How much do you make?

[Joe Camacho]

Companies cannot be considered as 'people' in cases where they want to take a single individual to court. Only people can take other people to civil court.

You don't have an idea how STUPID this statement is.

Urgh. It's late. I suck at writing right now.

Basically an individual in the U.S. cannot "pierce the corporate veil". However, a corporation has full ability under some Supreme Court case to be able to sue a person under laws originally written for person-to-person disputes. It's as if a corporation has been given the same rights as if it existed as a real person...

So your argument resumes in "BUH HUH HUH, THE CORPORATIONS HAVE MORE MONEY TO OUTSOURCE THE INVIDUAL."

Dude, Collective Juristic Persons (Societies, Asociations, etc.) HAVE to be persons in order to exist, and settle lawsuits against physical Persons.

Simple example: A labor suit, in which the individual is asking for X amount of money as compensation for a (for the sake of the argument) PROVEN case of being unjustly fired against a large corporation, with different branches and different franchises.

And before you tell me that only individuals can take to court for compensations, Corporations can too if they feel it they don’t need to pay it.

Who is going to pay?

The human resources guy that hired him? The manager that was in shift during the incident? The owner of the Franchise in which he worked? The owner of the Branch? The owner (And most of the time, owners) of the Corporation?

Who is going to go to court? Who will need a lawyer? Will we need various trials? Who is the individual going to SUE? Everyone? Just one? Dude, that's even more EXPENSIVE.

Let's see, patent violation. Who should sue? The one who registered the patent, ok. Easy, right? No! What if he sold the patent? What if he sold it to a corporation? Will the corporation board of directors be able to sue him one at a time? What about the stockholders? Their money is in risk too, will they be able to sue? Who will they sue?

People form corporations, asociations and societies so their properties as individuals aren't affected by their business practice, so, in case the corporation fails, they can still have properties and not be in the street. Yeah, sometimes in the cases of crimes, they need to handle their properties, but that's besides the point.

Corporations (as in collective juristic persons) can't commit crimes, for the sole reason that there are more than one individual, and you can't take to jail a bunch of people just because of the actions of an individual, or a group of them. And even if it's all of them, they will be judged individually.

And remember, because corporations play and do business with money that’s technically not theirs, they are able to pay sums of money when they lose in trial. If they lose, who is going to pay? But first, you need to tell me WHO is going to be able to sue.

Let’s talk about copyright, if someone is guilty of copyright violation, who should sue? The artist? The band, each BAND MEMBER? The technical people that were hired to make the production, EACH ONE OF THEM? The Record company owner? What if it’s a board of directors? Each can sue him?

Dude, what you say is a lot more complicated and expensive, than just giving corporations personality to be able to engage in court.

[badinsults]

I'm sorry, but if you are making shitty minimum wage and cannot find a higher wage job, you are either:

1) not trying
2) in a place with no job market.


Raising minimum wage is not going to change things. If you go to a market where there is a shortage of labour, then companies will pay higher. For instance, in Alberta the minimum wage is something like $5, but because of a labour shortage places like McDonalds are forced to pay $15-$20 per hour. If you are not willing to relocate to get a better wage, or attempt to raise your skills so that you can find a better job in your current location, then I have not sympathy.

[AntoineWG]

I'm sorry, but if you are making shitty minimum wage and cannot find a higher wage job, you are either:

1) not trying
2) in a place with no job market.


Raising minimum wage is not going to change things. If you go to a market where there is a shortage of labour, then companies will pay higher. For instance, in Alberta the minimum wage is something like $5, but because of a labour shortage places like McDonalds are forced to pay $15-$20 per hour. If you are not willing to relocate to get a better wage, or attempt to raise your skills so that you can find a better job in your current location, then I have not sympathy.

3) a high school dropout and deserve it

[PHoNyMiKe]

I make $5.25 an hour, working the registers at mcdonald's. oh wait, that's demios, my bad!

