Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Citizens United wasn't about corporate personhood. It was about freedon of speech, and freedom of speech won.

I have yet to see someone against the Citizens United decision who has the slightest clue as to what it was actually about.

Corporate speech, based on corporate personhood yes. I'd have no problem with that if there wasn't such a glaring double standard between giving them the same rights as individual citizens but then giving them their own special justice system far more lenient than actual citizens are afforded.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Do you understand the difference between negligence and criminality?

Do you understand the difference between ignorance and something that is an excuse for breaking the law? "I didn't see the stop sign" sure doesn't fly if you or I try it. Works great for corporations apparently, as long as you can't prove some specific individual knew the corporation was breaking the law the corp basically gets away with it.

(edit)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_blindness (Fines for them, jail for you. They have the same rights as citizens and more. Don't get me wrong I primarily blame the Executive branch for this)

 

[WildCat]

Corporate speech, based on corporate personhood yes. I'd have no problem with that if there wasn't such a glaring double standard between giving them the same rights as individual citizens but then giving them their own special justice system far more lenient than actual citizens are afforded.

Not only do you not understand the Citizens United decision, you also have no clue as to what personhood means legally.

Have you ever read the 1st Amendment?

 

[WildCat]

Do you understand the difference between ignorance and something that is an excuse for breaking the law? "I didn't see the stop sign" sure doesn't fly if you or I try it.

Yes, it does. If you didn't see the stop sign and killed someone in the resulting accident you likely would not face a criminal charge for murder, unless you were drunk or getting away from robbing a bank or something.
Your acts were negligent, but not criminal.

Works great for corporations apparently, as long as you can't prove some specific individual knew the corporation was breaking the law the corp basically gets away with it.

Damn, isn't it awful that in our society charges have to be proven in order to get a criminal conviction! Perhaps you and Skeptic Ginger would like to repeal the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments while you're repealing the 1st?

 

[Alt+F4]

I already did earlier in the thread, Wachovia was caught laundering Mexican drug cartel money, Citi withheld material information about the contents of it's loans while selling MBS (we have sworn testimony that the higher-ups had been informed by 2007), Fannie and others are currently in settlement negotiations for document fraud (robo-signing). Let's start with that. We have three crimes, the facts of which are uncontroversial (even if as you say no specific individual can be tied to these acts), committed by corporations. In an effort to treat corporations like "people" I suggest that we revoke their charters, launch investigations to determine the amount of financial gain resulting from those crimes, then seize those ill-gotten gains before any assets are liquidated to bond and stock holders. Then maybe next time everyone involved will think twice.

We need banks and lending, but we don't need these specific criminal banks for the economy to function, so get rid of them.. completely. Get them "off the streets" so to speak.

Even if these charges are true it wasn't these events that caused the financial crisis of 2008. In addition, why do you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater? Wachovia is now owned by Wells Fargo who employes the very smart, very ethical mortgage broker that help me through the terror of getting my first mortgage a year ago. Why should she and thousands of other Wells Fargo employees pay the price for actions taken by others? Aren't they also part of the "99%"?

 

[Checkmite]

Through ALEC, corporations have "a VOICE and a VOTE" on specific changes to the law that are then proposed in your state. DO YOU?

Of course we do - their "proposals" are introduced to the State Legislature, whose members we are elected by the people.

 

[Alt+F4]

Works great for corporations apparently, as long as you can't prove some specific individual knew the corporation was breaking the law the corp basically gets away with it.

How is this any different than a criminal charge against an individual? If you can't prove that someone is breaking the law the person is going to get away with it. If anything wouldn't it would be easier to prosecute a "corporation person", since you only need to have one of hundreds or thousands of persons to take the rap for the whole corporation?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I had no idea you wanted to repeal the 1st Amendment.

Scary stuff if you ask me.

See sig: I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one of them.

 

[bikerdruid]

See sig: I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one of them.

excellent point.
there is a long list of corporate murderers.

 

[WildCat]

See sig: I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one of them.

If that makes sense to you it's because you have no idea what corporate personhood is.

And have you ever read the 1st Amendment?

 

[bikerdruid]

If that makes sense to you it's because you have no idea what corporate personhood is.

And have you ever read the 1st Amendment?

corporate personhood is truly an oxymoron.
it is perverse to assume that it is otherwise.
corporations are not individuals, have no human characteristics and are not persons.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Yes, it does. If you didn't see the stop sign and killed someone in the resulting accident you likely would not face a criminal charge for murder, unless you were drunk or getting away from robbing a bank or something.
Your acts were negligent, but not criminal.

Vehicular homicide (also known as vehicular manslaughter) in most states in the United States, is a crime. In general, it involves death that results from the negligent operation of a vehicle, or more so a result from driving while committing an unlawful act that does not amount to a felony.

Damn, isn't it awful that in our society charges have to be proven in order to get a criminal conviction!

We know the laundering occured, we can't prove who knew about it but we can certainly decide who should have known and prosecute the entity for criminal recklessness.

