Quote from: tekla on December 28, 2008, 01:05:38 AM
In fact it begins rather simply, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad needs to be revoked.

Why?  To revoke corporate personhood?  The actual case had nothing to do with that idea, and wouldn't change anything if it were overturned.

EDIT:  A couple I'd like to see overturned are Gibbons v. Ogden and United States v. Darby Lumber Co.

Quote from: Kaitlyn on December 29, 2008, 11:27:08 AM
United States v. Darby Lumber Co.

Indeed, because the days of endless working hours, horrible work conditions and child labor need to come back. Sure. Do you honestly think that we can trust the good will of company owners to self-regulate?

Quote from: soldierjane on December 29, 2008, 11:49:17 AM

Quote from: Kaitlyn on December 29, 2008, 11:27:08 AM
United States v. Darby Lumber Co.

Indeed, because the days of endless working hours, horrible work conditions and child labor need to come back. Sure. Do you honestly think that we can trust the good will of company owners to self-regulate?

Please don't jump to conclusions.  The problem with US v Darby is the insane amount of power granted to Congress by the Supreme Court's ruling in this case.  I don't see how that's necessary for regulatory purposes.  After all, how many people are demanding that the UN take over US economic regulation on the same principle? (Or is there a principle?)

EDIT: If it's OK in this case for the government to override established jurisprudence and the Constitution itself, why not all the time?  Further, how can anyone then complain when a George Bush does it?  I honestly don't understand this... it seems like a double standard to me.  Am I just supposed to shut up and "get it" without questioning?

EDIT pt II:  I also don't see what anyone's good will has to do with it.  I've never understood that.  And do you really think that your average OSHA inspector has any more good will for you than anyone else?  if not, how is the idea of good will important at all when it comes to regulations & working conditions?

At the end of the day, whether it's power concentrated in the hands of a corporate board or a government, regulation or a free market, both are going to be abused at some point. There's the question of accountability however. Governments are, in theory, accountable to all the public who put them there, while a corporation is accountable to nobody but the bottom line and stock dividends. The problem with government regulation and oversight is not that it's there, it's that it is there largely behind closed doors and with decisions made by a handful of corruptable individuals. We need to overhaul the system, introduce complete transparency, and regear the system so the public has a much more direct and immediate input. Governments need to be made agents of execution again, rather than agents of decision.

Mina.

I just don't think that's going to happen...  people are far too willing to give state officials the state a pass because of the tendency to become emotionally invested in them - a remnant of tribalism.  Also, the severity of and incentives for abuse of power are much greater for governmental positions than corporate ones.  It's fine to talk about how evil Blackwater, KB&R, Halliburton, etc are, but people seem to forget that it was the average people of the American armed forces that destroyed Iraq & Afghanistan.

Likewise, people are far too eager to castigate market actors.  The rush to judgment in a society that claims to value the presumption of innocence is shocking.

We as society are what we are raised and educated to be. One of the fundamental arguments in anarchism is that you need to educate society out of its apathy, and that that is gonna take a generation or two.

I'm getting off the point though. I have to take you on about the argument that government positions are more prone to abuse than corporate ones. In government you have to at least maintain the appearance of doing the "right thing", hence all the fancy footwork Blair and Bush did to justify invading Iraq. By contrast, decision makers in a corporate setting don't have to justify toxic waste dumping or using labour providers that traffic in child labour or for paying their employees the bare minimum while they run around in armani and private jets - as long as they keep the stock price high the constituancy they are responsible to - their shareholders, are quite happy. That's why regulation and transparency are needed - to police both government AND corporate power.

Just to comment on the point, I think corporate personhood was the worst thing that could have happened, at least in the form it did. On the one hand we gave this amorphous thing all the rights and stuff an individual has, yet we don't subject them to any of the consequences individuals face. Consequently a corporation can act pretty-much with impunity as long as the bottom line is happy, because the individuals within that corporation know that they only have to offer up one or two scapegoats should they be found out. The entity itself, which acts as a perfect, amoral predator in pursuit of profit is immune to everybody except other perfect predators. The rest of us get preyed on no matter who wins. I'll concede that a state actually functions in much the same way, but there is more accountability, assuming they get caught out.

