|
"1. Who are the shareholders? Presumably those with Australian Citizenship? Why then does the government have the right to strip people of citizenship, and therefore taking their asset by force? Isn't this theft? Could a normal corporation decide to take a shareholder's shares away?" Yes, if the articles of association provided for it. Forfeiture most commonly happens where there are unpaid calls.
"2. If the corporation is 'for profit', then why don't the shareholders get a dividend? If a corporation doesn't make a profit for 7 years, I believe the tax-office closes it down. Australia Inc doesn't make a profit 104 years and we still call it a 'for profit organization'? " Although, companies must be solvent - i.e. able to pay their debts as they fall due, there is no 7 year period or requirement to make a profit, or pay dividends. There are plenty of non-profit organisations registered as companies under the Corporations Law.
"3. Why can't the shareholders buy multiple shares? Why should Australia Inc be different from other corporations?" There are also plenty of companies that restrict members to one share - mostly community organisations. [Note: classifying Australia as a "non-profit organisation" like a club rather than "corporation" does not dent t's argument in any way.]
"4. Why does the Australia Inc Board of directors (ie the government) pass (or attempt to pass) laws in other countries? [eg it is illegal to have sex with minors in other countries even if it is legal in those other countries]? This is like Macdonalds dictating the price that Greasy Joe's can charge for hamburgers." If Macdonalds dictated the price that Greasy Joe's charged for hamburgers, that would be price fixing. Nations are not so restrained. They will do what they can get away with.
"5. Why does the government talk of home 'ownership' when they know that no such thing exists? Why do they deliberately mislead their shareholders into believing they own something when they don't?" Because it has become part of common speech to speak of "real estate" as "ownership", even though its wrong. If some politicians went around drawing such pedantic distinctions, no-one would vote for them.
"How can you say that Australia is a corporation when the board of directors themselves deny this?"
See above, and note that "corporation" has become something of a slur. Suggesting a nation is something greater than a corporation encourages "brand loyalty". "It has never been run like a corporation."
I would say more like a club, but as above, that doesn't dent t's argument.
"One only has to read the Australian Constitution to realize that it is not a contract with the share-holders, but a document on how to administer a country, and control the people." On my reading, it deals with the same sorts of things that one would expect in artcles of association. Do you have any particular examples of how it is different?
| 
