If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Chris W wrote:
The problem, as I see it, is there are too many small groups fighting for only certain rights, what we need is for them all to combine to fight for all rights. You will never get any of those groups to agree that all the "rights" one of the others claims to have are actually rights. George Patterson There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the mashed potatoes. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris W" wrote in message news:JMOee.2463$cf5.417@lakeread07... Matt Barrow wrote: "Chris W" wrote in message news:Agqee.2401$cf5.1910@lakeread07... I think the only way we are going to stop this kind of thing, is for EVERY rights group to join forces and fight every stupid political move or law that restricts the rights of any group. How about fighting any law that restricts the rights of any INDIVIDUAL? Groups don't have rights...only individuals. Well if you want to get nit picky, you replied to the wrong post. Obviously it is the individual people that have the rights. However, the only way to effectively fight for those rights is to organize into a group. Whole different context -- gathering force in numbers. The problem, as I see it, is there are too many small groups fighting for only certain rights, Actaully, most groups fight for rights they maintain are applicable to the group (blacks, woemn, gays, straights, French...). what we need is for them all to combine to fight for all rights. Well, first they have to understand that rights can only pertain to the individual...otherwise they're farting into the wind of special interests. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Jose" wrote in message news The problem, as I see it, is there are too many small groups fighting for only certain rights, what we need is for them all to combine to fight for all rights. Rights conflict with each other. Not if they're RIGHTS rather than special interest privileges. The theory of individual rights maintains it can't be a right if it conflicts with another persons rights. Also, that rights are "negative" and that positive rights can't exist (i.e., someone has to do something for you or give something to you). |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
AES wrote:
Don't quarrel with these assertions. But suppose the corp has multiple stockholders, who own (ergo, in the last analysis control) it . . . Then, everything the corp does is, at least in a certain sense, done by those stockholders -- and they're a group. That would be like saying that I do whatever my car does. First off, the stockholders do not have any control over the corporation (with the exception of the one, if there is one, who owns the majority of the stock). The board of directors controls a corporation. Assuming that the board is in agreement, then the corporation (an entity) does what the board wants it to do. But the corporation is not a group. What is done by the corporation is not necessarily done by the stockholders. George Patterson There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the mashed potatoes. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"EL" wrote in message m... Although I realize this is oversimplifying a complex issue, what you state actually is not true at least in the USA. Under law, a corporation is considered an entity unto itself. It has been established by statute & precedent that corporations have a number of rights, free speech being one of the better known ones. ANd a corporation is en entity comprised of individuals; they neither gain, nor lose, any rights by virtue of their incorporation. In the same way, you neither gain nor lose rights by virtue of your being a member of a HUGE group or a group of one. The effective result of this is that those who control corporations have "double rights". If I run a corporation I have my personal right of free speech, plus my corporation's right (which of course is under my control). You have the right you originally hold as an individual and your rights as spokesman for the corporation derives from that right. Again, you are neither gaining any rights, nor should you lose any. Eric Law "Matt Barrow" wrote in message ... "Chris W" wrote in message news:Agqee.2401$cf5.1910@lakeread07... I think the only way we are going to stop this kind of thing, is for EVERY rights group to join forces and fight every stupid political move or law that restricts the rights of any group. How about fighting any law that restricts the rights of any INDIVIDUAL? Groups don't have rights...only individuals. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Noel" wrote in message ... In article , "EL" wrote: Although I realize this is oversimplifying a complex issue, what you state actually is not true at least in the USA. ? Under law, a corporation is considered an entity unto itself. It has been established by statute & precedent that corporations have a number of rights, free speech being one of the better known ones. corporation group. A corporation is an entity. Singular. Not a group. Correct. You'd not gain/lose rights as a family member, either. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"AES" wrote in message ... In article , Bob Noel wrote: corporation group. A corporation is an entity. Singular. Not a group. Don't quarrel with these assertions. But suppose the corp has multiple stockholders, who own (ergo, in the last analysis control) it . . . Then, everything the corp does is, at least in a certain sense, done by those stockholders -- and they're a group. As a group of individuals. See earlier post about gains/loses. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Actaully, most groups fight for rights they maintain are applicable to the
group (blacks, woemn, gays, straights, French...). "French?" -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"George Patterson" wrote in message news:HnUee.50$N_5.14@trndny09... AES wrote: Don't quarrel with these assertions. But suppose the corp has multiple stockholders, who own (ergo, in the last analysis control) it . . . Then, everything the corp does is, at least in a certain sense, done by those stockholders -- and they're a group. That would be like saying that I do whatever my car does. First off, the stockholders do not have any control over the corporation (with the exception of the one, if there is one, who owns the majority of the stock). The board of directors controls a corporation. Assuming that the board is in agreement, then the corporation (an entity) does what the board wants it to do. But the corporation is not a group. What is done by the corporation is not necessarily done by the stockholders. Think of "Power of Attorney", or "delegation". |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Barrow wrote:
Think of "Power of Attorney", or "delegation". I've never signed one yet. George Patterson There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the mashed potatoes. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |
Best Home Base Work | Reynard | Simulators | 0 | November 9th 04 04:39 PM |
Best Home Base Work | Reynard | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | November 9th 04 04:37 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 4 | August 7th 03 05:12 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | July 4th 03 04:50 PM |