NationStates Jolt Archive

After starting a string now closed here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=442156

on the suggestion of allowing an option of not having corporations
in any NS2 game,

the question was raised if I had read Jennifer Government.
answer: no.

Another person said it was irrelevant to game play if I'd read it or not.


The last person said advertising (and I assume links to other sites for
sources in general discussion) is not allowed.
I'll check to see if anyone else has link a source, including "news" paper
sites. They are actually advertisement papers, but...oh, well.
I apparently have not read posting rules yet.

OK, for now.
NO Links to other sites allowed.
none.



I was just suggesting that there should be the option
of not allowing the legal institutions that are corporations
in your country if that is what you choose.
the corporation, is a legal institution and a corporate
charter that allows the privalege of limited liability is just that--
a privalege. We should not be forced to allow legal privaleges
in building our countries if we so choose.
That's all.

Again, sorry for posting a source

If bush was not president, corperations would not rule.

If bush was not president, corperations would not rule.

He's pretty loathsome, but be careful about putting the blame on him personally. Seems to be business as usual for the US presidency, only Dubya is more obvious about it.

Oh yeah, corporations in NS... I agree that would be a good issue/option for our countries. Choose not to allow the corporation, but otherwise you might still choose to have free market policies. This would probably slow economic growth but lower the inequalities in society.

I agree with Messerach.

I also found no rules for this forum regarding posting
links to other sites/sources.
Or any guide lines what so ever.
Maybe I just can't find them. If anybody can show me where
the forum guidelines are, then I can read for myself where
it says no links to other sites allowed.

Hope nobody's posting a link to any story whatsoever
regarding this hurricane and subsequent wipe out
of an entire city....



also,
does anybody know how a string gets closed?
No posts for x amount of time?

He's pretty loathsome, but be careful about putting the blame on him personally. Seems to be business as usual for the US presidency, only Dubya is more obvious about it.

Oh yeah, corporations in NS... I agree that would be a good issue/option for our countries. Choose not to allow the corporation, but otherwise you might still choose to have free market policies. This would probably slow economic growth but lower the inequalities in society.

However, corporations assume roles of integral importance in the majority of democracies, and since American politics requires consdierable sums of finances to ascend to the presidency or candidacy for elction, the presence or corporate influence upon the US government is to be anticipated.

However, corporations assume roles of integral importance in the majority of democracies, and since American politics requires consdierable sums of finances to ascend to the presidency or candidacy for elction, the presence or corporate influence upon the US government is to be anticipated.

Which is a very bad thing in my opinion. I'd prefer that campaigns were funded by taxes, because that way when the President wins and has to do favours for all his sponsors, well, they're the ones who voted him in anyway.

Here in NZ corporate donations are a very small part of politics. We have an economic liberal minor party, which a few years ago had a bigger budget than even the major parties thanks to business donations, but fortunately that wasn't enough to buy them power. In the USA, both parties are completely dependent on corporate donations and aren't shy about repaying the favour.

This thread's just a little too marxist for my taste

If bush was not president, corperations would not rule.

Both parties are equally involved with corporate special interests...remember Global Crossing and the Democratic Party? We need to end corporate welfare as a step towards fostering more competition and making the market freer for all involved. I believe oil prices wouldn't be so high if the government didn't crush the oil industry's competitition through their handouts. They've formed an oligopoly thanks to the US Govt.

i'm not sure on the gov't funding of elections or not.

I'd definately be for making it law, once again as it was before,
for corporations to not be allowed to contribute to any election in
any way. It was once a felony to do so.

In the most recent supreme court case on this very topic,
writing in the dissenting opinion, the justice wrote that money
with regards to elections (and other things too I'm sure) was
not "speech", but property. When I first heard that it was
like being knocked off my horse. Of course it is property.



now, on it being NOT marxist at all,
but purely american.
personally I've never read Marx,
although I did try once, too many big words.



corporations did not always exist,
or in their current form in the US.

If I participate in electoral politics,
boycotting any election with use of the electronic voting machines,
I cannot vote for any politician that agrees with this statement:
"corporations have rights" or "corporations should have rights".

Living creatures,
humans and sometimes animals (because if you hack up a dog
with a machette or throw a bag of cats into a river, you will
probably go to jail) have rights.

can a car have rights?
can a wheel barrow have rights?

