View Full Version : Does a corporation have 1st Amendment religious rights?
This is an interesting case. If we accept the broader notions of corporate personhood, do we also accept that for-profit corporations have a constitutionally guaranteed right of religion?
To anyone who argues "no": Corporations are just a way of organizing people and capital. If you force the corporation to behave in a way that is offensive to many of those people, aren't you violating their 1st A rights?
To anyone who argues "yes": Religion is unregulated in the USA, by design. Very low threshold to declaring your own faith (e.g., Scientology). So if we grant corporations the right to religious freedom, what's to stop someone from creating a religion for the express purpose of getting out of regulation? If faith healers found a company, can't they then get out of all health care obligations because they believe medicine is a lie? How would you guard against such abuses?
Discuss. Details (http://prospect.org/article/more-hobby):
Hobby Lobby’s billionaire founder and CEO, David Green, and its president, Green’s son Steve, have promoted themselves as patriotic Christians who serve God through their business endeavors. Their lawsuit speaks to religious conservatives who have been swept up in activism by politicians and clerics claiming that laws protecting women’s rights to reproductive health, or legal equality for LGBT people amount to government “persecution,” imposing “unprecedented” threats to their religious freedom—and by extension, they claim, the very survival of their businesses. [...]
At issue in Hobby Lobby’s lawsuit is far more than whether its employees will have coverage for all 20 methods of birth control Department of Health and Human Services regulations require employers to cover free of co-pays and deductibles. The suit, and others like it, is asking the courts to recognize for-profit corporations as entities with religious consciences that can be, in the legal parlance of RFRA, “substantially burdened” by government regulations.
The burden, Hobby Lobby argued, and the Tenth Circuit agreed, is that the government will impose fines of $100 per employee per day for failing to comply with the coverage requirement, potentially totaling $475 million in fines per year. That, the court found, amounted to a “Hobson’s choice,” forcing Hobby Lobby to choose between “catastrophic fines or violating its religious beliefs.”
Thanks, Obama.
You really need to use one of the GIFs for that. Good source (http://imgur.com/a/ibp5U).
https://i.imgur.com/rwqvcpw.gif
This is an interesting case. If we accept the broader notions of corporate personhood, do we also accept that for-profit corporations have a constitutionally guaranteed right of religion?I would say yes. A corporation is a collection of individual shareholders. If they have a right individually, why would they not have it still when joined together?
To anyone who argues "yes": Religion is unregulated in the USA, by design. Very low threshold to declaring your own faith (e.g., Scientology). So if we grant corporations the right to religious freedom, what's to stop someone from creating a religion for the express purpose of getting out of regulation? If faith healers found a company, can't they then get out of all health care obligations because they believe medicine is a lie? How would you guard against such abuses?I'll respond on two fronts:
1) The easiest way to avoid the problem is to not have governmental overreach that steps on people's rights- then this isn't a problem.
2)The concerns you outline don't apply only to corporations. What about sole proprietorships? What stops individuals from founding their own religion for tax purposes? These aren't rhetorical questions....
Montmorency
07-25-2013, 16:51
I can not found a religion based on the daily sacrifice of virgins to the Goat God. The law has already set the limits of religious freedom.
I can not found a religion based on the daily sacrifice of virgins to the Goat God. The law has already set the limits of religious freedom.I think you'd be ok up until you started murdering people. Your rights don't usually extend to the point of depriving others of theirs.
Montmorency
07-25-2013, 17:01
To say it more plainly, if your religion entails disobeying some law, then you are not entitled to freely practice your religion or those aspects which entail disobedience - unless you can successfully lobby to change the offending law itself, of course.
Maybe I can get a private Congressional exemption if I promise to only sacrifice yearly?
No, your rights can and should trump the law. If a law violates your rights, you take it to the courts. If the courts support your view, the law will be struck down. The law should be in support of your rights- not opposition. The obvious exception is what I stated in my previous post.
Ironside
07-25-2013, 18:25
I think you'd be ok up until you started murdering people. Your rights don't usually extend to the point of depriving others of theirs.
And the example above is all about limiting the legal rights for female workers.
Edit: Monty, since virgin sacrifice is appearently out, what about the church of KKK?
And the example above is all about limiting the legal rights for female workers.
Which right is that? The right to force your employer to pay for your birth control? I wasn't aware of that one. No one is forbidding them from getting contraception- this is about whether the government can force employers to foot the bill.
what about the church of KKK?
I'm pretty sure they already have their own church
Sarmatian
07-25-2013, 19:19
I would say yes. A corporation is a collection of individual shareholders. If they have a right individually, why would they not have it still when joined together?
