Reverse auctions

[jreighley]

I don’t suggest businesses ought to have extra rights. Just that people take their rights into their vocation, and their rights don’t disappear because they are engaged in commerce. Freedom of association was also included in the first amendment. Just because there is a group of people isn’t justification for taking away rights.

@happybeing Would you contest my contention that they First amendment protects the New York times? It is rather hard to publish a Newspaper without a business.

Freedom exists as the default state of every person and every collection of persons. Governments limit such, but just because they can doesn’t mean that they should. The burden of proof ought to rest on the oppressor, not the enterprise being oppressed, as to why freedom should be curtailed.

[happybeing]

I don’t suggest businesses ought to have extra rights. Just that people take their rights into their vocation, and their rights don’t disappear because they are engaged in commerce. Freedom of association was also included in the first amendment. Just because there is a group of people isn’t justification for taking away rights.

The words you used earlier seemed to me different from what you are contending here, so this looks more like we agree to me.

The confusion does seen to be with you saying a business has rights, when I think really you are saying that a person’s rights include operating a business, and in some way the business may inherit rights because it is a vehicle used by the person?

I think it’s dangerous to mix them up, and that, if I’ve rephrased you correctly, this still creates problems.

Why? Because it implies a business has all the same rights as a person, because it is a vehicle for the person. This is not true, and I think would be dangerous as I explained earlier. People and businesses are not the same entity, or the same kind of entity, so different rules apply.

@happybeing Would you contest my contention that they First amendment protects the New York times? It is rather hard to publish a Newspaper without a business.

I don’t know the technicalities of the law, so am not claiming authority, but think it does not make sense (and is dangerous) to see it in those terms. The way I see it, is that the First Amendment protects the right of people to say what they like and to have that published anywhere, and that includes the NYT. I don’t think we need to, or should, see this as giving rights to the NYT.

So I don’t think we differ - providing I’ve understood you correctly - other than in how we express this. And at the same time, I think that difference is very significant and troubling.

[Seneca]

@jreighley

Would you contest my contention that they First amendment protects the New York times?

I think the First Amendment protects the people of the New York Times from anyone trying to silence them. It doesn’t for example protect the company from defaulting, after which point the New York Times as a business entity might not exist anymore. So, corporations don’t have a right to exist, because that would imply the law would protect them from disappearing through for example a default.

[jreighley]

Agreed.

People have a right to life, but that doesn’t mean we don’t die either.

Everyone wants to argue semantics – Because the meat of the matter is rather irrefutable.

The New York Times has a right to free speech. Just because they are organized as a business they have no less rights than anyone operating independantly. (Not that that was ever possible in the publishing world at any scale.)

[janitor]

@Warren

That corporate fictitious personhood bs is going away. The silly redundant notion of corporate rights was taking the notion that one business would have recourse against way too far.

I did not argue for the persohood of corporations, by the way, I argued that companies are owned by actual people (owners) who should be responsible for what companies they manage do.

@Al_Kafir

people have rights to make a living and engage in commerce.

Yes they do,but businesses don’t have the right to exist.

So, you two big thinkers, any suggestions how to get rid of the remaining local mom and pop stores, bakers and other businesses?

[Al_Kafir]

@jreighley

Everyone wants to argue semantics – Because the meat of the matter is rather irrefutable.

lol…so you can produce no actual evidence, so say I’m twisting the meaning of words? Which words? The idea that Corporations etc have a right to exist,has been refuted - by me!
This “semantics”,“clever aruments” etc defence,is the same one used when taliking about Democracy,Tax etc being coercive or theft etc. Just because arguments are nuanced, doesn’t mean they are illegitimate - it just means you don’t appear to understand the nuance.
Your assertion that The New York Times has a right to free speech (rather than the individuals within the Organisation) even if true (it isn’t) would have absolutely no bearing on your argument that it has a right to exist.

@janitor

I did not argue for the persohood of corporations, by the way,

By extending the concepts of Human Rights to Organisations/Businesses - this is exactly what you are doing.

@janitor

I argued that companies are owned by actual people (owners) who should be responsible for what companies they manage do.

That’s not an argument, it’s a statement,which again has no bearing on an entity’s right to exist.

@janitor

So, you two big thinkers, any suggestions how to get rid of the remaining local mom and pop stores, bakers and other businesses?

Who was suggesting we get rid of businesses - and again what does this have to do with the idea they have a right to exist? Just because it is maintained that there is no right to exist, does not mean they can’t exist, or should be all exterminated.
Try thinking bigger…:
There are very good reasons for why things are the way they are.

[Al_Kafir]

Thinking about it, you two might just get your wishes, as you are using the same basic arguments as the Corporations do,which has lead to all the TTIP bollocks.
Basically, remove people’s liberties and protections and instead assign them to the Corporations. This leads to things like Big Tobacco,suing the Austalian Govt for loss of profit - due to the Govts Public Health Policy of introducing plain packaging for cigarettes. If this doesn’t scream out “WRONG” to you, then I don’t know what will.

Thank you for your interest in this campaign

[janitor]

@Al_Kafir

Who was suggesting we get rid of businesses - and again what does this have to do with the idea they have a right to exist? Just because it is maintained that there is no right to exist, does not mean they can’t exist, or should be all exterminated.

If there’s no right to exist, why should it be immoral or illegal to vandalize, destroy or rob a place of business?
Clearly you have no clue what you’re talking about.