[darkbenny]

lol

[corronchilejano]

People form corporations, asociations and societies so their properties as individuals aren't affected by their business practice, so, in case the corporation fails, they can still have properties and not be in the street. Yeah, sometimes in the cases of crimes, they need to handle their properties, but that's besides the point.

Corporations (as in collective juristic persons) can't commit crimes, for the sole reason that there are more than one individual, and you can't take to jail a bunch of people just because of the actions of an individual, or a group of them. And even if it's all of them, they will be judged individually.

And remember, because corporations play and do business with money that’s technically not theirs, they are able to pay sums of money when they lose in trial. If they lose, who is going to pay? But first, you need to tell me WHO is going to be able to sue.

Your post was quite big, so I'll just take what's neccesary. The main issue here with a corporation being taken as a "person" is that, precisely, people handling the corporation itself can make big dirty stuff (Enron comes to mind), without being prosecuted BECAUSE the corporation is guilty, although in the case of Enron, they got caught.

On a completely unrelated topic, what ever happened to Grinvader?

[Que]

On a completely unrelated topic, what ever happened to Grinvader?

Last post was saturday the 6th, spooky. Maybe he got in a motor vehicular accident of some sort.

[Johan_H]

He probably just got a job.

[MisterJones]

He probably just got a life.

[adventure_of_link]

misterjones and johan win...

I forgot what kinda job it is though.

[Joe Camacho]

People form corporations, asociations and societies so their properties as individuals aren't affected by their business practice, so, in case the corporation fails, they can still have properties and not be in the street. Yeah, sometimes in the cases of crimes, they need to handle their properties, but that's besides the point.

Corporations (as in collective juristic persons) can't commit crimes, for the sole reason that there are more than one individual, and you can't take to jail a bunch of people just because of the actions of an individual, or a group of them. And even if it's all of them, they will be judged individually.

And remember, because corporations play and do business with money that’s technically not theirs, they are able to pay sums of money when they lose in trial. If they lose, who is going to pay? But first, you need to tell me WHO is going to be able to sue.

Your post was quite big, so I'll just take what's neccesary. The main issue here with a corporation being taken as a "person" is that, precisely, people handling the corporation itself can make big dirty stuff (Enron comes to mind), without being prosecuted BECAUSE the corporation is guilty, although in the case of Enron, they got caught.

On a completely unrelated topic, what ever happened to Grinvader?

Dude, tell my how something that DOESN'T have a mind can be guilty of something.

C'mon, do it. "ENRON" didn't go to jail, "ENRON" didn't have to pay fines, no. The people involved in the illegal activities surrounding Enron were taken to court.

[whicker]

People form corporations, asociations and societies so their properties as individuals aren't affected by their business practice, so, in case the corporation fails, they can still have properties and not be in the street. Yeah, sometimes in the cases of crimes, they need to handle their properties, but that's besides the point.

Corporations (as in collective juristic persons) can't commit crimes, for the sole reason that there are more than one individual, and you can't take to jail a bunch of people just because of the actions of an individual, or a group of them. And even if it's all of them, they will be judged individually.

And remember, because corporations play and do business with money that’s technically not theirs, they are able to pay sums of money when they lose in trial. If they lose, who is going to pay? But first, you need to tell me WHO is going to be able to sue.

Your post was quite big, so I'll just take what's neccesary. The main issue here with a corporation being taken as a "person" is that, precisely, people handling the corporation itself can make big dirty stuff (Enron comes to mind), without being prosecuted BECAUSE the corporation is guilty, although in the case of Enron, they got caught.

On a completely unrelated topic, what ever happened to Grinvader?

Dude, tell my how something that DOESN'T have a mind can be guilty of something.

C'mon, do it. "ENRON" didn't go to jail, "ENRON" didn't have to pay fines, no. The people involved in the illegal activities surrounding Enron were taken to court.

Notice how typically the 'weakest' argument seems to get ripped on, even though removing it does not have the effect of automatically making the rest of the separate ideas invalid. Take something that appears odd, and extrapolate heavily.

Anyway.