Because it defies all sense of logic? By that definition you're equating a corporation and a human being. If I have a right to live, does a corporation have a right to live? Can it then petition the courts when competition is about to kill it?
I was responding to the post of Xiahou, I didn't quite understand the OP. Can someone use simple English to explain?
I was responding to the post of Xiahou, I didn't quite understand the OP. Can someone use simple English to explain?
TLDR version: corporations don't wanna pay for abortion/contraception coverage.
TLDR version: corporations don't wanna pay for abortion/contraception coverage.
Well, in fairness, the "abortion" in this instance involves IUDs and the Plan B pill, which most people do not consider to be abortion per se.
Interesting idea.
“this is about whether the government can force employers to foot the bill.”
Interesting: You don’t believe in Democracy by representation. I don’t know in the US (just joking), but in UK, taxes are decided by Laws, voted by an elected Parliament. I disagree strongly with the actual UK financial policy, but that is the law.
Let’s go for the alternative you describe: A Peacenik or a Jehovah’ Witness, being pacific, can refuse to foot the bill for the Armed Forces. Any individual can pay only for what he thinks is right. As a French Citizen living in a UK, aged 54, I can decide that I don’t need to pay for schools. I have no kids there, and all my education was paid by France, so I nothing to give back. In fact, I am quite fed-up to pay for English pregnant teenagers.
Armies, well, let’s say if I go swimming near Somalia and get abduct, who will come for me: Foreign Legion or SAS? I have a vague idea that it won’t be the SAS. So, I cut this one. No trust in NHS, so I cut this one.
There is no reason to keep the principal only for Religious Purpose. Believers in a Cause, whatever the Cause, could invoke the Right of Conscience. No more common laws, just self-interest. Who will pay for the roads? Only the users, and based on use, or tolls? I am not a car owner, and when I use a bus, I pay a ticket, so take this one out of me as well.
Interesting: You don’t believe in Democracy by representation. I don’t know in the US (just joking), but in UK, taxes are decided by Laws, voted by an elected Parliament. I disagree strongly with the actual UK financial policy, but that is the law.
Let’s go for the alternative you describe: A Peacenik or a Jehovah’ Witness, being pacific, can refuse to foot the bill for the Armed Forces. Any individual can pay only for what he thinks is right. As a French Citizen living in a UK, aged 54, I can decide that I don’t need to pay for schools. I have no kids there, and all my education was paid by France, so I nothing to give back. In fact, I am quite fed-up to pay for English pregnant teenagers.
Armies, well, let’s say if I go swimming near Somalia and get abduct, who will come for me: Foreign Legion or SAS? I have a vague idea that it won’t be the SAS. So, I cut this one. No trust in NHS, so I cut this one.
There is no reason to keep the principal only for Religious Purpose. Believers in a Cause, whatever the Cause, could invoke the Right of Conscience. No more common laws, just self-interest. Who will pay for the roads? Only the users, and based on use, or tolls? I am not a car owner, and when I use a bus, I pay a ticket, so take this one out of me as well.
The pay-as-you-go system is not quite as far fetched as it seems, and definitely not as absurd as it seems. In fact it might be the way of the future.
Montmorency
07-25-2013, 19:45
The pay-as-you-go system is not quite as far fetched as it seems, and definitely not as absurd as it seems. In fact it might be the way of the future.
In which case, fees for 'government services' - such as the right of driving down one block of a municipality - should be charged as a percentage of net worth, or something along those lines.
Tellos Athenaios
07-25-2013, 19:50
I'm not a huge fan of resorting to the Bible to settle disputes, but in this case I'll make an exception. To all the poor conscientious Christian businesspeople who are absolutely horrified of having to play by the same rules as everyone else: render unto Caesar... etc.
Seriously, even if you equate a corporation with a human to such an extent (which for some reason is not done when the real essence of corporations are involved: money) that does not absolve this new non-human person from paying taxes. You employ people, you pay tax even if that includes payments into the package which ultimately may or may not be used to buy Plan Bs.
Several people have made reference to taxation. This case is not about taxation. It's about whether the federal government can force employers to provide a service that they find morally repugnant.
Speaking for myself, I don't see why corporate personhood needs to come into play either. If I, as an individual,have the right to worship satan and I form a group that wishes to do the same thing- do they not have the same Constitutional right? Why shouldn't groups retain the rights of the individuals making it up?
Why shouldn't groups retain the rights of the individuals making it up?
A group composed exclusively of people who associate based on faith does have protection -- it's called a church. It's safe to assume that corporations such as Hobby Lobby employ many people of many faiths, or no faith at all. So it's more a question of whether management's the owners'* faith can constitute a organization-wide right protected by the Constitution.
