Journal mercedo's Journal: What is Public, What is Not? 7
In order to be 'public', endorsement by established power is needed. In political power, it has long been considered the Imperial power as the absolute therefore it is the only 'public' throughout overall history, except from 1215 - 1868, during that period power seizure of shognate from the warrior class kept on.
From those 650 years, a kind of double power structure over ordinary people existed. Both Imperial family and shognate family are regarded as 'public'.
In the age the revenue of many multinational corporations are well comparable to those of relatively small state, besides their range of activities is well over beyond the very natioal border, interest. It is not exaggarating to say they are representing not only narrow national interest but interest of the people around the world - therefore they are 'public'. In the next decades of the 21st century they are claiming to be 'public' corporation.
no. (Score:1)
Roads, for example. At least in the US, roads are owned and operated by the government in order for the government to fulfill its duty of providing mail delivery service. That's at the federal level.
Local and state level governments will have different functions, but the same principal applies. If it is necessary for the government to fulfill its function, and if the government owns and o
Re:no. (Score:1)
Roads are state owned, or local government whatever, but how about subway, railroads? Their ownership is various - some are owned by city authorities but others are private ownership. Roughly speaking, subway 50%, rairoads 100% are private ownership here in Japan but they remained to be 'public' traffic facilities.
So strictly speaking who owns those facilities doesn't make much difference, as long as their functions
Re:no. (Score:2)
The difference is "what the organization is allowed to do with the money."
Looking at the private corporation, McDonald's restaurants: they can take all their money and squander it, if they so desire. It's not the citizen's money. (It is the shareholder's money, but becoming a shareholder in McDonald's is optional.) If McDonald's wants to basically "give" one billion dollars to Donald Trump - there is n
Re:no. (Score:1)
Honestly speaking I thought exactly the same thing you mentioned. To interfere with private matters by the state this time by court is apparently violating civil code. Only on second thought I thought scotus people know better than not to know such a basic principle on private and public, then I rewrite my journal - private property and changing notion of publicity.
Scotus people don't have to pay full respe
Re:no. (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, they are only human. Humans make mistakes.
If you read here (Subsequent_history - Justice Souter's home) [wikipedia.org] you will find an interesting twist, which could very well cause this decision to be rescinded.
Heh heh heh heh. ;-)
Re:no. (Score:1)
I disagree. You're thinking basically is in-line with how the USSC ruled, since it is ultimately leads to the argument that anything that increases property values is "public use" since it generates more tax revenues which are used to increase the amount of public services available. W
Re:no. (Score:1)
Concerning this you seemed to shed light on tax revenues in elmegil's JE too, it has little to do with scotus decision. Scotus people are as long as I believe not so narrow-minded.
I am very sorry to say so but they are the laws, since any country has to be run by someon