babble: a good society

FAQ | Forum Home

»	babble » right brain babble » humanities & science » a good society

Email this thread to someone!

Author

Topic: a good society

nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 06 December 2003 08:38 PM

We've done an awful lot of "rearranging deck-chairs on the Titanic" threads. We've done some "what if?" threads and some "wish-list" threads. I don't really want to repeat them (but if that happens, it's okay).
I'd like to approach the problem from another perspecrtive.
If we were to build a new, good society,
which SINGLE major aspect or component of the present one would you eliminate, and
what SINGLE principle would you include in the new, improved society?

[ 09 December 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001 | IP: Logged

Performance Anxiety
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3474

posted 06 December 2003 08:47 PM

which SINGLE major aspect or component of the present one would you eliminate?

OPPRESSION

what SINGLE principle would you include in the new, improved society?

PLAY

From: Outside of the box | Registered: Dec 2002 | IP: Logged

bobwarren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3866

posted 07 December 2003 05:01 PM

Eliminate:
EXPLOITATION AND GREED

This alone would solve most problems world-wide.

From: toronto | Registered: Mar 2003 | IP: Logged

bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 07 December 2003 10:07 PM

Aspect eliminated: The belief in the merit in, and possibility of, endless economic growth.
Principle included: "Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself." Everything else is just conversation.

From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002 | IP: Logged

banquosghost
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4520

posted 07 December 2003 10:33 PM

One thing!? Jeez, how to choose.

Rescind the recognition of corporations as being individuals under the law.

Make all political candidates responsible for their own personal campaign fund raising and that fund raising cannot include 1.) their own money. 2.) organizational money. Money from individual citizens/voters only.

From: north vancouver, bc | Registered: Oct 2003 | IP: Logged

flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 07 December 2003 10:41 PM

quote:
Rescind the recognition of corporations as being individuals under the law.

I'm almost positive that Nike lost that case. Therefore corporations are not yet considered individuals under the law.

From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002 | IP: Logged

Tackaberry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 487

posted 08 December 2003 01:09 AM

Spelling?

From: Tokyo | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 08 December 2003 01:15 AM

In Canada corporations have all the rights of a natural person. I think the law distinguishes between 'persons' and 'individuals'.

From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003 | IP: Logged

Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 08 December 2003 02:55 AM

I approach all threads as "what if". Probably what gets me in so much trouble from time to time.

Anyway, it's a toughy. I'd say corruption is what I'd eliminate.

What would I include? Accountability.

From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

googlymoogly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3819

posted 08 December 2003 10:19 AM

quote:
In Canada corporations have all the rights of a natural person. I think the law distinguishes between 'persons' and 'individuals'.

They do. Ever since 1897, actually, in a case called Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd., where a man sued his own corporation. For the most part, pending certain criteria, a corporation can be held liable as an entity in itself in many cases. While this may be highly economically efficient, especially for larger publicly held corporations, it doesn't do anything for actual justice. Except for those damn oddball cases that seem to pop up now and then where it seems to have worked.

But the corporate identity is sometimes disregarded in certain cases, i.e. the separate legal identity of the corporation may be disregarded if there is evidence of fraud or other improper conduct on the part of a "directing mind and will" of the corporation; the courts must look at the facts of each case to determine if someone is a directing mind- it doesn't just apply to directors; it used to, but it has been trickling down to lower-level managers. It would be disregarded, for example, to find a director personally liable, rather than to impute liability on the corporation. Like I said, though, this is only applicable in certain cases.

There are 4 or 5 other criteria for disregarding the corporate entity (I just did an exam on this) in certain cases. This is different, however, from corporate criminal responsibility. In most cases it is somewhat ridiculous, but there are a few oddball cases where imputing the actions of a director onto the corporation seems to have worked.

[ 08 December 2003: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]

From: the fiery bowels of hell | Registered: Mar 2003 | IP: Logged

nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 09 December 2003 12:48 AM

Since people did respond, i thought it respectful to fix that mistake in the title. (I have a stupid bandage on my index finger which types extra letters i don't always notice.)

Taking out corporations' legal right is a pretty good start. So is eliminating corruption.
I was kind of thinking principles or tenets, though - basic assumptions.
Like: All humans are greedy; therefore society must be based on either satisfying greed or curbing greed.
I don't think that's true. I think all humans are insecure and insecurity causes greed. We need to take out the satisfaction of greed and replace it with something to allay insecurity.
Like: less money; more hugs.

From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001 | IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time

Hop To: