131–140 of 255 posts
A library is loaning you property, usually collateral-free. A corporation is just a placeholder essentially for the activities it will perform, each of which will likely have far more stringent requirements than a library card.
This varies extremely across various states and cities. If you live in new York city for example, to incoroerate an llc, you need to take out a section in a news paper to say you created an llc of name so and so, every day, for like a week, within a year (if I remember right) of your incorporation. Across three news papers too. If you go "OK fine, I will incorporate elsewhere, like Delaware", then NYC views you as a…
> If you do not do this then the enforcement mechanism is that when you get sued, then a court can take back the corporate veil perk of your llc (llc is void so it turns into a sole proprietorship I think) and go after your personal assets if you loose a lawsuit. This is a common misconception. In real life there is no actual penalty for not placing the ads. In the event you’re challenged on it, the deficiency could…
So you have to hope no one wants to come after you? What would happen if this were actually in court? Overturned for lack of enforcement?
Interesting historical tidbit: Many libraries had very lax requirements for library cards pre-9/11. The PATRIOT Act forced them to collect more information. https://sfpl.org/index.php?pg=2000060501&fullsite=true
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other modern democracies have different traditions with respect to documentation; we don't have a national identity card either, nor do we require people to carry identification with them. Lots of voters, particularly elderly voters, don't have formal identification. Instances of voter fraud in the US are vanishingly rare. It's a really dumb crime; stiff penalties, lots of legwork, and an infinitesimal likelihood of…
it is really interesting that in US and countries like that where voter fraud is relatively easy it's almost nonexistant, but in Russia, for example (where you need your passport to vote and where you can't vote just anywhere, but on a particular station in the region you have a stamp of residence in your passport, and yeah, there's a list of voters everywhere, in advance)... Well, bussing exist there. Buses with "vo…
Hence, the voter fraud boogieman in the US remains just that - a convenient boogieman.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
However, that's orthogonal to the issue; documentation of your right to vote is not one of the requirements of possessing that right. (as parent said, "A person's right to vote exists with or without documentation.") It is a dramatic improvement that the people with the right to vote has been expanded since the 1700s, but what you said doesn't actually speak against the basic idea that documentation is not relevant t…
> However, that's orthogonal to the issue; documentation of your right to vote is not one of the requirements of possessing that right. According to whom exactly? As others have pointed out in this discussion, that's not how the US system was designed. There is no inalienable right to vote.
The 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think voting should be limited to citizens of the country? Or that each person should only get 1 vote? If so that seems impossible to implement without requiring identification, if not that seems tantamount to infringing on people's right to vote, if someone can vote twice against me while I only get 1 vote because I'm following the rules then that means my vote effectively wasn't counted.
> Do you think voting should be limited to citizens of the country? Oddly, I’m not aware of any state that requires you to prove citizenship to register to vote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Minnesota for example, all one needs is another registered voter to vouch for them. My thoughts on this are old school. Like 1700's old school. A person's right to vote exists with or without documentation. A piece of paper, an entry in a ledger, or a row in a database has no bearing on whether that right exists, or should be exercised. In many of the states where I've lived (13 so far), all that was needed to vot…
Your thoughts are not old school at all. The Constitution initially left it up to the states to determine who was eligible to vote and most states restricted voting to white, male, property owners - thus requiring a deed of property to register. NJ was pretty progressive allowing women to vote if they had property. Identification and Soviet papers are two completely different things. In the Soviet Union and in China…
A library is loaning you property, usually collateral-free. A corporation is just a placeholder essentially for the activities it will perform, each of which will likely have far more stringent requirements than a library card.
A corporation's activities are unknowable but not being a real person it is not entitled to an assumption of good faith and there is no particular right to create new legal entities. We should definitely know who the beneficial owners of any corporation are to reduce the potential for fraud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GP isn't arguing against detecting voter fraud. They're arguing against making the registration process harder in order to prevent (basically nonexistent) voter fraud. The reason people in the U.S. are worried about voter fraud is that one side of the political spectrum is pushing the narrative — without any real evidence — that voter fraud is rampant. We shouldn't make it more difficult to vote in order to fix a mad…
How do you know if its non-existent if you cant even measure it from lack of proper identification?
Denying the vote to someone who has the right to vote is mathematically just as problematic as granting it to someone who does not have the right.
A library is loaning you property, usually collateral-free. A corporation is just a placeholder essentially for the activities it will perform, each of which will likely have far more stringent requirements than a library card.
Long ago, a corporate charter required an act of the state legislature to authorize it. Obviously that’s a heavy handed approach, but the idea that any agent of any person or other entity can anonymously create a company is ridiculous.