NationStates Jolt Archive

Has anyone noticed the parallels between the behaviour of the RIAA and the world described in Jennifer Government? Corporations doing their own private law enforcement, detective work and everything, with the police and government staying out of it?

And you know, one of the things currently being discussed at the World Summit in Cancun is a measure allowing corporations to sue national governments for loss of revenue due to their regulations. And the woman on the radio who does the traffic news where I live is referred to as Sally Traffic. Perhaps we are watching that world being born . . . :shock:

Well, traffic reporters often take cute little names like that. One local station here used "Elaine Closure" as a name.

Furthermore, the RIAA isn't cutting out the police or government. They're suing, just like everyone else in America does.

So, no, I don't think the world of Jennifer Government is looming overhead.

Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question, but who are the RIAA?

I think it stands for the Recording Industry Association of America. Basically, they are the people who will look into your computer if it has a file-sharing sytem installed, in search of illegally copied music. They will then sue you for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Or, if you are 12, only $2000.

And if corporations can sue national governments for loss of revenue, that is coming waaay too close to Max Barry's satirical vision.

Corporations can't sue the government for loss of revenue (at least not in the U.S.A.) and everbody is sueing now-a-days, the record companies doing it isn't anyhing new or different

Well they can't yet, but they're trying to get international law changed so they can do. Ah well.

I think it stands for the Recording Industry Association of America. Basically, they are the people who will look into your computer if it has a file-sharing sytem installed, in search of illegally copied music. They will then sue you for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Or, if you are 12, only $2000.

Aah...thankyou for your explanation! :P

I still can't believe they're actually suing that girl for $2,000. They stand to gain nothing. The court costs alone will be greater. And they will lose a lot of customers who think it is grossly unfair to sue a small child. And it is grossly unfair to sue a small child.

It's probably unfair to have assassins shooting poor kids in order to give a new product a cool dangerous edge, but maybe that will start happening too? :shock:

It's probably unfair to have assassins shooting poor kids in order to give a new product a cool dangerous edge, but maybe that will start happening too? :shock:

Urm...somehow I don't think that will happen, that's a bit too far fecthed I think.

Has anyone noticed the parallels between the behaviour of the RIAA and the world described in Jennifer Government? Corporations doing their own private law enforcement, detective work and everything, with the police and government staying out of it?

And you know, one of the things currently being discussed at the World Summit in Cancun is a measure allowing corporations to sue national governments for loss of revenue due to their regulations. And the woman on the radio who does the traffic news where I live is referred to as Sally Traffic. Perhaps we are watching that world being born . . . :shock:

Remember in the book, it was dedicated to some guy that wanted to call it "Capitalism"? And the book was basically about capitalism gone to far, the premium roads, the police for hire, no tax. Every day I notice the real world changing into the fantasy (or maybe not so much of a fantasy :shock: ) world of Jennifer Government.

Has anyone noticed the parallels between the behaviour of the RIAA and the world described in Jennifer Government? Corporations doing their own private law enforcement, detective work and everything, with the police and government staying out of it?

And you know, one of the things currently being discussed at the World Summit in Cancun is a measure allowing corporations to sue national governments for loss of revenue due to their regulations. And the woman on the radio who does the traffic news where I live is referred to as Sally Traffic. Perhaps we are watching that world being born . . . :shock:

Remember in the book, it was dedicated to some guy that wanted to call it "Capitalism"? And the book was basically about capitalism gone to far, the premium roads, the police for hire, no tax. Every day I notice the real world changing into the fantasy (or maybe not so much of a fantasy :shock: ) world of Jennifer Government.

You mean CapitaliZm right?

That's probably what he meant.

It does make you think though.

Has anyone noticed the parallels between the behaviour of the RIAA and the world described in Jennifer Government? Corporations doing their own private law enforcement, detective work and everything, with the police and government staying out of it?

And you know, one of the things currently being discussed at the World Summit in Cancun is a measure allowing corporations to sue national governments for loss of revenue due to their regulations. And the woman on the radio who does the traffic news where I live is referred to as Sally Traffic. Perhaps we are watching that world being born . . . :shock:

If governments can sue corporations, it is only fair that corporations should be allowed to sue governments. Individuals can sue governments.

If governments can sue corporations, it is only fair that corporations should be allowed to sue governments. Individuals can sue governments.
How about . . . no?

See, individuals have a right to sue corporations in defence of their own interests. Likewise, corporations can sue individuals. Governments have a right to sue corporations to defend the interests of the public which they represent. But corporations suing governments? That's reciprocity taken too far. Imagine if, as in the JG world, corporations take it upon themselves to "represent the public interest", ie ostensibly those of their customers. Max Barry would obviously not like to see it happen, and I would agree.

If governments can sue corporations, it is only fair that corporations should be allowed to sue governments. Individuals can sue governments.
How about . . . no?