Linking this didn't seem to help so I'll just quote it:

Willful blindness (sometimes called ignorance of law, willful ignorance or contrived ignorance or Nelsonian knowledge) is a term used in law to when an individual seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally putting himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable.

For example, in a number of cases, persons transporting packages containing illegal drugs have asserted that they never asked what the contents of the packages were and so lacked the requisite intent to break the law.

Such defences have not succeeded, as courts have been quick to determine that the defendant should have known what was in the package and exercised criminal recklessness by failing to find out.

They say they had no idea it was drug money, but we know it WAS drug money. Wachovia either knew that or declined to find out. "I never looked in the bag I just took the money" doesn't fly with me and supposedly doesn't fly in our court system either. (edit) In other words if it's found that there are drugs or drug money in that bag, and you're holding that bag, you're in trouble. Supposedly.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Even if these charges are true it wasn't these events that caused the financial crisis of 2008.

Irrelevant. Absolutely irrelevant.

Wachovia is now owned by Wells Fargo who employes the very smart, very ethical mortgage broker that help me through the terror of getting my first mortgage a year ago.

Anecdote which doesn't change anything.

Why should she and thousands of other Wells Fargo employees pay the price for actions taken by others? Aren't they also part of the "99%"?

This is one of those good things about capitalism, revoking the charter of a particular bank doesn't change the actual demand for banking services. Whoever steps in to provide the legitimate services Wachovia provided will need to employ people to do so. Having been one of the higher-ups at Wachovia may of course not look too good on a resume afterwards. Not buying this "load-bearing bank" defense, I see it as a mere variation on "they're too big to fail".

(edit)My central point here is that corporations have the same rights as individual citizens, but currently do not have the same responsibilities or criminal accountability that individual citizens have. My objection is to the latter, not the former, and it's largely the fault of the Executive branch. I realize I'm not attracting a lot of allies among partisans with this position.

 

[Brainster]

This is one of those good things about capitalism, revoking the charter of a particular bank doesn't change the actual demand for banking services. Whoever steps in to provide the legitimate services Wachovia provided will need to employ people to do so.

Throw them out in the street, someone else will surely hire them.

And you think corporations are heartless?

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Throw them out in the street, someone else will surely hire them.

And you think corporations are heartless?

So let a corporation get away with whatever, because stopping them would not be painless? All corporations are too big to fail unless every last teller and janitor is corrupt? (edit)The blameless children of convicted felons lose a parent in the process, but that doesn't stop the state from jailing said felons. Should a felon run free because he "has a wife and three kids"? I see a double standard.

 

[WildCat]

corporate personhood is truly an oxymoron.
it is perverse to assume that it is otherwise.
corporations are not individuals, have no human characteristics and are not persons.

Yes, I know, you have no idea what personhood means legally.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Which is why it's so ironic that public unions are involved, as well as private unions that got huge government bailouts (UAW).

See also: Selling out Illinois.

Chicago union bosses game public pensions

These are prime examples of how corrupt the "usual way in Illinois" is in regard to unions. I think Wildcat can agree with me that no matter who comes in as Illinois' "New Reformer" (Think Obama on the national scale "We are change"), this is business as usual and powerful unions and corporations are behind it. Our former Governor Rod just happened to be one that got caught.

Even the idea of “taking back America” is a tried and true strategy for self-defeat: creating a fictive community that in reality includes conflicting interests and conflicting desires and will inevitably be directed by its most powerful elements.

 

[Alt+F4]

We know the laundering occured, we can't prove who knew about it but we can certainly decide who should have known and prosecute the entity for criminal recklessness.

Wow, just wow. You know for sure that the laundering occured but you can't prove who did it, can't prove who knew about it but you think it's criminal that whoever should have known about it should be prosecuted for criminal recklessness. For an act to be criminal recklessness the person accused has to either not care about or not desire harmful circumstances. Sorry that doesn't fit with "should have known".

 

[Alt+F4]

Throw them out in the street, someone else will surely hire them.

Let's hope they are not over 50.

 

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Wikipedia on vehicular homicide
Vehicular homicide (also known as vehicular manslaughter) in most states in the United States, is a crime. In general, it involves death that results from the negligent operation of a vehicle, or more so a result from driving while committing an unlawful act that does not amount to a felony.

Just like I said. Not all negligence that results in a death warrants a vehicular homicide chaarge.

We know the laundering occured, we can't prove who knew about it but we can certainly decide who should have known and prosecute the entity for criminal recklessness.

Perhaps you should phone a federal prosecutor about this knowledge you have?

Linking this didn't seem to help so I'll just quote it:


They say they had no idea it was drug money, but we know it WAS drug money. Wachovia either knew that or declined to find out. "I never looked in the bag I just took the money" doesn't fly with me and supposedly doesn't fly in our court system either. (edit) In other words if it's found that there are drugs or drug money in that bag, and you're holding that bag, you're in trouble. Supposedly.

Make your case to the feds then. I hope you have a more convincing argument than you've made here.