The Age of Corporate Treason

[MikeK]

I believe the government has an obligation to quit creating an environment that is hostile enough to business that they seek safer harbors elsewhere...

That is a plainly un-American position.

Inasmuch as American corporations achieved their success by exploiting this Nation's natural, material, administrative, and human resources, it is fitting that a substantial exit (expatriation) tax is imposed on them if they wish to abandon the Country that enabled them.

Again, they can't "exploit" their own property, and their property does not belong to the "nation."

In accordance with International Law all nations have purview over twelve miles of ocean off their coasts (territorial waters).

 

[Redfish]

That is a plainly un-American position.

Inasmuch as American corporations achieved their success by exploiting this Nation's natural, material, administrative, and human resources, it is fitting that a substantial exit (expatriation) tax is imposed on them if they wish to abandon the Country that enabled them.

Again, they can't "exploit" their own property, and their property does not belong to the "nation."

In accordance with International Law all nations have purview over twelve miles of ocean off their coasts.

yes, so what?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well it would be like if you owned a business, but conducted your business in a building which you did not own, or rent from the actual owner. If the building burnt down you'd have no cause for compensation, even though you used that building to conduct your business.

Having the unauthorized use (squatting) of a constructed (unnatural) property ruined does not in the litigious sense compare with having the legitimate use of a natural resource exploitively ruined by some for-profit entity. BP's action is analogous to building an engine in a place where it poisons the air in a shopping district or a public beach.

Well your analogy is correct as well, but only because, once again, since nobody owns the public beach nobody has a legitimate claim against the person who poisoned the air. A shopping district may be another story, depending on who owns the property.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That is a plainly un-American position.

Inasmuch as American corporations achieved their success by exploiting this Nation's natural, material, administrative, and human resources, it is fitting that a substantial exit (expatriation) tax is imposed on them if they wish to abandon the Country that enabled them.

Again, they can't "exploit" their own property, and their property does not belong to the "nation."

In accordance with International Law all nations have purview over twelve miles of ocean off their coasts (territorial waters).

So governments gave themselves "ownership" of the water. Bully for them. But since nobody actually owns that water, my point stands.

 

[Redfish]

That is a plainly un-American position.

Inasmuch as American corporations achieved their success by exploiting this Nation's natural, material, administrative, and human resources, it is fitting that a substantial exit (expatriation) tax is imposed on them if they wish to abandon the Country that enabled them.

Again, they can't "exploit" their own property, and their property does not belong to the "nation."

In accordance with International Law all nations have purview over twelve miles of ocean off their coasts (territorial waters).

The oil companies pay huge lease fees to the govt for the rights to drill in those waters. Many times they drill and find nothing but they still have to pay the lease fees.

 

[Redfish]

Again, they can't "exploit" their own property, and their property does not belong to the "nation."

In accordance with International Law all nations have purview over twelve miles of ocean off their coasts (territorial waters).

So governments gave themselves "ownership" of the water. Bully for them. But since nobody actually owns that water, my point stands.

So whats your point? are you saying that BP should not have compensated the fishermen, or that the government should have taken all of the BP money?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In accordance with International Law all nations have purview over twelve miles of ocean off their coasts (territorial waters).

So governments gave themselves "ownership" of the water. Bully for them. But since nobody actually owns that water, my point stands.

So whats your point? are you saying that BP should not have compensated the fishermen, or that the government should have taken all of the BP money?

Neither. I'm saying that we need to privatize the ocean.

 

[The Rabbi]

Property ownership is the basis of society, basically. Nobody owns the Gulf, so when the spill happened nobody's property in the gulf was injured. So the fishermen, who do not own the Gulf, had no actual claim against BP, because their property wasn't damaged. Now, I have no problem with BP compensating them, but that's more or less a donation as far I can see.

That's nonsense. The fishermen owned their businesses, which were damaged by the spill. They were right to get compensation for the losses they suffered.

Well it would be like if you owned a business, but conducted your business in a building which you did not own, or rent from the actual owner. If the building burnt down you'd have no cause for compensation, even though you used that building to conduct your business.

Yeah that's actually not true at all.
If I drive my car through a window and cause the business there to close I will be liable to damages for the physical building as well as loss of business to the merchant renting.
This is pretty obvious so I dont know why you are arguing it.

 

[MikeK]

Well it would be like if you owned a business, but conducted your business in a building which you did not own, or rent from the actual owner. If the building burnt down you'd have no cause for compensation, even though you used that building to conduct your business.

Having the unauthorized use (squatting) of a constructed (unnatural) property ruined does not in the litigious sense compare with having the legitimate use of a natural resource exploitively ruined by some for-profit entity. BP's action is analogous to building an engine in a place where it poisons the air in a shopping district or a public beach.

Well your analogy is correct as well, but only because, once again, since nobody owns the public beach nobody has a legitimate claim against the person who poisoned the air. A shopping district may be another story, depending on who owns the property.

The public owns a public beach -- and the public is represented by its governments, local and federal.

 

[The Rabbi]

Again, they can't "exploit" their own property, and their property does not belong to the "nation."