@Al_Kafir

I argued that companies are owned by actual people (owners) who should be responsible for what companies they manage do.

That’s not an argument, it’s a statement,which again has no bearing on an entity’s right to exist.

Whatever, I’m muting this Stalinist thread.

[Al_Kafir]

@janitor

If there’s no right to exist, why should it be immoral or illegal to vandalize, destroy or rob a place of business?

Because vandalism and theft have been deemed to be morally/legally wrong by Society. This,yet again,has no bearing on your mythical “right” for businesses to exist.

@janitor

Clearly you have no clue what you’re talking about.

Clearly…I do…

@janitor

Whatever, I’m muting this Stalinist thread.

Lol…off he marches with the ball under his arm…

[Seneca]

@janitor

If there’s no right to exist, why should it be immoral or illegal to vandalize, destroy or rob a place of business?

They don’t have a right to exist because such a thing can’t be guaranteed, it would make defaulting impossible. Just like every human has the right to pursue happiness rather than having a right to happiness.

In this context, not having a right to exist doesn’t mean that they are not allowed to exist. That’s the source of confusion here. In this context right is an entitlement.

[jreighley]

@Al_Kafir

ol…so you can produce no actual evidence, so say I’m twisting the meaning of words? Which words? The idea that Corporations etc have a right to exist,has been refuted - by me!

I have cited judicial precendent … You have cited absolutely nothing but your imagination…

Philosophical BS doensn’t matter a lick in the real world.

Corporations have rights. Freedom of press is nearly useless if you cannot have a company big enough to buy paper, ink, print enough copies for everybody, distribute them etc. Without “Companies” Nearly everything we do would be un-doable. You can dream that they are not protected, but the courts protect them ALL of the TIME…

Thus it is what it is, and your assertions otherwise are fantasyland BS.

Anyway this thread is WAY off topic, and you are not even arguing coherent points.

[Al_Kafir]

@jreighley

I have cited judicial precendent

For something completely different…

@jreighley

You have cited absolutely nothing

Again, I don’t have to cite anything - the burden of proof is on you.

@jreighley

Philosophical BS doensn’t matter a lick in the real world.

Philosophical BS is what moulds the Societies we live in - in the real world.

@jreighley

Freedom of press

There you go -that’s what you cited-completely unrelated.

@jreighley

Without “Companies” Nearly everything we do would be un-doable.

Just an assertion…

@jreighley

You can dream that they are not protected, but the courts protect them ALL of the TIME…

You are talking about the legal framework within which Corporations operate,not fundamental Rights. If a corporation/company whatever abuses its workers/environment,whatever, the Society of Individuals can cause the entity to cease to exist - therefore, no “Right” to exist, can exist…lol

[jreighley]

@Al_Kafir

Again, I don’t have to cite anything - the burden of proof is on you.

Prove it.

You are the one denying reality. Live in your fantasy world, I cannot and will not change that.

[jreighley]

@Al_Kafir

ou are talking about the legal framework within which Corporations operate,not fundamental Rights. If a corporation/company whatever abuses its workers/environment,whatever, the Society of Individuals can cause the entity to cease to exist - therefore, no “Right” to exist, can exist…l

They exist at the wim of their owners. Who have the right to associate in whatever form they choose to associate…

You cannot remove corporate rights without interfering with the individuals rights who choose to exercise their rights through the association of a business…

[Al_Kafir]

@jreighley

Again, I don’t have to cite anything - the burden of proof is on you.

Prove it.

You are the one denying reality. Live in your fantasy world, I cannot and will not change that

Lol…yes…I think that I recall our Religion conversation ended with you making the same parting shot…

Edit:

@Al_Kafir

Just felt Warren may need some moral support…

Really sorry @Warren…I think I went too far and ruined your game…the opposing team have walked off the pitch throwing things…

[Warren]

@Al_Kafir perfect timing. Great result.

There are no corporate rights, has nothing to do with almost nothing to do with association. They just got sloppy with terminology on one group vs another but that will get fixed. Looks like Senate rejected the TPP. That is going in thr right direction.

[jreighley]

The Supreme court disagrees. Hobby Lobby, Just to name an eggregous example.

Of course nobody cares to challenge my New York Times example because it is rock solid.

[Blindsite2k]

@jreighley

If you do business with anyone, you have inherently given them permission to remember the business interactions that you have had with them.

Um no. Granted most of the time I don’t usually care but let’s not assume one has inherently given permission to anyone. That’s a huge gaping security hole. I might want you to note record it or to forget after a certain amount of time. Also remember businesses often sell such details. So that’s another reason one would not want to give a business so much power over their data.

[jreighley]

Amnesia is not a reasonable expectation to put on anybody…

If you return an item certainly you aren’t going to want them to thing “We didn’t sell that” We don’t even know who you are…"

They where a party to the transaction. As a party, they ought to know who they transacted with, the success or failure of the transaction, etc etc etc.

Requiring otherwise is pushing for a reality that isn’t feasible in the real world.

Certainly restrictions could be placed on selling of such data…

[Al_Kafir]

@jreighley

They where a party to the transaction. As a party, they ought to know who they transacted with, the success or failure of the transaction, etc etc etc.

Requiring otherwise is pushing for a reality that isn’t feasible in the real world.

So what about Safe Network then? This all get’s interesting when you look at the flip side of your argument. What about the Guy that sees his drug dealer,then orders his sex toys before visiting the Prostitute and later whistle-blowing on his employer and spending a night at the Casino?