you attract workers.
OH MY GOD -- that was hard. It would do none of those things.

And only tinfoil loons who know shit about banking think "the real problem" is the Fed's holdings.

First, please explain how contract rights, due process, etc. would not be eliminated by a constitutional amendment "to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional [sic] rights."

Second, what you are arguing for is similar to a non-compete. Look at some of the economic research on the cost of non-compete clauses--I think you will find that they result in massive wage premiums of 100 to 400%.

Third, increasing capital requirements for private banks will have (and is already having) a major negative unintended consequence: further bank consolidation and concentration of capital. And, the larger capital requirements, makes it harder for new entrants, further entrenching existing interests.

Rigon

sr. member

Activity: 994

Merit: 441

Quote from: sana8410 on July 16, 2014, 12:52:21 PM

Quote from: Rigon on July 15, 2014, 01:46:51 PM

Quote from: umair127 on July 15, 2014, 01:38:33 PM

Quote from: Rigon on July 15, 2014, 01:17:59 PM

Quote from: noviapriani on July 15, 2014, 01:01:50 PM

Quote from: sana8410 on July 15, 2014, 12:42:05 PM

Quote from: umair127 on July 15, 2014, 12:38:15 PM

Quote from: sana8410 on July 14, 2014, 01:55:32 PM

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

This implicitly gets rid of corporate income tax. It's stupid that entities other than individual humans were ever considered to have Constitutional rights.

It doesn't implictly get rid of anything. Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

It's silly to think taxation of an organization and Constitutional rights are somehow inseparable.

What's to prevent governments from banning certain organisations it deems nasty--like your typical union or non profit? Or your newspaper?
And Rigon,so no more PIRGS? Ralph Nader would be unamused.

The right of actual humans to peaceably assemble.
Of course, a corporation is NOT a human -- it is explicitly detached from any particular human. It should be subject to exactly nothing more than the privileges a legislature grants in the charter -- it certainly shouldn't be the case where a piece of paper in a govt filing cabinet is successfully claiming to have a religion.

Okay but why should a newspaper have the right to freedom of the press? It's not an individual.

Firstly, a newspaper business doesn't need to incorporate.

Secondly, even if people do choose to incorporate a news business, a news corp doesn't need a right to freedom of the press. A corporate charter has never crawled out of its file cabinet to write a news article. Every article has a human journalist, so only journalists need freedom of the press.

It doesn't take a judicial scholar to sense that the publication of news articles would easily be protected as rights of the articles' authors, even if their employer does not have Constitutional rights. Corporate charters already are written to absorb liability, it would hardly be some crazy new thing for them to absorb the liability of the journalists as well, if ever needed.
The bottom line is that corporations explicitly are legally detached from humans. If you want to exercise the Constitutional rights then run your business under a human. It is ridiculous that people want to be shielded from human obligations and liability by having their businesses treated as non-human but then still want that non-human have a full set of human rights to be recognized.

It's not. And it makes sense to allow corporations to have the same rights as individuals. Your idea would make it so no one would want to run a business.

It makes absolutely no sense for them to have Constitutional rights. You do realize the vast majority of businesses are not corporations....................................

Topic: Three Changes (Read 4507 times)