What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations

[Dick Tuck]

Sign the National Right to Work Act petition, y'all!

National Right to Work Act | The National Right to Work Committee®

So you think it's a good idea for government to overturn a contractual agreement between employer and its employees?

No. Do you think the government should force an employer to make such a contractual agreement if they do not want to?

Correct. The government should be the one to enforce contract law. Negotiation of a contract, unless there's a compelling state interest, should be between employer and employees. If the employees choose to bargain collectively, that's also their right.

 

[Mr.Nick]

So you think it's a good idea for government to overturn a contractual agreement between employer and its employees?

You think people should be forced to join a union to gain employment?

That is fascism at its finest...

No. I think that if a company and its emplyees come to terms on a contract, that the government should step in and interfere, as long as the agreement is legal. To the contrary, having government step in and revoke a contractual agreement, to benefit the corporation, is closer to fascism. Just as if government stepping in and revoking a contract to benefit employees would be closer to communism.

Note, I didn't say "that is fascism" nor "that is communism". Those are extreme terms that don't really reflect what either of those extreme form of government really is.

Well this is a an allegedly free country and individuals should NOT be forced to join a union if they have no desire to do such (like myself).

I'm an individualist - NOT a collectivist and I want nothing to do with unions - unions are SHIT....

I want the ability to stay at my job, work, keep food on the table and money flowing even if the union wants to strike.... I don't want to pay union dues that go right into some big-mouthed assholes pocket...

**** all that shit.

I should have the RIGHT to be an individual and work as an individual on my own terms not some collectivist terms - so **** that union bullshit.

If you're an asset to a company you don't need a union because you'll be rewarded as an individual for your hard work and dedication.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I thought it seemed off. But it is pretty close to actual quotes of Jefferson:

On this view of the import of the term republic, instead of saying, as has been said, "that it may mean anything or nothing," we may say with truth and meaning, that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition; and believing, as I do, that the mass of the citizens is the safest depository of their own rights, and especially, that the evils flowing from the duperies of the people, are less injurious than those from the egoism of their agents, I am a friend to that composition of government which has in it the most of this ingredient. And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

 

[Mr.Nick]

So you think it's a good idea for government to overturn a contractual agreement between employer and its employees?

No. Do you think the government should force an employer to make such a contractual agreement if they do not want to?

Correct. The government should be the one to enforce contract law. Negotiation of a contract, unless there's a compelling state interest, should be between employer and employees. If the employees choose to bargain collectively, that's also their right.

The government shouldn't be enforcing jack shit......

If you need the government to do your bidding than you're a passive ***** boy...

 

[Dick Tuck]

Jefferson said,

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Sounds like Jefferson was making a case against a central bank, against our Federal Reserve. Guess Jefferson would have been a Ron Paul supporter. Cool.

Thomas Jefferson also said this in 1816,

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

Sounds like Jefferson stood against cronyism. Guess Jefferson would have been a Ron Paul supporter. Cool.

Interesting that you want to bring up the libertarian POV. That might add some interesting twists to the discussion.

Libertarians are all about maximum individual liberties, and the smallest government possible. Fair enough, I could argue that somewhere else. But what is the main draw of corporations? I suggest limited liability.

I could buy 100 shares of IBM, and if they collectively decided to go collectively postal tomorrow, that my max loss would be what I paid for those 100 shares. I'm an equal owner of the company, so why should I get a pass on being held responsible for their actions?

Perhaps a more clear and compelling case would be Enron. Why should those funds and individuals, who actually owned the company be let off the hook for the excesses and criminal activity that company committed?

Perhaps if owners of a company, i.e. the millions of stockholders, had their own fortunes on the line, they'd pay better attention, and capitalism would be better functioning. But with that perk of limited liability, their loses are limited to whatever they put into buying a stock with no responsibility of de facto ownership of a company.

Personally, I think the strawman I just put out is untenable in modern commerce, but it does point to a major perk that often makes corruption easier.

 

[Dick Tuck]

You think people should be forced to join a union to gain employment?

That is fascism at its finest...

No. I think that if a company and its emplyees come to terms on a contract, that the government should step in and interfere, as long as the agreement is legal. To the contrary, having government step in and revoke a contractual agreement, to benefit the corporation, is closer to fascism. Just as if government stepping in and revoking a contract to benefit employees would be closer to communism.

