cnocbui

gwydion said:

tenly said:

No, it is no what is demanded of Apple (and other companies) and no, it is not corrupr, unethical or fraudulent, it is how law is applied and it is ethical and lawful

Oh it is certainly unethical.  Dodging a social responsibility and shifting a tax burden to others because you have found a clever legal work-around isn't being ethical.

I am surprised people don't mention Tunein.  That's what I use for streamed radio-like stations with access to 100,000 channels.
http://tunein.com/

I haven't used the streamed stations feature of iTunes in years as it was really half-baked with no search capabilities and very rudimentary genre classifications.

What a load of utter rubbish.

Apple copied Nokia's Living Images.  They didn't even have the courtesy to acknowledge having done so and Phil Schiller even said "It's a beautiful experience; unlike any other way of interacting with photos."  something blatantly untrue.

To accuse Samsung of copying Apple instead of saying both Apple and Samsung copied Nokia is disingenuous.

tenly said:

cnocbui said:

It wouldn't be legal to set up a 'sovereign' country.  It wouldn't be recognised  by legitimate countries.  Who would live in this country?  Companies can't exist without people.  Who in their right mind would want to live in this corporate hell?  Do you honestly think Apple could persuade it's employees to move there with their families?
'Honey, great news, were not moving to Sydney after all, we're going to Corparia!'
'No, YOU are moving to Corparia.  You can make yourself dinner, I need to talk to my lawyer.'

People have families, they have children who need schooling, they have friends, their children have friends, they want nice places to live, amenities, culture, recreation, schools, medical care - by the time these insane corporations of yours have gotten around to trying to duplicate all a modern society has to offer and people expect, they will have had to spend every last penny they make, and still wont get anywhere close.

What a completely daft idea.

I disagree.  Especially if they start by purchasing a small country, province, state or area that already has a reasonable infrastructure in place.

i also think it would be VERY easy to attract citizens.  Can you think of any people that live in a country in which they are not happy with their existing living conditions and/or government?

The only obstacle is as you stated - other existing countries would refuse to recognize them.

But I would go in a heartbeat - even if it were just for the self-driving cars!!!  /s

How about Ireland, Switzerland, Australia, France New Zealand, Israel, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Monaco, Spain, Germany, Canada, etc.  Citizens in the EU have the right to go and live in any other EU country.  Guess what? the vast majority seem to like where they live and stay there.  Just because people in the US aren't happy living where they do, doesn't mean other people in other countries feel the same way.  Ironically, people in the US seem to be perpetually bitching about how much tax they pay while actually having one of  he lowest personal tax burdens, as a percentage of GDP, of any OECD countriy.  That is probably why the US has such a high corporate rate - to make up for the low personal rate. 



As for buying somewhere that already has infrastructure of a high standard - that isn't going to happen.  No country would sel iteslef or a part theirof and there would be people already living there who wouldn't be too keen on the idea.

The whole idea is up there with wanting to patent DNA.   It's basically a desire for the biggest tax doge ever.  The mindset behind it is exactly why almost every developed country has a problem with insufficient tax revenues.  Those who should be paying the most - because they earn the most - large multi-nationals - are paying amongst the least as a proportion of their income.  They are the only ones with the resources to construct and run these complicated tax avoidance schemes.

SpamSandwich said:

tallest skil said:

Talk about an interesting question. Not “Can a corporation own sovereign land,” but “Are there any countries on Earth that would cede land for any reason not involving the loss of a war?”

It’s entirely possible for a group of corporations to set up shop in Bir Tawil, claim it as their own, and hire private mercenaries to guard the land.

And I don't think it's an unreasonable conclusion for me to reach considering the vast amount of money involved. Why WOULDN'T hundred-billion dollar companies be interested in LEGALLY setting up their own sovereign country? 

It wouldn't be legal to set up a 'sovereign' country.  It wouldn't be recognised  by legitimate countries.  Who would live in this country?  Companies can't exist without people.  Who in their right mind would want to live in this corporate hell?  Do you honestly think Apple could persuade it's employees to move there with their families?
'Honey, great news, were not moving to Sydney after all, we're going to Corparia!'
'No, YOU are moving to Corparia.  You can make yourself dinner, I need to talk to my lawyer.'

People have families, they have children who need schooling, they have friends, their children have friends, they want nice places to live, amenities, culture, recreation, schools, medical care - by the time these insane corporations of yours have gotten around to trying to duplicate all a modern society has to offer and people expect, they will have had to spend every last penny they make, and still wont get anywhere close.

What a completely daft idea.