Panama Papers

[crazy canuck]

That right is far from absolute and is very often (perhaps too often) trumped by some sort of state secrecy. And, of course, unlike the affairs of another private individual, you have an actual legitimate interest in finding out about the affairs of the government of the country you are a citizen of.

I was not arguing for an absolute right to disclosure.  I was arguing against a the blanket protection of secrets.  There are of course circumstances where there is a need to protect secrecy.  I dealt with some examples regarding contractual rights and statutory rights that do protect some secrets in some circumstances.  That is when I was met with the argument that all secrets should always be protected.

The same goes for the rest of your responses.  Please address the arguments that were actually made.

[The Minsky Moment]

A corporation, according to the United States Supreme Court, is a person endowed with the panoply of divinely ordained constitutional rights enjoyed by living, breathing human beings.

A corporation, in reality, is a piece of paper that can be called into being with a few pen stokes and a modest fee paid to any pseudo-sovereign of convenience from the old Caribees to the islands of the vast Pacific to (yes) the US states.  And these days, with the internet, there isn't often isn't even  a pen and a piece of paper any more.

Some ordinary folk look at this askance.

And I can't really say I blame them.

[The Brain]

In the US, can corporations get drafted (when you have the draft)? Do corporations do jury duty?

[The Minsky Moment]

They only have rights, no duties other than taxes.  And that often only in theory.

[Martinus]

Corporations are, generally, associations of people (that's what the Latin root of the word means and in fact in the old days the word "corporation" was used much more broadly, to denote any organised group of people). There is no reason why people who associate into a corporation and act within such corporation's structure were to lose some of the rights they had outside of the corporation, except to the extent such limitation stems from the corporation's charter.

If I run my own business and my neighbour runs his own business, and we have certain rights when doing so, why would we lose such rights when we combined our businesses into a corporation, with each of us as a 50/50 shareholder?

[The Minsky Moment]

Corporations are, generally, associations of people

Put aside more a moment that corporation can be a single person entity (and in the matters at issue here often are).
A partnership is an association of people. 
A corporation is not.  It is a chartered entity created by statute.  It does have personality (if not personhood) above and beyond the persons that create it (and often leave it).  It is not a group of shareholders, or directors, or officer, or creditors or stakeholders, or any combination - it is both more and less.

(that's what the Latin root of the word means and in fact in the old days the word "corporation" was used much more broadly, to denote any organised group of people).

The modern corporation is far removed from its historical roots . . .

There is no reason why people who associate into a corporation and act within such corporation's structure were to lose some of the rights they had outside of the corporation

No.  and there is no reason that the mere decision to form a corporation should expand the rights they have as individuals, absent some particular public policy purpose that such expansion would serve.

[Martinus]

So, are you saying for example that a corporation could be deprived of property without a court decision because the fifth amendment does not apply to it?

[Admiral Yi]

and there is no reason that the mere decision to form a corporation should expand the rights they have as individuals, absent some particular public policy purpose that such expansion would serve.

Is this the case?  I can't think of any rights that individuals operating through corporations have that I don't have.

[Martinus]

I mean I am just baffled by your refusal to understand and agree with the Citizens United case (barring perhaps your political hostility). Corporations are ultimately extensions of their owners - who, ultimately, are people. They are not some mystical, inhuman beings - they are vehicles for people and their capital.

So, going back to the original discussion - if I have a right to secrecy when I keep my assets in my own personal back account, why should I lose that right if I invest those assets into a corpote vehicle (save of course to the extent preciputated by the nature of the corporation - i.e. vis-a-vis its management and other shareholders).

[celedhring]

Our Industry minister has been caught red-handed in the Panama Papers. Paperwork shows he was administrator of offshore companies at least until 2002, when he was already in politics. It's not really known if what he did with them was legal or not, but he's lied about it publicly and that casts him in a very bad light.

EDIT: He has just quit.

[Norgy]

No more exciting revelations for Norway so far.

The biggest bank is still a bit red-faced, due to having broken both internal ethical guidelines (who knew bankers had them) and actively helped setting up shell companies in the Seychelles.
While not technically illegal, it's a dodgy practice suitable only for one thing; tax avoidance. However, in their defence, it's the individual who did not report the "investment" who broke the law, not the bank.

There's been discussion about scrapping a 200 year old practice of full transparency about taxes. Each year, every citizen of Norway's full tax report is open to the public. While some feel this is invading their privacy, I think this is the best way to avoid more shady dealings.
It's not like their Internet browsing history is being made public.

[Martinus]

No more exciting revelations for Norway so far.

The biggest bank is still a bit red-faced, due to having broken both internal ethical guidelines (who knew bankers had them) and actively helped setting up shell companies in the Seychelles.
While not technically illegal, it's a dodgy practice suitable only for one thing; tax avoidance. However, in their defence, it's the individual who did not report the "investment" who broke the law, not the bank.

There's been discussion about scrapping a 200 year old practice of full transparency about taxes. Each year, every citizen of Norway's full tax report is open to the public. While some feel this is invading their privacy, I think this is the best way to avoid more shady dealings.
It's not like their Internet browsing history is being made public.

Sounds like a shopping list for kidnappers and extortionists of all kinds.

Incidentally, it's always nations with oil that are most fucked up - be it Norway, Saudi Arabia or Alberta. I guess having a lot of free money allows them to practice idiocy that would have sunken less endowed nations much sooner.

[MadImmortalMan]

If the corporation is public, then you can find out lots of stuff about them.

The Edgar site may be the single one my browser suggests more than Languish.

Yes I use it that often.

[Norgy]

No more exciting revelations for Norway so far.

The biggest bank is still a bit red-faced, due to having broken both internal ethical guidelines (who knew bankers had them) and actively helped setting up shell companies in the Seychelles.
While not technically illegal, it's a dodgy practice suitable only for one thing; tax avoidance. However, in their defence, it's the individual who did not report the "investment" who broke the law, not the bank.

There's been discussion about scrapping a 200 year old practice of full transparency about taxes. Each year, every citizen of Norway's full tax report is open to the public. While some feel this is invading their privacy, I think this is the best way to avoid more shady dealings.
It's not like their Internet browsing history is being made public.

Sounds like a shopping list for kidnappers and extortionists of all kinds.

Incidentally, it's always nations with oil that are most fucked up - be it Norway, Saudi Arabia or Alberta. I guess having a lot of free money allows them to practice idiocy that would have sunken less endowed nations much sooner.

[Martinus]

If the corporation is public, then you can find out lots of stuff about them.

The Edgar site may be the single one my browser suggests more than Languish.

Yes I use it that often.

Well, of course. Public companies are a different matter whatsoever as shares are publicly traded and you have to know what you are buying.