eyeball Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 Only now long bound by a human made, populous constitution. But still unbound by a constitution made by a human population. I suspect our present constitution has a problem similar to those of the Canadian Crown's and for much the same reasons. It's outdated and better suited for sensibilities found in the 19th century. The Charter's a good start notwithstanding that unnecesary reference to God it launches off with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 I watched 2012 today (not that good). In the movie, the kept calling the Prime Ministers in the G8 Heads of State......it was frustrating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 But still unbound by a constitution made by a human population. No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 I watched 2012 today (not that good). In the movie, the kept calling the Prime Ministers in the G8 Heads of State......it was frustrating. I thought the same thing! Well, I guess nobody expects to get a proper education from a movie like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 (edited) See there you go again, even though I've reminded you before that its my desire that corporate charters be constitutionally required to have some representatives of the people's choosing on their boards, not the State's as you say. ] :lol: You mean like the people's commissar? Who are the "people" in this case who can force their way if not the state by another name? In any event, you would have the state (authorized by the constitution...)place people on a corporate board even though they may have no vested interest or allegiance to the corporation. If that isn't an attack on the freedom of association, I don't know what is. Edited November 17, 2009 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 Wrong again, I simply want more power in the hands of the people which is something that is apparently anathema to the State... When you blather so, I am reminded of the People's Socialist Republics....and other forms of totalitarian tyranny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 No, but the paradigm by which kings ruled is still with us. Yes, kings still technically rule in our system, but the Magna Carta established in the English system that the King was not above the law, and that his will could not be exercised arbitrarily. But the much more key event in the evolution of our system was the Glorious Revolution, in which the supremacy of Parliament was finally established. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 There is no such thing as the "Sovereign of Canada", except to suggest that the Sovereign of Canada is "The Queen". Canada is NOT a sovereign nation but our government is a mere Crown Corporation, subject to the Constitution prescribed by the Queen of Canada. Huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 Huh? My sentiments, exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 In any event, you would have the state (authorized by the constitution...)place people on a corporate board even though they may have no vested interest or allegiance to the corporation. No, for the 1000th time - I said people would place people on a corporate board. Not the state. Corporations and their shareholders may have no allegiance to the environment and ecosystems they operate in. People who do have an allegience to these should have the contitutional right to elect representatives to their boards to ensure their interests are protected. I wouldn't want to leave these appointments up to the State anymore than you apparently would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 My sentiments, exactly. Thirded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 No, for the 1000th time - I said people would place people on a corporate board. Not the state. And who is going to force the Boards to accept people with no vested interests or skills to sit on their boards and make decisions for the Corporation? The Soviet? Listen, I understand your half baked ideas aren't well thought out....but don't go hysterical when I point out that your ideas are unconstitutional and smack of tryanny... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 Listen, I understand your half baked ideas aren't well thought out....but don't go hysterical when I point out that your ideas are unconstitutional and smack of tryanny... It would seem to me he has a hard time understanding that the people cannot exist as a coherent, civilised group without the construct of a state to impose some form of law and order. Hence, you've noticed, but he has not, that he's merely advocating a new state; one that conforms to his personal ideologies and imposes them on its inhabitants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 It would seem to me he has a hard time understanding that the people cannot exist as a coherent, civilised group without the construct of a state to impose some form of law and order. Hence, you've noticed, but he has not, that he's merely advocating a new state; one that conforms to his personal ideologies and imposes them on its inhabitants. Anyone else notice what those who have a problem with the monarchy usually call for...that's right, a new state. Go figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 Anyone else notice what those who have a problem with the monarchy usually call for...that's right, a new state. Thanks for finally admitting Dancer was right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 (edited) And who is going to force the Boards to accept people with no vested interests or skills to sit on their boards and make decisions for the Corporation? The Soviet? The people via the State they constituted, just like that vast communist hell hole immediately south of us. Why anyone would use unskilled people is a bit of a mystery though. The real point is to put ethical principled people with a stake in how the corporation is run. In the meantime what do you make of this comrade? The first legal obligation of the corporation is to enrich its shareholders. It has no implicit or explicit obligation to the public interest, but the federal government or any provincial government can legally and unilaterally amend a corporations charter to explicitly reference the public interest and treat it as an equal stakeholder with the corporate shareholder.Source Go figure. A more likely root cause of problems from the corporate form is the single-minded dedication to the enrichment of the shareholder to the exclusion of other stakeholders. It is the absence of societys representation at the boardroom table that needs to be addressed. The solution of amending the corporate charter