This is the exact kind of thing which makes people roll their eyes every time a vegetarian speaks up about the living conditions of feed-lot beef, or the destruction of bottom trawling and bycatch.
No, I roll my eyes at their mention of "feedlot beef" because they likely got their ideas from a slanted documentary and know nothing, because feedlots are mostly used only for temporarily congregating the beef to provide antibiotics and also an opportunity to check them for health and such things where you need the beef all together. Most US beef comes from small farms scattered about, and most of the time you see cattle at a feedlot it's the congregation of animals from various farms.
It reminds me of a former environmentalist who was studying ecology to go into the forest service (which he did) being taught in academic hauls by the fellow Gaia-worshippers how rock-hauling off of mountains is bad for the environment and causes all sorts of damage and bla bla bla...which it can. So some friends who actually worked at a company took him to former sites of hauling and showed pictures...mister environmentalists couldn't find a trace of an outfit that was there just a few years ago: unlike many of his peers this proved that, indeed, companies can responsibly manage fragile sites, and he was no longer a believer: he is the better public worker for it too: realist rather than zealot and idealist.
I suppose the point I'm making is that it is about goods crossing a (state or national) boundary. That is the logical point of taxation. Therefore (according to this principle) Texas can only tax a transaction between a Ohio resident that occurs in Maryland, if the 'result' of that transactions ends up in Texas!
No Sesostris, it cannot. Texas cannot tax transactions between Ohio and Maryland, and in fact they're forbidden from doing so. They can, however, impose an "excise" tax upon property of those within the State, which is due for purchases, as the current legalists' scheme says. A VAT unlike excise is a tax on imports by a person within a jurisdiction, among many other things, and in any form isn't really lawful within the US but if restricted to the importation part, then it's a different story from, say, the UK attempting to tax a transaction between Ohio and Maryland. Even the excise scheme, however, now in play in the US, was long something forbidden: while excises are legal, our Courts used to uphold this principle called "substance over form" and upheld "form over substance" where required by the Constitution to defend their rights, e.g. the voluntary compliance scheme (which isn't voluntary) which "voluntarily" lets people expose all their papers and effects to taxing authorities, as well as the schemes requiring every entity to account to them, is probably totally odious to the people who wrote Amendment IV; moreover, the commerce clause of these US prohibits States from imposing tariffs and duties on imports, which meant that excises imposed on things "not taxed anywhere else" (actual language used in the legal community) as subjected to tax today, were shot-down as unlawful, i.e. violating the form of government agreed to.
The whole point in having separate jurisdictions is to defeat government and force it to stay thin and light, but neither of our major parties--or their alternatives--really wants this, and folks like yourself in distance places have no grasp of it, there is nothing like this thought found in any major power in the world right now, not to mention the idea that disfavored or oldish or different-from-the-hegemony should be considered okay, not something punishable by law; even having gay friends, for instance, I've explained over and over on that principle why "hate crimes" and "hate speech" other such bull is unacceptable and violates fundamental human rights. (And I've had help from them mocking censure at universities as we started flinging group-name slurs at bullshit they tried making us never say in the name of being unoffensive; throwing-in the Asian and we had a the Irish-Indian-Jewish mutt, Asian-American bananna, and gay guy and they wouldn't dare say anything after we leveled "so you mean that to protect us, you have to make sure we don't even use our own slurs?") It's no accident that Orwell wrote Roman a Clef's based on the elite clases in England and the departments of government in which he worked, as well as the machinations outworking towards certain consequences in that society. Similar effects are under way here. Similar things have already taken place in Canada--Allam Bloom might have been charged (as have some religious leaders) with hate speech violations and convicted of crimes in front of human "rights" tribunals for writing "The Closing of the Canadian Mind" there and daring suggest that it's worthwhile considering whether homosexuality is moral or not (like Plato, or himself--also gay).