*Corrected because drone is right and I am a doofus.
Papewaio
07-25-2013, 20:49
I'm against religious organsiations not paying taxes.
Otherwise why not form a religion and pay all your money into that. Get your own hostels, hospitals and retirement village then let the rest of society pay taxes for common resources ie roads, law courts, military etc.
Make it a multinational and if the country you are in goes south skip town to a better destination.
=][=
If corporations have first amendment rights, then why not the rest of the Consitutional rights ie voting. Why can't it vote at federal elections? If it is a person and can select the religious beliefs of its employees why can't it vote or better still based on this topic force its employees to vote as a block or lose their job.
Because that's the rub. It is now saying that a corporations religion out ranks its employees religion. That the corporation can choose how its employees observe the corporations beliefs right now to some of the most important and that's reproductive strategy.
A corporation that can choose your beliefs and your reproductive strategy. Heck yeah, can't see anything wrong with that because no individuals rights should trump that of a corporation.
Can't wait for the memos from HR: So we don't offend any of our shareholders the cafeteria will now only serve Halal/Kosher vegan meals. Please note that all female personal will wear Burkhas to keep our muslim shareholders happy and men will grow their beards to keep our Sikh shareholders happy.
Please note we now get all religious holidays off so no work may be performed from Friday to Sunday. As they are all holy days for each of the Abrahmic religions.
The emergency department will also be closed after sundown as we won't use electrical generators so we don't offend our Amish shareholders (don't offend them by asking how they became shareholders). Also we won't be using any blood products to keep our Jehovah's Witness shareholders happy too.
Signed Dr Mhmd. Joyti Singh Stein-Smythe
I am not a corporate lawyer but here's my take:
A group composed exclusively of people who associate based on faith does have protection -- it's called a church. It's safe to assume that corporations such as Hobby Lobby employ many people of many faiths, or no faith at all.
Employees don't count as far as corporate rights go, only shareholders do.
So it's more a question of whether management's faith can constitutes a organization-wide right protected by the Constitution.
The management's faith also does not apply to corporate rights, only shareholders. Management probably holds large percentages of stock, but I would say unless the shareholders are unanimously against birth control they have to comply with the law.
I susbscribe to Strike's siggie regarding corporate personhood.
Tellos Athenaios
07-25-2013, 23:10
Several people have made reference to taxation. This case is not about taxation. It's about whether the federal government can force employers to provide a service that they find morally repugnant.
Whether or not I pay taxes through transfer of funny pieces of green paper, via manipulation of numbers associated with some account balance, or by providing a service -- it's all the same thing. There were taxes before there was money, and it's merely the transfer of economic output that counts. This service is a tax on employing people by another name. And that is fine.
Speaking for myself, I don't see why corporate personhood needs to come into play either. If I, as an individual,have the right to worship satan and I form a group that wishes to do the same thing- do they not have the same Constitutional right? Why shouldn't groups retain the rights of the individuals making it up?
Your right to worship Satan is never in doubt. At the same time you are also required to pay into a package covering Plan B pills which are used, as it happens, for non-Satanic purposes. This is not a contradiction, nor a violation of your rights. I have every right to call you whatever names, make up new and inventive slurs on your person whenever I like, and in general exercise my right to free speech to agitate against you. However, in posting on the ORG I am bound by its TOS which does not look kindly on Xiahou bashing and however wrong this might be according to my personal and deeply held beliefs, I shall have to abide by the rules of the ORG or find another venue to vent my spleen at you.
The same reasoning applies when it comes to corporations claiming first amendment rights as basis for exemption from taxes or other laws governing the conduct of commerce.
So unless you fundamentally disagree with the idea that if you want to play a game you have to abide by its rules, the alternatives are:
Make the case that Plan B pills etc. should (fundamentally, whatever your other beliefs) not be part of the healthcare package paid for by employers.
Make the case that corporations should (fundamentally, whatever your other beliefs) not have to pay for any healthcare package.
Of course arguments for those case should preferably not be based on religious beliefs because of circular reasoning.
Ironside
07-25-2013, 23:46
Which right is that? The right to force your employer to pay for your birth control? I wasn't aware of that one. No one is forbidding them from getting contraception- this is about whether the government can force employers to foot the bill.
If it's a law, then most certainly. It's no different from forcing companies to have minimum vages or following environmental and health laws (you're legally entitled to not have arsenic in your food for example).
From a legal framework, littering and murder are the same thing, so allowing a legal bypass is setting up a nasty standard. So companies associated with the church of KKK can suddenly bypass those pesky anti-discrimination laws.