to include society as a primary stakeholder could be the more attractive option to both society and corporate investors. A charter that includes society as a stakeholder could be referred to as the Social Corporate Charter, (SCC). Listen, I understand your half baked ideas aren't well thought out....but don't go hysterical when I point out that your ideas are unconstitutional and smack of tryanny... Right. Tell me about it. Corporations are creatures of government. Without the assent of government, a corporation cannot exist. It cannot have shareholders. It cannot do business. A government is a creature too. Who made our's though? Certainly not us. What's that smack of to you sport? If you prefer living under a government that was imposed on you why don't you move to Afghanistan? Edited November 18, 2009 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 "Certainly not us." Curious. When you write "us" who are you referring to exactly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 (edited) the federal government or any provincial government can legally and unilaterally amend a corporations charter to explicitly reference the public interest and treat it as an equal stakeholder with the corporate shareholder. In the meantime what do you make of this comrade? TRhe Governement could do that, but not likely and certainly they wouldn't stay the governement unless the changes either are to ensure greater transparency for investors via better corprate governance and or enhance shareholder value. The plain fact is that the public interest, which is the interest of the government, is not the primary interest of the corporation, nor should it be. The corporations primary interest as correctly noted is the enrichment of the shareholders, everything else is secondary. I will alos add that any imposition of board members would be in violation of the chrater. Edited November 18, 2009 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 TRhe Governement could do that, but not likely and certainly they wouldn't stay the governement unless the changes either are to ensure greater transparency for investors via better corprate governance and or enhance shareholder value. The plain fact is that the public interest, which is the interest of the government, is not the primary interest of the corporation, nor should it be. The corporations primary interest as correctly noted is the enrichment of the shareholders, everything else is secondary. I will alos add that any imposition of board members would be in violation of the chrater. Which is why the flaws of pure capitalism have been made very public. The interest of the corporation and the citizen are very clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 It would seem to me he has a hard time understanding that the people cannot exist as a coherent, civilised group without the construct of a state to impose some form of law and order. Hence, you've noticed, but he has not, that he's merely advocating a new state; one that conforms to his personal ideologies and imposes them on its inhabitants. I'd phrase that differently. It's very clear that most higher primates, but in particular the great apes, instinctively group themselves into dominance hierarchies. That being the case, the formulation of leaders and followers isn't so much a response to a requirement, as just simply the way we, as a species, work. Obviously in smaller hunter-gatherer societies there's no requirement for a complicated system of governance; you have a leadership of a few individuals combined with the will of the group plus the rules and traditions that the group holds to be important. From that a government will grow as a society becomes larger and more complex. It's simply the way we work as a species. There are lots of variations on the theme, but that's where it sits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 "Certainly not us." Curious. When you write "us" who are you referring to exactly? You, me and everyone else. Isn't it obvious? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 TRhe Governement could do that, but not likely and certainly they wouldn't stay the governement unless the changes either are to ensure greater transparency for investors via better corprate governance and or enhance shareholder value. The plain fact is that the public interest, which is the interest of the government, is not the primary interest of the corporation, nor should it be. The corporations primary interest as correctly noted is the enrichment of the shareholders, everything else is secondary. Well according to the link I provided more people are becoming unconvinced of that. As I've pointed out there is a fair bit of thought being put into what I'm proposing. So kindly back off on the accusations that I'm some sort of totalitarian thug that's bent on dragging your beloved C-suite into the street and shooting them. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I will alos add that any imposition of board members would be in violation of the chrater. I would agree if they they weren't elected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 Well according to the link I provided more people are becoming unconvinced of that. I didn't notice a poll... As I've pointed out there is a fair bit of thought being put into what I'm proposing. So kindly back off on the accusations that I'm some sort of totalitarian thug that's bent on dragging your beloved C-suite into the street and shooting them. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I have never said you were a thug. But you do espouce totaliatrian policies. I would agree if they they weren't elected. They would also need be nominated to stand for election. What in effect is the State telling the board who will stand for election. SO the state nominates....very red.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 They would also need be nominated to stand for election. What in effect is the State telling the board who will stand for election. SO the state nominates....very red.... I'd use citizen's assemblies...very rad... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 I'd use citizen's assemblies...very rad... I would pack them with shareholders, who of course are not only citizens but actually are the people who should have a say. I am amazed you don't see the people's commitees forcing the owners of private property to take their selections as board memebers as being anything but an infringement on freedom. What do you think would happen at the AGM if the board recommended to the shareholders that they reject the political commisars nomintated by the Soviet committee citizen's assembly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.