Note, I didn't say "that is fascism" nor "that is communism". Those are extreme terms that don't really reflect what either of those extreme form of government really is.

Well this is a an allegedly free country and individuals should NOT be forced to join a union if they have no desire to do such (like myself).

I'm an individualist - NOT a collectivist and I want nothing to do with unions - unions are SHIT....

I want the ability to stay at my job, work, keep food on the table and money flowing even if the union wants to strike.... I don't want to pay union dues that go right into some big-mouthed assholes pocket...

**** all that shit.

I should have the RIGHT to be an individual and work as an individual on my own terms not some collectivist terms - so **** that union bullshit.

If you're an asset to a company you don't need a union because you'll be rewarded as an individual for your hard work and dedication.

Yes, people ought to be free to decide if they want to bargain with an employer collectively. The employer and employee have the right to come to terms on an agreement. The state's significant responsibility is to t protect the contract rights.

You're right. If a person is an asset they succeed. Also if a company wants to milk as much as they can out of people and treat them like cogs, they can.

The flip side is that employees can decide whether they want to bargain with a company collectively. The company can also refuse to recognize them, and fire the lot who made a choice. Those fired also have the right to picket that company.

But once a company agrees to recognize a union, it's their deal that they made, and they ought to live up to it. Nickel and dime issues as to placement by both sides of information is a nickel and dime issue.

What is significant is for a government to step in, and say that an agreement made by an employer and its employees doesn't matter, if it involves an agreement to a closed shop.

Who does that damage? Someone looking for a job? Why? If you don't want to be represented by a union, don't apply for a job in a closed shop contract organization?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Central banking blows cock. The same as any central planning.

In a way it does. The alternative would be allowing limited liability corporations to make national monetary policy. How much ass would that have sucked in the collapse of 2008 or 1929?

What's the alternative? Some arbitrary commodity to determine value of currency? Yeah, the FED sucks, but it sucks a whole lot less than the alternatives.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Jefferson said,

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Sounds like Jefferson was making a case against a central bank, against our Federal Reserve. Guess Jefferson would have been a Ron Paul supporter. Cool.

Thomas Jefferson also said this in 1816,

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

Sounds like Jefferson stood against cronyism. Guess Jefferson would have been a Ron Paul supporter. Cool.

Has Ron Paul come out against the limited liability perk that corporations enjoy?

 

[asaratis]

No. I think that if a company and its emplyees come to terms on a contract, that the government should step in and interfere, as long as the agreement is legal. To the contrary, having government step in and revoke a contractual agreement, to benefit the corporation, is closer to fascism. Just as if government stepping in and revoking a contract to benefit employees would be closer to communism.

Note, I didn't say "that is fascism" nor "that is communism". Those are extreme terms that don't really reflect what either of those extreme form of government really is.

Well this is a an allegedly free country and individuals should NOT be forced to join a union if they have no desire to do such (like myself).

I'm an individualist - NOT a collectivist and I want nothing to do with unions - unions are SHIT....

I want the ability to stay at my job, work, keep food on the table and money flowing even if the union wants to strike.... I don't want to pay union dues that go right into some big-mouthed assholes pocket...

**** all that shit.

I should have the RIGHT to be an individual and work as an individual on my own terms not some collectivist terms - so **** that union bullshit.

If you're an asset to a company you don't need a union because you'll be rewarded as an individual for your hard work and dedication.

Yes, people ought to be free to decide if they want to bargain with an employer collectively. The employer and employee have the right to come to terms on an agreement. The state's significant responsibility is to t protect the contract rights.

You're right. If a person is an asset they succeed. Also if a company wants to milk as much as they can out of people and treat them like cogs, they can.

The flip side is that employees can decide whether they want to bargain with a company collectively. The company can also refuse to recognize them, and fire the lot who made a choice. Those fired also have the right to picket that company.

But once a company agrees to recognize a union, it's their deal that they made, and they ought to live up to it. Nickel and dime issues as to placement by both sides of information is a nickel and dime issue.

What is significant is for a government to step in, and say that an agreement made by an employer and its employees doesn't matter, if it involves an agreement to a closed shop.