See, individuals have a right to sue corporations in defence of their own interests. Likewise, corporations can sue individuals. Governments have a right to sue corporations to defend the interests of the public which they represent. But corporations suing governments? That's reciprocity taken too far. Imagine if, as in the JG world, corporations take it upon themselves to "represent the public interest", ie ostensibly those of their customers. Max Barry would obviously not like to see it happen, and I would agree.

If a government can sue a corporation for abusing its power, the converse whould be true as well. It's what we who still have faith in Republicanism like to call "checks and balances".

If governments can sue corporations, it is only fair that corporations should be allowed to sue governments. Individuals can sue governments.
How about . . . no?

See, individuals have a right to sue corporations in defence of their own interests. Likewise, corporations can sue individuals. Governments have a right to sue corporations to defend the interests of the public which they represent. But corporations suing governments? That's reciprocity taken too far. Imagine if, as in the JG world, corporations take it upon themselves to "represent the public interest", ie ostensibly those of their customers. Max Barry would obviously not like to see it happen, and I would agree.

If a government can sue a corporation for abusing its power, the converse whould be true as well. It's what we who still have faith in Republicanism like to call "checks and balances".

If a government can sue a corporation for abusing its power, the converse whould be true as well. It's what we who still have faith in Republicanism like to call "checks and balances".

Somehow, I don't think that corporate companies should be able to take the government, the people who run the country, to court. That really would be absurd IMO.

If a government can sue a corporation for abusing its power, the converse whould be true as well. It's what we who still have faith in Republicanism like to call "checks and balances".
Somehow, I don't think that corporate companies should be able to take the government, the people who run the country, to court. That really would be absurd IMO.
Which is precisely my objection. Not everything has to have a converse. Often, it is best to leave some things as a one-way process.

If a government can sue a corporation for abusing its power, the converse whould be true as well. It's what we who still have faith in Republicanism like to call "checks and balances".
Somehow, I don't think that corporate companies should be able to take the government, the people who run the country, to court. That really would be absurd IMO.
Which is precisely my objection. Not everything has to have a converse. Often, it is best to leave some things as a one-way process.

Well, it would truly give meaning to the sentence that McDonalds (and other companies) are taking over the world if they could do that.

And congrats on becoming a forum moderator Tactical Grace! :D

Cheers. Hardly anyone has noticed yet. But when everyone logs on . . . :shock:

Cheers. Hardly anyone has noticed yet. But when everyone logs on . . . :shock:

Well, they haven't put you on the list of mods yet. :o

Cheers. Hardly anyone has noticed yet. But when everyone logs on . . . :shock:
Well, they haven't put you on the list of mods yet. :o
Does anyone even bother looking at it? It is pretty obscure and does not change much.

Cheers. Hardly anyone has noticed yet. But when everyone logs on . . . :shock:
Well, they haven't put you on the list of mods yet. :o
Does anyone even bother looking at it? It is pretty obscure and does not change much.

I do, just to see who the mods are and what new ones have been added.

I hope my name will be on there one day... :wink:

If a government can sue a corporation for abusing its power, the converse whould be true as well. It's what we who still have faith in Republicanism like to call "checks and balances".
Somehow, I don't think that corporate companies should be able to take the government, the people who run the country, to court. That really would be absurd IMO.
Which is precisely my objection. Not everything has to have a converse. Often, it is best to leave some things as a one-way process.

Well, it would truly give meaning to the sentence that McDonalds (and other companies) are taking over the world if they could do that.

And congrats on becoming a forum moderator Tactical Grace! :D

A corporation and a government are BOTH free associations of individuals.

It's only fair that they should be able to sue each other.

Otherwise you are opening yourself up to a slew of arbitrary powers by the government. If somebody can't seek recourse in the courts, you'll bet he will seek recourse with an AK-47.

The government claims a monopoly on the use of force... that kind of power cannot go without an extrenal check.

If a government can sue a corporation for abusing its power, the converse whould be true as well. It's what we who still have faith in Republicanism like to call "checks and balances".
Somehow, I don't think that corporate companies should be able to take the government, the people who run the country, to court. That really would be absurd IMO.
Which is precisely my objection. Not everything has to have a converse. Often, it is best to leave some things as a one-way process.

Until you end up in Auschwitz.

If corporations can't sue governments, how long do you think it will be before individuals are deprived of that power too? Then the power to vote... And after that, how long do you think your civil liberties will last?

Then the only effective check on government will be, as noble-prize winning author Alexsandr Solzhenistyn puts it, "an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand…"

I like lawsuits. They help keep the rule of law. Without them, we would be left to a state of arbitrary power, i.e. anarchy or dictatorship.

So, you see corporate lawsuits as safeguarding the rights of the individual from potentially malvolent governments?

So, you see corporate lawsuits as safeguarding the rights of the individual from potentially malvolent governments?

Yes.

The rights of the individual and of free associations of individuals (corporations).

Lawsuits are also our best tool in fighting pollution and protecting the environment WITHOUT trampling all over individual rights.

I would not define a corporation as a free association of individuals. Far from it, from my limited personal experience, it is quite regimented.

