Romney: "Corporations Are People"

Today, while standing on a bunch of hay bales (Why, Iowa? Why?) Mitt Romney slapped on a smile and went to town on some hecklers. 

(Click on the image for the non-embeddable video, and skip to the 4:00 mark)

This exchange resulted:

ROMNEY: We have to make sure that the promises we make—and Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare—are promises we can keep. And there are various ways of doing that. One is, we could raise taxes on people.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Corporations!

ROMNEY: Corporations are people, my friend. We can raise taxes on—

AUDIENCE MEMBER: No, they’re not!

ROMNEY: Of course they are. Everything corporations earn also goes to people.

AUDIENCE: [LAUGHTER]

ROMNEY: Where do you think it goes?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: It goes into their pockets!

ROMNEY: Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People’s pockets! Human beings, my friend. So number one, you can raise taxes. That’s not the approach that I would take.

Romney doesn't mean that corporations are entitled to some of the legal rights of people in the Citizens United sense. He means it in the sense that the money made by corporations flows in and out of human hands—or pockets, in the language of the heckler who hoisted himself on his own metaphorical petard.

People are already mocking Romney for this supposed gaffe, but even TNR's Jonathan Chait grants that Romney is right on this point—although Chait is careful to point out that corporations are made of people who are richer than average. 

Another bonus moment from the same event that almost tempted me to like Romney a little: 

AUDIENCE MEMBER: You came here to listen to the people!

ROMNEY: Nope, I came here to speak.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • mofo||

    You know what else is people?

  • Old Mexican||

    Uh....

    .... Soylent Green?

  • Suki||

    +100

  • habeus||

    Tell them!...tell them before it's too late!

  • Ha!||

    That never gets old!

  • ||

    Lapshades?

    What too soon?

  • ||

    And that was Lampshades

  • Old Mexican||

    I liked Lapshades better. Gave me an idea for the next commercial success of the century...

  • Suki||

  • Old Mexican||

    +10 E100

  • ||

    I'll see your lapshades and raise you the Dick Towel

  • Almanian||

    OMG, that is the GREATEST THING EVER!

    *why did I not think of that*

  • ||

    How come the black one isn't bigger than the white one?

  • Almanian||

    For someone Johnny Longt was supposed to kill, you continue to post funny stuff.

    Afternoon, Suki!

  • PantsFan||

    bovril?

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    For fuck's sake Romney, I was getting ready to dismiss you entirely, and you go and say something beautiful and thoughtful and truthful about the rights of people in corporations...Damn, you've complicated my choices for 2012.

  • Jim||

    Ah, I'd say one good soundbite doesn't make up for years of douchebaggery.

  • Ska||

    Pretty much.

  • Barack Obama||

    "Yes, we can" was and is a great soundbite!

  • Tony||

    It's all anyone will ever need. Ever.

  • Dave||

    True, but I gotta give Romney credit for this one good soundbite.

    It ain't much, but it's more credit than I ever expected to give him.

  • juris imprudent||

    Don't get too excited that a dumb politician bested one drooling idiot heckler.

  • ||

    I say it was all a set up so Romney could look tough and say some good lines.

  • ||

    It would've been cool if he'd slugged a heckler, like in that Asimov short story. You know, to prove he wasn't a robot.

  • ||

    I think you're on to something. Would robots be attracted to fellow robot stories?

  • Almanian||

    I think Palin should show up at one of his rallies and bitch slap him onstage.

    Then, based upon his response, we'll see what the little silver-spoon-son-of-a-former-useless-MI-governor-and-Chmn-of-AMC pansy is made of.

    The most-awesome response, of course, would be if he bent her over his knee and spanked her, and then ripped off her panties and fucked her right onstage in front of the cheering crowd.

    Next-most-awesome response would be if he just started crying and ran offstage.

  • Mainer||

    I like the cut of your jib.

  • Joe R.||

    I'm confused that there are people who think this was a gaffe. Unless they think he accidentally got it right, maybe?

  • overthink||

    They didn't put that much thought into it. The point is just to manufacture news stories with his name plus the evil word "corporations". Extra points if it involves him being positive toward them in any way.

  • ||

    It only took 7 years for Reason to actually cover what Romney said....and well after I have written him off.

    Anyway regardless of that video I am still voting for what ever the Libertarian party drudges up from the sewer as their candidate.

    Johnson or Paul are the only poeple who can change that.

  • Almanian||

    I've decided to vote for myself. I'm the only person I trust to govern this country any more.

  • Zeb||

    I vote for myself sometimes. Once I even got two votes for something. I don't know who else voted for me.

  • Brandon||

    I really liked your slogan.

  • Mensan||

    I usually vote for myself for local offices. I thought I actually had a shot a Mosquito Control Commissioner in the last election. It was a close race. They guy who won the seat only beat me by 44,088 votes.

  • ||

    Maybe if you were a little bit educated, you might have realized that Romney was 100% CORRECT. Legally, corporations ARE considered people. Look it up.

  • JEDIDIAH||

    There was nothing thoughtful about his comment. Although it was rather honest and it shows us where his loyalties really lie.

    An indivdiual's rights are quite distinct from their association to any corporation.

    Corporations aren't people or even really conglomerations of people. Corporations are a legal means to shield people from responsibility and liability. This tends to have the ultimate result of stripping any humanity from the people involved.

    So corporations are infact quite inhuman. They lack sufficient moral awareness to be considered a person by any standard (legal or otherwise).

  • ||

    The last exchange is quite good. Too bad he didn't say "I came here to speak. These other people came here to listen. You, I don't know why you're here."

    But his pithy version is good, too.

    And is there any doubt at all that these people are bought and paid for Dem activists, (ineptly) conducting the White House policy of destroying Mitt Romney?

  • ||

    It's pathetic and sickening the way they try to game the system. Let the real people speak, assholes.

  • Brandon||

    Come on, that's wholly unnecessary. It's Iowa, so the people are naturally inclined to vote pro-subsidies (democrat) and honestly have nothing better to do than watch a guy talk on some hay bales. The Dems don't have to be directly involved.

  • Barack Obama||

    AUDIENCE MEMBER: You came here to listen to the people!
    ROMNEY: Nope, I came here to speak.

    Let me be clear.

    Mitt Romney is a style swiper.

  • goneGalt||

    Maybe so.

    But you still suck.

  • ||

    Huh? BO would have stared slackjawed at the teleprompter praying to Allah that a pithy response would come up. He can barely even handle hecklers who explicitly state that they are going to vote for him.

  • ||

    Which is what happened to Mitt in his debate with Teddy K. in their 1994 bay state senatorial clash. Romney was putrid in that debate.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Oh, I thought he handled those idiots pretty well.

    That doesn't invalidate your larger point, though.

  • ||

    Yeah, but it's not hard to handle hecklers whose closing remarks are "we're going to vote for you anyway".

  • ||

    This is strange. I have this odd memory of some old actor--I think it was Charlton Heston, maybe in The Ten Commandments?--shouting out, "Corporations is people!"

  • Old Mexican||

    TNR's Jonathan Chait grants that Romney is right on this point—although Chait is careful to point out that corporations are made of people who are richer than average.


    Yes, the corporation I work for has richer than average janitors...

    Jesus F Christ, are lefties stupid.

  • ||

    And McDonald's has richer-than-average fry cooks.

  • ||

    More so than say the fry cooks at The Black Pearl in Newport, RI?

  • ||

    Is The Black Pearl a corporation?

  • juris imprudent||

    Must be, it had a discontented asshole working for them.

  • ||

    My guess is that the owners of the restaurant have some limited liability structure.

    A long, long time ago, I was a scullion at The Black Pearl. It is located on Bannister's wharf and has been a happenin' place for quite some time. I have, over the years, bumped into more than one out of state inebriated pol there, including former New York guv Hugh Carey who just passed away.

  • ||

    From what I can tell from reading progressive materials, their ire seems to be solely directed against corporations, not other limited liability structures like LLCs or LPs.

  • Ska||

    Hah. That's great.

  • ||

    Hey, good point. You're right.

  • juris imprudent||

    Apparently missing the delicious irony that MoveOn is a corporation itself.

  • Ska||

    Section 501(c) of the IRC exorcises most corporate evils. Section 527 is a little stickier, as it only exorcises the corporate evils of the organizations that are deemed acceptable.

  • ||

    They should covert to an LLC for ideological purity.

  • Ska||

    And the members don't even have to worry about whether they're people or not!

    Cunning plan indeed....

  • JoJo Zeke||

    more than one out of state inebriated pol there, including former New York guv Hugh Carey who just passed away.

    I'd probably get good and inebriated, too, if I'd just passed away.

  • Paul||

    Is The Black Pearl a corporation?

    I thought it was a ship in a slowly degrading movie franchise.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    Slowly?

  • Ska||

    And all S-corp shareholders are upper class/wealthy.

    And everyone invested in publicly traded companies, whether through individual accounts, pensions, IRAs, 401(k)s are wealthy.

    And the rank and file people who receive incentive units in their employer's company are wealthy.

  • Rob||

    Speaking of being invested in publicly traded companies, do you remember that during W's presidency the statists constantly decride the success of the stock market? "Wall Street is thriving, but Main Street is hurting. Boo Hoo!" Now, their panties are all in a bunch that the stock market is tanking. So, which is it?

  • Ramsey||

    Maybe main street and wall street thriving?

