<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.freetalklive.com"  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
<channel>
 <title>Free Talk Live - corporations</title>
 <link>http://www.freetalklive.com/taxonomy/term/1479/0</link>
 <description></description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Man says he can drive in carpool lane w/ corporation papers</title>
 <link>http://www.freetalklive.com/content/man_says_he_can_drive_carpool_lane_w_corporation_papers</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;When Jonathan Frieman of San Rafael, Calif., was pulled over for driving alone in the carpool lane, he argued to the officer that, actually, he did have a passenger.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He waved his corporation papers at the officer&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.freetalklive.com/content/man_says_he_can_drive_carpool_lane_w_corporation_papers#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.freetalklive.com/category/additional_keywords_and_tags/corporations">corporations</category>
 <category domain="http://www.freetalklive.com/category/category/bureaucracy/driving_/_roads">Driving / Roads</category>
 <category domain="http://www.freetalklive.com/category/media_type/news_article">News Article</category>
 <category domain="http://www.freetalklive.com/category/additional_keywords_and_tags/persons">persons</category>
 <pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2013 19:51:09 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>unique2</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">25372 at http://www.freetalklive.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation</title>
 <link>http://www.freetalklive.com/content/corporate_personhood_limited_liability_and_double_taxation</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;The big objection to corporations is usually limited liability for shareholders. Now first let me mention that many non-attorney critics of this notion seem confused about what it means (and many attorneys also misapprehend it). They think the doctrine insulates a tortfeasor from liability even if he was negligent, so long as he is a shareholder. Or that the doctrine exempts managers and officers of the corporation from liability for torts of others. They are wrong.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.freetalklive.com/content/corporate_personhood_limited_liability_and_double_taxation#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.freetalklive.com/category/additional_keywords_and_tags/big_business">big business</category>
 <category domain="http://www.freetalklive.com/category/additional_keywords_and_tags/corporations">corporations</category>
 <category domain="http://www.freetalklive.com/category/category/markets_and_economics/free_market">Free Market</category>
 <category domain="http://www.freetalklive.com/category/additional_keywords_and_tags/limited_liability">Limited liability</category>
 <category domain="http://www.freetalklive.com/category/media_type/news_article">News Article</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:33:01 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>rawrob</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">16728 at http://www.freetalklive.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>The Evil Lincoln </title>
 <link>http://www.freetalklive.com/content/evil_lincoln</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;This article was originally published at OpEdNews.com on February 15, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With Abraham Lincoln’s birthday just passed on February 12th the media was replete with praise for him. Unfortunately, this whitewashed view of him is misguided. Rather than being the honest and resolute knight in shining armor that he is made out to be, on closer inspection he turns out to be one of