I would not define a corporation as a free association of individuals. Far from it, from my limited personal experience, it is quite regimented.

That's what I would say - perhaps a 'mini government' in itself.

I would not define a corporation as a free association of individuals. Far from it, from my limited personal experience, it is quite regimented.
That's what I would say - perhaps a 'mini government' in itself.
And giving them that status officially, as in the book, would be far too dangerous. Indeed, allowing it to transpire unofficially may amount to the same thing.

I would not define a corporation as a free association of individuals. Far from it, from my limited personal experience, it is quite regimented.
That's what I would say - perhaps a 'mini government' in itself.
And giving them that status officially, as in the book, would be far too dangerous. Indeed, allowing it to transpire unofficially may amount to the same thing.

Very true - they would become the government!

I would not define a corporation as a free association of individuals. Far from it, from my limited personal experience, it is quite regimented.
That's what I would say - perhaps a 'mini government' in itself.
And giving them that status officially, as in the book, would be far too dangerous. Indeed, allowing it to transpire unofficially may amount to the same thing.

Even if a corporation is regimented, it's still a free assocation of individuals. You can leave whenever you want.

A corporation should be legally EQUIVALENT to the government in EVERY ASPECT BUT ONE: A government claims a monopoly on physical force and public goods. A corporation does not.

Even if a corporation is regimented, it's still a free assocation of individuals. You can leave whenever you want.

A corporation should be legally EQUIVALENT to the government in EVERY ASPECT BUT ONE: A government claims a monopoly on physical force and public goods. A corporation does not.

Whilst a corporation may well be a free association of individuals there is still a lot of pressure to do as the corporation big cats say. They should not be equal to the goivernment in all but one instance. That is simply pure madness and means that we are basically run by materialistic corporations who are not always accountable for their actions.

The Three-Step Formula For An Anarchic Utopia:

1. Destroy the world with total capitalism. (Pendulum swing to the right)
2. Clean up the mess with total socialism. (Pendulum swing to the left)
3. Now get back to your anarchic village. (Pendulum rest in the middle)

Yep, we're headed toward "destroy the world with capitalism." I loved Jennifer Government but I seriously doubt that total capitalism could uphold a modern society. I mean, in that world, people are self-centered enough that a pair of shoes can sell for $2500; do you think anyone is going to be donating their money to maintainence of roads and stuff? Eventually, the whole society breaks down.

In answer to the question, yeah, that world is coming closer. But it won't exist for long.

Then the next three steps on the wheel:

4. Some bozo comes up with the idea of government.
5. Monarchies, empires, and dictatorships overrun the world.
6. Eventually capitalistic democracy emerges.

And we're back to 2003.

I mean, in that world, people are self-centered enough that a pair of shoes can sell for $2500; do you think anyone is going to be donating their money to maintainence of roads and stuff?
All roads are toll roads in Jennifer Government. ;)

]I mean, in that world, people are self-centered enough that a pair of shoes can sell for $2500; do you think anyone is going to be donating their money to maintainence of roads and stuff?
All roads are toll roads in Jennifer Government. ;)

Yup, premium roads. $2 a mile and no speed limit!

I still can't believe they're actually suing that girl for $2,000. They stand to gain nothing. The court costs alone will be greater. And they will lose a lot of customers who think it is grossly unfair to sue a small child. And it is grossly unfair to sue a small child.

They are trying to make an example of someone, they don't care
who or how they do it.

But that's nothing
Years ago Buger King Mentioned McDonalds in
an TV ad BY NAME at the time this was not something that was
Done in TV ads. So McDonalds Took Buger King to court :shock:
(Don't recall the outcome in the Court Case)
I think it was dismised


and they even draged the 6 or 5 IIRC year old girl from the ad to court
she had to testify :x since she was the one who refered to McDonalds
in the TV ad don't remember what she said. I think they were suing
her too :x
Corporations will stop at nothing to get their WAY

If you wondering why I call recall this incendent and not the
details I only became aware of this from one to those programs
about TV ads and who the little 5/6 year old girl is

Who was this little girl she is in her mid 20's now and still acts
She is SMG = Buffy

Not only is the world of JG possible, it's probable.

Not only is the world of JG possible, it's probable.

In what ways is it probable?

Not only is the world of JG possible, it's probable.

Yeah but Max Barry didn't account for the rising of the EU economy, which stands to be just as evil and moneygrabbing as that of the US.
Hopefully the UK will stay out of it all. That is, until we are ready for the nuclear war 8)

The way I see it over the next 20 years theres going to be a shift of power from the US and Great Britain to that of the EU and China. I don't consider this a bad thing at all however as they seem a bit more civilized with their foreign policy and have a tendacy to act more humanitarian than the US does.

I think it stands for the Recording Industry Association of America. Basically, they are the people who will look into your computer if it has a file-sharing sytem installed, in search of illegally copied music. They will then sue you for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Or, if you are 12, only $2000.

http://www.agroman.net/img/communism.jpg