Who does that damage? Someone looking for a job? Why? If you don't want to be represented by a union, don't apply for a job in a closed shop contract organization?

The main problem (and there are MANY) with unions comes when they try to influence how a company is run by insisting on perks and pay over what the company can afford in the long term. The labor unions caused the auto industry to essentially die in the United States. The big retirement salaries, the featherbedding, the no work contract pay...stupid moves by unions that ultimately caused the financial collapse of companies like GM and Chrysler.

All the while some worthless union goon is getting paid from the WORKER'S pockets through their union dues, the union leader doesn't really give a rats ass about the individual worker. He just collects the dues, buys his silk suits, rides in his limo, takes an exorbitant salary and laughs all the way to the bank. Unions are worse than the fuckin' MAFIA! Nothing but crooks at the top!

 

[Mr.Nick]

No. I think that if a company and its emplyees come to terms on a contract, that the government should step in and interfere, as long as the agreement is legal. To the contrary, having government step in and revoke a contractual agreement, to benefit the corporation, is closer to fascism. Just as if government stepping in and revoking a contract to benefit employees would be closer to communism.

Note, I didn't say "that is fascism" nor "that is communism". Those are extreme terms that don't really reflect what either of those extreme form of government really is.

Well this is a an allegedly free country and individuals should NOT be forced to join a union if they have no desire to do such (like myself).

I'm an individualist - NOT a collectivist and I want nothing to do with unions - unions are SHIT....

I want the ability to stay at my job, work, keep food on the table and money flowing even if the union wants to strike.... I don't want to pay union dues that go right into some big-mouthed assholes pocket...

**** all that shit.

I should have the RIGHT to be an individual and work as an individual on my own terms not some collectivist terms - so **** that union bullshit.

If you're an asset to a company you don't need a union because you'll be rewarded as an individual for your hard work and dedication.

Yes, people ought to be free to decide if they want to bargain with an employer collectively. The employer and employee have the right to come to terms on an agreement. The state's significant responsibility is to t protect the contract rights.

You're right. If a person is an asset they succeed. Also if a company wants to milk as much as they can out of people and treat them like cogs, they can.

The flip side is that employees can decide whether they want to bargain with a company collectively. The company can also refuse to recognize them, and fire the lot who made a choice. Those fired also have the right to picket that company.

But once a company agrees to recognize a union, it's their deal that they made, and they ought to live up to it. Nickel and dime issues as to placement by both sides of information is a nickel and dime issue.

What is significant is for a government to step in, and say that an agreement made by an employer and its employees doesn't matter, if it involves an agreement to a closed shop.

Who does that damage? Someone looking for a job? Why? If you don't want to be represented by a union, don't apply for a job in a closed shop contract organization?

Individuals should NOT be forced into joining a collective organization to get a job..

What don't you understand about that?

If an individual wants to sign a contract with a specific company as an individual - fine - that is their choice, however they shouldn't be forced into a collective contract - that is absolutely wrong.

Employees should be judged by their employer on an individual basis NOT on a collective basis..

Unions are for lazy ***** who only care about getting paid and NOT doing their ******* job to the best of their abilities....

Union workers - especially public sector union workers disgust me. Most are slow, stupid and lazy drunks.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Well this is a an allegedly free country and individuals should NOT be forced to join a union if they have no desire to do such (like myself).

I'm an individualist - NOT a collectivist and I want nothing to do with unions - unions are SHIT....

I want the ability to stay at my job, work, keep food on the table and money flowing even if the union wants to strike.... I don't want to pay union dues that go right into some big-mouthed assholes pocket...

**** all that shit.

I should have the RIGHT to be an individual and work as an individual on my own terms not some collectivist terms - so **** that union bullshit.

If you're an asset to a company you don't need a union because you'll be rewarded as an individual for your hard work and dedication.

Yes, people ought to be free to decide if they want to bargain with an employer collectively. The employer and employee have the right to come to terms on an agreement. The state's significant responsibility is to t protect the contract rights.

You're right. If a person is an asset they succeed. Also if a company wants to milk as much as they can out of people and treat them like cogs, they can.

The flip side is that employees can decide whether they want to bargain with a company collectively. The company can also refuse to recognize them, and fire the lot who made a choice. Those fired also have the right to picket that company.

