Should Corporate persons resonsible for death, have their rights strip

[WIP]

Not only are we junkies for oil, our governments are junkies for the revenue oil provides. To a great degree, we are a petro economy.

We are not going to continue being a petro-economy one way or the other! The reason why oil companies are drilling in deep ocean waters and cooking tar sands for oil is because there is no more easy oil available. Peak oil was likely already passed two years ago, and the most optimistic estimates that point to 2020 or 2030 for the peak, have already factored in the hard-to-get oil, and assumed no large increases in consumption.

Face it, we're going to have to give up on oil one way or the other. The difference is whether we start now on the alternatives, or keep doing what the oil companies want, and use our resources to develop those last drops of oil.

Governments who would put a tax on carbon would also become addicted to that tax revenue for their program spending. That's what governments do. If that source of revenue dries up, they will have to find it elsewhere.

Revenue neutral to a government does not mean revenue neutral for you.

The logic behind shifting the tax burden onto carbon is taken from a basic principle that you get less of what you tax, and more of what you subsidize. So, instead of subsidizing offshore drilling, governments should be taxing the production of carbon and subsidizing non-carbon producing energy sources.

[Wilber]

We are not going to continue being a petro-economy one way or the other! The reason why oil companies are drilling in deep ocean waters and cooking tar sands for oil is because there is no more easy oil available. Peak oil was likely already passed two years ago, and the most optimistic estimates that point to 2020 or 2030 for the peak, have already factored in the hard-to-get oil, and assumed no large increases in consumption.

Face it, we're going to have to give up on oil one way or the other. The difference is whether we start now on the alternatives, or keep doing what the oil companies want, and use our resources to develop those last drops of oil.

They are continuing to drill because we demand the oil.

The logic behind shifting the tax burden onto carbon is taken from a basic principle that you get less of what you tax, and more of what you subsidize. So, instead of subsidizing offshore drilling, governments should be taxing the production of carbon and subsidizing non-carbon producing energy sources.

Actually, governments of oil producing countries already make a lot of money from oil, they don't subsidize it. The thing is, if your strategy works, the royalties and tax revenues disappear.

I'm all for new energy sources or at least the more efficient use of the ones we have but I don't buy the idea that our dependence on oil is the fault of oil companies. To date there is no other source of portable fuel that contains as much readily usable energy as petroleum products and there isn't likely to be one anytime soon, if at all. That is why we depend on it.

[Bob]

No, the stakeholders that are elected to the board by the public at large would negate the need for cameras. It's good to see you at least recognize the thrust of my idea which is to make things as transparent and accountable as possible.

People have a stake in maintaining healthy ecosystems where they live and they cannot rely on the government or the financial shareholders in companies doing business in their regions to adequately protect their stake.

We already have many vehicles through which the public is involved in affairs of corporations. There are endless examples, but off the top off my head I can think of regulatory agencies such as the CRTC, FINTRAC, and Health Canada. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Many corporations also operate outreach programs to better coordinate their operations with the public and other stakeholders, whether it be townhall-type discussions with some communities where Walmart wants to build a new operation between some of its management and the residents of the community, to more simple things like questionnaires and polling.

With respect the the main thrust of this thread, which is clearly associated with the unfolding events resulting from the BP oil rig disaster, there already many regulations in place from the government regarding these operations. I am hardly an expert on such matters, but let's not pretend that business operations are conducted without any precautions. Mistakes happen, and as time goes on there will be reviews of the efficacy of current regulations and how they're enforced.

Your posts in this thread seem to suggest that there is no enforcement of the public's best interests which respect to corporate operations. If that is your suggestion, you're simply wrong.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Bob

[Bob]

I think, Bob, I didn't express myself well if that's how it came across. One could mention the slave trade as an example of an industry (now dead, thankfully) that ultimately profited from injustice. The fact that is was profitable made it difficult to stop. Simply fining (e.g, for excessive abuse(s)) or heavily taxing something like the slave trade would not have served justice, regardless of how much "good" those public revenues did.

What in the world does the slave trade have to do with the recent oil-rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico? What current business/corporate operations are going on that are in the same league as slavery? I think you're getting way off topic for reasons I can't begin to fathom...

I'm not sure I want to start thinking about it lol- there's probably a lot of economic activity that is not only needless but inherently destructive. One of the arguments levied against Free Trade was the use of child labour; however, that was not confined to any one industry, and the practice has been persecuted by law for some time now.

As an extreme example, though I understand not shared by all, I would venture to say the abortion industry is one example of economic activity had at the expense of justice.