  • habeus||

    Next they'll tell us that stock holders are people, too. Oh no!

  • Brandon||

    OM, he obviously means that corporate stockholders are richer than average, as that's who corporations represent when they take political stands. Still a stupid, pointless even if true stereotype, but not quite as stupid as you took it.

  • ||

    He probably meant shareholders not employees.

  • RandomJackass||

    Also I'd point out that 54% of Americans own stock in some form or another. It *is* the average person who owns the corporations. And being incorporated doesn't make a company large anyway.

  • ||

    Clearly he's trying to remind people of Reagan's "I paid for this microphone" comment.

  • ||

    He's not doing a very good job.

  • ||

    You are right. In Mr. Too Slick by Half's defense, its hard to beat the guy who said, "recession is when your neighbor loses his job; depression is when you lose your job and recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his".

    That was one of the best ad-lib well rehearsed lines in political history.

  • ||

    Mike, we agree on something!

    I also think that is one of the best political shots of all time.

  • ||

    Damn, didn't he delvier that line perfectly?

    I am sure you remember the ongoing debate in 1980 regarding the definition of recession. The younger folk, just hearing the line, may not fully appreciate it.

  • ||

    Also the open-mike "gaffe" from the rear platform of a train:

    Reagan: (reading a billboard) "Jimmy Carter, the right man for the job..." .... The hell he is!

  • ||

    That's a good shot but I like Jimmy Carter more than Reagan.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You love Romney. You looooooooooooooooooooooooove him.

    Just wait until it's revealed that all corporations are...

    SKYNET!

  • SKYNET||

    "10100101"

    10101010101000110101010101010101010001011010101000.

    11011010101010101010101010101101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010001010101010101010101010101010101010101010101011.

    SKYNET

  • Man||

    That never gets old.

  • Chony||

    Well, if corporations are people, then we need to take away the rights of people. This way corporations have no rights. The only thing that matters is the world is TAKING DOWN TEH CORPORATIONS.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    Don't you know corporations are run on unicorn farts and rainbows, not thousands of employees who each get a regular paycheck.

  • ||

    A lot you know--corporations run on the blood of toilers and the tears of orphans. Or the the blood of orphans and the tears of toilers. Or, the bloody tears of toiling orphans.

    That's the ticket!

    (Bloody Tears of Toiling Orphans would make a good band name.)

  • Brandon||

    Every good leftie knows that corporations only run on blood, and only government can run on unicorn farts.

  • ||

    This is all anyone needs to know about Romney:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY6UTnS6Z-A

    To hell with him.

    -jcr

  • MWG||

    Meh. Pretty bad, but the whole: "Why do you hate people in wheelchairs?" at the end sorta ruined it for me.

  • Barry O||

    I promise I will legalize medical marijuana next term if you vote for me. I would now, but you know, tea party, Republicans in the house, I inherited this situation, worst crisis ever, blah blah blah...

  • ||

    In his 2002 Massachusetts gubernatorial campaign, Romney promised that he would not raise taxes or increase the cost of doing business with the state.

    Guess what he did? In 2003, his administration raised the fees for just about everything. For instance, the cost of filing a new corporation was raised substantially. The cost of filing a company's Annual Report was also raised substantially.

    Ditto for filing a compliant in the district court, the land court, the housing court and the superior court.

    Ditto for renewing a driver's license, obtaining a duplicate license and taking a road test.

    He is scum of the first order.

  • Barry O||

    If you vote for me, I won't do anything like that, unless unforeseen things happen like me running up the deficit and the economy floundering because I'm strangling it. If I don't inherit those situations, I won't raise any taxes.

  • ||

    Barry, truth is, you are not as slick as Romney.

  • ||

    I wouldn't say "slick". More like "greasy".

    -jcr

  • Trailer Park Boys||

    Real greasy, eh?

  • Paul||

    And now we have his healthcare plan. It's win all around with Mitt.

  • ||

    You don't like Mormons either?

    Do you know which future president was a member of the same state militia that killed Joseph Smith?

  • ||

    I know that Smith died in Illinois. I also know that a certain droopy faced president was a member of that state's militia for a short time.

    However, to be fair to history and the truth, I do not think that he was in the militia at the time Smith was murdered.

    There you have it: LM, fair and balanced!

  • prolefeed||

    I'm certain that every single person who was alive in the mid 1840s when Joseph Smith was killed is now dead and thus ineligible to become president.

    Now, if you mean his ancestors, I'm pretty skeptical that Romney is going to be a future U.S. president.

    President of a Mormon stake, that's possible.

  • ||

    I'm not sure being alive is a qualification. I don't see it in the Constitution, anyway.

    I'm voting for George Washington!

  • ||

    ... in a military coup.

  • cynical||

    "I'm not sure being alive is a qualification."

    Then why do they hand control to the VP when the president dies?

  • ||

    Two things: First, that's dying in office, not assuming office while dead.

    Second, tradition doesn't make something constitutional. A dead candidate should sue to get on the ballot.

  • Chinny Chin Chin||

    Blatant and sickening discrimination against the disabled.

  • ##||

    Those aren't taxes, those are fees and that's different so it's all okay. Move along. Nothing to see here.

  • PantsFan||

    SO if you get fucked by a company, can you charge them with rape?

  • ||

    All things done to you or for you by corporations is rape.

  • STEVE SMITH||

    STEVE SMITH MOVING TO DELAWARE.

  • juris imprudent||

    Something like this?

  • Pip||

    "Supposedly based partially on a true story, a woman is tormented and sexually molested by an invisible demon."

    Pretty much every chick I've ever known.

  • Big Ben||

    Only if it wasn't consensual.

  • mr simple ||

    I don't know, it's kind of hard to take a robot's definitions of what is and isn't people seriously.

  • The Real Barry O||

    Let me be clear. When I say we need both sides of the House to compromise, what I mean is the Republicans need to see it our way.

  • The REAL Real Barry O||

    It's not only our way, but also the only/correct way.

  • Really Really Real Barry O||

    Now: how many Reason writers and editors can I count on voting for me again, come '12...?

  • ||

    Increases in corporate taxes are never, ever passed onto the consumer, and any increase in net profit always gets immediately stuffed in to the bank accounts of FATCATS and GREEDYCEOS.

    Don't you people know about this kind of magic?

  • Ramsey||

    To be fair, there is a bit of stickiness to price movement, and executive compensation has gotten a little out of hand.

    See Carly Fiorina and the recent price hikes during the FAA furlough.

  • Fire Tiger||

    The correct answer is "Anyone who has their money in a 401k"

  • SKYNET||

    "011011010101"

    0101101010[EMPIRE]0101010110010101010101010101000101010101011101010100101010101[EMPIRE]1010101010101010101010101010101010101010111011010101[JEWS]

    101010101010101010[AMERICAN-ISRAELI MILITARY COMPLEX]0101010101101010101101010101010101010110[EMPIRE]

    10101010101010101011101010101010101010101010100010101001010101010100100101001[JEWS]

    SKYNET

  • ||

    Holy Science! Herc is Skynet!!!

  • MWG||

    "...Chait is careful to point out that corporations are made of people who are richer than average."

    Chait isn't too careful as he seems ignant to the fact that the largest corporations are publicly owned by shareholders like me who are not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination.

    Seriously, why does any discussion involving Korporations bring out the stupid in so many people.

  • juris imprudent||

    Just about any discussion brings out the stupid in Chait.

  • ||

    Chait's audience mainly consists of public workers who need not invest for their retirements because the taxpayers state takes care of it for them, and naif college students whose biggest investment is the $20 they give to their friend with the fake ID for a Goldschlag run.

  • Ramsey||

    In many states, pensions are collected and invested just like retirements. Poor market performance is the biggest source of pension failure. It is not free money.

  • Dave||

    Just because you don't think you're wealthy doesn't mean the morons who blow their paychecks on booze and $200 sneakers don't think you're wealthy - and they are determined that you will pay....

    .... for their booze and $200 sneakers, that is.

  • omg||

    I think anyone who exceeds the horizontal character limit on this board should be summarily executed.

  • ||

    Without execption?

  • ||

    K M-Dub, that technorati link burned my eyes. When he got to the part where he did the little fake conversation, but instead of people names, he used corporations' names, I almost strangled my computer to make it stop with the stupid.

  • moocher_central||

    Fine, but then governments are "people" in that sense. Public schools are "people." Armies are "people." Police departments are "people."

    Labor unions are "people" in a much more direct sense than any corporations, since labor unions organize people qua people (as distinct from people as owners of capital).

    All organizations are organizations of "people." That fact does not logically operate to insulate organizations against policy changes. That fact that organizations are ultimately constituted of "people" tells us exactly nothing about how any given organization should be treated under public policy. Some organizations of "people" have too much power or privilege. Some organizations of "people" are treated with too little regard. Some organizations of "people" should be abolished entirely.

    Romney has made a non-point (one of his specialties).

  • ||

    If Romney's statement was a non-point, the heckler's statement was doubly so, since it was not only a non-point but also non-correct.

  • Kpres||

    Pretty sure Romney's point was that the heckler was an idiot. I think he made his point pretty well, too.

  • Adolf Hitler||

    "Some organizations of "people" should be abolished entirely."

    Der Juden?

  • ||

    Adi, Adi. That's "Die Juden." Sheesh.

  • Xenocles||

    "Die Juden."

    I think that was step 2.

