Blog powered by Typepad

« Dove snow white | Main | Talking points »


Concerning corporations as judical persons: the idea that they were not was the principle used by the Bolsheviks in the USSR to deprive the church of its buildings. They said that the church could not be a judticial person, and that therefore it could not own land and buildings, but could only lease them from the state.

Thank you Diane.

And melxiopp, your name is hard to pronounce. You point out a troubling reality, and that is: is all that one claims to be his under the rubric of his wealth really his?

It was a dangerous thing to do, defending any sort of taxation. These days, Ayn Rand-spouting libertarians are suggesting a situation that could only be realized in cartoons.

Great post, Father. And melxiopp, your response is excellent. Thank you both.

"Distribute the profits to the poor" is not really possible for the modern corporation as its sole, clearly defined end is to increase its value for its owners. However, the intent of your suggestion is fitting, which is why persons - individual and corporate - are taxed and should be taxed.

I had a few posts on taxation recently, about how it is not theft, etc. and got a lot of push back. I think it odd that persons assume their mercantile and financial activities are in a vacuum apart from things like rule of law, property rights, the courts, public health, government, defense, the police, universal schooling, utilities, regulations, a currency, peaceful and orderly elections, etc. All these things are necessary bedrock to the sorts of profits possible in our economic system. Those persons - again, individual and corporate - need to pay the price of the bedrock that makes such wealth possible. The trader alone, mono a mono does not create millions and billions; those millions and billions are dependent on the entire system that puts him in a position to make such wealth. Such wealth is not for him alone or his alone, properly, but his and the society's together that have allowed such.

There is an economist who did a study attempting to identify all the causes of wealth in a society. He was able to correlate only about 30% to individual factors, the remainder were soft factors such as I mentioned above. It's the ________ remainder or something, named after the economist.

There was a documentary on Hubert Humphrey last night on PBS. I didn't see much of the Vietnam era stuff, but his early vision and rhetoric was certainly attractive. Isn't one supposed to get more Republican as you get older?...

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)