But once a company agrees to recognize a union, it's their deal that they made, and they ought to live up to it. Nickel and dime issues as to placement by both sides of information is a nickel and dime issue.

What is significant is for a government to step in, and say that an agreement made by an employer and its employees doesn't matter, if it involves an agreement to a closed shop.

Who does that damage? Someone looking for a job? Why? If you don't want to be represented by a union, don't apply for a job in a closed shop contract organization?

The main problem (and there are MANY) with unions comes when they try to influence how a company is run by insisting on perks and pay over what the company can afford in the long term. The labor unions caused the auto industry to essentially die in the United States. The big retirement salaries, the featherbedding, the no work contract pay...stupid moves by unions that ultimately caused the financial collapse of companies like GM and Chrysler.

All the while some worthless union goon is getting paid from the WORKER'S pockets through their union dues, the union leader doesn't really give a rats ass about the individual worker. He just collects the dues, buys his silk suits, rides in his limo, takes an exorbitant salary and laughs all the way to the bank. Unions are worse than the fuckin' MAFIA! Nothing but crooks at the top!

Unions insist and corporations insist. In the end, it all comes down to the contract they agreed on. If a company decided that it couldn't make money on the deal, it shouldn't sign it. If the union decides that the company is offering a deal its workers can't live with, they shouldn't sign it.

It still comes down to signed contracts.

So, since you sound like you're a libertarian, let me ask you this. If a company signs a contract with a union, and is unable to meet its obligations, shouldn't the owners of that company meet that obligation?

 

[eflatminor]

I could buy 100 shares of IBM, and if they collectively decided to go collectively postal tomorrow, that my max loss would be what I paid for those 100 shares. I'm an equal owner of the company, so why should I get a pass on being held responsible for their actions?

Perhaps a more clear and compelling case would be Enron. Why should those funds and individuals, who actually owned the company be let off the hook for the excesses and criminal activity that company committed?

Perhaps if owners of a company, i.e. the millions of stockholders, had their own fortunes on the line, they'd pay better attention, and capitalism would be better functioning. But with that perk of limited liability, their loses are limited to whatever they put into buying a stock with no responsibility of de facto ownership of a company.

That's an interesting suggestion but personally, I think limited liability is an important and useful component of corporations. Instead of holding shareholders liable for the actions of the actual men that went postal (or spilled oil, etc), I would suggest it is more important that the corporation be held accountable in any civil or criminal action. Stated differently, I believe we should do away with the regulatory protection against litigious actions and competition that are provided to those corporations with politicians in their back pocket. Stop the cronyism and capitalism will work better.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Yes, people ought to be free to decide if they want to bargain with an employer collectively. The employer and employee have the right to come to terms on an agreement. The state's significant responsibility is to t protect the contract rights.

You're right. If a person is an asset they succeed. Also if a company wants to milk as much as they can out of people and treat them like cogs, they can.

The flip side is that employees can decide whether they want to bargain with a company collectively. The company can also refuse to recognize them, and fire the lot who made a choice. Those fired also have the right to picket that company.

But once a company agrees to recognize a union, it's their deal that they made, and they ought to live up to it. Nickel and dime issues as to placement by both sides of information is a nickel and dime issue.

What is significant is for a government to step in, and say that an agreement made by an employer and its employees doesn't matter, if it involves an agreement to a closed shop.

Who does that damage? Someone looking for a job? Why? If you don't want to be represented by a union, don't apply for a job in a closed shop contract organization?

The main problem (and there are MANY) with unions comes when they try to influence how a company is run by insisting on perks and pay over what the company can afford in the long term. The labor unions caused the auto industry to essentially die in the United States. The big retirement salaries, the featherbedding, the no work contract pay...stupid moves by unions that ultimately caused the financial collapse of companies like GM and Chrysler.

All the while some worthless union goon is getting paid from the WORKER'S pockets through their union dues, the union leader doesn't really give a rats ass about the individual worker. He just collects the dues, buys his silk suits, rides in his limo, takes an exorbitant salary and laughs all the way to the bank. Unions are worse than the fuckin' MAFIA! Nothing but crooks at the top!