    ::ducks::

  • Barry O.||

    Cut Adolf some slack - he's Austrian and doesn't speak German.

  • JD the elder||

    Labor unions are "people" in a much more direct sense than any corporations, since labor unions organize people qua people (as distinct from people as owners of capital).

    What the F does that mean? Both unions and corporations are made up of people who paid to join and in return get to vote on the actions of the body. They're both groups of people, whether you want to toss around qua this or that. Arguably the corporation is more democratic, since any schmoe with $10 can buy a share of Gigantocorp Inc., whereas unions are usually only open to people working in the field.

  • ||

    Marxist bullshit.

  • ||

    He also forgot that people can be forced to join a union.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: moocher_central,

    Fine, but then governments are "people" in that sense. Public schools are "people." Armies are "people." Police departments are "people."


    No, they're all actually thieves in my neck of the woods, mooch.

  • ||

    Crime, Inc.?

  • Neu Mejican||

    No, they're all actually thieves in my neck of the woods, mooch.

    Thieves are people...everything thieves earn goes to people.

  • ||

    IOW, Crime, Inc.

  • Xenocles||

    Thieves don't earn anything.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Sure they do. They earn your contempt, for example.

    (^_~)

  • Xenocles||

    Touché, albeit my contempt isn't difficult to earn.

  • cynical||

    Yeah, I didn't really get that argument. I mean, I guess there are some thieves that aren't people; monkeys, Bender B. Rodriguez, etc.

  • ||

    So are corporations. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GE, etc.

  • ||

    It's a pretty valid point, also, that the shareholders of corporations often include 401(k) and pension funds.

  • JD the elder||

    That is actually an interesting point. Not the one that moocher_central was making, I think, but an interesting point. I think it may be a problem that so many corporations are so far removed from individual owners - the main shareholder of a corporation are often other corporations, which in turn may be owned by other corporations or other institutions - but ultimately it does come down to individuals.

  • Bender Bending Rodriguez||

    100110000101110000010001110010101000101011100011111000010100111001001001000100010001001010001001000100001001100010001000110000111000010011110001000111000100101010001101010101010101001010111000000000100100000100111000100001001.
    Amen.

  • Colin||

    I bet the heckler was a Romney plant.

    Let's see his underwear.

  • ||

    That's the way I see it too. So some guys wait hours to give Romney exactly what he needs? The chance to look almost human.

  • someone do it for me||

    Why don't journalists (or enterprising individuals) ever follow hecklers to their cars, get their license numbers and investigate who they really are? Is that really too much effort?

  • Jimmy Olsen||

    Superman always ends up yelling at me, whenever I do that.

  • someone do it for me||

    "Superman always ends up yelling at me"

    That's pretty nervy coming from a guy who looks through people's clothes.

  • Lois Lane||

    Well, that explains the breast cancer, at any rate.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    It seems more and more they have to rely on public sector employees to investigate their personal files, Joe the Plumber-style, and then leak the information to the media. Journalists are getting fucking lazy these days.

  • ||

    So NPR publishes a list of the top science fiction and fantasy books. Don't really care--such lists are a dime a dozen and usually make little sense. However, glancing at this one raises a question. How come Ender's Game keeps showing up near the top of these lists? I like the book fine, but better than Dune? Foundation? Also, as much as I like Douglas Adams, second on the list? WTF?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    To be honest, I always found the Dune universe to be a bit absurd for my tastes. When I want Space Opera, I'll go for something like the Lensmen.

  • ||

    [Observes Heroic Mulatto for a moment, then stabs him in the neck with the gom jabbar.]

  • Dave||

    Obviously Pro Libertate is an agent of Eddore.

  • ||

    If you want space opera (and who doesn't), stick with the master: Jack Vance.

    I'm rereading his Lyonesse books now (fantasy, not space opera), and am, again, in awe.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Just read Triplanetary (the Lensman prequel version)...

    Funny, yes.
    Good, no.

  • ||

    I'm pleased to see Jasper Fforde's The Eyre Affair. It's a really fun, goofy read.

    Wicked is also better than you might guess if you're only familiar with the Broadway show.

    Re. Ender's Game and Hitchhiker's Guide, my only guess is that they're well known and popular. At least Harry Potter isn't #2.

  • ||

    The abject stupidity of such lists is only overshadowed by the stupidity of people who make them, which is in turn only overshadowed by the stupidity of people who peruse them.

    Prime example: VH1.

  • ||

    I bet you're watching VH1's 100 Greatest Songs of the 90's right now, aren't you, you little MmmBopper?

  • ||

    AIIIGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

  • ||

    Oh, and the fact that The Wheel of Time is at #12 tells you all you need to know about the people who voted for this list. I won't even get into the fact that David Eddings, Piers Anthony, and Zelazny are on the list. Or that I am Legend is down at #65. Or that Moorcock is at fucking #90.

  • ||

    It's a terrible list. Maybe the worst I've seen covering the genres. LOTR at the top, okay. The rest is a mess, though, of course, they accidentally included some great books. Just not in the right order.

    Fuck it, let's get rid of NPR.

  • Xenocles||

    LOTR is like Star Wars - Tolkein should have came up with the idea and then hired someone competent to actually write the books.

  • ||

    Really? I quite enjoy his style.

  • Xenocles||

    I just think Tolkein generally forgot that he was telling a story and went off on stream of consciousnesses whenever he saw a squirrel or something. Each of the trilogy books needed to be tighter IMO.

  • ||

    Meh, that's a matter of taste. It's beneficial atmosphere and context in my opinion.

    Now in a movie you don't want to distract from the story, which is why PJ was smart to axe wide swaths of the books despite the screeching of the book worshippers.

  • ||

    His writing in The Hobbit was pretty tight (for him), and in FOTR. After that, it falls apart.

  • ||

    Everyone's a critic. Tell you what--give me $10,000, and I'll edit them into an abridged version.

  • Xenocles||

    Naw, I already ready it so that would be a waste of money. Maybe someday I'll try the other books too, especially if they flow better.

  • Xenocles||

    *read. I phoned it in.

  • ||

    Or that Moorcock is at fucking #90.

    If I could only get a hold of Mourneblade or Stormbringer I would sooo eat the fuckers souls who made this a list!

  • Neu Mejican||

    which is in turn only overshadowed by the stupidity of people who peruse them.

    Followed 7 minutes later by -
    Oh, and the fact that The Wheel of Time is at #12 tells you all you need to know about the people who voted for this list. I won't even get into the fact that David Eddings, Piers Anthony, and Zelazny are on the list. Or that I am Legend is down at #65. Or that Moorcock is at fucking #90.

    Beautiful.

    I didn't peruse -
    Was it an "experts" list or a "reader's poll"? If the later, then Epi's complaints are that the market picks the wrong winners.

  • Amakudari||

    The market picks winners in accordance with whoever satisfies the broadest tastes. That doesn't make those tastes good. I mean, the best-selling single of all time is Candle in the Wind.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Take it up with Epi...
    I wasn't complaining.
    I didn't even peruse.
    Heck, Zelazny, for example, has some very good work. But his most popular works are his weakest. And despite his association with Hawkwind (or maybe evidenced by it), Moorcock is more a master of popular cliche than good.

  • Neu Mejican||

  • ||

    That was the fucking joke, super genius. I thought one of the less humor-impaired here would catch on to it and point it out (and get the joke), but it seems you got first dibs and flubbed it.

    But hey, you thought you had a gotcha on me for a little while. I'm sure that's something to offset being a humorless dope.

  • ||

    I got it, if that means anything. While eating a deep-dish pizza.

    Just kidding--my wife is on a health kick and I had some sort of tasty, yet too healthy, soup.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Episiarch...

    point it out (and get the joke)

    I did...with a "beautiful."

    I didn't realize you were such a humorless dope.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Fuckers are wound so tight around here ya can't even give 'em a compliment.

  • Neu Mejican||

    I mean...the fucking joke doesn't work without the 7 minute delay...that's why it was beautiful rather than just average. Grumble grumble...fucking uptight sandy vaginas..grumble grumble.

  • ||

    Sorry, I thought you were sniping at me. Thanks for the compliment.

    I had to force myself to wait the seven minutes.

  • Neu Mejican||

    No problem. I mean, I ended up with a "gotcha" without even trying.

  • ||

    Was it an "experts" list or a "reader's poll"? If the later, then Epi's complaints are that the market picks the wrong winners.

    Polls are not markets, nor vice versa. In a poll, a vote by someone who really doesn't care counts as much as a vote from someone who lives, eats, and breathes scifi. That ain't how a market works.

  • Neu Mejican||

    In a poll, a vote by someone who really doesn't care counts as much as a vote from someone who lives, eats, and breathes scifi.

    In this kind of poll...the book that has had the most readers (the market winner) will have a leg up on the less read title, so the market has a huge influence on who places on the list.

  • Neu Mejican||

    And, btw, in the market the vote of someone who really doesn't care counts as much as someone who lives, eats, and breathes science fiction. Heck. The vote of someone who bought it and never read it counts as much as the guy who read it fifteen times. The only way someone's enthusiasm gets them extra votes is if they buy multiple copies of a title. So, yeah, some hardcore collectors drive the market a bit, but they are small in the book market. Most of the collector energy goes to peripherals.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    The Hyperion Cantos

    by Dan Simmons

    Seven pilgrims undertake a voyage to the world of Hyperion — dominated by a fearsome and mysterious creature called the Shrike — where they hope to learn the secret that will save humanity.