Of course, you can avoid this by making sure that the goverment has a very strong control over what constitutes a religion and what kind of exceptions is made, but I don't think you would approve of a state that could declare that Christianity isn't a religion and that Scientologies can murder freely on sundays, and the only thing keeping it away is the moral fibre of the goverment.
If it's a law, then most certainly.
Congress can pass a law forcing people to walk with their pants down every second Friday of September during non-leap years. Law in itself does not necessarily have legitimacy, nor is it just simply because it's the law. That's why the SCotUS is always so busy.
If corporations have first amendment rights, then why not the rest of the Consitutional rights ie voting. Why can't it vote at federal elections?It's members can vote.
If it is a person and can select the religious beliefs of its employees why can't it vote or better still based on this topic force its employees to vote as a block or lose their job.
I'm not concerned with personhood and no one has said it can select the religious beliefs of its employees.
So it's more a question of whether management's faith can constitutes a organization-wide right protected by the Constitution. Not management- ownership. Management and ownership are probably one and the same with Hobby Lobby- but it's still an important distinction.
Montmorency
07-26-2013, 01:33
It's members can vote.
Then its members can choose not to be involved in business where businesses are obliged to pay for this or that...
Not management- ownership.
Or, how about this:
A private citizen claims that it is against his religion for the government to subsidize contraception at all, and that therefore the government's position against abolishing the offending legislation constitutes a violation of his religious freedom?
And how about this:
The First Amendment prohibits the prohibition of the free exercise of religion. In no way does any of this prohibit the practice of the concerned parties' religion, since that which offends one's religious sensibilities can not be interpreted as a prohibition on the practice of one's religion, or else free speech against religion would make the free speech clause of the First Amendment in conflict and contradiction with the free exercise clause...
In all this talk, you know what? Why not enshrine the personhood of the government, or the state in the abstract?
What would your objections to such an interpretation of the Constitution be?
HoreTore
07-26-2013, 01:48
The pay-as-you-go system is not quite as far fetched as it seems, and definitely not as absurd as it seems. In fact it might be the way of the future.
It may sound great in theory, but that would mean sky-rocketing administration(bureaucracy) costs, dwarfing that of the USSR. You'll end up paying several times more for the administration cost than what you actually pay for the service in question. Unless supporting a legion of people whose only job is to stamp papers is your thing, I suggest you stay clear of this idea.
Suck it up and pay for things you don't want. The alternative is a zillion times worse.
I could go into moral implications and all that as well, but I don't really see the need as the extreme costs of the suggestion makes it idiotic enough on its own.
And speaking of idiotic, that's the only word I can think of when faced with the term "corporate personhood". I lol'ed.
Edit: Oh, and I had a look at Lemur's gif-link and found this (https://i.imgur.com/DLE0GEJ.gif). I have no idea how it's related to Obama, but now I can't stop laughing...
Everyone knows good Catholics don't ask for assistance in anti-procreation methods. So why do these businesses need to worry about their fellow religious-goers using these plans anyway. Religion is the individuals choice and if it is that individuals choice not to use those plans because of religion, then what is the issue.
or are you suggesting that suddenly a catholic business will suddenly have their female catholic staff members apply for contraception cover?
Everyone knows good Catholics don't ask for assistance in anti-procreation methods. So why do these businesses need to worry about their fellow religious-goers using these plans anyway.
Because there are plenty of bad Catholics like yours truly.
Because there are plenty of bad Catholics like yours truly.
I don't know you to disagree with you, so I have to take you at your word. :laugh4:
But seriously, are people actually imply that these businesses apparently completely bent on being full text book Christians to the letter, not a doubt in site, not trusting their own employees not to use the legally entitled plans for religious reasons? If that is the truth, then it simply proves that corporations cannot have personage, as they are not truly representative as it is virtually saying "I won't do this, as a Christian" then actively choosing the option when presented with it.
Are we debating the merits of their religious views, or their right to have them?
Papewaio
07-26-2013, 04:00
Or their right to impose them on others ie make a Sikh remove his turban at work because it offends xyz corporate religion.
Montmorency
07-26-2013, 04:04
Neither. We are debating whether legislation that requires employers to provide a benefit to their employees can be struck down merely because some, or hypothetically all, of the ownership of a corporation, disagree with the legislation on religious grounds.
Currently, the U.S. Selective Service System states, "Beliefs which qualify a registrant for conscientious objector status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest.
Any conscientious objection analogy will fail for this reason (among others), namely that corporations - being persons, and existing primarily to accrue profits to their constituent owners or shareholders - can not be given a benefit-of-the-doubt here.
But before you protest that you hadn't (yet) advanced this analogy:
Why shouldn't groups retain the rights of the individuals making it up?
Has a tax or any other government-imposed fiduciary liability on a citizen ever been killed by a plea to the right of Free Exercise of Religion? Would it make sense for a Mennonite to declare that contributing tax dollars to a state which engages in wars or aggressive maneuvers is against his 1st-Am rights, and so the state's right to wage war and the citizen's right to Free Exercise necessarily come into conflict?
If organizations should have the same rights as individuals, then apparently individuals possess rights that organizations do not. Yet these guys in the OP story didn't bring the case to the courts on an individual basis, and I don't suppose anyone has done anything like it on an individual basis before, so - would their individual desires to not pay for contraception for their employees (because religion) ever make it a day in court? If so, why didn't they take this route first? Why haven't thousands of businessmen? Surely it would be well-established by now and no government overreach would clash with religious sensibilities of proprietary firms and sole-ownerships and yadda-yadda or else the offending legislation would quickly be modified or repealed under the weight of judicial precedent...
Yet I doubt you could show that this is the case, and so it seems very clear that these guys are attempting to gain an advantage, to wrest a wholly new right, a right of impunity and meretricity, one that no individual possesses.
So there.
It may sound great in theory, but that would mean sky-rocketing administration(bureaucracy) costs, dwarfing that of the USSR.
Even today's technology will largely nullify those costs. Now, I'm not advocating that system, but it's definitely feasible, and in a few decades/centuries when the nation-states vanish and get replaced by corporations, this can be the way of life. Of course by the time this happens we'll all be dead, so it doesn't really matter for us in any practical sense.
Has a tax or any other government-imposed fiduciary liability on a citizen ever been killed by a plea to the right of Free Exercise of Religion? Would it make sense for a Mennonite to declare that contributing tax dollars to a state which engages in wars or aggressive maneuvers is against his 1st-Am rights, and so the state's right to wage war and the citizen's right to Free Exercise necessarily come into conflict?Great questions. But they're irrelevant to the discussion.
We're not talking about taxes.
Are we debating the merits of their religious views, or their right to have them?
Neither, obviously, although nice attempt to re-frame the debate.
We're not talking about taxes.
And yet another attempt to re-frame of the debate. I feel like I'm watching The Question Is Moot (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5999188/the_question_is_moot/).
So wait, employed-mandated healthcare and the individual mandate aren't a tax? Wasn't Obamacare affirmed by the Supreme Court as falling under Congress' right to levy taxes? Wasn't the central Republican argument against Obamacare that it was a tax by any other name? And now it's not?
Pshaw. You're clearly off-topic. The real question is whether or not Latvia should be in the EU.
So wait, employed-mandated healthcare and the individual mandate aren't a tax?Correct.
The SCOTUS decided that the government levied penalty for not having insurance was a tax. It did not decide that buying insurance was a tax.... that would be silly.
It makes it hard to discuss the merits of the case in the OP when posters don't seem to understand what the case is about. It's not about taxes- the Hobby Lobby case was about whether a corporation has the free exercise right under the First Amendment. The 10th Circuit said it does. Taxation was not part of their decision.... I'm surprised I need to point this out.
Montmorency
07-26-2013, 22:06
To reiterate, this has nothing to do with Free Exercise. Paying any sort of benefit to an employee can not interfere with the practice of religion, unless you're willing to make points like these:
*Paying more for employee benefits leaves me with less money to spend on the practice of my religion, and that makes me a sad panda
*My religion is against government impositions on employers in general
We need to stop equivocating on the meaning of practice. After all, wasn't it you who said that I would be OK founding a religion featuring human sacrifice, which is to say a religion which inculcates belief that to sacrifice at the appropriate intervals is morally obligated, as long as I never actually killed/sacrificed anyone? The religion itself and its practice are not one and the same.
Also, you never really addressed my previous post. How in the world can it make sense for a citizen to essentially claim that a government-mandated payment being objectionable to his religious beliefs is a violation of his right to Free Exercise, and so the government has no right to enforce such payments upon him?
And no, corporations can not be churches unless we just disestablish the legal attributes of "church" and treat them all the same way, however that might be.
To reiterate, this has nothing to do with Free Exercise. Paying any sort of benefit to an employee can not interfere with the practice of religion, unless you're willing to make points like these:The 10th Circuit Court disagrees with you. From the majority opinion:
“A religious individual may enter the for-profit realm intending to demonstrate to the marketplace that a corporation can succeed financially while adhering to religious values,” a majority of the court’s full en banc panel of eight judges wrote. “As a court, we do not see how we can distinguish this form of evangelism from any other.”