Mina.

QuoteThe rush to judgment in a society that claims to value the presumption of innocence is shocking.

Tell Bush about it.

Quote from: Kaitlyn on December 30, 2008, 02:56:44 PM

Quote from: soldierjane on December 29, 2008, 11:49:17 AM

Quote from: Kaitlyn on December 29, 2008, 11:27:08 AM
United States v. Darby Lumber Co.

Indeed, because the days of endless working hours, horrible work conditions and child labor need to come back. Sure. Do you honestly think that we can trust the good will of company owners to self-regulate?

Please don't jump to conclusions.  The problem with US v Darby is the insane amount of power granted to Congress by the Supreme Court's ruling in this case.  I don't see how that's necessary for regulatory purposes.  After all, how many people are demanding that the UN take over US economic regulation on the same principle? (Or is there a principle?)

EDIT: If it's OK in this case for the government to override established jurisprudence and the Constitution itself, why not all the time?  Further, how can anyone then complain when a George Bush does it?  I honestly don't understand this... it seems like a double standard to me.  Am I just supposed to shut up and "get it" without questioning?

EDIT pt II:  I also don't see what anyone's good will has to do with it.  I've never understood that.  And do you really think that your average OSHA inspector has any more good will for you than anyone else?  if not, how is the idea of good will important at all when it comes to regulations & working conditions?

Regarding EDIT pt II: I said "the good will of company owners to self-regulate", not good will towards the public. The OSHA inspector is doing his job, which is to report on safety hazards. The company owner has one objective only and that is to make money. So unless the OSHA inspector is being bribed, he/she has no stake in overlooking the breaking of safety rules, which the company owner does.

Regarding EDIT pt I: We have a Federation here in the US. Are you arguing that the US should be a Confederation then, where the only ties between states are related to self-defense and foreign commerce? (mind you, I'm not talking about the historical Confederacy or anything related to it).
Jurisprudence is often overriden, that's quite normal. If not, most possible cases would have run out by 1850 and the Justice system would be reduced to merely checking a database.
George Bush circumvented the law, as in willingly ignoring existing regulations for FISA courts for example. His example is not relevant.
Also, I don't expect you to "shut up and get it", I never called for you to do that so I don't know where you're coming from. A one-sided argument would be kinda boring and unproductive, wouldn't it?

On the issue of Darby itself, I take it you oppose the existence of the FSLA then? Commerce has to be regulated by it or else it would become a race of who has the most ruthless practices and can therefore achieve the lowest practices. It is unfair for a company that pays fair wages and has good working conditions (which is desirable, right?) to be ripped apart in the market arena by another company which doesn't. And I know what the usual libertarian argument is there, that people will simply not work at those places if they are informed. They will force said employer to adopt a better environment or else they won't work there. The reality of the matter is that need will drive out people to work anywhere. Hungry families overrule armchair analysis.

By the way, this is what Darby was charged with:

There are numerous counts charging appellee with the shipment in interstate commerce from Georgia to points outside the state of lumber in the production of which, for interstate commerce, appellee has employed workmen at less than the prescribed minimum wage or more than the prescribed maximum hours without payment to them of any wage for overtime. Other counts charge the employment by appellee of workmen in the production of lumber for interstate commerce at wages of less than 25 cents an hour or for more than the maximum hours per week without payment to them of the prescribed overtime wage. Still another count charges appellee with failure to keep records showing the hours worked each day a week by each of his employees as required by 11(c) and the regulation of the administrator, Title 29, Ch. 5, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 516, and also that appellee unlawfully failed to keep such records of employees engaged 'in the production and manufacture of goods, to-wit lumber, for interstate commerce'.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=312&page=100