Unions insist and corporations insist. In the end, it all comes down to the contract they agreed on. If a company decided that it couldn't make money on the deal, it shouldn't sign it. If the union decides that the company is offering a deal its workers can't live with, they shouldn't sign it.

It still comes down to signed contracts.

So, since you sound like you're a libertarian, let me ask you this. If a company signs a contract with a union, and is unable to meet its obligations, shouldn't the owners of that company meet that obligation?

You do realize unions just extort money out of businesses out of threats of shutting down their operations???

They say - **** you pay us and give us what we want or we're shutting you down...

Yeah, well maybe some employees have bills to pay and need to put food on the ******* TABLE and they cant strike because they cant afford it.... Ever think of that union boy????

Not to mention there is no incentive for unions to make a good product or provide a good service - NO they don't have to because guess what??? the business is at the mercy of the union...

Unions are criminal enterprises... The last time I checked extortion was a crime, and so was conspiracy...

National labor unions should be abolished entirely..... They're evil entities that do nothing but get drunk and high on the job, mope around like lazy *****, make shitty products then cry for more money...

 

[eflatminor]

Jefferson said,

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Sounds like Jefferson was making a case against a central bank, against our Federal Reserve. Guess Jefferson would have been a Ron Paul supporter. Cool.

Thomas Jefferson also said this in 1816,

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

Sounds like Jefferson stood against cronyism. Guess Jefferson would have been a Ron Paul supporter. Cool.

Has Ron Paul come out against the limited liability perk that corporations enjoy?

No, but he has come out against the cronyism and unequal justice afforded to some corporations. BP's $75million cap on oil spills in the gulf being one example. Limited liability keeps the capital flowing in our economy. That's good. Special protections, loopholes, etc for some corporations distort a free market. That's bad.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Well this is a an allegedly free country and individuals should NOT be forced to join a union if they have no desire to do such (like myself).

I'm an individualist - NOT a collectivist and I want nothing to do with unions - unions are SHIT....

I want the ability to stay at my job, work, keep food on the table and money flowing even if the union wants to strike.... I don't want to pay union dues that go right into some big-mouthed assholes pocket...

**** all that shit.

I should have the RIGHT to be an individual and work as an individual on my own terms not some collectivist terms - so **** that union bullshit.

If you're an asset to a company you don't need a union because you'll be rewarded as an individual for your hard work and dedication.

Yes, people ought to be free to decide if they want to bargain with an employer collectively. The employer and employee have the right to come to terms on an agreement. The state's significant responsibility is to t protect the contract rights.

You're right. If a person is an asset they succeed. Also if a company wants to milk as much as they can out of people and treat them like cogs, they can.

The flip side is that employees can decide whether they want to bargain with a company collectively. The company can also refuse to recognize them, and fire the lot who made a choice. Those fired also have the right to picket that company.

But once a company agrees to recognize a union, it's their deal that they made, and they ought to live up to it. Nickel and dime issues as to placement by both sides of information is a nickel and dime issue.

What is significant is for a government to step in, and say that an agreement made by an employer and its employees doesn't matter, if it involves an agreement to a closed shop.

Who does that damage? Someone looking for a job? Why? If you don't want to be represented by a union, don't apply for a job in a closed shop contract organization?

Individuals should NOT be forced into joining a collective organization to get a job..

No one is being "forced" to do anything. They're welcome to get a non-union job.

Just like if someone's not happy with their pay, they're welcome to get another (union) job.

What don't you understand about that?

Quite a bit. It's pretty clear that you don't, though.

If an individual wants to sign a contract with a specific company as an individual - fine - that is their choice, however they shouldn't be forced into a collective contract - that is absolutely wrong.

Why? If the company and the union sign a contract that all new employees will become members of the union, why shouldn't that contract be honored?

Employees should be judged by their employer on an individual basis NOT on a collective basis..

I think you don't really understand how unions work...

Unions are for lazy ***** who only care about getting paid and NOT doing their ******* job to the best of their abilities...

Union workers - especially public sector union workers disgust me. Most are slow, stupid and lazy drunks.

Link?

 

[boilermaker55]

No. Do you think the government should force an employer to make such a contractual agreement if they do not want to?

Correct. The government should be the one to enforce contract law. Negotiation of a contract, unless there's a compelling state interest, should be between employer and employees. If the employees choose to bargain collectively, that's also their right.

