To reflect and enforce the will of the majority of the populace.
fix the shit they fuck up…and own up to it.
[quote]vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
How is a corporation property?
Hmm, are you asking how or are you referring to fact that government has defined rules and regulations concerning corporations?
I’m sure you’ve heard of shares…[/quote]
You think shares make up the corporation?
DO you know anything about corporations except for the fact that they are inherently evil?
GO back and think really hard about it. I don’t know if you have had a bad week, or what - but you are shocking me with your idiocy, and I have been there for some of your best work.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
[i]vroom wrote:
Honestly, that sounds like job #1 to me. That’s why the damned things are ensconced in the founding documents.
I’d argue that the primary job of every country that prides itself on freedom is to ensure that it provides each and every freedom that it promises.
When the government falls down, then it’s up to us to stand up for them, isn’t it?[/i]
I disagree, but I think it’s more for semantics. Spending money is accounted for in the founding documents, but it’s not the purpose of the government to spend money. Collecting taxes is accounted for in the founding documents, but it’s not the purpose of the government to collect taxes. I have a hard time with the idea that the purpose of having a government is to protect people from the government.
I think there are highly desirable specific limitations on the power of the government, which are put in place for that purpose - but they aren’t part of the government’s raison de etre.
[/quote]
So, basically the purpose of government is to exist and be as powerful as possible? At the federal level amendments IX and X seek to limit government interference. It’s all about reserving as much as possible for the people. Also, I don’t think we should forget the preamble, as it serves to help secure the intent of the rest of the constitution.
I’m postulating that the purpose of the government is to protect the resources it is the steward of, including citizens. We have seen this point argued with respect to the current war, and this should also extend to protecting the citizens from the eventual inevitable abuses of power, including from within.
In fact, the government does exactly this when law enforcement and judicial bodies act on things (laws, actions, officials) that legitimately violate rights. I’m going so far as to argue that the fact this is not explicitly recognized is a weakness. We lose sight of the trees because the size of the government as forest.
In this role, as resource steward, the government is given a series of duties and responsibilities, for which is has been specifically empowered. It’s entrusted with authority on behalf of the populace that it exists purely to serve… not the other way around.
Note: This doesn’t mean I favor a nanny state, a welfare state, an entitlement state or any garbage like that.
[quote]
Enforcing private property rights is the best way for the government to be the steward of natural resources - especially if it accounts for harmful externalities. Strong private property rights are the best guard against the tragedy of the commons.[/quote]
Historically, it has proven difficult to account for harmful externalities, especially since they are not always known until after the fact. However, I’m not really focusing on policy issues at this point.
[quote]You’re right – there aren’t promises of profits.
Just a promise that what is yours won’t be stolen by others (or by the government in the name of others). The other piece is providing the law and order necessary for maintaining the marketplace. None of that guarantees profits. The risk – and the rewards – are borne by the shareholders or the individual businesspeople.[/quote]
Yeah, I don’t think anyone would seriously be proposing alternatives to supporting law, order and markets.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
You think shares make up the corporation?
DO you know anything about corporations except for the fact that they are inherently evil?
[/quote]
No, I’ve only been involved in various startups, including a few of my own companies, as well as working within many other corporations. In those instances when I was there at the beginning there were articles of incorporation and an initial set of (common share) shareholders who may or may not make sizeable initial investments.
Personnel, were then assigned to various executive positions to operate and manage the company. These personnel are often also shareholders but it isn’t a requirement. A board of directors may or may not have been involved at some point.
Eventually, if things go well, a company might even go public, woohoo for the shareholders (or those holding stock options).
Anyway, the company has obligations to shareholders who generally would be entitled to the proceeds if a company was dissolved, but that doesn’t grant them direct ownership of the operational assets of a company if that is what you think I was implying.
Of course, if a company is privately held and small enough, a majority shareholder could certainly exert control within all the rules and regulations that pertain to the operation or winding down of the business.