We're bouncing between civil and criminal cases. Enron was criminal. I'm talking about civil...

I actually find Joe's explanation understandable within the current legal framework. In my feeble attempts I was suggesting a different framework, where corporations (collective groups of people) are treated differently as completely separate concepts with little overlap.

civil cases like "defamation of character" should be only person to person issues. Criminal cases can still be whatever, where the state or federal government comes in and proves guilt. A third concept would be situations where a corporation has collectively caused harm, but no single person can be blamed.

Patents are given to people, and licensed to companies, right? So how do we get to the point where there is one company suing another over patent issues? It becomes the one army versus another, when it's really where a few people have either stolen an invention, or failed to check if that idea has already been implemented.

I am not revising my original statement, and probably because I neglected the whole third concept I was thinking at the time I get lectured on how things worked imho in the messed up justice system right now.

Common people spend about a quarter of their lives at work, it is my pathetic opinion that there should be some sort of new ruleset that doesn't take the convenient route of filling in the gaps in the laws by making an arbitrary assertion that corporations are "people".

[Joe Camacho]

We're bouncing between civil and criminal cases. Enron was criminal. I'm talking about civil...

And I was also taking about Civil in lato sensu, as in the concept of Civil = Not Criminal. Labor, merchant and civil in stricto sensu.

I actually find Joe's explanation understandable within the current legal framework. In my feeble attempts I was suggesting a different framework, where corporations (collective groups of people) are treated differently as completely separate concepts with little overlap.

civil cases like "defamation of character" should be only person to person issues. Criminal cases can still be whatever, where the state or federal government comes in and proves guilt. A third concept would be situations where a corporation has collectively caused harm, but no single person can be blamed.

If I say "Mc Donald's hamburgers are made of rat meat". I'm defamating Mc Donald's, right? Who will sue me? The president of Mc Donalds? One of the Members of the board of directors? The owner of X franchise license? Stockholders? You are affecting their earnings, they have the right to sue.

I seriously think it's a lot better for the corporation to have a legal department and be able to sue in the name of it. Sure, they will have more money to hire better lawyers and the like, but it will still be one process.

Like I said, Corporations and other Juristic Collective Persons CAN'T commit crimes, no matter how "evil" you think Microsoft, Sony or whateve company you thing of. They can only be "victims" of crimes. They can be defamated, you can steal from them, etc.

Some legal systems, I think Common law, can sanction Companies in a criminal way, fines most of the time. But in general, Companies are sanctioned by administration and civil laws.

Patents are given to people, and licensed to companies, right? So how do we get to the point where there is one company suing another over patent issues? It becomes the one army versus another, when it's really where a few people have either stolen an invention, or failed to check if that idea has already been implemented.

There are companies with their own R&D departments, most of these researchers work with the condition in their contracts that everything you develop/create in that time, patented or copyrighted, is Company property. Look at videogame property for example. Mario is owned by Nintendo, not owned by Miyamoto.

I am not revising my original statement, and probably because I neglected the whole third concept I was thinking at the time I get lectured on how things worked imho in the messed up justice system right now.

It would be a lot worse without Juristic Collective Persons, trust me. Unless you like communism, no offense, but no one would like to form a company if they couldn't defend it, or if their personal properties would be at risk. If Companies weren't people, they couldn't have properties, if you won a case against them, where would they get the money for compensation? You would need to sue SOMEONE that can compensate, so we are back at step one: Who are you going to sue?

Common people spend about a quarter of their lives at work, it is my pathetic opinion that there should be some sort of new ruleset that doesn't take the convenient route of filling in the gaps in the laws by making an arbitrary assertion that corporations are "people".

You talk like if these laws were created last year. These concepts and a lot more are as old as the Roman Empire, maybe even older.

I'm not that informed in US law entities, but here in Mx, we have a Federal Entity Called "Profeco" (Procuraduría Federal del Consumidor = Federal Advocate of the Consumer Office, roughly translated) which gives legal advice to people when they need to "fight the evil corporations".