June 28, 2004

• We, in America, have so much and so many people all over the world have so little. Why do we have more? Because we're number one! They say that as if it's a bad thing.
• Dupe.
• And it is a geocities site which has "exceeded its allocated data transfer". Sux.
• I searched for Freegan, and didn't bother searching comments. Mea culpa. By way of apology, I offer a Google Cache for your freegan enjoyment.
• Mormon Freegan
• By not consuming, you are boycotting EVERYTHING! ... That should help you get to sleep at night. Yeah, that'll put a lot of pressure on corporations to change their policies so that -- oh, wait, you'll still be boycotting them no matter what they do, because you're boycotting EVERYTHING. How is this a good idea, again?
• How is this a good idea, again? By refusing to enable corporations by purchasing their products, an ethical person reduces the amount they participate in the destruction of the world. Which is a very good thing.
• Corporations are inherently bad? All food production precipitates "the destruction of the world?" The whole thing sounds like comfort food for the lazy.
• The whole thing sounds like comfort food for the lazy. More like discomfort food for the cheap.
• Corporations have their weaknesses, but they also have advantages. They can produce stuff much less expensively than can small companies (per unit of measure.) If you don't mind paying more per pound, or per gallon, feel free to shop with the little guys. But don't complain about their prices if you do so. And, do you want to buy fruit or vegetables when they're out of season in whichever hemisphere, during your winter? Or would you rather buy canned stuff? My guess is that you don't take that option. Yes, I prefer to buy local produce when it's in season, and, yes, growing your own stuff is a great option for seasonal stuff (I hate getting my hands dirty, so I won't do that) but do you really want to give up the benefits of wider markets?
• Earth was asking for it. Look at those lush rainforests, and you can't tell me those mountains over there aren't begging to be strip mined. If everybody starts doing this, where does the food come from? Were I a dumpster diving urchin, I'd throw cobblestones at some toff stealing food from my dumpster when he could afford to buy food. Then I'd scarper, before he could catch me and give me a thrashing with his walking stick.
• By refusing to enable corporations by purchasing their products, an ethical person reduces the amount they participate in the destruction of the world. Which is a very good thing. A boycott is only meaningful if it has conditions: I'm boycotting you because of X, and if you stop doing X I'll stop boycotting you. That kind of boycott puts pressure on corporations to reform. If enough people boycott companies that engage in unfair labor practices or environmental exploitation, the companies will be forced to adopt more ethical practices if they want to keep making money. Freeganism, though, boycotts all companies that produce food. The goal being to force the companies to -- what? stop producing food? Yeah, there's a great goal. A universal boycott puts no pressure on companies to stop "destroying the world," because even if they stop destroying the world you still won't buy their food! All they can do to win you back as a customer is to start selling something other than food -- and it's not clear how that makes the world a better place.
• It makes the world a better place because the Freegan continues to eat for free, and has more money to spend on drugs. I do not see what is so difficult to grasp here.
• As a lifestyle choice, this is perfectly legitimate, as billions of people around the globe are freegans. Heck, most early american pioneers were freegans. I applaud those who choose to live this lifestyle because it is much more challenging and difficult in our consumption obsessed society. In any event, the reason that many people are so anti-corporate is not because they are against corporations in principal. It is because they are against corporations in fact. The concept of a corporation is that large groups of people can come together to achieve some goal (make profits, extract higher wages and benefits) much more efficiently than many people acting on their own. At heart, corporations are about pooling resources. That is the principal behind corporations. This is no different from the concept of communes, cooperatives, trade unions and myriad other groupings which would be considered socialist or communist, and thus the antithesis of modern, capitalist, profit-seeking corporations. Yet, at their essence, they come from the same principal. The practice behind corporations, as referred to by people who are anti-corporate, is that of profit-at-all-costs. Combined with this desire for profit are most of the rights and benefits of being a person with none of the responsibilities or drawbacks, at least under the law in the United States. For example, corporations in the US have the right to free speech and the 5th amendment, but they cannot be put in jail or charged with murder, even though they are fully capable of committing crimes worthy of such punishment. Of course, the question then becomes, "who pays for the crimes of the corporation?" It is very difficult to decide who should pay for the crimes of the corporation. However, the answer to that question is to restrict the rights of corporations. If corporations have limited liability, they should also have limited rights.
