| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: Maine should takeover.. As I just posted, the supreme court CLEARLY RULED that $1.00 a year is 'ample compensation'. So, pray, tell me, what legal grounds would fairpoint have to contest? You are the one who always argues that a corporation has the same rights as a person. Well, a person has a RIGHT to have their PRIVATE PROPERTY seized for a pittance. So Fairpoint would have no case? Oh, wait, if it's a CORPORATION that is giving up the assets, then it's different than if it's a person? So, which is it then. Does a corporation HAVE the rights of a person or not? You can't have it both ways.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
| Come on guys. TK's point is reasonable and correct here.
We don't want the government essentially confiscating assets in situations like this, whether under the guise of eminent domain or anything else. That would open up a cascade of abuses and precedent and we couldn't begin to predict where it would end.
I don't like the BS these companies pull any more than any of you do but there is a normal bankruptcy process for these situations.
Saying that the little guy gets screwed with eminent domain may be true but the solution to that is to end such abuses, not to screw companies as well as some perverse compensation.
"Why doesn't the state of Maine just revoke Fairpoints right to operate after Fairpoint "
Now there is probably some legitimate, legal way to do something along the lines not of revoking a right to operate but of reclassifying them and their regulatory situation but this is a separate issue from taking the assets whether with compensation or without. If nothing else it would create a legal quagmire as TK points up, though it should also be philosophically unacceptable in any but the most dire economic calamities and this doesn't begin to rise to that level. |
|
|
|
| said by asdfdfdfdfdf :
Come on guys. TK's point is reasonable and correct here.
We don't want the government essentially confiscating assets in situations like this, whether under the guise of eminent domain or anything else. That would open up a cascade of abuses and precedent and we couldn't begin to predict where it would end.
I don't like the BS these companies pull any more than any of you do but there is a normal bankruptcy process for these situations.
Saying that the little guy gets screwed with eminent domain may be true but the solution to that is to end such abuses, not to screw companies as well as some perverse compensation.
"Why doesn't the state of Maine just revoke Fairpoints right to operate after Fairpoint "
Now there is probably some legitimate, legal way to do something along the lines not of revoking a right to operate but of reclassifying them and their regulatory situation but this is a separate issue from taking the assets whether with compensation or without. If nothing else it would create a legal quagmire as TK points up, though it should also be philosophically unacceptable in any but the most dire economic calamities and this doesn't begin to rise to that level.
And they are also wrong about eminent domain being able to just pay $1 for Fairpoint's assets. That is just a wet dream by advocates of state supremacy in the economy.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
 woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | reply to karlmarx
Don't always agree with TkJunkmail, but if not mistaken, sometime in the past not sure but "Corporations" were granted status such as that as an individual,(a supreme court case) when I find it, will post.Peace
--
BlooMe |
|
