From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Sat Nov 02 2002 - 07:28:17 MST
On Saturday 02 November 2002 06:15, Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 11/1/2002 8:42:32 PM Central Standard Time,
> lcorbin@tsoft.com writes: So I predict that since so few now favor
> government involvement, the term in the future shall come to mean merely
> "owned collectively".
> ## The problem with that theory is that those arrangements have a long and
> secure position under capitalist law.
> ...
> On the other hand if you form any one of a couple different
> partnerships or a corporation you will have your liability limited to your
> share of what the partnership owns. In addition it might be set up so that
> you are not responsible at all for any other partners malpractice.
> I suggest you talk to a good attorney if you are serious about any
> of this. At this time in my life I am a wanna-be tax accountant -- it will
> be another year or so before I am even a tax accountant.
> Ron h.
Actually, I don't believe that any of us are particularlly interested in being
socialists. I, at least, just want to know what I should be talking about.
And I don't consider that current law allowing corporations to act as
irresponsible thieves on a large scale contributes much. If I were to set
something like this up, current laws would force it to be a corporation with
a special charter. I believe that limited corporations where shares can only
be sold within a qualified group is still legal, though I'm not certain. It
certainly couldn't be a publically traded corp, and not just because that
would conflict with "setting up something like this". You can't be listed on
any of the exchanges unless you are a rather large corporation. Red Hat
software had trouble getting approval.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:56 MST