• Right on, PigAlien!
• It is very difficult to decide who should pay for the crimes of the corporation. Umm, its directors? If corporations have limited liability Corporations don't have limited liability, their shareholders do.
• PigAlien: America's pioneers, from what I have read, did not look any more highly on theft of their property (as advocated by the freeganists)than modern corporations. Though, I totally agree with the need to overhaul corporate responsibility and corporate "real crime" schemes. And: while technically I agree with quidnunc, I think the practical significance of officer/director liability insurance and corporate structure is limited liability for those who run the business, as well as those who 'merely' profit from it.
• "Corporations don't have limited liability, their shareholders do." quidnunc, shareholders do have limited liability from the debts of the corporation, and also from its actions. However, corporations also have limited liability under criminal law for their actions. This 'limited liability' is not anything that is written up in statutes, it is just the way it works in practice. For example, I had a case personally where a corporation trespassed on my property and did damage to my property. They did this damage on purpose and wilfully. I called a friend of mine who is number 3 in our major metropolitan area's prosecutor's office and he told me there was nothing they could do because it was a corporation. If it had been an individual, I could press criminal trespass and damage charges against that person, but a corporation was immune from criminal trespass charges and I would have to bring a civil suit against the company. I could have filed charges against the actual employees who committed the trespass, but they were only doing their jobs (which is no excuse, in my book), but the question would be finding out which employees actually committed the trespass and caused the damage. I doubt the corporation would sell their employees out to face criminal charges and without some sort of subpoena, which a judge would not grant because it was a corporation, not an individual... Besides, filing a civil suit means I have to pay for a lawyer, which I can hardly afford, whereas if criminal charges were brought, there would be a public prosecutor. Its just not fair or right that corporations can get away with committing crimes that individuals don't. That's what I mean by limited liability.
• Why limited liability exists in the first place?
• To encourage trade, essentially. Going back to 18th Century London: unlimited liability corporations (like Lloyd's of London) weren't options for any but the super-rich. Less well off people could not afford to invest in ventures that opened them up to utter ruin (creditors could take everything you or your family owned to recoup losses) and the venture capitalists wanted a way to get access to the little bits of money the middle classes did have available -- add all the bits up and you could turn some serious profits. So, LL originated in statutes that allowed for safe collective ventures, wherein you only risked what you could afford to risk. From this grew un-checked corporate social power, but that does not make the concept of LL inherently evil, or at all something that should be eliminated. The baby and the bathwater and all that. LL is supposed to be about stakeholders' risk, not shielding corporate malfeseance or crime. [I promise I'm not a corporate shill. Also, Bus Ass was 5 years ago, so this may be a trick of my memory ]
• Its just not fair or right that corporations can get away with committing crimes that individuals don't. That's what I mean by limited liability. I'll take your word on your example PigAlien, but the application of the criminal law to artificial persons is not what I or any other lawyer would immediately think of when the words "limited liability" and "corporation" occur in the same sentence. "Limited liability" is a legal term of art in that context. Anyway we quibble over semantics. This is the first time we've talked, how are you? Et tu, ilyadeux?
• Just post a "No Trespassing - Trespassers Will Be Shot" sign and aim for the center of mass. assuming you live in Texas
• Je m'excuse, Quidnunc (which is different from Je m'accuse, which is what I wrote the first time) -- you are of course totally right that "limited liability" as a term of art in law has nothing to do with criminal responsibility. sorry to break rank like that. (I kid!)
• No excuses needed, we're all on track :) I also = kid.
• on track to ...[whisper] world domination? One M&A at a time... (can I cackle malevolently now? What if I just rub my hands together gleefully with a malignant twinkle in my eye?)