So no offense, but classical liberals here give little shrift or thought to those overseas who make comparisons with their forms of government and their operations in attempt to legitimize violations of their Constitution here. Not to mention, such changes first require a surrender and dissolution within the populace under the jurisdiction where democratic principles are at work. When our Constitution was written and then Amended with the Bill of Rights, it were not grants of rights, but rather a list of Common-Law Englishmen's rights under threat by Utopians and Statists all-too-willing to use the useful idiots to absolutize their power even then, and you folks have surrendered most of what took competing powers and their need to keep favor over a thousand years to re-bequeath to a populace partly descended from those once ruled under a Constitution--even permitted to kill officials who violated it--yet then subjugated under gangsters who liked to fancy themselves sophisticated kings. In America we do not have a kingdom but a Republic, and guys like me are hoping enough people will stand for it, and put the monster--whether or not it kicks and screams--and all who constitute it, under discipline and back into the box.
Included in that program--by design of our government--is the intention that it should do very little, and be frustrated by its own Constitution, from excusing exceptions or increasing taxes to pay or bribe its way out. Tax limitations of many forms is thus a lawful means of guarding liberty from the encroaches of those who want to run their programs. And unfortunately the Supreme Court itself has not really favored the Constitutional scheme since around the time FDR threatened the justices if they stood in the way of him acting like a king, while it has stated to change its mind on the tax bit too. Just me writing this probably would piss-off the "honorable" legalists on the bench, but I don't mean it as mockery, rather we would like them to enforce the Constitution as written, meaning they MUST abide by the intent and meaning and original philosophy and explanations of the majority of writers...or themselves be seen as subversives, unlawful, and misbehaving.
Dogs aren't people. Cars aren't people. Trees aren't people. Rubik's Cubes aren't people. Photons aren't people. Legal structures of economic convenience aren't people.
"Corpations"="groups of people acting in their own interest."
"Groups of people acting in their own interest [ARE] people."
Maybe you missed the part about legal vs. common language being very different, but "person" can be a technical term, referring to an aspect of being rather than the full human shebang: anyone remember a little thing called Roe. v. Wade? "Person" is a legal fiction in and of itself in various respects. Also note the origins being important and evincible in the latinate religious terminology employed in the west, say, for "the trinity", e.g. "one being in three PERSONS" (in Latin, "personae")...which happens to be a body of language and thought from which...our law derives.
The plural "people" is not the plurgal of "person" in legal parlance, unless the term is being used in the law the same as "person" in ordinary speech, and the law never assumes this--in any body or codification thereof--but rather that it is the legal term, unless specified. You're mixing.
When someone says "corporations ARE people", what is meant is "they're run by and composed of people", they are not simply "legal structures". IF it were true (at all times) that all a corporation is is the paper in a lawyer's desk that would be one thing; only certain kinds of "legal structures", however, permit a corporation to exist apart from multiple individuals--and the Feds do not treat them as such at the IRS level. You cannot, like it or not, deny any aggregation of human beings, the right to speak in their interest--disliking their perceived power or not. I disliked the fact that the democrat-appendage called a 'union' unlawfully was stealing wages and literally told me "fuck you" for demanding that I not forcibly have 'back dues' removed from my check for a period I was not part of the union nor obligated under any contract (bound by any agreement) to pay them anything, but am I calling for their inability to lobby? Unions, by the way, are actually corporations, didn't you know that? You going to say they have no right to address their government in assembly? Unfortunately for you, we the people, in whatever form, have that right: it's secured by the Constitution itself, which presumes also that it's a fundamental and natural right, so get over it. Also want to point-out, however, that by missing that "are PEOPLE" part, as in "made-up of people", and distracting with the "legal structures" part, that I consider you a troll.
More food for thought, btw, from a guy who spent a great deal of time sitting-around with powerful people (one being a lawyer who tends to know the breaking scoop before the NYT does, another who works with that guy to take-down corporate abuses all the time, and is an auditor for the Feds): let's say I decide to start a non-profit and not pay taxes; I organize a group of people and set to work. Do you think I have to file for the status with the IRS?