    I've never actually read this one. Does he call everyone christfags?

  • reader||

    "Does he call everyone christfags?"

    No, but a Jewess saves humanity, a Palestinian is praised as a great warrior, Christians are all Catholics and mindless, weak-willed drones although Catholic Priests bravely risk torture and martyrdom to spread The Word.

    Once you get past Simmons' religious bigotry though, it is a good read.

  • ||

    It and the immediate sequel are very enjoyable books. I highly recommend them.

  • Q||

    The Hyperion duology is worth reading. The Endymion duology is not.

  • ||

    After valiant attempts at reading two different Piers Anthony books,I stopped when I decided that he was a pedophile.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Piers Anthony = automatic disqualification, no matter who or what else happened to make the list.

    Motherfucking Xanth books.

  • ||

    Completely agreed. Anyone voting for Piers Anthony on a list like that should be taken out back and beaten to death with a sack of Incarnations of Immortality novels.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Yeah...I read one when I was like 16 or 17...Juxtaposition or something...a half fantasy/half-science world...complete dreck...really, really bad. It was like reading a black light poster with a winged unicorn in a lazer battle on it.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Rainbow lazer battle, of course.

  • PantsFan||

    Are you a fan of Silent Library

  • BakedPenguin||

    ...as much as I like Douglas Adams, second on the list? WTF?

    5,000 NPR listeners.

    One of my beefs is that Fahrenheit 451 is in the top 10. It's a good book, but it's overrated. And BNW is very overrated. I don't think tripping helped Huxley all that much.

  • ||

    As a read, yeah. As for his ability to capture the future, how can you say that the tripping hurt?

  • BakedPenguin||

    That was a mistaken comment on my part. Pretty much everything I've read by him was prior to him taking psychedelics.

  • BakedPenguin||

    The fucking Dark Tower series? For reals? Jesus.

  • ||

    That's funny, because Fahrenheit 451 has seemed to improve for me over time.

  • Gerholdt||

    Atlas Shrugged. What, Miracle Metal and the Xylophone aren't enough science?

  • reader||

    The mere presence of Terry Brooks, laughably derivative with everything he writes from Star Wars to The Sword of Shannara Trilogy, invalidates the list.

    Notably absent is The Faded Sun Trilogy, a space opera which begs for a quality film treatment.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I'm surprised nothing by H.G. Wells made the top ten.

  • Dave||

    Douglas Adams deserves a spot near the top, but Ender's Game does not. Ender's Game is not a bad book, but though it is above average it certainly does not compare well to Heinlein, or even Niven. It may compare well to Asimov.

    For all that, it keeps appearing very high in such lists, which probably means it appeals to people of average intelligence.

  • Number 2||

    Hey, wasn't that Heckling Audience Member engaging in the very sort of bullying, threatning, violent, unAmerican sort of activity that the Left so often accused the Tea Party of engaging in two summers ago?

  • Not an Economist||

    Yeah, but it is different when they do it.

  • Trident||

    "Another bonus moment from the same event that almost tempted me to like

    AUDIENCE MEMBER: You came here to listen to the people!

    ROMNEY: Nope, I came here to speak."

    You may think this is cute, but it is just a smart ass response from the kind of elitist and statist politician who is well versed in speaking a lot and not giving a damn about the people he is supposed to serve. This kind of arrogance can only come from someone who already knows the system would let him get away with it.
    It's not as if he has any intention of listening at any other time.

    But maybe sticking a feather up corporations' ass makes it alright for him to show how much he looks down on those who pay his salary.
    In the free market, of course, he would instantly lose a customer if he ran his mouth like this, but that's not something he has to worry about now, and Mangu-Ward likes him for it.

  • ||

    My question is; who goes to a speech and makes the claim the guy is there to listen? Something isn't right about this.

  • Trident||

    Or, you can ask the question, who goes on the road and needs a live audience if all he intends to do is speak?

    Again, if he has no intention of listening when faced with a live audience, in what *other* circumstances would he listen? It's kind of hard to do it in your office or in front of a camera.

    That's why i say:
    "It's not as if he has any intention of listening at any other time."

  • yonemoto||

    In the free market, of course, he would instantly lose a customer if he ran his mouth like this, but that's not something he has to worry about now, and Mangu-Ward likes him for it.

    Meh. No love for romney (see below) but Whole foods [FREE] market incoporated's CEO ran his mouth and he's doing quite well, the last time I was in one of their units.

  • Sudden||

    Quite frankly, the masses are asses. What this country needs is a president that won't tell them everything is gonna be hunkydory, just tell me what you want.

    What we need is leadership that says, "We are fucked because 99% of you dipshits keep voting for new goodies and don't think there are magical things called rich people that just shed trillion dollar bills like fucking feathers. You're all idiots, fuck you all, vote for me so I can stop giving you shit."

    Granted, Romney ain't about to say that, but that is what this country needs: a leader, not a listener.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Whatever you think of Romney he did tell off the one or two MoveOn zombies who demanded we eat the rich at his rally today.

    Predictably the lame stream media is saying he faced a hostile crowd, when it was a very few plants who they crowd clapped over.

    WMAL 630 radio is reporting it was "a hostile crowd" because top of the hor local news reader Mark Weaver is reading the AP wire. (Complain 202 686-3100.) Which is kind of cognitive dissonance since Sean Hannity is playing audio where it is clearly 2 or 3 hecklers and saying AP and Reuters etc will claim it is a hostile crowd.

  • Trident||

    "Whatever you think of Romney he did tell off the one or two MoveOn zombies who demanded we eat the rich at his rally today."

    I'd rather he tell off the people who want war (on terrorism, on drugs etc).
    This meaningless telling off of MoveOn drones from the left is something even Bush could have done.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    ... and yet, didn't. Ever.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    No kidding--at least Reagan had the balls to diffuse his hecklers through humor and thus throw his enemies' contempt back in their face.

    I mean, has there ever been a time Obama busted on somebody when he didn't have a script prepared ahead of time?

  • ||

    If I ever run for office, I'm going to stand-up school to learn how to take out hecklers.

  • ||

    I will say that if those hecklers were real, this country is in some big time trouble.

  • ||

    Don't you think its in even greater trouble with the likes of statist phony Mitt seeking to grab hold of power?

  • ||

    We'd be in trouble if Romney wasn't about to waste a shitload of corporate crony money that may have been spent rent seeking.

  • ||

    ROMNEY: Where do you think it goes?

    AUDIENCE MEMBER: It goes into their pockets!

    So THERE!

    I'm willing to believe this "heckler" is as genuinely stupid as he sounds.

  • Tony||

    Kangaroos are not people, kangaroos clearly have pockets.

  • Eng||

    So does air.

  • Tony's Mom||

    My nickname, back in Band Camp, was "Hot Pocket."

  • jtuf||

    To all the Leftists who dismiss the idea that corporations are people, I ask, "What are they then?". Paper and ink doesn't buy and sell things by itself.

  • yonemoto||

    State-designed constructs designed to reduce individual responsibility and accountability by creating a limited liability regime.

  • BakedPenguin||

    If there was no limited liability, economies of scale would be almost non-existent. If you could lose your house because you decided to invest $5,000 is XYZ Corp., no one would do it. Furthermore, the companies that did exist would be kept deliberately small, since expansion would mean exposure.

  • yonemoto||

    economies of scale would be almost non-existent

    Citation please?

  • Kpres||

    No citation because its blatantly wrong. Limited liability doesn't reduce the total amount of risk in an economy by one ounce. All it does is spread it around.

  • yonemoto||

    All it does is spread it around.

    Spreading santorum.

  • yonemoto||

    the companies that did exist would be kept deliberately small, since expansion would mean exposure.

    I have no problem with that part.

  • ||

    What about an association of people who pool their resources to do business and who will do business only with people who freely and voluntarily agree not to look to the assets of the the individuals of the association should any dispute arise?

    Too often, even smart people, are hornswoggled into thinking that limited liability entities could not exist without the state.

  • yonemoto||

    such entities are fine, but are not shielded from damages they cause to people not a party to the agreement. For example, say Le Coq industrie decides to spill a shit ton of l'huile all over the French countryside.

  • ||

    Exactly, Yonemoto. Even in Libertopia, you'd still nee a court to protect the rights of interactions of those not in contractual agreements.

    Libertymike, let's say I own a non-incorporated nuclear energy business that only gives energy to customers who agree not to take our personal assets. How does that bind the families who live in the vicinity of the nuclear plant that get fucked over when they have a meltdown due to negligent irresponsibility to not sue the owners for everything and the shirt off their back?

  • yonemoto||

    shit, man, go further - throw the owners in jail for criminal negligence resulting in homicide (or illness). Your right to make a buck off of energy ends when gamma rays start ionizing the shit out of my DNA.

  • Trident||

    Well sure.

    But how does this make corporations the same as people? That was the issue.

    Everything else is a matter of preference.

  • ||

    When you tax corporations you are taxing people. Perhaps they are evil people, perhaps they are money grubbing capitalists who should be first up the wall when the leftie revolution comes, but they are still people.

    The corporation is the stockholders, the board of directors, and the employees. When you tax a corporation it will be paid either by the stockholders (people), board of directors (people), or the employees (people). And the tax will most likely be "passed on" to the clients (people) and customers (people).

