Re: corporate vs. state

At 7:20 AM + 3/26/04, Justin wrote: >Those "nasty latin words" are "ceteris paribus". Thank you. On a network full of experts the price of error is bandwidth. Cheers, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 44 Farquhar St

Re: corporate vs. state

At 11:44 AM + 3/26/04, Anonymous via panta wrote: > three rounds in the base of Bob Hettinga's geodesic skull Glock for the bed. AR for the Closet. Mossberg for the door? :-). Collective punishment, indeed... Cheers, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga The Internet Bearer Underwritin

Re: corporate vs. state

On 26 Mar 2004, Frog wrote: > Harmon Seaver wrote: > > > If a "voluntary association" injures me, > > Associations - corporate or otherwise - are abstract, intangible > entities. They don't perform actions. People do. Corporations act as "legal persons" - they can enter into contracts, own

Re: corporate vs. state

Harmon Seaver wrote: > > >If a member of a club, to which you belong, commits an act of > > > violence, are you liable for that act? > >No, but if the "club", as an entity, does such, you should be. If > the corporation pollutes, all and sundry owners and employees should > be equally liable. O

Re: corporate vs. state

R. A. Hettinga (2004-03-26 02:20Z) wrote: > blah blah (those nasty latin words ceterus paribus) blah blah Those "nasty latin words" are "ceteris paribus". -- That woman deserves her revenge... and... we deserve to die. -- Budd, "Kill Bill Vol. 1"

Re: corporate vs. state

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 09:43:53PM -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: > > At 12:39 AM 3/26/04 -, Frog wrote: > >Harmon Seaver wrote: > >> each and every person involved in it should be liable. > > > >If a member of a club, to which you belong, commits an act of violence, > are you liable for t

Re: corporate vs. state, TD's education

This is what Major Variola (ret) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said about "corporate vs. state, TD's education" on 25 Mar 2004 at 9:16 > Get this through your head: a corporation can't initiate force against > you. You may not like their product, practices, or price,

Re: corporate vs. state

At 12:39 AM 3/26/04 -, Frog wrote: >Harmon Seaver wrote: >> each and every person involved in it should be liable. > >If a member of a club, to which you belong, commits an act of violence, are you liable for that act? Excellent question. The gestap^H^H^H^H Feds think you are --membership in

Re: corporate vs. state, TD's education

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 11:46:29PM +, Justin wrote: > > Why should it be impermissible for corporations to be "persons" under > the law when parents can be "persons" on behalf of their minor children? Why should they be? > > In both situations, one or more people are "persons" only to re

Re: corporate vs. state

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At 8:59 PM -0500 3/25/04, R. A. Hettinga wrote: >Boom. An anonymously-voted limited liability business entity. > >Look, ma. No state. Oh. One more thing. It'll *never* happen until the risk-adjusted (those nasty latin words ceterus paribus) cost of d

Re: corporate vs. state

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 First off, yes, corporations are creatures of the state. So, what else is new? They are an easy way to achieve limited liability. In the UK after the South Sea Bubble popped (and in France, after the same thing happened to the Mississippi Company did

Re: corporate vs. state

Harmon Seaver wrote: > If a "voluntary association" injures me, Associations - corporate or otherwise - are abstract, intangible entities. They don't perform actions. People do. > each and every person involved in it should be liable. If a member of a club, to which you belong, commits a

Re: corporate vs. state, TD's education

Harmon Seaver (2004-03-25 23:06Z) wrote: > On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 05:27:14PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Harmon Seaver wrote: > > > > >Nonsense -- corporations are not humans, they have zero rights. > > > > Unfortunately, there are a whole slew of Supreme C

Re: corporate vs. state, TD's education

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-03-25 22:27Z) wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Harmon Seaver wrote: > > >Nonsense -- corporations are not humans, they have zero rights. > > Unfortunately, there are a whole slew of Supreme Court decisions that say > otherwise - mostly applying the 14th amendment (yo

Re: corporate vs. state

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 02:42:13PM -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: > > 2. Humans don't lose their rights when they form voluntary associations. > > That's all the corporate decisions are saying. > Humans don't lose their rights, but they also shouldn't lose their responsibility either. If

Re: corporate vs. state, TD's education

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 05:27:14PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Harmon Seaver wrote: > > >Nonsense -- corporations are not humans, they have zero rights. > > Unfortunately, there are a whole slew of Supreme Court decisions that say > otherwise - mostly applying t

Re: corporate vs. state

At 05:27 PM 3/25/04 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Harmon Seaver wrote: > >>Nonsense -- corporations are not humans, they have zero rights. > >Unfortunately, there are a whole slew of Supreme Court decisions that say >otherwise - mostly applying the 14th amendment (you kn

Re: corporate vs. state, TD's education

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Harmon Seaver wrote: >Nonsense -- corporations are not humans, they have zero rights. Unfortunately, there are a whole slew of Supreme Court decisions that say otherwise - mostly applying the 14th amendment (you know, freeing the slaves) to grant free speech and other c

RE: corporate vs. state

At 02:02 PM 3/25/04 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: >Think I'm gonna have to disagree with ya' hear partner. >For one, in the old days Corporations regularly hired goons to mow down >striking coalminers and whatnot. You have no right to trespass simply because you once worked there. Neither does anyo

Re: corporate vs. state, TD's education

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 02:02:25PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: > > >Get this through your head: a corporation can't initiate force against > >you. > >You may not like their product, practices, or price, but no one is > >coercing you at gunpoint. > > Think I'm gonna have to disagree with ya' hear p

RE: corporate vs. state, TD's education

Ah Variola...do I detect a wee bit of Knee-jerk in your otherwise consistently iconoclastic views? Let's take a looksee... Get this through your head: a corporation can't initiate force against you. You may not like their product, practices, or price, but no one is coercing you at gunpoint. Think

corporate vs. state, TD's education

At 10:26 AM 3/25/04 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: >I also think that some cypherpunks mistake the Corporate State for what has >been described as Crypto-Anarchy. Get this through your head: a corporation can't initiate force against you. You may not like their product, practices, or price, but no one