So, anyone want to discuss whether individual rights apply to corporations?
Most interesting: So, if I understand Xiahou’s intervention, in the USA, a Corporation, under Religious blanket, can do whatever it wants, even not respecting the law voted by an elected Parliament… How this can be conciliated with the individual right and anti-discrimination laws?
Tellos Athenaios
07-27-2013, 16:10
The 10th Circuit Court disagrees with you. From the majority opinion:
“A religious individual may enter the for-profit realm intending to demonstrate to the marketplace that a corporation can succeed financially while adhering to religious values,” a majority of the court’s full en banc panel of eight judges wrote. “As a court, we do not see how we can distinguish this form of evangelism from any other.”
Yes. A religious individual might wish to enter the market place with a sales pitch for Halal meat. That religious individual still has to pay into the Plan B pills package when it comes down to it. A religious individual might wish to establish no-working-on-Sabbath-day, and may establish opening and closing hours that way. That religious individual still has to pay into the Plan B pills package as well...
So, anyone want to discuss whether individual rights apply to corporations?
We've been over this before: corporations are welcome to their rights, but that doesn't exempt them from any obligation either. Rights are not a trump card to dodge obligations whenever it suits you. I would argue that rights come with obligations. For example my right to free speech comes with my obligation to respect yours; your right to religious feelings comes with your obligation to respect mine etc.
TheLastDays
07-28-2013, 19:19
I am a believing and practicing Christian and I agree completely that any organisation whatsoever that wants to employ someone has to fulfill all obligations that come with being an employer. I, as a single individual, might decide to hire someone to clean my house, drive my car or whatever... Even if my religious beliefs will stop me personally from ever thinking about abortion (or Plan B pills) I cannot use this to not pay my driver what he rightfully deserves for his work and that includes any and all health services that the law requires.
And yes, I think Jesus' statement about giving caesar his due applies here, I cannot interpret that only in the context of taxes...
HoreTore
07-29-2013, 01:42
Even today's technology will largely nullify those costs.
Are you kidding me?
Sure, IT increases production and saves costs, but it still costs a lot of money. Can you show me a single government-run IT project(or any other big IT project for that matter) without spiraling costs and screw-ups?
We're a zillion miles away from "nullifying costs" with regards to IT. I don't think that's the point or goal of IT either, though.
Are you kidding me?
Sure, IT increases production and saves costs, but it still costs a lot of money. Can you show me a single government-run IT project(or any other big IT project for that matter) without spiraling costs and screw-ups?
We're a zillion miles away from "nullifying costs" with regards to IT. I don't think that's the point or goal of IT either, though.
Who said anything about a government?
HoreTore
07-29-2013, 08:30
Who said anything about a government?
......Or any other big project.
They all end up costing a fortune.
......Or any other big project.
They all end up costing a fortune.
Yet they get done.
HoreTore
07-29-2013, 17:16
Yet they get done.
Of course, and they're great too, but "nullifying costs" only happens in science fiction.
Of course, and they're great too, but "nullifying costs" only happens in science fiction.
Not true at all. IT is usually a major cost saver.
HoreTore
07-29-2013, 18:21
Not true at all. IT is usually a major cost saver.
Of course it is, but it's a long way from decreasing costs to nullifying costs.
Of course it is, but it's a long way from decreasing costs to nullifying costs.
Good enough to sufficiently reduce the costs to make the pay-as-you-go system viable.
Montmorency
07-29-2013, 18:49
How does a citizen pay for national security? A safety tax?
How does one pay for the military? Residency tax?
How does one pay for police? If a crook victimizes you, you must pay for the privilege of not allowing the crook to commit further crimes against other individuals? What's the difference between that and a generalized tax, besides that it's far more regressive than the latter.
How does one pay for the fire department? Your possessions are burning away, so pay up now to save the rest? Or maybe the rest of the neighborhood will contribute to prevent the fire from spreading and burning down the homes of thousands? Easy to envision a rerun of Crassus...
How does one pay for the justice system? It's already desperately underfunded, and somehow I don't imagine poor criminals would be able to foot the bill. For that matter, how do we pay for prisons? Aside from the criminal aspect, what about lawsuits? If all the awards are confiscated by the state to pay for the process, then what's the point?
For analyzing usage of road systems, there would have to be a camera every 10 feet - a hundred times as many cameras as in all the UK. There would have to be very complex algorithms behind them to work out different classes of vehicles and other data for the price breakdown.
It seems very likely that PAYG is inherently unworkable. Shame on you for even suggesting such nonsense.