Yes? Wrong. All I have to do is operate within the same guidelines as the IRS would normally apply to determine whether an activity is exempt--and maybe not even that and I might still win, and regardless of whether I have that paper for "legal fictionhood"...we would be treated as a "corporation" because...that's what the frick' a corporation is: a group of people. THERE IS that distinct sense of a disliked aggregate of people to be suspected...and from personal experience working within them it's no wonder to me...but that doesn't mean we get to eliminate rights just because they are liable to misbehave: EVERY group of people I've ever run across, secular and religious, charitable or business, public or private...tends to have misbehavior that's rampant.
On the other hand, "corporate personhood" itself--which is not what I was talking about nor said--is itself truly a legal fiction, just as "person" or "personae" is/are in legal terminology: the dipshit liberal ("dipshit" in the technical sense of "know nothing"--in this case by choice) who rail against "corporate 'personhood'" don't seem to care (or maybe that's the objective due to the lobbying going on) without that doctrine, should negligence on the part of someone within GE get you badly injured--let's say one of their microwaves blows-up and then parts in a car made by them fail and get you further injured in a crash--you can't treat the "corporation" as one and just sue it (for all that stinkin' lobby-cash you're complaining they have): no, now you have to do an investigation to find the damn assholes truly responsible, then argue for YEARS over the levels and kinds of liability involved because there are pedigrees, degrees of contribution, etc. in what is likely a few thousand people who could have had any hand in the ultimate result that got you harmed.
Corporate 'person' (singular)--which remember, I wasn't talking about--is the doctrine that, rather, you can treat the whole damn lot as one individual who is responsible, and collect outsided damages (if the judge and/or jury decide that's what's necessary) for your pain, suffering, injuries, etc.: otherwise you only get to take down a few employees IF they can be identified, and then you can only take what they have, so you had a million in damages and medical bills can't be paid without a reward? Too bad. I'll bet you the individuals don't have much. The contrary view of "corporations" being themselves merely fictions permitted to assemble only by authority of a king...was because kings didn't want effective groups that might pose a threat to his power: in America we have servants, and I'd like to keep plenty of threats to their kinglihood and to remind them of that.
And yeah, I can lengthily post with that sort of bullshit and expect informed people to take me seriously...if they decide to read it. I spent about two years under legal lectures from a lawyer and his son, and the lawyer's son working in government and trying to become a lawyer...and they aren't conservatives, but they did consider pushing several bar associations towards debarring certain democrats (who are lawyers in their respective State's chapter of the bar) for daring to engage in such unethically and misleading rhetoric about the cases and legal issues under question. Kinda like...quoting a non-legal dictionary over legal matters and distorting what someone has and hasn't said.
I for one have it as a goal, btw, to become highly commercially successful with lots of people in "corporations", and then proceed to lobby INTENSIVELY against corruption, privileges assigned to businesses at expense of natural and fundamental liberties, toward electing people who will prosecute those lawyers as the democrats who have intentionally and publicly misrepresented the law and the issues for their political ends (it's unethical), etc. Black's law dictionary (earlier edition--anything after the 7th, btw, is unreliable due to the intentional failure to cite the case law therein for shady purposes), btw:
n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages.
For the record, for "corporations are people" to be absurd you would have to say something like "S Corps..." or "corporations are personae" or "...estin personae". Note also not just "rights.." but also "AND OBLIGATIONS". The whole point of "rights" to a group, however...is to ensure whoever is in government at a particular moment isn't the only effective group in the nation. That's a FEATURE, not a bug. Get over it you liberal fascist or person pushing the rhetoric of liberal totalist-government can't-oppose-our-ideals fascists.
Also for the record, I sit around a lot thinking how to Constitutionally regulate or penalize the corporations I work for for all kinds of things, and think I know ways to do it, and I'm just biding time till I can get the proper training: as said, I'm not the buddy of these things just because they are business, as a lot of things that go on just disgusts one with a conscience.
