They have been going on for 4-5 days now and I just now heard about this and what's going on. I hope Wall Street does something or there will be a massive protest there probably as bad as the French Revolution just not as extreme.
what? if you overturn that whole set of laws. then your banks will fall because they no longer can get peoples house or ground back even when those people are not paying for it. (that is if you take away the 2nd rule of giving property to corperations.)
if coperations does not have the same rights as individual people then what rights do they have? wich rights must be taken away from them? (is that the free rights country that i know? called usa?) you can't just take away all rights a company has. (this was if you take away rule 1)
rule 3 of the set is about what companys wanna spend there money on. it's their free choise to donate that money. anyway making a max. amount is very possible.
so from demand 1 wich includes 3 rules of 1 law. there is only 1 rule that can be changed whitout a problem.
demand 2: voting machines. well yea there are problems whit it around the world. the best way is still the paper and pencil in my eye's.
a very good and possible demand.
demand 3: run-off voting. not sure if it will realy work well. but very possible and intresting to see happen.
fighting corruption is 1 of the hardest things to do because you don't know who the corrupted are. and it's even harder to fight the right not corrupted people that actualy can do something about it. usualy the commen people are not able whitout outside help. so good luck whit that.
if coperations does not have the same rights as individual people then what rights do they have? wich rights must be taken away from them? (is that the free rights country that i know? called usa?) you can't just take away all rights a company has. (this was if you take away rule 1)
Basically what this means is a corporation can have the same influence on government as an individual has. More so actually since they have the financial backing that no individual can amass. This gave corporations the ability to fiance elections as much as the want without limits (link). It's like someone having all the social rights without any of the social responsibility.
Basically what this means is a corporation can have the same influence on government as an individual has. More so actually since they have the financial backing that no individual can amass. This gave corporations the ability to fiance elections as much as the want without limits (link). It's like someone having all the social rights without any of the social responsibility.
I'm just curious, but why should the shareholders be held responsible for what the corporation does?
Gandhi worked. Hippies worked. MLK worked. This is basically a modern hippie movement. I mean... it bears so many striking resemblances. 1. Against the Republican Party. 2. No clear goal. Just tired of terrible political stuff. 3. Topless people with flowers painted on their chests.
I'm just curious, but why should the shareholders be held responsible for what the corporation does?
Good question, I can only guess it was said because they can be regarded as the owners of the company.
That was before the Internet and before people stopped caring.
If people didn't care we wouldn't be having these protests in the first place. This isn't just a bunch of modern hippies either. I would think that was obvious by just viewing the videos I've posted.
Good question, I can only guess it was said because they can be regarded as the owners of the company.
I need to look more into limited liability. I can understand why we wouldn't hold shareholders responsible, because they aren't the ones making the calls. One author said that it would be like BP shareholders finding $5,000 dollar fines in their mailboxes.
I'm not sure how protected CEOs are when it comes to liability, and I'm not even sure if limited liability has anything to do with the CEOs at all.
From my business law book: Corporate officials generally bear no individual responsibility for company actions, they can lose this immunity in three situations: 1) Where they are able to prevent or correct a health, safety or environmental violation, and fail to do so 2) Where they directly participate in a civil or criminal infraction 3) Where state or federal law creates individual civil or criminal liability.
Anyway, CEOs and CFOs can be held personally liable for the company's violations. The idea is that the executive has a position of authority, ergo he "dominates" the decisions of his employees (Respondent superior) and directly participates in the violations. That's the Vicarious liability. Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not cause the injury but who has a particular legal relationship to the person who did act negligently. Most common example of Vicarious liability is the Parental liability.
[/quote]1. Against the Republican Party. [quote] How are they against the Republican party anymore than they are against the democrat party? It seems to me that if they are true to their cause they would be against the corruption of both parties, not any single party.
