Post

Narland wrote:

Anyone remember when Clinton signed the e-sig bill into law? I think that is where we dropped the keys. Before then it was relatively easy to use basic law and the UCC to keep one's papers and effects secure from businesses whose silent partner was a State of the United States (that's FDR, Truman/LBJ style corporations that all businesses are forced by law to conform since the 1960s). A simple phone call to Equifax and other evil corps that one was opting out of their modern money system's credit cap and trade scheme and if they didn't remove we would see them in court.

It was a nuisance but it least it was simple, and one's data was expunged from their fiefdoms. If there was an end user agreement, a nda, or privpol, they had to show due cause why they needed it, present it in person, negotiate with said person in which they were interested in dealing, sign a contract which both parties had the right to modify. I get paid for any data given, or reimbursed for any private date breached. Go back to that. And get rid of the so-called Johnson Amendments. Let businessmen and families choose the form of their business free from government corruption.

These are my insomnia induced thoughts. I am trying to get them to cohere into a strategy to return to free enterprise, but it looks unsurmountable at this point. Any feedback would be appreciated.

I'm afraid I'm not very knowledgeable about most of the legislation to which you refer, but for sure I've never been a fan of the credit reporting system. A little poking around seems to suggest that alterations to the historical view may have their origin around the Right to Financial Privacy Act or Fair Credit Reporting Act, or possibly court decisions establishing what is called the Third-Party Doctrine (i.e. people who voluntarily give information to third parties—such as banks, phone companies, internet service providers (ISPs), and e-mail servers—have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in that information) such as United States v. Miller (1976) and Smith v. Maryland (1979). However, I don't know whether corporate entanglements are implied here on what would otherwise be the basis for information collection on behalf of governments. As for the Clinton era, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (a.k.a. the repeal of Glass-Steagall) has some weak protections for consumers to opt out of having their data shared with third parties - weak enough that they may be ineffectual. But I'm afraid I'd need more information to be able to drill down further on your observations.

I'm only familiar with one "Johnson Amendment", which I've heard puts limits on the political advocacy of tax-exempt churches (and other non-profits), but the government has never actually prosecuted a case on these grounds for fear of it being declared unconstitutional. Don't hold me to this, as I've never really looked into the details.

As for businessmen and families choosing the form of their business, how short do non-C-corp business structures come? In particular, what about sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, and limited liability partnerships? I thought LLCs were supposed to be pretty flexible.