In article ,
Don Foreman wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:35:45 -0800, Don Bruder
wrote:



Let's get something out in the open: I'm anti-corporation right from the
git-go - I believe that corporations should have *NO* legal standing
whatsoever beyond paying taxes.

That's rather naive. If they had no legal standing they would not
have to pay taxes. Corps are simply legal entities that do business
as an individual or partnership might do while separating the
business identity from the personal identities of any particular
individuals.

Which I find wrong due to the fact that the "artificial person" that is
the company has (or does a damn good job of appearing to have) more
rights than actual "natural humans". It is my considered opinion that
such fictitious entities should be stripped of *ALL* of the advantages
they are currently given over individual "real people", and left only
the responsibilities - Exactly the opposite of what appears to be the
current situation.

Corporations are, by my lights, indeed
one of the main evils of today's society,

That is absurd.

What's absurd is the fact that the pseudo-person called "Company X"
consistently appears to have more rights than me, and consistently gets
handed a slap on the wrist for stuff that would put me behind bars for
years if I were to attempt even *HALF* of what they get away with.

There are many responsible corporations, some of
which ( often privately held) place employee welfare as job 1.

That would be one man's opinion. One which I've seen preious little
evidence of outside "Mom's Diner" level operations.

As I said, there's nobody else looking out for me, so I'm damn well
gonna remain at the top of my list of "who I look out for".

So how are you different from the corporations you villify other than
you're not nearly as good at it?

*I* am an actual human being that can be spoken to face to face. They
are an artificial construction of greed, bull****, political favor, and
wind that's impossible to get a handle on, let alone an answer from, yet
have, or at least appear to, more rights and fewer responsibilities than
an actual person.

However, we're veering from the initial premise, which is/was "who
decides what's safe, and for whom?".

To get back to that concept from our little side-excursion to
digression-ville, my stance is that the only person qualified to decide
what is or isn't too dangerous/unsafe is the person doing the deciding.
NOt the government, not Ralph Nader, not anybody or anything other than
the person contemplating the activity.

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd for more info