In accordance with International Law all nations have purview over twelve miles of ocean off their coasts.

yes, so what?

MikeK is the poster boy for low information posters here.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That's nonsense. The fishermen owned their businesses, which were damaged by the spill. They were right to get compensation for the losses they suffered.

Well it would be like if you owned a business, but conducted your business in a building which you did not own, or rent from the actual owner. If the building burnt down you'd have no cause for compensation, even though you used that building to conduct your business.

Yeah that's actually not true at all.
If I drive my car through a window and cause the business there to close I will be liable to damages for the physical building as well as loss of business to the merchant renting.
This is pretty obvious so I dont know why you are arguing it.

You misinterpreted the analogy. But that's alright, I hate analogies anyways.

 

[MikeK]

Again, they can't "exploit" their own property, and their property does not belong to the "nation."

In accordance with International Law all nations have purview over twelve miles of ocean off their coasts (territorial waters).

The oil companies pay huge lease fees to the govt for the rights to drill in those waters. Many times they drill and find nothing but they still have to pay the lease fees.

They pay for permission to drill for oil -- not to ruin the waters. You pay a fee for permission to swim in a public pool -- not to shit in it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Having the unauthorized use (squatting) of a constructed (unnatural) property ruined does not in the litigious sense compare with having the legitimate use of a natural resource exploitively ruined by some for-profit entity. BP's action is analogous to building an engine in a place where it poisons the air in a shopping district or a public beach.

Well your analogy is correct as well, but only because, once again, since nobody owns the public beach nobody has a legitimate claim against the person who poisoned the air. A shopping district may be another story, depending on who owns the property.

The public owns a public beach -- and the public is represented by its governments, local and federal.

The "public" doesn't own anything. If everybody owns something then nobody has a claim against somebody poisoning the air, because they also own it. In other words, if everybody owns something, then nobody owns it.

 

[Redfish]

So governments gave themselves "ownership" of the water. Bully for them. But since nobody actually owns that water, my point stands.

So whats your point? are you saying that BP should not have compensated the fishermen, or that the government should have taken all of the BP money?

Neither. I'm saying that we need to privatize the ocean.

So I can buy a section of ocean at the mouth of the Mississippi river and charge tolls to every ship that goes through? really a dumb idea, Kev

 

[Redfish]

In accordance with International Law all nations have purview over twelve miles of ocean off their coasts (territorial waters).

The oil companies pay huge lease fees to the govt for the rights to drill in those waters. Many times they drill and find nothing but they still have to pay the lease fees.

They pay for permission to drill for oil -- not to ruin the waters. You pay a fee for permission to swim in a public pool -- not to shit in it.

yes, and when they foul the ocean they pay fines, huge fines. if you shit in a public pool they just kick you out.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So whats your point? are you saying that BP should not have compensated the fishermen, or that the government should have taken all of the BP money?

Neither. I'm saying that we need to privatize the ocean.

So I can buy a section of ocean at the mouth of the Mississippi river and charge tolls to every ship that goes through? really a dumb idea, Kev

Theoretically. Seems like a good idea to me.

 

[Redfish]

Neither. I'm saying that we need to privatize the ocean.

So I can buy a section of ocean at the mouth of the Mississippi river and charge tolls to every ship that goes through? really a dumb idea, Kev

Theoretically. Seems like a good idea to me.

how do you propose to mark the boundries? how would the owner enforce them?

theories many times do not work in the real world.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So I can buy a section of ocean at the mouth of the Mississippi river and charge tolls to every ship that goes through? really a dumb idea, Kev

Theoretically. Seems like a good idea to me.

how do you propose to mark the boundries? how would the owner enforce them?

theories many times do not work in the real world.

How does that happen with any other form of property?

 

[JoeNormal]

Just throwing some proposed definitions of GREED, here

Greed --wanting more than one could possible EVER need.

Greed --the confused state of mind where one believes that one's worth as a person is based on what one owns.

Greed - the state of being where one would take from those whose need causes them to suffer, where the spoils of the taking really does not significantly matter to the well being of the taker.

GREED, contrary to what Randians will try to tell you, is NOT a virtue.

GREED is a mental condition.

GREED is NOT a healthy appetite, it is a neurotic behavior stemming (probably) from fear or a sense of inadaquacy.

GREED is self interest on STERIODS.

None of those definitions are objective.

Still with the objectivist fetish. I've told you how the effects of subjective concept can be quantitatively measured. Did it go in one ear and out the other?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Just throwing some proposed definitions of GREED, here




GREED, contrary to what Randians will try to tell you, is NOT a virtue.

GREED is a mental condition.

GREED is NOT a healthy appetite, it is a neurotic behavior stemming (probably) from fear or a sense of inadaquacy.

GREED is self interest on STERIODS.

None of those definitions are objective.

Still with the objectivist fetish. I've told you how the effects of subjective concept can be quantitatively measured. Did it go in one ear and out the other?

Yes, because it's nonsense. If it's a "subjective concept" then it's entirely possible that the so-called quantitative measures have nothing to do with what you're claiming they're measuring.