I don't see the connection between free trade and child labour. Perhaps you're suggesting that increasing demand of goods produced with child labour in countries like Canada exacerbates child labour? If that's the case, and if it's something we should avoid encouraging, then the free-trade agreements can address the issue with how they're composed - i.e. stipulations restricting the free trade of goods produced with the input child labour.

What in the world is "the abortion industry"?

Well, in my original post I said a wise government (in Real Politik terms) would make a point of exacting punitive revenues from corporations that were found to be engaged in illegal activity. Determining the balance of when and how much and for what would be an interesting discussion.

We already do that, and of course you're right that we can analyze how effective existing laws are and how well they're enforced with respect to corporate behaviour.

Well, we could say certain companies that accepted the Bail Outs were cut a lot of slack. These companies had voluntarily engaged in reckless and irresponsible behaviour and helped jeopardize the entire economy by it. Why they fancied themselves worthy of being saved while so many thousands, even millions of others were left destitute begs the question. Can it be said that excessive and risky speculation has been curbed by the governments reaction to the behaviour of these firms? Bail Out plus future regulation of an industry that already imploded itself seems somewhat redundant: the activity destroyed itself, and I doubt anyone is planning to go through that all over again. More likely, they are seeking the next easy money maker.

I probably should have asked this at the beginning of my reply, but what does this have to do with the original question (a silly question, I should add) of whether or not corporations should have their corporate status revoked from the government after particular transgressions?

Edited May 16, 2010 by Bob

[Bob]

This is exactly so. When companies like Nike and WalMart pleaded that they didn't know the sweatshop abuses were occurring, and that it wasn't themselves per se, but the subcontractors who were misbehaving...well, personally, I think they were quite possibly telling the truth (albeit with a a kind of averting-the-gaze, almost Doublethink). But Nike and WalMart nonetheless share the responsibility, and few would argue otherwise.

That's a little bit different, though... Nike and other apparel companies (I think the controversy you're talking about came quite a few years before WalMart became the giant we know it to be today) largely conduct their operations in other countries, within the bounds of the laws of those respective states. So our laws regarding mandatory education up to a certain age don't apply in places in Malaysia and India. Unless our free-trade agreements say otherwise, Nike and other apparel companies (and countless other manufacturing firms) can conduct their operations in other countries in compliance with the laws of those countries. More often than not, the standards (safety, wages, etc) of large multinational firms eclipse the standards of smaller, more local places of employment. I sure hope you're not trying to suggest that these large firms are doing something evil by conducting business operations in poor countries.

[bloodyminded]

That's a little bit different, though... Nike and other apparel companies (I think the controversy you're talking about came quite a few years before WalMart became the giant we know it to be today) largely conduct their operations in other countries, within the bounds of the laws of those respective states. So our laws regarding mandatory education up to a certain age don't apply in places in Malaysia and India. Unless our free-trade agreements say otherwise, Nike and other apparel companies (and countless other manufacturing firms) can conduct their operations in other countries in compliance with the laws of those countries. More often than not, the standards (safety, wages, etc) of large multinational firms eclipse the standards of smaller, more local places of employment. I sure hope you're not trying to suggest that these large firms are doing something evil by conducting business operations in poor countries.

The scandals broke because investigative journalists interviewed the workers, who were complaining about the shoddy treatment they were receiving. I'm not referring to the fact of children working; i'm referring to the mistreatment of the workers, children and adults.

And if there was no problem, then why did WalMart, Adidas et al change their policies once the story broke (but not before, interestingly)...so that workers at factories making Walmart and Adidas products were no longer being abused...and I use that word literally.

The fact is, these companies said to the subcontractors: "this is what you'll get paid; and this is how much you have to produce."

And it was literally impossible to meet those demands without promoting bad conditions at the workplace. That's why, when the PR nightmare began and the companies promised to change (which, to my knowledge, they largely did), the price they paid for better PR was lower production at higher costs.

The problem with a labour force is that it is comprised of pesky things called human beings.

Now, if anyone is going to tell me that the business geniuses of WalMart and Nike (and I'm using that term without sarcasm at all) did not know that their intial demands would require poor working conditions...well, I'll tell that person they are ignorant about the knowledge and expertise of those who run hugely successful businesses.

I worked at Wal-Mart, and I can tell you they have productivity levels and cost ratios down to a science.

They knew exactly what they were doing. They knew just how many hours it would take to produce such goods; and they knew (of course) how much money they were paying.

So the sum of all this is not difficult to figure out.

Edited May 16, 2010 by bloodyminded

[eyeball]

Corporations (both private and public) are private property. It is the stakeholders (shareholders) who elect the board. If members of the general public wish to influence the selection, they have the same opportunity as anyone else, by becoming owners and voting at the AGM.