A corporation is a tool created by us human persons to
do something.
With the corporation,
originally by kings, a corporation or company was basically
a license to operate in the name of the crown.
Most colonies were started as companies and Hudson Bay Co,
Dutch East Indies Co., etc...

In the early United States Americans feared corporations.
Corporations were kept on a short
leash. Created to do something in the name of the public good.
Like build a canal or toll road;
to conduct large projects that were too
expensive; Allowed only to exist for the life time of the project,
usually 10, 20, 30, or 40 years. After that the corporation
ceased to exist and profits, if any, were divided up and distributed
to the share holders. Also any debts incurred were to be paid
by the share holders, as well as any criminal neglegence.
Share holders were once held responsible.
Also...no corporation was allowed to own property other than
what was needed to conduct the project; no corporation
was allowed to own another corporation.

All this changed with a supreme court (US) ruling in SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO., 118 U.S. 394 (1886)
The court ruled, using the 14th amendment to the US constitution,
an amendment written with the purpose of guarenteeing the rights
of ex-slaves, that no "corporation" could be denied the right
of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Thus, in judge made law, the court said that corporations were people
with rights. And huge corporations were given equal footing with neighborhood businesses and individuals.
"There was no history, logic or reason given to support that view," Supreme Court Justice William 0. Douglas wrote 60 years later.

I'd post a link for my sources, but apparently
that is not allowed on this forum.

We should have the option of not only not allowing corporations,
but also be able to revoke corporate charters, as we still can do today
in the real world. Corporations are still beneath the sovereign authority
of we the people. Corporations are chartered in states, so only the
state in which it is chartered can revoke the given corporation's charter.
Or we can revoke the "certificate of authority" if we do not want
a corp from another state to operate in our state. We can do this.

lastly,

In 1890, the highest court in New York State revoked the charter of the North River Sugar Refining Corporation with these words: "The judgement sought against the defendant is one of corporate death. The state, which created, asks us to destroy, and the penalty invoked represents the extreme rigour of the law. The life of a corporation is, indeed, less than that of the humblest citizen."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=410573

Apparently links ARE allowed.
just not advertising them?
You have to have the actual link linkable?
or what?


above at this forum:

-----
Again, the Moderators are pretty lenient about threads within the General Forums, so a lot of allowed, but that doesn’t give you the right to bash specific people, such as the President, fellow NS’ers…or Moderators themselves…


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogitation
The problem is that you post articles in their entirety without adding any comments of your own or any analysis of your own. This qualifies as spam. ...or possibly even trolling (which is posting controversial material merely to ruffle feathers and make people mad).

Don't just copy-and-paste. State if you agree or disagree with the article. Describe why you agree or disagree. This is a political discussion forum; discuss any articles that you post or link to. Don't just reproduce them verbatim.
--------


So another string that I had started was unfairly locked?
Unless,
There is a time limit for strings.
Say, after 24 hours of no posts the automatically get locked
or something.
I'll see if I can find other info on this.

Adam Smith opposed the idea of large corporations, and I wouldn't exactly call him a Marxist... Everything in classical economics is based on assumptions about the market, and corporations pretty much invalidate all of them, such as no economic actor being able to influence prices, freedom of information.

That's why I find the idea of 'economic freedom' a bit ridiculous. It's self-defeating, if the state gives full economic freedom then the market will limit individual freedom itself, because large corporations are inevitable.

Ah, yeah I was wanting to respond to your last thread, but anyways I agree, the game assumes to much in about every issue from religion to corperations... Hopefully any games similar to this in the furture will not do so :)

Ah, yeah I was wanting to respond to your last thread, but anyways I agree, the game assumes to much in about every issue from religion to corperations... Hopefully any games similar to this in the furture will not do so :)

I'm pretty happy with the options we get, mainly because there is often a really extreme policy, such as legalised arson or compulsary public nudity. No tax or 100% tax etc, we do get a lot of choices. I guess because corporations are already mentioned a lot in issues it wouldn't be practical to ban them.

ok, I addressed the issue of my locked string with the moderator
who did it.

We resolved the situation.
Basically I knew nothing about Jennifer Government
and was not aware that nationstates.net was basically a big
advertisement for the book, which apparently is full of sarcasm.

I had assumed nationstates.net was just an online
role-player of operating a fictitious government.
Acting on that assumption, I proposed that any sequal
should have the option of not chartering corporations.

Since it NS is an add for the book, from the very beginning,
I guess it should be however the author wants it to be.
Just if it were an unrelated gov't or civilization simulation....