It seems very likely that PAYG is inherently unworkable. Shame on you for even suggesting such nonsense.
I'm only saying that it can happen. Nothing more. It might succeed or it might fail, I'm not gonna care since I'll be dead.
gaelic cowboy
07-29-2013, 19:59
Not true at all. IT is usually a major cost saver.
It only does that by increasing your productivity the cost will likely still be quite large.
It only does that by increasing your productivity the cost will likely still be quite large.
Either way it makes the unfeasible feasible.
Papewaio
07-29-2013, 23:28
Not all projects get done and not all IT projects are there to save money.
=][=
You wouldn't put cameras on the road. It would make more sense to mandate them on the car and add GPS. Covers roads, off road and accidents.
What Pape says.
IT projects are more likely to increase productivity if they're actually successful, nowhere near 100% are successful.
You should also be aware of this graphic or one of its variations: http://www.projectcartoon.com/cartoon/2
Montmorency
07-29-2013, 23:45
Interesting.
All dashboard cams linked to a central network, analyzed by govt computers...
If someone's camera stops working, an alert goes out to the driver to pull over immediately and wait for a replacement (for a nominal fee) or be hunted down by police. Tracking of cars through GPS and other means would certainly make it easy to locate offenders, I suppose. On the other hand, isn't that pretty much run-of-the-mill for dystopian-future sci-fi?
Not all projects get done and not all IT projects are there to save money.
=][=
You wouldn't put cameras on the road. It would make more sense to mandate them on the car and add GPS. Covers roads, off road and accidents.
Or to simply charge a road toll. No need for cameras, gps or anything else. Just a tollbooth.
Montmorency
07-29-2013, 23:53
Just a tollbooth.
That would severely exacerbate traffic, I bet. A tollbooth at every exit onto a highway?
If you'll have PAYG, it just makes a lot more sense to turn the automobile into a super-surveillance device that the government has total control (at its discretion) over, so that whatever fees or tolls are assigned can be deducted automatically.
Any way you look at it, it's either a phenomenal increase in either bureaucracy or surveillance - likely both.
Papewaio
07-29-2013, 23:54
Tollbooths are expensive to operate. Sydney has plenty and the most expensive toll road per meter.
How would you use them on every street? Not all streets even have traffic lights.
That would severely exacerbate traffic, I bet. A tollbooth at every exit onto a highway?
Chicago tollways work quite well. The booths are on the expressway itself, not at the ramps.
If you'll have PAYG, it just makes a lot more sense to turn the automobile into a super-surveillance device that the government has total control (at its discretion) over, so that whatever fees or tolls are assigned can be deducted automatically. Any way you look at it, it's either a phenomenal increase in either bureaucracy or surveillance - likely both.
There's absolutely no reason to needlessly complicate this process when a simple tollbooth solves the problem.
Tollbooths are expensive to operate. Sydney has plenty and the most expensive toll road per meter.
How would you use them on every street? Not all streets even have traffic lights.
Urban driving permit. Purchased from the company that would maintain the city roads. Simple.
Montmorency
07-30-2013, 00:15
Chicago tollways work quite well. The booths are on the expressway itself, not at the ramps.
Toll roads are a very small minority of the roads in the country. We're talking about every inch of the numbered highways being covered, as well as all other marked roads.
Urban driving permit. Purchased from the company that would maintain the city roads. Simple.
So someone who drives five miles a week to the nearest Costco pays as much as, say, a taxicab?
Toll roads are a very small minority of the roads in the country. We're talking about every inch of the numbered highways being covered, as well as all other marked roads.
Not every inch. Unprofitable roads will be abandoned, fall into disrepair and ultimately vanish.
So someone who drives five miles a week to the nearest Costco pays as much as, say, a taxicab?
Or a taxicab pays as much as someone who drives five miles a week to the nearest Costco. Whatever ends up being more feasible. Walking and breathing will remain free of charge.
Montmorency
07-30-2013, 00:31
Not every inch. Unprofitable roads will be abandoned, fall into disrepair and ultimately vanish.
Unprofitable because they're not hooked into the system because the system is too expensive and bulky to proliferate? Anyway, the state itself needs all of these roads, so they would never just let a highway vanish into wilderness. Also, what the actual :daisy:?
Or a taxicab pays as much as someone who drives five miles a week to the nearest Costco. Whatever ends up being more feasible.
You think people would vote for that nonsense? I thought the point of this exercise was to link actual usage with payment: "Pay as you go". If the object is to :daisy: everything for no discernible advantage, well, just go ahead and run for office I suppose. You'll have company.
