Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: Down with the government

Expand Messages
  • Dan Minette
    ... From: brin-l-bounces@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-bounces@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Ronn! Blankenship Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 7:16 PM To: Killer Bs
    Message 1 of 111 , Oct 15, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      -----Original Message-----
      From: brin-l-bounces@... [mailto:brin-l-bounces@...] On
      Behalf Of Ronn! Blankenship
      Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 7:16 PM
      To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
      Subject: RE: Down with the government

      At 03:23 PM Friday 10/15/2010, Dan Minette wrote:

      >[snip]
      >
      >California has put itself in a box and I'd expect housing prices to drop
      >another factor of


      2


      >before it can start to rebound. Now, there's a topic we
      >can debate. :-)
      >
      >Dan M.



      _______________________________________________
      http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
    • Dave Land
      ... It may be a separate topic, or maybe not. The conflict over corporate personhood began, at least in the US, with the 1886 case Santa Clara County v.
      Message 111 of 111 , Oct 27, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        On Oct 26, 2010, at 10:00 PM, Chris Frandsen wrote:

        > On Oct 26, 2010, at 20:39, Dan Minette <danminette@...> wrote:
        >
        >> The second is that the bank who gave them the loan knew that they
        >> didn't
        >> qualify for the loan, and had a high probability of eventually
        >> defaulting,
        >> but the officers of the bank thought it was in their own best
        >> interest to
        >> make the loan anyway. In that case, don't they have responsibility
        >> when the
        >> borrowers follow the law when they no longer are able to make
        >> payments?
        >
        > Actually, it seems that in many cases 1st bank packaged this type
        > of loan up and sold it. Now the question is if the mortgagee
        > defaults is the 1st bank morally obligated to pay off the buyer of
        > the loan they sold? Or was it the loan buyers responsibility to know
        > the amount of risk they were taking? I think we all know that
        > corporations do not have moral obligations only legal ones.
        > Corporations are legal constructs. So I guess one could argue that
        > humans have moral obligations but corporations do not. (Somehow, I
        > am must have made an error in reasoning here.
        >
        > This could be a whole new thread. Maybe we have a new way to define
        > the difference between who is and is not a citizen?

        It may be a separate topic, or maybe not. The conflict over "corporate
        personhood" began, at least in the US, with the 1886 case "Santa Clara
        County v. Southern Pacific Railroad" (right here in my home county),
        when the Court Reporter, J. C. Bancroft Davis (a former railroad
        president) inserted a comment in the headnote of the case, recasting
        it as an assertion that corporations are due the same legal rights as
        natural persons under the 14th amendment.

        All of this moved from being of interest only to politics junkies and
        liberals like me when the Supreme court decided, in Citizens United v.
        Federal Election Commission, that corporations have the right to buy
        whatever form of government they want to impose on the rest of us,
        which will likely result in more and more egregious misbehavior on the
        part of corporations, eventually driving the pendulum back towards the
        progressive side.

        Or so I dream.

        Dave


        _______________________________________________
        http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.