[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[atlarge-discuss] Incorporation & Marginally Useful Insects

Saturday, August 10, 2002 * 9:49 PM EDT USA

[My responses are interwoven below.]

At 08:42 PM 8/9/2002, Bruce Young wrote (in RE: [atlarge-discuss] ...the last several days' posts):

Joey wrote:

>I've acquired exquisite perception, sensitivity, intuition, compassion
>and actual knowledge of-and-about a few things, people and "politics" chief
>among them.

So, I take it, you don't buy the argument that "lawyer" is the larval stage
of "politician", which is an annoying yet marginally useful insect we are
all force to live with?  :)
In spite of my setting out to become one, and still having affection for THE LAW, I have even greater disdain for the legal profession (parasitic monopoly) than your joke would suggest, which really set me to laughing.

I have equal disdain for the parasitic medical monopoly and the pharmaceutical monopoly to name but a few. The list is endless... of self-serving, government sanctioned and enforced, profiteering, high seas pirates! All of this is explained away as being for our own "good." Yeah, right!

Were it left to me I would "de-regulate" every last one of them. If an Underwriter's Laboratory certification (non-governmental) is good enough to protect me from being killed by my own household appliances then I would regard their certification as good enough to protect me from being killed by my doctor, my lawyer and my Indian Chief (Native American, that is) without government dictating and telling me what is or is not a legitimate practice of those professions, and thereby creating MONOPOLY. I am then free to use UL certified professionals or not, and we'd truly have a free market.

As it is now, we have too few doctors and nurses, way too many lawyers, and probably just about the right number of Indian Chiefs because we don't regulate those, at least not yet.

Whereas "caveat emptor" (buyer beware) is a cherished legal principle, we are not supposed to apply it lawyers, judges and politicians. It would harm the social fabric we are told.

;-)

Seriously, we could use legal assistance to help make us a legal non-profit
agency!  Talk to Joanna!
Any legal secretary can do that in less than a half-hour, and her boss will get to charge you big bucks for it. If she tries to offer the service directly at real-cost she will be arrested.

I've incorporated at least three non-profit organizations and one for-profit (which could just as well have been non-profit ;-) ) in my life. That's very simple. Meet the letter-of-law requirements of a given jurisdiction.

The hard part is writing a substantial charter, though a brief one is typically acceptable, laying out the organizations purposes that typically have more to do with taxation issues than anything.

The even harder part is writing the by-laws, unless you want to settle on the typical corporate (profit and non-profit) boiler plate that vests all authority in a board of directors.

May I respectfully suggest given our international character and claims that we consider incorporating in The Hague. Unless there are extenuating circumstances requiring incorporation in the U.S.A. or elsewhere I think incorporation in the Hague or Geneva or would be emotively meaningful for an international organization.

Other than for tax considerations, the place of incorporation is above all symbolic. Other than for a mailing address for resident agent to receive legal notices no one need actually be there.

In this day and age we plan to operate it from all around the world, do we not?!

>Second, it is simply at the least bad form not to have published the
>complete panel vote with all candidates' names and panel member votes for
>each.

I assume this comments on the selection of the Chair by the Panel members?
I agree that this would be useful info, but the selection of the chair was
the panel's duty & responsibility.  That said, why cloud the decision by
posting the vote data here, thereby causing members to thrash around about
it?  They chose, we need to accept their choice and move on.
Yes, I wish I had been clear I was talking about the election of the "chair" by the panelists.

And I wish you would meet me head on with regard to my statement later on in the same paragraph, the meat of it as far as I am concerned: "The way the results were announced, and still so far un-corrected, omitting the non-winning candidates' names and voters is in my conviction disrespectful and devaluing of those individuals."

It is the simplest matter of fairness and justice and it troubles me that impartial others on this list (to the point of my catching up on my E-mails) have not spoken to this.

The most useful way to look at any well-spirited honorable election is that there aren't winners and losers. Rather, someone is chosen and another is deferred (in a choice for one position). There ought not be any shame or hurt in that, instead pride in holding up for admiration, gratitude and recognition those willing to stand for service, regardless of the outcome. We all NEED affirmation regardless of circumstances and issues, and we need to gracefully and graciously give it to each other.

Everything is fluid, nothing is permanent, everything is change, and today's chosen will be tomorrow's deferred or retired, and today's deferred will be tomorrow's chosen, if not retired.

Disclaimer: I nominated and voted for both Vittorio and Joanna (among
others), knowing that they have two very different visions for the At Large,
but knowing that both visions deserved representation on our panel. But even
if someone else had been chosen I would equally support them now, because
the Panel has the authority to choose and made their choice, and I have the
responsibility as a member to honor it!

I see. You voted early... and often. ;-)


>Third, one of the burdens taken on by each of the new panelists, whether
>they are aware of it or not or whether they are comfortable with it or not
>or whether they like it or not, is to read every last post of every member
>to this list and respond to the merits of suggestions and proposals made in
>any such posts, however lame brained or "late to the party" they may think
>an offering is within the limits of this marvelous near-instantaneous
medium.

Agreed.  In a flat organization like the one I hope we're building, everyone
in the membership has an advisory role that they need to take seriously.  If
they did, we might have fewer "flame wars" and more reasoned discourse here
(hint!)
I am growing increasingly to see just the challenge in keeping up with reading the sheer volume of E-mail on this list. Right now I'm feeling overwhelmed, without even feeling the obliged to respond to things that aren't directed to me.

I feel myself already behind in following up on my volunteering for a task group on verification and can much better understand the burden I asserted the panelists have. They are obviously going to need lots of help.

Cheers!

/s/ Joey

Put your action where your... err... speech is! Create your personal volunteer profile at http://www.icannatlarge.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=19 and tell everyone what you have done, and/or can do, and/or are willing to do -- NOW! :-)
(Please at least book mark the above link.)