The ecosystems that many corporations operate in and impact are not private property. Human being's shouldn't be forced to purchase the opportunity to influence decisions that effect the stake they have in the world.

Corporations OTOH should be forced by law to respect the wishes of all stakeholders.

[eyeball]

So the solution is to basically turn the Western world into a communist regime. I mean, that's rather what eyeball is suggesting here.

Much better for the government to vigorously enforce regulations.

Actually, if governments were vigorously enforcing regulations there'd be less likelihood of the sorts of disparity and revolutions that give rise to things like communist regimes.

[eyeball]

We already have many vehicles through which the public is involved in affairs of corporations. There are endless examples, but off the top off my head I can think of regulatory agencies such as the CRTC, FINTRAC, and Health Canada. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Many corporations also operate outreach programs to better coordinate their operations with the public and other stakeholders, whether it be townhall-type discussions with some communities where Walmart wants to build a new operation between some of its management and the residents of the community, to more simple things like questionnaires and polling.

With respect the the main thrust of this thread, which is clearly associated with the unfolding events resulting from the BP oil rig disaster, there already many regulations in place from the government regarding these operations. I am hardly an expert on such matters, but let's not pretend that business operations are conducted without any precautions. Mistakes happen, and as time goes on there will be reviews of the efficacy of current regulations and how they're enforced.

Your posts in this thread seem to suggest that there is no enforcement of the public's best interests which respect to corporate operations. If that is your suggestion, you're simply wrong.

The town-hall type meetings and questionnaires corporations use represent an ice-cube of concern for the communities they operate in compared to the iceberg of concern they have for extracting profits from those communities.

I'm suggesting that the public cannot rely on the regulatory agencies alone to do their jobs properly. There is just too much unregulated collusion going on between big business and big government. People need to be able to wield more direct influence on these and protect their interests themselves.

Edited May 16, 2010 by eyeball

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The town-hall type meetings and questionnaires corporations use represent an ice-cube of concern for the communities they operate in compared to the iceberg of concern they have for extracting profits from those communities.

I'm suggesting that the public cannot rely on the regulatory agencies alone to do their jobs properly. There is just too much unregulated collusion going on between big business and big government. People need to be able to wield more direct influence on these and protect their interests themselves.

We originally designed corporations to provide the legal means to limit liability. That said I am not sure we can deal with this problem under our current set of political leaders. I just don't see them stepping up to the plate.

[Pliny]

We originally designed corporations to provide the legal means to limit liability. That said I am not sure we can deal with this problem under our current set of political leaders. I just don't see them stepping up to the plate.

To limit "personal" liability.

Interesting thread!

Edited May 16, 2010 by Pliny

[Muddy]

How much oil can you derive from a seal? Could harvesting seals for oil and other by products be economically realistic? If not lets get back to whales! Who needs them crapping all over the ocean.

Until a reasonable alternative energy source is invented we must take risks to heat our homes, run our vehicles and fly our planes and yes make war.

[eyeball]

We originally designed corporations to provide the legal means to limit liability. That said I am not sure we can deal with this problem under our current set of political leaders. I just don't see them stepping up to the plate.

Did the original designers ever imagine corporations would virtually take on lives of their own and actually come to be regarded as people? Corporations should exist to provide the legal means to improve our communities, not supplant them.

Given the way computers do our trading for us in the stock market, I wonder what the future will bring when corporations and artificial intelligence merge. The evolution of something like the Borg probably.

In an ascetic sense Frankenstein himself would be mortified.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Did the original designers ever imagine corporations would virtually take on lives of their own and actually come to be regarded as people? Corporations should exist to provide the legal means to improve our communities, not supplant them.

Given the way computers do our trading for us in the stock market, I wonder what the future will bring when corporations and artificial intelligence merge. The evolution of something like the Borg probably.

In an ascetic sense Frankenstein himself would be mortified.

We have evolved far beyond the original intent and purpose of corporations. Even so they have become the iconic foundation for nearly all that we know about economic development. They are a reality to be experienced, not a problem to be solved. Regulation is what created them in the first place, and regulation is what can be used against them now.

[M.Dancer]

The ecosystems that many corporations operate in and impact are not private property. Human being's shouldn't be forced to purchase the opportunity to influence decisions that effect the stake they have in the world.

Corporations OTOH should be forced by law to respect the wishes of all stakeholders.

If it is not private propert then it is crown land and corporations are already regulated, etc etc...and if the naysayers and other whingers are unmotivated to acquire ownership of the corporations exploit regulated crown land, then they are free to vote for the body that wishes more or less regulation...