The government shouldn't be enforcing jack shit......

If you need the government to do your bidding than you're a passive ***** boy...

This coming from one of the biggest ***** boys on the board.
Tough guy typing but a sissy outside.
We have your number

 

[Contumacious]

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

1- In 1913 Congress Congress created the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) , it gave it MONOPOLY powers to control the currency and credit.

2- The Agency is controlled by private bankers and it is not subjet to audit

3- During the 1920's the FRB it issued to much currency. In 1935 they forced the government to (a) declare bankruptcy , (2) make the dollar and the possession of gold a crime (3) force the nation to transact its business using Federal Reserve Notes

4- Thomas Jefferson hit the nail right on its head.

.

 

[Dick Tuck]

I could buy 100 shares of IBM, and if they collectively decided to go collectively postal tomorrow, that my max loss would be what I paid for those 100 shares. I'm an equal owner of the company, so why should I get a pass on being held responsible for their actions?

Perhaps a more clear and compelling case would be Enron. Why should those funds and individuals, who actually owned the company be let off the hook for the excesses and criminal activity that company committed?

Perhaps if owners of a company, i.e. the millions of stockholders, had their own fortunes on the line, they'd pay better attention, and capitalism would be better functioning. But with that perk of limited liability, their loses are limited to whatever they put into buying a stock with no responsibility of de facto ownership of a company.

That's an interesting suggestion but personally, I think limited liability is an important and useful component of corporations. Instead of holding shareholders liable for the actions of the actual men that went postal (or spilled oil, etc), I would suggest it is more important that the corporation be held accountable in any civil or criminal action. Stated differently, I believe we should do away with the regulatory protection against litigious actions and competition that are provided to those corporations with politicians in their back pocket. Stop the cronyism and capitalism will work better.

We agree. The stawman was just to demonstrate what a huge perk that investors and corporations actually get from limited liability. We also agree that a check and balance is necessary to protect us from abuse, and the only reasonable body to do so is government.

Where government fails, however, is to become so susceptible to the power wielded by modern corporations, that it, in essence gives power of governance to corporations. I think that's basically what happened at the real Boston Tea Party, and in our collective apathy are allowing to happen now.

You're also right regarding crime and punishment. There's no equity in justice, because justice too can be bought. Michael Milken conned millions of dollars, was caught, paid millions in fines, spends some time in jail, and walked away a very rich man.

You're also right that our courts are more tied up in frivolous lawsuits between corporations, rather than corporate crowd wants our government to protect them against, from consumers. Why in the hell should people like Bill Frisk get a second double dip at limited liability when it comes to capricious limits on medical malpractice?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Sounds like Jefferson was making a case against a central bank, against our Federal Reserve. Guess Jefferson would have been a Ron Paul supporter. Cool.



Sounds like Jefferson stood against cronyism. Guess Jefferson would have been a Ron Paul supporter. Cool.

Has Ron Paul come out against the limited liability perk that corporations enjoy?

No, but he has come out against the cronyism and unequal justice afforded to some corporations. BP's $75million cap on oil spills in the gulf being one example. Limited liability keeps the capital flowing in our economy. That's good. Special protections, loopholes, etc for some corporations distort a free market. That's bad.

It sounds like a cop out for libertarianism. If we want the smallest government possible, with the least amount of legal interference, ought we not accept the maximum amount of consequence?

Lots of things would distort a free market and capital flow. Certainly private banks did in 2008. Unsustainable monetary policy, using an archaic gold standard would.

But we agree that it should always be about being pragmatic in our economics. Everyone should give up a little to result in the best for everyone. K Street should be less corrupting. Our legislatures should be forced to be less corruptible, and our corporations should be held more accountable.

 

[kwc57]

Yes, it's just a blog. But it makes an interesting argument, using facts. So instead of shooting the messenger, and feeble minded flaming (from both sides). Let's try something new, and have an intelligent discussion (yeah, I know I'm dreaming).

What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations

One interesting observation comes from Jefferson.

1802 letter to Secretary of State Albert Gallatin, Jefferson said,

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

snopes.com: Thomas Jefferson on Banks

Private Banks (Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson

Thread killa!

I repeat, the whole premise is based on a quote that Founding Father Jefferson never made.