Thoughts on a Conversation With NavCat

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I hate you so much right now, TGRR.

My work here is done.

[navkat]

Aside from the education issue it seems to me that everything is decided on tunnel vision. In other words, "What is good for me and mine right now?".

is it the selfishness, or the shortsightedness that bothers you? (or both)
how could you expect anyone to do anything that appears to the to be not to their personal advantage?

Here's the metaphor I've been struggling with:

Imagine the whole situation is a big, saltwater aquarium. There's a whoooole lot of fish in there and a few sharks.
There's only so much food to go around and the sharks are bigger so usually they eat their fill first, then the fish below get the crumbs, then the smaller fish below THEM get THEIR crumbs and so on.

All the fish get hungry pretty much constantly, so everyone goes hunting. Obviously; the sharks WIN at hunting and succeed in eating the smaller fish, pretty much anytime they want: Their mere size/power stacks the deck in their favor.
That sucks for the fish. "There needs to be some kind of solution to remedy that because it's fucked up and unfair," you say.

So what is the solution? Is it fair to tie down the sharks in a net and basically unleash the entire fish population on them to take little bites of their flesh until the fish are satisfied? No one will feel bad for the sharks because let's face it: they've eaten so many goddamned fish with no conscience about it that the little fish feel entitled to eat the sharks alive.

But how fucked up is it to just tie them up? The little fish don't have to actually HUNT or anything, someone just takes the flesh off the sharks and hands it to the little fish to "even the playing field."

Also: once all the sharks are gone, the aquarium zoo-keepers stop throwing huge chunks of meat into the tank. Why bother? There are no sharks to feed. So the food supply problem doesn't really change, anyway. It's a voracious cycle with the largest fish taking over for the sharks as the "big guys" in the tank.

So what's the solution?
How do you keep the sharks from using their might to be the first ones to grab the meat when it gets chucked in the tank and then start feeding on the little fish when they've finished that?
What kind of rules can you set up that works as a "separator net" that keeps the sharks swimming freely (and free to keep whatever they can grab under those circumstances) but in check and not able to eat the little guy so easily?
What regulations?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Aside from the education issue it seems to me that everything is decided on tunnel vision. In other words, "What is good for me and mine right now?".

is it the selfishness, or the shortsightedness that bothers you? (or both)
how could you expect anyone to do anything that appears to the to be not to their personal advantage?

Here's the metaphor I've been struggling with:

Imagine the whole situation is a big, saltwater aquarium. There's a whoooole lot of fish in there and a few sharks.
There's only so much food to go around and the sharks are bigger so usually they eat their fill first, then the fish below get the crumbs, then the smaller fish below THEM get THEIR crumbs and so on.

All the fish get hungry pretty much constantly, so everyone goes hunting. Obviously; the sharks WIN at hunting and succeed in eating the smaller fish, pretty much anytime they want: Their mere size/power stacks the deck in their favor.
That sucks for the fish. "There needs to be some kind of solution to remedy that because it's fucked up and unfair," you say.

So what is the solution? Is it fair to tie down the sharks in a net and basically unleash the entire fish population on them to take little bites of their flesh until the fish are satisfied? No one will feel bad for the sharks because let's face it: they've eaten so many goddamned fish with no conscience about it that the little fish feel entitled to eat the sharks alive.

But how fucked up is it to just tie them up? The little fish don't have to actually HUNT or anything, someone just takes the flesh off the sharks and hands it to the little fish to "even the playing field."

Also: once all the sharks are gone, the aquarium zoo-keepers stop throwing huge chunks of meat into the tank. Why bother? There are no sharks to feed. So the food supply problem doesn't really change, anyway. It's a voracious cycle with the largest fish taking over for the sharks as the "big guys" in the tank.

So what's the solution?
How do you keep the sharks from using their might to be the first ones to grab the meat when it gets chucked in the tank and then start feeding on the little fish when they've finished that?
What kind of rules can you set up that works as a "separator net" that keeps the sharks swimming freely (and free to keep whatever they can grab under those circumstances) but in check and not able to eat the little guy so easily?
What regulations?

Bad analogy.  Sharks do what they do because they have a brain about as complex as an analog relay.  Enormous mega-corporations do what they do for reasons that cannot be explained without first having read Milton or Dante.

1.  Limit the size of corporations.  This can be done by taxing the dogshit out of C corps, and leaving S corps pretty much alone.  This only works if you follow #2.

2.  Prevent corporations from owning other corporations.  Period.

3.  Remove the corporate veil, then bust the shit out of anyone caught forming trusts.

4.  Abolish the stock exchange, and all public trading in private entities.  The stock exchange is one of the three reasons we are in the shape we're in today.

The above allows individuals to profit from their own hard work, but prevents corporations from assuming a life of their own.

[navkat]

Bad analogy.  Sharks do what they do because they have a brain about as complex as an analog relay.  Enormous mega-corporations do what they do for reasons that cannot be explained without first having read Milton or Dante.