I worked at Dish at one point. Comcast had colluded with all the apartment and townhome complexes years ago to have the managers and owners ban satellite Dish installations to ensure a large supply of customers all to themselves and ability to charge whatever they liked without fear of competition. So Dish, of course, lobbied as well as funded politicians who intensely despised this sort of scheming (Republican and Democrat) and along with other entities had legislation passed that threw-out such legislation as unlawful AND...properly asserted that it was because holders of properly, rented or not, insofar as not destructive of that property (since it was rented and they had contractual and statutory duties not to damage it), had the right to dispose of it as they pleased--including the installation of satellite dishes, and that no excuses (including aesthetic) could barr them from doing so.
I even worked as a field tech a while and...it was always fund telling some belligerent asshole that he was on the wrong side of the fight (against the Federal government) and to hand him the sheet of paper specifying the relevant statutes and codes of law that correctly declared the agreements (which the complexes and Comcast still attempt to surreptitiously uphold) as unlawful, that the customer--even despite contracts--had a right to have the installation done. We actually had all sorts of tricks to get a signal inside without penetration of walls or anything like that to ensure we could do installs.
Point is, corporations don't just lobby to protect their gravy trains, but to undo those gravy trains too. Hostility against "corporations" simply because they have more money than individuals (which by banding-together in any way could do the same but instead they're buying tv to watch E to get the latest scoop on Miley Cyrus's tits, expensive data plans so they can get more of her tits throughout the day) just evinces your irrationality on this point.
"Candidates should stand on their merits, not their wallets."
It takes wallets to publish your merits, and you have to do it--especially when reaching out to a few million people at a time. Duh. Those who pretend "corporations" shouldn't donate...are probably just trying to reinstate union privilege. And again, I've only ever [directly] been robbed, shamelessly, by unions: ulnike corporations, and like the cops, they too enjoy total protection and immunity due to pocketing an entire political party, and exist now despite that little power remaining to actually protect and serve the interests of their [coerced] members. I do wish to add though, what particularly I despise about corporation interest donations is that they do try to exclude competition, and usurp to themselves our rights and liberties for their own privileging and profit: this includes not only the for-profits, but many nons, the unions, the business associations and cartels in medical, dental, [banking, bank-finance, finance], real estate, electrical, etc. industries. Hell, we can even count the local towns: their governments impose zoning and other requirements in the name of public safety and general welfare and 'preserving the character of the neighborhood', but really to jack-up prices and assessment valuations to impose more taxes and fund their little schemes and pet projects on the expense of your and my liberties.
I worked on the Obama Campaign, btw. (I'm sorry, "a non-affiliated progressive cause organization"...which regularly met with the SEIU and other union and organization heads whom we saw meeting with Obama regularly in the news.) I didn't do it because I really supported the guy, but rather because I was damn sure Mittens wouldn't win, and wanted to learn about those "grassroots" processes and political organizations and strategy of which we're touching upon here. Also lived across the street from a Democratic Senator's obudsman here in Colorado. Nice ol'guy. Also, as a Conservative I might've supported OWS being able to...arm and defend itself. If it's a public damn park, after all, it's for public use and consumption: a bunch of nobodies with nothing better to do and no jobs deserve to have some space after all, and that's what the damn "public" spaces are for: the public safety and health and hygiene and all that other bullshit that was pulled out of the Statists' and Courts' butts long ago and leveraged when they cleared-out OWS were, well, statists' inventions...some of us remember Hoovervilles and that we used to treat people who need to camp out as persons worth NOT attacking with vagrancy laws. Tell it to Obama etc. about public parks though, when he closes down open frickin' air parks to play Mr. Dictator isn't getting his way 'cause the house is doing its duty in wielding the purstring power: tells you that he (like the Repubs) don't really consider "public" things "public" at all, but "Government" property--much like they all do your conduct, labor, private business, etc. The problem with OWS is that in the name of inequality and "social" justice they'd empower these monsters more, rather than strengthen the institutions and traditional rights (mostly eroded) which protected us from such abuses.