    Nowhere will there be a legal document or prospectus or a building or a logo paying the tax. It will be people.

  • yonemoto||

    you could consider the "tax" to be a user fee for the privilege of limited liability.

    Sure when you tax a corporation, it will be paid by people. But if a corporation screws up and is responsible (say through negligence) for people's deaths, or the destruction of property, damages which amount to more than the assets of the corporation, once you've liquidated its assets, the only thing left with responsibility is a piece of paper, not a person, especially after the CEOs have taken their golden parachutes (and a huge chunk of the assets).

  • yonemoto||

    just to clarify - I wouldn't be opposed to golden parachutes if the only entities a corporation could hurt were their immediate (i.e. non-Mackeyan) stakeholder - board, creditors, investors, clients.

  • ||

    I think the government should live off of corporate liability taxes and land value taxes alone.

    Actually, I don't think there should be corporate entities, since liability insurance is obviously a marketable commodity, so land value taxes alone...

  • ||

    Milton Freidman explains it simply.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmqoCHR14n8

  • Kpres||

    Of course you would still invest in XYZ company. What else are you going to do with your money?

    The only difference is you'd go to greater lengths to make sure XYZ was under solid, solvent, responsible managemement.

  • shyster||

    "you'd go to greater lengths to make sure XYZ was under solid, solvent, responsible managemement"

    Wouldn't reduce the risk much, given our tort system.

  • yonemoto||

    investors are the last to get restitution under our tort system.

    Creditors, preferred stockholders, THEN common stockholders,

  • shyster||

    I was speaking of legal exposure.

  • ||

    It's why businesses, incorporated or otherwise, buy insurance.

  • ||

    Wow, I didn't know it was the government's responsibility to assure economies of scale?

  • ||

    Considering how much limited liability has done to draw investment into businesses and to make such investments available to the masses, it shocks me how willing some people are to toss it out. We would be a far less affluent society without it.

    Now, if you want to complain about the protections going too far, especially with management, I couldn't agree more. The limited liability protections are meant to protect passive investors. On the flip side of this, our legal system has also ridiculously weakened shareholders to the extent that their votes can be overturned by a board, which is ridiculous.

  • Bradley||

    Well, what can I say? Some of us don't think that innocent third parties (ie. taxpayers) should bear the costs of other people's poor decisions.

  • Trident||

    According to Wikipedia:

    "A corporation is a legal entity that is created under the laws of a state designed to establish the entity as a ***separate legal entity having its own privileges and liabilities distinct from those of its members.***

    So to those who claim people and corporations are the same thing, the following questions:

    1: Which "people" are legal entities that are created under the law?

    2: Which "people" are regarded by the law as having it's own liabilities and privileges in comparison to it's "members"?

    Mitt Romney is just a smug smart-ass who clearly knows that for all intents and purposes there is a clear difference between the two before the law.

  • ||

    Show me one corporation that isn't comprised of people.

    Every tax is a tax on people. Every single tax. Otherwise we could just tax the rocks and everything would be hunky dory.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Kpres, yonemoto, LM & BB - you're right. I wasn't using my imagination. An "investment rider" could easily be added to homeowner's insurance policies, or be sold as a standalone policy. The fact that these policies don't currently exist is because they are not currently needed. I've often gotten irritated at interventionists who assumed if the government stopped doing something, no one else would, and here I go and do just that. Mea culpa.

  • yonemoto||

    No need to apologize. It's a tough concept even for libertarians, and often a wedge issue, like IP.

  • yonemoto||

    fuck Romney. Corporations aren't people. Businesses are people. But businesses != corporations. Incorporation is not necessary for profit. And certainly nonprofits incorporate too.

  • yonemoto||

    damn, should have written it thusly:

    fuck Romney. [CORPOR]ations aren't people. Businesses are people. But businesses != corporations. In[CORPOR]ation is not necessary for [PROFIT]. And certainly non[PROFIT]s in[CORPOR]ate too.

  • Almanian||

    Yeah - this is [WAY] better. Th[AN]ks.

  • yonemoto||

    just [TRYING] to be helpful, although i may have undermined the seriousness of what I was writing.

  • yonemoto||

    would it have been better if I made them [COPRO]ations?

  • ||

    Corporations aren't people. Businesses are people. But businesses != corporations.

    Corporations are a subset of businesses. If businesses are people, so are corporations.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Romney's solutions remind me of Obama's solutions.

  • ||

    "You came here to listen to the people!"

    "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

  • ||

    I would rather have Perry or Buchmann then Romney.

    I will not vote for any of them...it is sort of like i would rather have Hillary then Obama...even though there is a snowball's chance in hell i would ever vote for her.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Given her previous experience, Hillary probably would not have tried to shove health-care "reform" down the nation's throat. Assuming that's true, it alone would be one hell of an improvement.

  • babbaboe||

    "Hillary probably would not have tried to shove health-care "reform" down the nation's throat"

    Pelosi did the shoving, BO just did the signing. HC would have signed the Pelosi bill too.

  • Almanian||

    Corporations are people, too!!

    *gives flower to corporation*

  • ||

    ...although Chait is careful to point out that corporations are made of people who are richer than average.

    WTF? Tell that to the schmuck in the next cubicle. Wal-Mart is a corporation, and what are lefties always crying over? The low wages of Wal-Mart employees. McDonalds, Burger King and Jack in the Box are all corporations, and all known for hiring unskilled labor at minimum wage.

  • ||

    On second thought, anything that fucks up Romney's election campaign is a positive.

    Please encourage the mockery.

  • ||

    OT: Guys, is Border Patrol allowed to search your shit at random (purse, trunk, etc) on your way to/from Mexico? I'm not at all familiar with the procedures and laws.

  • experienced traveller||

    The most important thing is to show the Border Patrol your hash bricks when you cross. They get really mad when you try to hide things.

  • yonemoto||

    pretty much.

  • jester||

    Random? There is nothing random about it. Some countries try the random approach and you press a button to get a red (you're checked) or green (you're free). I get the idea that TSA uses an erroneous 'random' such as every fifth person. It's really silly when you can produce true randomness quite easily using the random button on a scientific calculator or get the app on your phone.

    Just try to look like Mitt Romney and you'll get right through.

  • Q||

    No such thing as "true randomness" anyway. At least they use some sort of rule, instead of "that car looks vaguely menacing".

  • ||

    Romney didn't go far enough.

    Corporations are people.

    I've both owned and worked for corporations, and I can tell you without any doubt whatsoever--that all the owners, management, employees and stockholders were all people!

    Every one of them.

    Anybody who says corporations aren't people is an idiot.

  • David Icke||

    "I've both owned and worked for corporations, and I can tell you without any doubt whatsoever--that all the owners, management, employees and stockholders were all people!"

    Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

  • ||

    Are you suggesting that maybe some of them weren't people?

    You think one of them might have been a robot--and I just didn't notice?!

  • ||

    Big lizards, Ken, big lizards. Google David Icke and learn.

  • ||

    If corporations are "people" then why aren't the owners fully liable for the corporation's actions most of the time like they are for all personal actions? If a sole proprietor or partner get sued for fraud or dumping nuclear waste in someone's backyard, they could lose everything they own.

    Libertarians understand that marriage and assignment of property should be private contracts. Why should not incorporation and assignment of liability be the same, with no artificial shielding for the corporation's owners?

    State incorporation is arguably the biggest of all government market distortions, encouraging fraud, violation of property, contract violation, destruction of the environment, and taxpayers fixing what corporations broke. You wouldn't need a regulatory state if all stockholders and managers were personally liable for the actions of the business because the market would be self-regulating.

    The consistent libertarian position is to remove all state-designated business structures and let those who knowingly profited from thievery and fraud lose everything they own, while responsible businesses can operate unharmed.

    The same principle should apply for political parties, unions, charities, etc.

  • jester||

    I suppose because the biggest violators are the best connected. I am surprised to see so late in the postings that someone has brought up the problem of corporatism.

    Supposedly, corporations are to be allowed to fail and CEOs and other officers engaged in fraud subject to jail time. It happens sometimes: ENRON, Madoff, etc., but too many times goes unpunished due to connections within the current admin.

  • ||

    "If corporations are "people" then why aren't the owners fully liable for the corporation's actions most of the time like they are for all personal actions?"

    Go tell that to Dennis Kozlowski, the former CEO of Tyco. Go tell that to Jeffrey Skilling, the former president of Enron.

    Go tell that to...

    Charles Keating
    Ivan Boesky
    Michael Milken
    Samuel Waksal of ImClone'
    Richard Scrushy of HealthSouth
    Bernard Ebbers of WorldCom

    Go tell them they're not fully liable for what they did under the auspices of a corporation, and tell us what they say.

  • ||

    Yes, you point out the most extreme cases, which are undoubtedly the exception and not the rule. There's a systemic rot when corporate actors know the limits on what they can get away with that violates the rights of others without being personally held responsible. You're citing the cases of those so irresponsible there was little to no chance they wouldn't have been caught eventually.

    Moreover, the owners (the stockholders) were protected artificially from liability even though they profited from the fraud/theft/etc, whether knowingly or unknowingly.

    If I own a partnership and my partner defrauds a customer for our profit without my knowledge, I can lose my business, my house, my car, my money, etc. Maybe even my freedom if I can't prove I had no knowledge. I can purchase liability insurance to protect myself, which is what businesses organized like corporations would do for their stockholders and employees if it weren't provided for free by the government.