[eyeball]

If it is not private propert then it is crown land and corporations are already regulated, etc etc...and if the naysayers and other whingers are unmotivated to acquire ownership of the corporations exploit regulated crown land, then they are free to vote for the body that wishes more or less regulation...

Sounds good in theory but you'd have to be nuts to trust that governments will ever make a difference. Obviously the most motivated people in the world must acquire ownership of the government.

God dammit, if knew then what I know now...

I should have listened to my very first skipper's advice after all, "screw everyone before they screw you" he'd often say. As I recall the bastard screwed me out of my bonus at the end of the season.

[M.Dancer]

Sounds good in theory but you'd have to be nuts to trust that governments will ever make a difference.

Yet you would have no problem trusting the goverment legislating an infringemnt of property rights and foisting political operatives on the boards of Canadian businesses.

One day all those conflicting brain farts of yours will give you a headache

[eyeball]

Yet you would have no problem trusting the goverment legislating an infringemnt of property rights and foisting political operatives on the boards of Canadian businesses.

Sure I would but that's not what I'm proposing...what I'm proposing relates to people and Crown land.

I guess you'd have to see the amount of local control First Nations have over Crown lands in my region to appreciate the potential relationship that can develop between the land, a community of people and the corporations that live and rely on that land. There is a very real adjacency principle that now applies to native people that non-native people who also rely on Crown land and the ecosystems they encompass should adopt.

It's not a matter of foisting a political infringement on corporations it's a matter of establishing constitutional rights for human beings - real people that is.

[ToadBrother]

Sure I would but that's not what I'm proposing...what I'm proposing relates to people and Crown land.

I guess you'd have to see the amount of local control First Nations have over Crown lands in my region to appreciate the potential relationship that can develop between the land, a community of people and the corporations that live and rely on that land. There is a very real adjacency principle that now applies to native people that non-native people who also rely on Crown land and the ecosystems they encompass should adopt.

It's not a matter of foisting a political infringement on corporations it's a matter of establishing constitutional rights for human beings - real people that is.

I'm assuming your referring to various First Nations-corporate agreements. First Nations don't sit on the boards of directors of companies, they create agreements where the interested parties come together. It isn't the same thing at all.

[eyeball]

I'm assuming your referring to various First Nations-corporate agreements. First Nations don't sit on the boards of directors of companies, they create agreements where the interested parties come together. It isn't the same thing at all.

They have a constitutionally protected ability make their own agreements, community by community, which is the point I'm making. We have to rely on some distant government to act on our behalf which is no where near good enough.

[M.Dancer]

Sure I would but that's not what I'm proposing...what I'm proposing relates to people and Crown land.

It os exactly what you are proposing.

No, the stakeholders that are elected to the board by the public at large

[ToadBrother]

They have a constitutionally protected ability make their own agreements, community by community, which is the point I'm making. We have to rely on some distant government to act on our behalf which is no where near good enough.

What First Nations are, or are becoming at least, in BC, is another level of government with powers similar to a Regional District or Municipality, meaning they would have authority to enter into agreements with private interests. That's not the same thing as sitting on a private interest's board of directors, but rather it means they are, essentially, empowered to sign contracts with private interests. What's more, at least as far as the treaties are going, they will, on their territories, have some legislative powers, meaning that on top of civil law to mediate disputes with private interests, they will have some regulatory powers as well.

In other words, it's the polar opposite of what you suggested.

[eyeball]

It os exactly what you are proposing.

Not in the way you're characterizing it. Corporations can do whatever they like to their own private property. We're all stakeholders however the minute their activities start impacting our common property. We shouldn't have to rely solely on the ability of distant governments to provide the oversight that's necessary to protect our stake. Native people where I live don't have to, why should I?

[M.Dancer]

Not in the way you're characterizing it. Corporations can do whatever they like to their own private property. We're all stakeholders however the minute their activities start impacting our common property. We shouldn't have to rely solely on the ability of distant governments to provide the oversight that's necessary to protect our stake. Native people where I live don't have to, why should I?

I keep forgetting you have a painfully confused mind.

How then were you planning on foisting pubickly elected officials on boards, if not by government legislation?

[eyeball]

What First Nations are, or are becoming at least, in BC, is another level of government with powers similar to a Regional District or Municipality, meaning they would have authority to enter into agreements with private interests. That's not the same thing as sitting on a private interest's board of directors, but rather it means they are, essentially, empowered to sign contracts with private interests. What's more, at least as far as the treaties are going, they will, on their territories, have some legislative powers, meaning that on top of civil law to mediate disputes with private interests, they will have some regulatory powers as well.

In other words, it's the polar opposite of what you suggested.

Perhaps, but in lieu of this what other option would you suggest, trust our government? No thanks, been there done that.