Now, if you are talking about a charitable corporation or a brand of personal corporation for tax purposes, that might be a different matter. Alternately, if you were talking about different classes of shares, especially non-voting or preferred shares, that would also be significant.
So, since I obviously am not getting your drift, and I know nothing about corporations, please, tell me who owns a corporation and how it is divided up. I’m curious.
[quote]vroom wrote:
So, what is the purpose of government? [/quote]
self preservation.
[quote]vroom wrote:
So, basically the purpose of government is to exist and be as powerful as possible? [/quote]
No, the purpose of the government is to pursue ends 1-4 enumerated above.
[quote]
vroom wrote:
At the federal level amendments IX and X seek to limit government interference. It’s all about reserving as much as possible for the people. Also, I don’t think we should forget the preamble, as it serves to help secure the intent of the rest of the constitution.[/quote]
As a side note, you need to review your U.S. Constitutional history. The 10th Amendment states:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Notice the focus on the state governments; the federal government is a government of limited powers in the U.S. system (supposedly - at least before the New Deal and the USSC’s evisceration of the structural limitations on Congressional powers; e.g. the Commerce Power was previously understood to actually deal with, you know, commerce). The state governments had the police power, which wasn’t limited.
“The people” was a catch-all, thrown in just in case there was something that the states’ general governmental powers for some reason didn’t encompass.
The 9th Amendment was included because some of the founders, in their great wisdom, knew that the tendency of those in power was to seek to expand their own power, and they wanted to preserve in the Constitution rights that were enjoyed by citizens under the traditional English common law (and unwritten Constitution as it existed at the time) imported to the U.S. from Britain.
Now that the important aside is over, the limitation of government is not the purpose of government. All of the limitations of the Constitution as it was originally written – and as subsequently amended – are limitations on what government can do. It is entirely too circular a concept to hold that something’s inherent purpose is to limit itself.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I’m postulating that the purpose of the government is to protect the resources it is the steward of, including citizens. We have seen this point argued with respect to the current war, and this should also extend to protecting the citizens from the eventual inevitable abuses of power, including from within.
In fact, the government does exactly this when law enforcement and judicial bodies act on things (laws, actions, officials) that legitimately violate rights. I’m going so far as to argue that the fact this is not explicitly recognized is a weakness. We lose sight of the trees because the size of the government as forest.
In this role, as resource steward, the government is given a series of duties and responsibilities, for which is has been specifically empowered. It’s entrusted with authority on behalf of the populace that it exists purely to serve… not the other way around.
Note: This doesn’t mean I favor a nanny state, a welfare state, an entitlement state or any garbage like that.[/quote]
The government’s purpose isn’t to be the steward of any resources. Really, the government shouldn’t even own property. It does – and because it does one could argue it should do it well. However, owning property goes beyond government’s purpose.
If the government were limited to acting only to further its purposes, then the “resources” of people and rights would be best protected. Because the government acts beyond those purposes, and because people in government are imperfect, we require further protections. But those protections are not the purpose of government – their existence arises because government is necessary to fulfill its real purposes.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Enforcing private property rights is the best way for the government to be the steward of natural resources - especially if it accounts for harmful externalities. Strong private property rights are the best guard against the tragedy of the commons.
vroom wrote:
Historically, it has proven difficult to account for harmful externalities, especially since they are not always known until after the fact. However, I’m not really focusing on policy issues at this point.[/quote]
It has – but even so, it’s been the best way to do so. Democratic republics have also been historically difficult, except that they’ve been better than all the alternatives tried.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
You’re right – there aren’t promises of profits.
Just a promise that what is yours won’t be stolen by others (or by the government in the name of others). The other piece is providing the law and order necessary for maintaining the marketplace. None of that guarantees profits. The risk – and the rewards – are borne by the shareholders or the individual businesspeople.
vroom wrote:
Yeah, I don’t think anyone would seriously be proposing alternatives to supporting law, order and markets.[/quote]
Doesn’t matter what anyone is proposing, given the question at hand.
You seem to think that enforcing contracts and private property rights means promising corporations profits. I have no idea where you got that.