EasyTimes
Before you go claiming anything about my education and who I vote for you should do a little research before you make any comments and display the level of ignorance and incompetence that is now identified.
As for my education, I am fifty seven years of age and at what stage of my life was I poorly educated, in the first twenty years or over the last twenty years or the seventeen in between. The last twenty years I was a preferred Government contractor in the building industry I don’t take drugs and I very rarely drink alcohol. I don’t vote for any of these criminal gangs of thugs that have infested the Corporations Parliament and I don’t consent to being forced to do anything. I don’t wish to vote and take part in the so called parliamentary process because I don’t agree with the enforced government corporation policy, I would rather rely on the rule of law but I would guess, with your education, you would not be able to identify the difference. I don’t vote at all because I don’t have to, I don’t pay tax either because I don’t have to, I don’t work either because I don’t have to, I don’t collect any Australian Govt Corporation Pension or the dole because I don’t want or need it, I don’t have any medicare card either I would rather die than rely on the Qld health system, I have my family and my children to provide for all of my needs because they support me in what I am doing, of which, you have no knowledge of.

Dear Young Dan,

Are you Alan Bond? (just kidding).

Seriously though. There's not much we can do about corporations.
We can't fight them. The size and economic power of the major corporations are immense. Some of the largest corporations, such as the American, Exxon and General Motors have budgets that are larger than those of every country in the world other than the US (and the former Soviet Union).

These huge organizations have developed much more quickly than the means of applying social control over them. Dedicated to the pursuit of profit and subject to the authority of no one nation (multinational
corporations), run by a tiny elite of managers and directors who have a largely fictional responsibility to their far-flung shareholders, they represent a disturbing and growing concentration of global power and influence.

We must abandon the idea that corporations can reform themselves. To ask corporate executives to behave in a morally defensible manner is absurd. Corporations, and the people within them, are following a system of logic that leads inexorably toward dominant behaviours. To ask corporations to behave otherwise is like asking an army to adopt pacifism.

Corporation: n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
—Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914.
Form Is Content Corporations are inherently bold, aggressive and competitive. Though they exist in a society that claims to operate by moral principles, they are structurally amoral. It is inevitable that they will dehumanize people who work for them and the overall society as well. They are disloyal to workers, including their own managers. Corporations can be disloyal to the communities they have been part of for many years. Corporations do not care about nations; they live beyond boundaries. They are intrinsically committed to destroying nature. And they have an inexorable, unabated, voracious need to grow and to expand. In dominating other cultures, in digging up the Earth, corporations blindly follow the codes that have been built into them as if they were genes.

So Demos, on what can we do? What is happening in the US of A, is there is a movement in a number of states, to go back to the Supreme Court and challenge the 1886 decision. Here in Australia in the High Court in December 2006 Houghton Vs Arms found that misleading conduct by any representative even when there is absence of malice, means that person must make good any damages that they have caused.
This means that corporate officers and directors can no longer hide behind the company seal any more.
It is disgusting to me that The Thirteenth amendment of the US Constitution that was made to free slaves and the Fourteenth have been turned on their head to allow exploytation of laws that were meant to bestow equal rights to the citizenry.

Lorry, What is the importance of the company seal that you identify.
What make you believe that the High Court of Australia actually made a lawfully binding decision in the Houghton Vs Arms case as you may find that this alleged ORDER is also not under the SEAL of the High Court of Australia in accordance with section 32.1 of the High Court of Australia Act 1979 and Rule 4,06.1, but under the stamp of the High Court of Australia OFFICE SEAL and which is not provided for under the Act. The members of this Body Corporate and their senior Registry staff are also highly educated in use of the same scams that all corporations engage in.
It is all coming to an end and the judicial grubs that have not used the seal of the Supreme Court of Queensland for many years are fully aware of what is going to happen to them

Young Dan,
The Company seal is the rubber stamp that represents the Legal entity that exists on paper only. The directors of the company, in particular the company seretary are the humans who represent this legal fiction called "the corporation" .
Here in Tasmania this has been clearly demonstrated recently, where company directors have pleaded not guilty to being responsible for the death of two workers, but "the company put up its invisible hand and basically said "fair cop guvner you got me dead to rights".
So the humans representing the 'company' dodged their duty of care and had "the company" plead guilty.
You cannot sue a company. The company Secretary is the person that sues or is sued on behalf of the company. If you call a company to give evidence in court a lawyer could place the company seal (the rubber stamp) on the stand and say "Question That".

Not being human, corporations do not have morals or altruistic goals. So decisions that maybe antithetical to community goals or environmental health are made without misgivings. In fact, corporate executives praise "non-emotionality" as a basis for "objective" decision-making.

Corporations, however, seek to hide their amorality and attempt to act as if they were altruistic. Lately, there has been a concerted effort by industry to appear concerned with environmental cleanup, community arts or drug programs. Corporate efforts that seem altruistic are really Public relations ploys or directly self-serving projects.

There has recently been a spurt of corporate advertising about how corporations work to clean the environment. A company that installs offshore oil rigs will run ads about how fish are thriving under the rigs. Logging companies known for their clear felling practices will run millions of dollars' worth of ads about their "tree farms."

It is a fair rule of thumb that corporations tend to advertise the very qualities they do not have in order to allay negative public perceptions. When corporations say "we care," it is almost always in response to the widespread perception that they do not have feelings or morals.

Young Dan,
You seem to be a very alienated young bear.
A pity you don't vote otherwise I would vote for you as you obviously care a lot.
I share your fear and loathing of coporations but there are some little attempts to fix their amorality
See the work of the "St James Ethics Centre" in Sydney.
You may also be interested in joining in some of the economic discussions in Hypography Science Forums.

"It is a fair rule of thumb that corporations tend to advertise the very qualities they do not have in order to allay negative public perceptions." beautifully put 'lorry'
But is not this the way of the world?
The Taxation Department makes tax avoidance schemes,
the Environment Department licences polluters,
the Forestry commission cuts down trees?
One day I will write a best selling book about how the stated objectives of an organisation are always the exact opposite of what they actually do/archive. It will be bigger than "The Peter Principle":)