Unprofitable because they're not hooked into the system because the system is too expensive and bulky to proliferate? Anyway, the state itself needs all of these roads, so they would never just let a highway vanish into wilderness. Also, what the actual :daisy:? What state? I specifically stipulated the point about nation states being replaced by corporations.
You think people would vote for that nonsense? I thought the point of this exercise was to link actual usage with payment: "Pay as you go". If the object is to :daisy: everything for no discernible advantage, well, just go ahead and run for office I suppose. You'll have company.
In a world run by corporations people don't get to vote.
Montmorency
07-30-2013, 00:42
Now, I'm not advocating that system, but it's definitely feasible, and in a few decades/centuries when the nation-states vanish and get replaced by corporations
Oh, I see. You meant that seriously? Without the state, there can not be corporations. In fact, without the state you've basically got only localized barter within kinship groups and maybe one yearly caravan to the valley over the mountain.
Oh, I see. You meant that seriously? Without the state, there can not be corporations. In fact, without the state you've basically got only localized barter within kinship groups and maybe one yearly caravan to the valley over the mountain.
It's hard to predict what will happen. My scenario is just one of a myriad of scenarios that can happen. It doesn't mean that I endorse it, it merely means that I acknowledge the possibility.
It doesn't mean that I endorse it, it merely means that I acknowledge the possibility.
I don't think you would much like living in the world you ... acknowledge.
I don't think you would much like living in the world you ... acknowledge.
That very well may be, but that's irrelevant as far as this discussion is concerned.
In a world run by corporations people don't get to vote.
They do if they own shares.
Can a corporation be saved? Does it have a soul? :inquisitive:
Can a corporation be saved? Does it have a soul? :inquisitive:
Don't know, don't care. I don't have a horse in that race.
a completely inoffensive name
07-30-2013, 03:54
Pay as you go is in the exactly the same boat as implementing a flat-tax. It's an option that seems to be a good idea because it has not been widely done on the level people are advocating. But if you take 10 minutes to look at the math and logistics of it all, it is evident that it is a failure from the word go.
I actually had a conversation about flat taxes with someone, and I pointed out the overwhelming problems with it that would ensure it's failure. The only real reply I got back consisted of "Let's just try it out and see." Very odd to treat an economy with the same attitude as you would your appetite in a new restaurant.
Don't know, don't care. I don't have a horse in that race.
But it seems a little pointless discussing corporate freedom of religion if corporations are incapable of being spiritually affiliated.
We have an decent pay-as-you-go system for roads already in place, it's called the gasoline tax. Apart from hybrids and electrics, it's a fairly accurate method of taxing road wear.
a completely inoffensive name
07-30-2013, 04:58
We have an decent pay-as-you-go system for roads already in place, it's called the gasoline tax. Apart from hybrids and electrics, it's a fairly accurate method of taxing road wear.
From the condition of the roads I drive on, it doesn't seem like that gasoline tax is going back into the infrastructure.
"In a world run by corporations people don't get to vote" Did you read Robert Heinlein? I think it is "Friday". The book describes a world like this, where corporations kill and rule the World. Good book, one of my favourite Heinlein.
But it seems a little pointless discussing corporate freedom of religion if corporations are incapable of being spiritually affiliated.
Not really, considering that we can't prove that even humans have souls. That doesn't prevent humans from being religious/spiritual/whatever.
Did you read Robert Heinlein? I think it is "Friday". The book describes a world like this, where corporations kill and rule the World. Good book, one of my favourite Heinlein.
Haven't read him, but he sounds like the kind of author I might enjoy reading.
From the condition of the roads I drive on, it doesn't seem like that gasoline tax is going back into the infrastructure.
You live in Cali, so this surprises me not one bit. ~D
Road wear is a 4th power function of axle weight, an axle supporting 2X pounds damages the road 16 times as much as an axle supporting X pounds. Heavier vehicle use more gas per mile, and therefore pay more tax. It's not a perfect solution, but it's pretty fair. Where the state government decides to apply the money is another matter entirely. ~:rolleyes:
Not really, considering that we can't prove that even humans have souls. That doesn't prevent humans from being religious/spiritual/whatever.
Humans may or may not have souls, we don't know for sure. Corporations are government created entities, I would love to hear arguments about humans creating souls through paperwork.
Humans may or may not have souls, we don't know for sure...
Exactly, so as far as the law is concerned there's no such thing as a soul, not in humans, not in corporations, not in anything. It's irrelevant for the legal purposes.
Haven't read him, but he sounds like the kind of author I might enjoy reading.
Read 'Jennifer Government' too, that is about a world made up of corporate cartels running everything, a republican libertarian wet dream with government vastly underfunded and basically non-existing.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.