  • ||

    "You're citing the cases of those so irresponsible there was little to no chance they wouldn't have been caught eventually."

    I'm citing a number of examples that more people are likely to be familiar with. There are thousands of people who are imprisoned for various forms of crime every year--committed under the auspices of a corporation. Happens every day.

    Just because you're not familiar with their names and cases doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

    The fact is that being in a corporation is no shield of immunity from personal responsibility.

    "Moreover, the owners (the stockholders) were protected artificially from liability even though they profited from the fraud/theft/etc, whether knowingly or unknowingly."

    #1 That's bogus about being shielded from liability--how can anyone say WorldCom was shielded from liability?

    They went bankrupt.

    How can anyone say HealthSouth's stockholders were shielded from liability--the stock went from $151 a share in April of 1998 to 70 cents a share in March of 2003! How much more liability do you want shareholders to have--for something they themselves didn't do?!

    You've got a weird idea bouncin' around in your head called "collective guilt". You think somehow that shareholders--who have nothing to do with the crime in question--should be held responsible for something they themselves didn't do? And, not only that, you think shareholders should be held responsible for something they themselves didn't do--even when the bad guy in the executive suite, who actually committed the crime, is being held responsible in criminal court anyway?!

    Why?

    Why should people whose only crime is investing their money be held responsible for any more than their lost investment?

    Holding people who have not committed a crime arbitrarily responsible for someone else's crime? Would be worse than just an injustice.

    It would be absurd public policy.

    Your hatred of rich people doesn't justify injustice--and it doesn't make stupid policy smart either.

  • ||

    First off, I never, ever said I hated the rich. I believe in pure laissez-faire and am not a class warfare type, because I think people should keep 100% of the money they earned, as long as they earn it without violating the rights of others. If you get wealthy by running a careful and successful proprietorship or partnership, by all means, bask in the fruits of your labor and enjoy the benefits of respect for the rights of others.

    But if corporations didn't get incorporated for the purpose of shielding the owners' property from liability, then there should be no problem with being unincorporated, right? You keep avoiding the point that proprietors and partnerships have to purchase liability insurance specifically to protect their personal assets, because there is no legal line between their personal assets and their business assets. This is as a free market should be - full profits and full responsibility - but of course they find it difficult to compete with companies that get liability protection and better economies of scale for the puny cost of incorporation from the government.

    The fact that the worst and most obvious corporate criminals get the veil pierced occasionally and go to jail only means that corporations will avoid the most obviously illegal activities, but there is no real individual incentive amongst the managers not to violate the rights of others. If there were no limits on liability, there would be very little incentive for businesses to cause all the harms the Left continually points out - from pollution to fraud to seizure of property via government, and rationally businesses would be self-regulating. Thus, incorporation creates a market distortion and moral hazard that has immeasurable negative impact on individual rights.

    Also, there is no real incentive for stockholders to care if their corporation is practicing the safest or most honest practices as long as they make money. And yes, some stockholders have lost a lot of money due to corporate criminals getting busted - up to as much as they put in. But many, many more have profited from corporate crime, fraud, etc. What if they get out before the company gets caught? They keep every penny stolen via fraud, etc - even if they themselves are personally innocent. In the real world, that's called "receipt of stolen property" and you're forced to return it. Stockholders are the OWNERS of the business no matter how dissolute that ownership is - but most don't want the responsibility of actual ownership, just the profits. That's another moral hazard.

    Corporations have nothing remotely to do with free markets. Adam Smith himself found them distasteful.

  • ||

    "First off, I never, ever said I hated the rich."

    Then why do you want the justice system to hold them responsible for things they didn't do?

    "But if corporations didn't get incorporated for the purpose of shielding the owners' property from liability, then there should be no problem with being unincorporated, right?"

    I keep trying to understand why people contracting with each other to protect their rights is a bad thing...

    How 'bout this, Buddy Ro? Explain what the effect on the economy would be if we suddenly started actively discouraging investment in this country?

    Even if you don't understand anything else, you do you understand that investment is a good thing for the economy, right? ...and that making every Mom and Pop put their homes and life savings on the line--just because they want to invest in GE? Would actively discourage investment in this country--right?

    Do you have any other objective in mind other than actively discouraging investment--at a time when our economy is starving for lack of investment?

    "The fact that the worst and most obvious corporate criminals get the veil pierced occasionally and go to jail only means that corporations will avoid the most obviously illegal activities, but there is no real individual incentive amongst the managers not to violate the rights of others."

    This is absurd.

    Corporations are sued all the time. Their managers are charged with crimes--all the time!

    Your weird beliefs to the contrary won't change the facts.

    Also, there is no real incentive for stockholders to care if their corporation is practicing the safest or most honest practices as long as they make money.

    God forbid people care primarily about their own best interests--is that what I'm supposed to think? Something tells me that the whole country would be better off if you and people like you spent more time worried about yourselves--and less time trying to force individual responsibility onto every third Mom and Pop in America for things they haven't done.

    "Corporations have nothing remotely to do with free markets."

    People pooling their resources for investment purposes and contractually protecting themselves--has nothing remotely to do with free markets?!

    How did you paint yourself into such an absurd corner?

  • yonemoto||

    How 'bout this, Buddy Ro? Explain what the effect on the economy would be if we suddenly started actively discouraging investment in this country?

    Even if you don't understand anything else, you do you understand that investment is a good thing for the economy, right?

    Wrong. Malinvestment, certainly is NOT a good thing for the economy. To say that all investment = good is very very dangerous and exactly what the statists want.

    ...and that making every Mom and Pop put their homes and life savings on the line--just because they want to invest in GE?

    they do that anyways.

  • ||

    "Wrong. Malinvestment, certainly is NOT a good thing for the economy. To say that all investment = good is very very dangerous and exactly what the statists want."

    Just about every small business in America is incorporated. Every little taco shop. Every guy with a crew that plasters houses for a living.

    Most of those people get their original start up capital from friends and family. If you don't think making those friends and family responsible for all that risk--to the point that they could lose their life savings should Jr. make a stupid mistake?

    Then you must be like 15 years old.

    What kind of retard would buy stock in General Electric--if one of their executives doing something stupid could wipe out their entire life savings?

    Answer? Only a moron.

    That's what we need? A country where equity investments come attached with limitless risk, and the only people who make equity investments are borderline retarded?!

    And why! Because some people are so hateful of those with money to invest--that they imagine investors everywhere should be held responsible by the court system for things they didn't do?!

    How frightening that such blatant stupidity gets passed around in normal conversation...

    Tell me, do you need someone to explain that for people to make investments, they need to think that the expected benefit outweighs the risk? Are you aware that investors insist on higher returns for accepting higher risks--and that if the risks are too high, they just don't make the investment at all?

    How do you manage to find your way home at night?

  • ||

    ...and they say there's no difference between left and right libertarians.

    Right, we're all morons. Only smart people would insist that victims should pay for their own potentially limitless damages once the designated corporate funds are exhausted or the corporation declares bankruptcy. Unlike the case in every other violation of rights, where individuals have no such limits.

  • ||

    What kind of retard would buy stock in General Electric--if one of their executives doing something stupid could wipe out their entire life savings?

    What kind of retard would drive a car if one wreck could wipe out their entire life savings? Ever heard of insurance? It allows you to do things you want or need to do while limiting your risk.

  • ||

    If you don't think making those friends and family responsible for all that risk--to the point that they could lose their life savings should Jr. make a stupid mistake?

    Hmm...I wasn't aware lenders were liable for the actions of the lessee. Purchasing bonds does not imply ownership either. Nobody said the family had to become stockholders if they didn't want the risk or didn't want to purchase insurance.

  • ||

    Then why do you want the justice system to hold them responsible for things they didn't do?

    What does that have to do with the rich? Owners need to take responsibility for their companies - no matter if they are a bajillion dollar tycoon or a single handyman operating as a sole proprietorship - and should pay for liability protection for personal assets. The line between "business" property and "personal" property is drawn by government. In a market where the government is not interfering with the economy and distorting who is responsible via the security blanket of incorporation, that could be assigned via private contract internally and risk offset by purchasing insurance.

    I keep trying to understand why people contracting with each other to protect their rights is a bad thing...

    It's not. You can do that without filing for a special government business status. You can contract with an insurance company to protect you from liability, and in turn they assume regulatory oversight and charge you rates based upon your practices and history.

    Explain what the effect on the economy would be if we suddenly started actively discouraging investment in this country?

    Does buying car insurance actively discourage driving, or does it protect the individual rights of victims and the liability of the driver? I can cause millions of dollars of damage with my car and if I am reckless I can go to jail and be sued into the ground. My personal property is not protected. Insurance significantly offsets my risk. In a free market we can agree no one should be forced to buy car insurance, but those who don't are completely liable for their actions. Most rational people would thus buy it. The corporate entity is like saying that you can purchase a special driver's license from the government where the most a victim can sue you for is the value of your car.

    Even if you don't understand anything else, you do you understand that investment is a good thing for the economy, right?