1.  Limit the size of corporations.  This can be done by taxing the dogshit out of C corps, and leaving S corps pretty much alone.  This only works if you follow #2.

2.  Prevent corporations from owning other corporations.  Period.

3.  Remove the corporate veil, then bust the shit out of anyone caught forming trusts.

4.  Abolish the stock exchange, and all public trading in private entities.  The stock exchange is one of the three reasons we are in the shape we're in today.

The above allows individuals to profit from their own hard work, but prevents corporations from assuming a life of their own.

YES. I am all about this.

Also: where do you stand on the whole "Audit the Fed" movement coming out of the Ron Paul set?
The Federal reserve being a private corporation, what's to be done about the issuance/control of currency under the above regulation? Who takes that over if not The Government itself?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Also: where do you stand on the whole "Audit the Fed" movement coming out of the Ron Paul set?
The Federal reserve being a private corporation, what's to be done about the issuance/control of currency under the above regulation? Who takes that over if not The Government itself?

I think Ron Paul is the Dr Horace Naismith of this here reality tunnel.  Make sure to contribute to the next money bomb.  It's the only way to save America.

[Requia ☣]

In what possible way is the federal reserve a private corporation.  Its owned by the government and operated by the suits in Washington.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

In what possible way is the federal reserve a private corporation.  Its owned by the government and operated by the suits in Washington.

What the fuck?  No it fucking isn't.  The only connection they have is that the president nominates the chairman.  Other than that, it's completely fucking private.

[Requia ☣]

TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER VI > § 290
Use of earnings transferred to Treasury

"The net earnings derived by the ... Federal reserve banks shall, in the discretion of the Secretary, be used to supplement the gold reserve held against outstanding United States notes, or shall be applied to the reduction of the outstanding bonded indebtedness of the United States under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury..."

So the federal reserves profits go to the government (or people we owe money to anyway) and the leadership is appointed by the president.

That seems like a government institution to me.

[navkat]

TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER VI > § 290
Use of earnings transferred to Treasury

"The net earnings derived by the ... Federal reserve banks shall, in the discretion of the Secretary, be used to supplement the gold reserve held against outstanding United States notes, or shall be applied to the reduction of the outstanding bonded indebtedness of the United States under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury..."

So the federal reserves profits go to the government (or people we owe money to anyway) and the leadership is appointed by the president.

That seems like a government institution to me.

No sir. It's a lending institution. It has been found to be a private corporation at least twice in a court of law:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/334125/Kennedy-C-Scott-Appellant-v-Federal-Reserve-Bank-of-Kansas-City-et-al-Appellee

"The Bank also does not constitute an federal agency based on any "proprietary interest" the United States possesses. The Bank is considered a separate corporation owned solely by commercial banks within its district distinct from the board of govenors."

I will look for and post the link to the 1994 case as soon as I find it.

EDIT: I found this instead:
http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/frcourt.html
Excerpts from a 1982 case where someone tried to sue the fed as part of the government and it was found (and precedent was set) that the fed is not part of the Government.

[LMNO]

Another thing that would help is to remove the legal precedent that identifies a corporation as an "entity" entitled to pretty much the same rights as an individual.

[navkat]

Another thing that would help is to remove the legal precedent that identifies a corporation as an "entity" entitled to pretty much the same rights as an individual.

Right. It used to NOT be that way. "Incorporation" was a state of doing business in the interest of The People which could be disbanded at will BY The People at which time the incorporated entity no longer served public interest.

That all changed in (I think) the 1930s when a corporation was judged to be "a natural person." (citation needed)

Let me fetch citation and dates. brb.

[navkat]

Okay; I'm bad with dates but I found a wiki on the corporate personhood debate and its history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate#History_of_the_debate_in_the_United_States

As always: take wikipedia with a huuuge grain of salt. When looking up the wiki on The Federal Reserve, I found that someone (I wonder who...?) had basically quoted the Fed's own FAQ site word-for-word which completely eschews the private corporation stuff.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Another thing that would help is to remove the legal precedent that identifies a corporation as an "entity" entitled to pretty much the same rights as an individual.

That's the "corporate veil" I mentioned.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Another thing that would help is to remove the legal precedent that identifies a corporation as an "entity" entitled to pretty much the same rights as an individual.

Right. It used to NOT be that way. "Incorporation" was a state of doing business in the interest of The People which could be disbanded at will BY The People at which time the incorporated entity no longer served public interest.

That all changed in (I think) the 1930s when a corporation was judged to be "a natural person." (citation needed)

Let me fetch citation and dates. brb.

This is what you're looking for:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/253/26/

[LMNO]

Another thing that would help is to remove the legal precedent that identifies a corporation as an "entity" entitled to pretty much the same rights as an individual.

That's the "corporate veil" I mentioned.

Ah.  Gotcha.