    In a laissez-faire state growth would be healthy because it would be directly paired with individual responsibility without the moral hazards of incorporation. It's not the role of the government to encourage or discourage growth or wealth - the market will grow on its own because people want wealth. The only role of the government is to defend individual rights. Period.

    making every Mom and Pop put their homes and life savings on the line--just because they want to invest in GE

    The risk to mom-and-pop investors would not be so extreme as you're making it out. Insurance would be relatively cheap, since it is rare that a business would be sued for more than the total value of its stock. You're also missing the other side, that insurance companies would have an interest in monitoring their risk and more expensive insurance would discourage investment in risky, irresponsible companies while encouraging investments in responsible ones - thus encouraging better business practices that reduce liability. Also if victims are aware they would be potentially taking innocent stockholders' personal property, there would be fewer frivolous lawsuits and outrageous settlements.

    This is absurd. Corporations are sued all the time. Their managers are charged with crimes--all the time!

    When corporations are sued for illegal activities and the loss causes the stock to crash to zero, they declare bankruptcy and victims are left holding the bag. You can continue to go on about the extreme cases where idiots got caught after fucking over the stockholders, but that doesn't dismiss the rampant corporate crime and fraud that results from a system based on managing and profiting off of other peoples' money with minimal personal risk.

    Besides, you never answered why they would incorporate in the first place. Why exactly would they call it "limited liability" if corporate owners and actors are treated legally the same as your average proprietor or partner? Why should there be a difference?

    trying to force individual responsibility onto every third Mom and Pop in America for things they haven't done.

    Ownership has risk. Why is it the role of the government to divorce risk from profit?

    People pooling their resources for investment purposes and contractually protecting themselves--has nothing remotely to do with free markets?!

    I think you're awfully confused or maybe this concept is just over your head. Corporations are not private contracts for divvying up what percentage of internal liability one assumes. That's what partnerships are, but the internal assignment of liability percentages does not create an artificial line where your total liability stops. Corporations are a government license to divide between a group of investors' assets as individuals vs. their assets as business owners, and actions under the guise of the latter supposedly does not impact the former. In reality there's no limit on the potential damage to individual victims, so why should there be an artificial limit on the potential liability for the ones responsible and the one who assumed ownership?

    Another analogy: If my untrained wolf-dog kills my neighbors' 3-year old toddler because I was negligent and let him out, I am fully liable and will get sued for my personal assets even though I didn't personally kill the kid. Ownership has both benefits and responsibilities. What make stock ownership so special that it should be different?

    Owners (stockholders) have to be the ones driving businesses towards best practices out of self-interest instead of purely caring about more profits - the alternative is the regulatory state which punishes the responsible because of the actions of the irresponsible, who rode the profit-fueled moral hazard to disaster.

  • ||

    "Owners need to take responsibility for their companies - no matter if they are a bajillion dollar tycoon or a single handyman operating as a sole proprietorship-- and should pay for liability protection for personal assets."

    In your weird world, Mom and Pop individual investors are responsible for insuring themselves the mistakes and the unlimited risk of major corporations.

    ...and you're all about free markets! ...you must have thought TARP was a great idea too!

    Either that, or you've painted yourself into such a pathetic corner, that now you've convinced yourself that up is down and stupid is smart.

    It's one of the two.

  • ||

    I have no idea how you could be misunderstanding so badly. How do you get from me saying business owners should be fully liable for the actions of their business to suggesting I would have supported a policy where the government propped up business owners so they wouldn't have to be responsible at all for their business's actions? That makes no sense at all. I think you're the one who's convinced "up is down and stupid is smart".

    Yes, I believe owners of businesses should purchase insurance to protect their personal assets (although they shouldn't be forced to by any means - they are just merely at increased risk). If you don't like the risk of being an owner, there are safer investments. Alternately, the business can purchase it for their stockholders and incorporate it into the cost of the stock. Individual rights are more important than business profit and growth, and that would be the entire purpose of the legal system in a libertarian society.

    There's no problem with profit and growth as long as individual rights are not violated in the process, and this system rewards good companies and punishes bad ones via free market entities - like car insurance does for drivers. Violation of rights is reduced by making the owners fully responsible for their ownership.

    I don't know how you get the twisted idea that somehow licensing special government-created exemptions from full enforcement against individual rights violations would be natural to a market where government does not interfere with the economy beyond full enforcement of individual rights.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "But if corporations didn't get incorporated for the purpose of shielding the owners' property from liability, then there should be no problem with being unincorporated, right?"

    There's no reason why they shouldn't do. The concept of unlimited liabilty is every bit as much an artificial construction as the other way around.

    If partner # 1 in a 200 person partnership is 100% responsible for commiting some tort, there's no legitimate reason why partner # 199 could get stuck with 100% of the bill merely because he happened to have a lot of personal wealth and partner #1 was flat broke.

  • ||

    The concept of unlimited liabilty is every bit as much an artificial construction as the other way around.

    Oh really? I didn't know. I guess I will set my total personal limits on liability at $1000 for anything I do that violates the rights of others. I will expect that the government will uphold my contract with myself, and victims can suck it if I damage them more than that for personal gain.

    If partner # 1 in a 200 person partnership is 100% responsible for commiting some tort, there's no legitimate reason why partner # 199 could get stuck with 100% of the bill merely because he happened to have a lot of personal wealth and partner #1 was flat broke.

    Liability insurance would be cheap for partner #199 since he can claim he held no liability for the actions of partner #1. Of course, the better question is why partner #199 would have assumed ownership in a business where the liable party has no ability to pay if they didn't want any risk.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Oh really? I didn't know. I guess I will set my total personal limits on liability at $1000 for anything I do that violates the rights of others"

    Totally beside the point.

    The artifical construct is that one can have unlimited liabilty for the actions of someone else that that they are associated with in a business relationship - not that one can unilaterally exempt one's self from liability for his own actions.

    "Of course, the better question is why partner #199 would have assumed ownership in a business where the liable party has no ability to pay if they didn't want any risk"

    No the better question is why government is interfereing in pure freedom of contract that prevents individuals from specifying on the front end of any business arrangement they enter into that they cannot be held liable in any way for any tort commited by other parties in the business. There is no reason why anyone should have to purchase "insurance" to immunize themselves from the effects of artificial government constructs that interfere in freedom of contract.

  • ||

    The artifical construct is that one can have unlimited liabilty for the actions of someone else that that they are associated with in a business relationship

    As opposed to the potentially unlimited damages the victim pays? Why should the victim (or in the case of the current government, the taxpayers) have to pay for corporate damages once they cross the artificial line set contractually and upheld by government between private and business property? Internal assignment of liability would be upheld when the internal partners sue the responsible party for violation of contract.

    Again, if I receive stolen property without my knowledge, I still have to return it. If my dog kills my neighbor's kid, I am fully liable. If my kid kills another kid, I am potentially liable depending on the circumstances.

    No the better question is why government is interfereing in pure freedom of contract that prevents individuals from specifying on the front end of any business arrangement they enter into that they cannot be held liable in any way for any tort commited by other parties in the business

    Government would not interfering with contract in my laissez-faire system. What you're not seeing is the two levels of precedence - those who have contracted liability internally and those outside of the contract who are damaged by an internal party. The latter should be paid in full by the owners for their damages regardless of how that is extracted internally and whether that exceeds the property designated as "business property". If you say potential damages cannot exceed the value of the business investment, you are socializing those damages.

    Ownership (like most actions) has responsibility, and even non-responsible owners should pay before victims should, then they can claim damages from the contracted responsible party. In reality everyone would buy insurance and insurance would be the regulatory force instead of government (since rates would vary depending upon size, risk, history, etc.) In a free market, contrary to Leftist opinion, businesses where owners assume full liability would be disincentivized from violating other peoples' rights.

  • ||

    More plainly stated, who has more control over the damaging actions by a business, a passive owner or the victim? Both are "victims" of the criminals who acted on behalf of the corporation, but the passive owner has a vote as a shareholder and can receive essentially infinite profits. Also they have contractual agreements internally that should protect them or allow them to claim damages if their personal property is harmed. If personal property was on the line, they'd have more incentive to participate in ownership and monitor business practices to avoid liability in the first place. Thus, assuming a market where nobody was rational and purchased liability insurance, they should still be liable before third-party victims with no recourse.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "As opposed to the potentially unlimited damages the victim pays?"

    The victim is not a "victim" of anyone other than the specific individual who harmed him.

    "What you're not seeing is the two levels of precedence - those who have contracted liability internally and those outside of the contract who are damaged by an internal party"

    It's not a matter of "not seeing it" - it's not a matter of accepting that artificial construct. Because that's exactly what it is - just as I said previouly.

    You just happen to like that artificial construct better than one constructed the other way arouund.

  • ||

    The victim is not a "victim" of anyone other than the specific individual who harmed him.

    Both the victims and the passive stockholders are "victims" of the individual criminals. But how businesses sort out liability internally via contract does not limit the amount of damages the victim can claim from the collection of owners.

    In a partnership, if I own/am responsible for 50% and my partner owns 50%, and we both get sued because of his actions and we didn't buy liability insurance and he runs out of money, I would be still responsible for paying the damages, even though I did nothing. I can sue my partner for violation of contract, but the point is we should've bought insurance beforehand.

    You just happen to like that artificial construct better than one constructed the other way arouund.

    The purpose of the law is to assign responsibility for damages. In a free market system, the order of liability should be the responsible party, then contractual affiliates of the responsible party who assume both profit and responsibility of the partnership, then victims/taxpayers/society. The current order is responsible party, then victims/taxpayers/society.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Both the victims and the passive stockholders are "victims" of the individual criminals. But how businesses sort out liability internally via contract does not limit the amount of damages the victim can claim from the collection of owners."

    Nope. The perpetrator is the indiviual who committed the crime and the victim is the person who was damaged by that individual. The business assocaite who didn't commit the crime is neither one.

    "In a free market system, the order of liability should be the responsible party, then contractual affiliates of the responsible party who assume both profit and responsibility of the partnership, then victims/taxpayers/society."

    Should be?

    No matter how may times you restate which artificial construct you happen to like, it doesn't make it any lesser of one than the other way around. Invoking the phrase "free markets" doesn't prove anything.

    This stuff is not some inviolate law of nature - or physics. It is all an artificial construct.

  • ||

    "The perpetrator is the indiviual who committed the crime and the victim is the person who was damaged by that individual. The business assocaite who didn't commit the crime is neither one."

    Yeah!

    Why go after the stockholders? Why not go after the criminal's coworkers--who likewise had nothing to do with the crime?

    The suggestion that going after people who've done nothing wrong--nothing more than invest their money in a company? Is not only ludicrous, it gets more ludicrous the more some of these jokers persist down that ridiculous road.

    And for nothing! They can't even articulate what they're trying to accomplish--can't even conceive of what the downsides might be!

    The good news is? This thread will disappear off the front page soon, and these silly people will stop feeling compelled to make fools of themselves any longer.

    It's astounding how far some people will go to defend themselves when they're so obviously wrong--when admitting they were wrong would make them look twice as smart as persisting in their stupidity...

    It reminds of that Seinfeld episode, when George Castanza keeps driving around in the Hamptons all night--refusing to admit to his ex-finaces' parents that he doesn't really have a house in the Hamptons!

    You shove the injustice in their faces of holding Mom and Pop investors responsible--for more than the money they willingly put at risk...despite them having done nothing wrong? And they're gonna drive around in circles all night until that somehow becomes both just and ingenious!

    ...and libertarian! ...and in favor of free markets!

    How embarrassing. I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong again. I'll never make myself look as dumb as some of these jokers have by persisting in their stupidity to try to make themselves look smart.

    Never.

  • ||

    "It's astounding how far some people will go to defend themselves when they're so obviously wrong--when admitting they were wrong would make them look twice as smart as persisting in their stupidity..."

    Name calling gets you far in life. Anyone who disagrees with your concept of justice and prioritization of responsibility is obviously stupid? And yet you continue to avoid or skew 90% of my points. You prioritize victims paying for damages over business owners paying for damages. I think that is injust and unnatural to a free market where business entities are simply private contracts and not special government statuses - and where the sole role of the government is defending individual rights. That includes the rights of stockholders to have their contracts assigning responsibility fulfilled, but even then contractual fulfillment can be done via private arbitration. The courts are ideally there to primarily defend third party victims from the actions of individuals or groups who have not contracted away responsibility prior to the actions.

  • ||

    "You shove the injustice in their faces of holding Mom and Pop investors responsible--for more than the money they willingly put at risk"

    I suppose you don't drive? According to you, nobody rational would be driving because of the high risk of accident bankrupting them. No, we buy insurance to protect ourselves (and most would, even assuming it wasn't mandated) and continue on with our lives.

    The same principle applies to investment. People will invest because they want to make money. They would purchase insurance to cover their liability as owners, and for most responsible businesses such insurance would be a minor additional cost at best. If you want to invest in Chernobyl nuclear energy company, be my guest, but don't whine when your insurance is more expensive due to increased risk to the insurance provider. If you don't want to invest as a stockholder because you don't want the responsibility of ownership, buy bonds, CDs, property and other forms of investment.

    The concept is really fundamentally simple, and would make for much healthier market growth where current externalities are internalized.

  • ||

    Your statement does not accurately apply to partnerships and proprietorships where liability is limitless for the collection of owners, but internally divided by contract. In a free market without special government statuses for different classes of business, all businesses would have the same standards of liability. Either all entities (people, or groups as a whole) have unlimited liability, or all entities should be able to set their own arbitrary limits on liability for whatever specific purpose they allocate that property to. If the former, there are no artificial legal constructs that are special exceptions to this rule.

    The government decision to limit liability for certain business constructs and not others (including individuals) creates destructive moral hazards and leads to socialization of risk. It's arguably the most destructive of all market distortions because the impact is immeasurable. When owners care about nothing but profits, there is little incentive for their liability-exempted actors to not violate rights to provide it beyond a circumstance where they actually get caught and actually damage the corporate stock.

    Read more Adam Smith. I guess he was a fool too?

  • yonemoto||

    The artifical construct is that one can have unlimited liabilty for the actions of someone else that that they are associated with in a business relationship - not that one can unilaterally exempt one's self from liability for his own actions.

    All liability is an artificial construct!

  • ||

    "All liability is an artificial construct!"

    What exactly is artificial about an investor choosing to put a specific amount of his money at risk?

  • ||

    Why can't I decide to only put $1000 of my own money at risk for the actions of my children, pets and machines, and expect the law to abide by this? For everybody except corporations, no such legal construct exists to distinguish personal property from property used for a special purpose.

  • ||

    "...no such legal construct exists to distinguish personal property from property used for a special purpose."

    Are you familiar with the term "bankruptcy"?

  • mb||

    I like him more with the last comment.

  • ||

    that dude is oh so full of himself lol.

    www.anon-vpn.it.tc

  • ||

    lolololololololololololololololololololo
    ololololololo....

    Sorry. Had an out of Bot-y experience.

  • Gaius Gracchus||

    Fox news took down the poll that showed Ron Paul won by a landslide.

    This is Orwellian and Fox must be held accountable.

    Hannity et al should be asked at every opportunity "What about the poll?"

    Here is a screen shot taken shortly before the poll was disappeared.

    http://img40.imageshack.us/img.....ll2med.jpg

    Please help Paul get "Fair and Balanced" coverage. Thanks.

  • Ha!||

    You funny man!

  • ||

    Time to hit it up folks, lets do this.

    www.anon-vpn.it.tc

  • James J.B.||

    So if corporations are people, is the reverse true? Can I get "business" treatment by the govenment?

    Can I deduct all of my operating expenses from my income, how about my lunches, travel, seminars, my SUV, all of my losses, etc.

    Oh and I know about all of the child credits, home mortgage deduction, etc that will follow,

    I run a business and pay taxes. My business pays little, I get pounded. But I am not in the preferred business crowd - if I offshored my income, I would be in jail.

  • ||

    You're suggesting that double taxation is somehow preferable to paying income taxes only once?

    The government taxes the money once as profits to a corporation, then taxes it a second time as dividends, and then taxes it a third time as a capital gains tax...

    ...and you imagine that treatment is somehow preferable to only paying taxes on your income?

    Why?

  • ||

    What Romney said is 100% correct. Legally, corporations ARE considered like people! The following piece from wikipedia.org explains this concept:

    "Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like natural persons ("people"). Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state, and they can themselves be responsible for human rights violations. Corporations are conceptually immortal but they can "die" when they are "dissolved" either by statutory operation, order of court, or voluntary action on the part of shareholders. Insolvency may result in a form of corporate 'death', when creditors force the liquidation and dissolution of the corporation under court order, but it most often results in a restructuring of corporate holdings. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offenses, such as fraud and manslaughter."

    Obviously, the supposed "intelligent" and "educated" Democruds don't understand this. If they studied something like business of business law rather than taking faggot fine arts classes in college, they would not have made such fools of themselves.

  • ||

    Yes, by law, corporations ARE considered like "people". Look it up!

    This shows is precisely how a slime pit socialist like Obama as as well as a scoundrel like Bill Clinton weres able to get elected. Democruds are the most gullible people on earth. They are obviously poorly educated, coming from FAILED inner city union led public schools, and the only higher education they tend to get are from things like sissy fine arts classes, not REAL world courses like business law.

    So glad I'm not a Democrat!!!!

  • Corey S. ||

    Pretty sure this is a spoof... but it's basically right.

    Also, the implicit suggestion is that "Gene" is a Republican. Most people here are not Republicans.

  • Corey S. ||

    Teachers' unions are not people.

  • William Herter||

    When I her you say;"Corporations are people", it makes me laugh. It's like saying anyone with a job, is middle class or rich. The details that you leave out, show's your lack of common-since. Corporations are owned and run by a small group of "ELITE" people. Their job is to make more profits for the company, (sometimes at any cost), while taking care of themselves' very well. "WE THE PEOPLE" are at the mercy of these companies that dictate our living wages, working conditions, health insurance, and pensions. The American productivity level is second to none! Yet, we keep making sacrifice's. We have no more to sacrifice. What sacrifice's have they made? The bottom line is; we just want an honest day's pay, for an honest day's work. Open your eyes and see that the rich keep getting richer, as the middle class is vanishing. The fact is that the trickle-down theory is a MYTH! My father died when I was very young, we had no insurance, but still had bills. SSI gave each child $75 a month. Try to live on that. I've been working since I was 10. I even worked 3rd shifts through high school to help my family. Went in the Navy, acheived rank of E-5. 2 years of colledge. Worked in retail management for almost 30 years. Busted my back for my company. Now I'm disabaled with Emphysema, bad heart, on oyxgen 24/7, and I'm only 52. They didn't cause the Emphysema, but I gave them my life. What has that company done for me? Spend one day in my shoes. I beg to hear a reply from you.

    Thank you,
    William Herter

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement