isadore;1232431 wrote:government does more than permits the corporation. it sets up a system that created an economic person, granting this person the right to buy, sell, borrow, lend, hire, fire, sue, be sued and issue stock. It is not "the people" who are responsible for these things but the artifical entity that has done these things. The employees are given limited responsibility for the actions. The investors are not held responsible for the actions of the corporation and financially limit liability. All because of the government. Gosh they even give this entity political rights.

Setting up they system isn't actually carrying out the buying, borrowing, lending, hiring, firing, suing and issuing stock. You can set up whatever you want and it doesn't equate or amount to much at all. It's that actual doers that create the value.

isadore;1232542 wrote:a charter issued by the government creates a corporation. The government created artificial entities dominate our economy. Since the government has "established the system" and issued the charter to creates each corporation, it obviously has the right to regulate or to abolish these artificial entities.

It doesn't matter if the government regulates it or abolishes it. People created economic transactions and activity before the government granted permissions for corporations to exists and people will do so if the government ever abolishes such a thing. No matter what the government does, people will transact.

isadore;1232946 wrote:Corporations dominate the economy

[URL="file://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=0684ce2837c054d34aab4a7a8850c3ac&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ohiochatter.com%2Fforum%2Fshowthread.php%3F35277-Why-do-you-hate-corporations%2Fpage15&v=1&libid=1343168819077&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fcompendia%2Fstatab%2F2012%2Ftables%2F12s0744.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ohiochatter.com%2Fforum%2Fforumdisplay.php%3F6-Serious-Business&title=Why%20do%20you%20hate%20corporations%3F&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fcompendia%2Fstat...es%2F12s0744.pdf&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13431700315793"]http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0744.pdf[/URL]
Gosh you claim you don’t need to a corporation to operate, then admit “99% do”
As you admit the government sets the rules. Actually they define what a corporation is, what rights they will have and then they grant them a charter to operate. You talk about that the rules, some favorable, some unfavorable. Gosh they must be highly tilted toward the favorable if 99% want it. No government, no advantageous business structure, government definitely as the granter of all these advantages, retains the right to regulate.
Who cares about the choices a South Korean conglomerate.

There's a difference between needing and taking advantage of what it offers.

Because people take advantage of what a corporation can provided doesn't mean it's needed to transact business.

isadore;1232952 wrote:and good luck to you during President Obama's second term...

It is not luck that I rely upon to determine my happiness and fate.

Con_Alma;1233350 wrote:It is not luck that I rely upon to determine my happiness and fate.

It's a lot like arguing with an alcoholic. Until they realize that excessive the Kool Aid drinking is doing damage to their very soul, you may as well beat your head against the wall. Don't even try.

Con_Alma;1233350 wrote:It is not luck that I rely upon to determine my happiness and fate.

Gosh a ruddies I was talking not to you but Mr.\Ms. Quaker Oats. Answering this

Quaker Oats wrote: isadore --- just go vote for obama and keep getting more of what you're getting. Good luck.

but still i will now wish you good luck.

Con_Alma;1233349 wrote:There's a difference between needing and taking advantage of what it offers.

Because people take advantage of what a corporation can provided doesn't mean it's needed to transact business.

it seem to be obviously needed by American business to transact business at today's level.

Con_Alma;1233348 wrote:It doesn't matter if the government regulates it or abolishes it. People created economic transactions and activity before the government granted permissions for corporations to exists and people will do so if the government ever abolishes such a thing. No matter what the government does, people will transact.

but not with the level of success they have with government defined and granted corporations. government issued charters that they want so badly.

Con_Alma;1233347 wrote:Setting up they system isn't actually carrying out the buying, borrowing, lending, hiring, firing, suing and issuing stock. You can set up whatever you want and it doesn't equate or amount to much at all. It's that actual doers that create the value.

are you saying the worker provides all value?

Con_Alma;1233346 wrote:Yes, democracy can squeeze out the little guy or the minority. You don't really want that do you? I don't know where you get that it's a "threat" from, however. A democracy can have 51% ill minded people destroy the less fortunate. That's certainly not ideal. Is it?

Who said the framers were perfect? Why would you imply that I did? That's a bit of an exaggeration for effect don't you think?

What is democracy but government of the people. From the beginning of the Constitution we defined ourselves as a democracy. Who ordains and establishes this Constitution that set up our government, the people. The problem at the beginning from the beginning was not too much democracy but too much of the deferential, hierarchial views left in place. As we have included more people become more democratic freedom has increased.

Gosh a ruddies, we could get all you guys definitions corporations or how about John Marshall, America’s most important and influential jurist. On corporations. Who in the early days of our nation gave us the true definition.
The Constitution mentions the rights of the people frequently but does not cite corporations. Indeed, many of the founders were skeptical of corporate influence.
John Marshall, the nation’s greatest chief justice, saw a corporation as “an artificial being, invisible, intangible existing only in contemplation of law,” he wrote in 1819. “Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence.”
That does not mean that corporations should have no rights. It is in society’s interest that they are allowed to speak about their products and policies and that they are able to go to court when another company steals their patents. It makes sense that they can be sued, as a person would be, when they pollute or violate labor laws.
The law also gives corporations special legal status: limited liability, special rules for the accumulation of assets and the ability to live forever. These rules put corporations in a privileged position in producing profits and aggregating wealth. Their influence would be overwhelming with the full array of rights that people have.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/opinion/22tue1.html
http://www.giga-usa.com/quotes/authors/john_c_marshall_a001.htm

isadore;1233379 wrote:Gosh a ruddies I was talking not to you but Mr.\Ms. Quaker Oats. Answering this
but still i will now wish you good luck.

I know who you were "talking to"....and I responded to you.

isadore;1233398 wrote:What is democracy but government of the people. From the beginning of the Constitution we defined ourselves as a democracy. Who ordains and establishes this Constitution that set up our government, the people. The problem at the beginning from the beginning was not too much democracy but too much of the deferential, hierarchial views left in place. As we have included more people become more democratic freedom has increased.

????

That doesn't negate or oppose my statement at all.

A democracy's weakness is it's ability to have the majority's will damage the minority significantly. Our framers new thatand put in place protections of such actions. Its why we are a Republic....a Constitutional Republic that has protection of the minority.

isadore;1233413 wrote:Gosh a ruddies, we could get all you guys definitions corporations or how about John Marshall, America’s most important and influential jurist. On corporations. Who in the early days of our nation gave us the true definition.
The Constitution mentions the rights of the people frequently but does not cite corporations. Indeed, many of the founders were skeptical of corporate influence.
John Marshall, the nation’s greatest chief justice, saw a corporation as “an artificial being, invisible, intangible existing only in contemplation of law,” he wrote in 1819. “Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence.”
That does not mean that corporations should have no rights. It is in society’s interest that they are allowed to speak about their products and policies and that they are able to go to court when another company steals their patents. It makes sense that they can be sued, as a person would be, when they pollute or violate labor laws.
The law also gives corporations special legal status: limited liability, special rules for the accumulation of assets and the ability to live forever. These rules put corporations in a privileged position in producing profits and aggregating wealth. Their influence would be overwhelming with the full array of rights that people have.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/opinion/22tue1.html
http://www.giga-usa.com/quotes/authors/john_c_marshall_a001.htm

Rules are do not create commerce nor value. Rules do not create economic activity. commerce would exist without without rules. They have and they will.

Con_Alma;1233465 wrote:I know who you were "talking to"....and I responded to you.

and good luck to you during President Obama's second term. And hopefully our government can help you economically better yourself and become a better human being.

isadore;1233611 wrote:and good luck to you during President Obama's second term. And hopefully our government can help you economically better yourself and become a better human being.

It is not luck that I will ever wish for. It is not government help that I will seek.

Con_Alma;1233470 wrote:????

That doesn't negate or oppose my statement at all.

A democracy's weakness is it's ability to have the majority's will damage the minority significantly. Our framers new thatand put in place protections of such actions. Its why we are a Republic....a Constitutional Republic that has protection of the minority.

gosh a ruddies, our framers put in methods to remove any of those protections. but as democracy in our country spread the rights of oppressed and minorities increased. increasing democracy in America, more rights, not less.

Con_Alma;1233614 wrote:It is not luck that I will ever wish for. It is not government help that I will seek.

but I wish it for you anyway.

Great add on that has nothign to do with my point. Thannk you for it, however.

A true demecracy, which we are not, isnot favorable to the minority nor their rights. Those "protections" you speak of are based on the constituion as opposed to the people voting for such protections. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution created and managed through representative is what creates protection of the minority. A democracy could squash the minority with but one voting effort by a determined majority.

isadore;1233624 wrote:but I wish it for you anyway.

It matters not but to you that you have such wishes.

Con_Alma;1233473 wrote:Rules are do not create commerce nor value. Rules do not create economic activity. commerce would exist without without rules. They have and they will.

a government can come pretty close to shutting it down. ex. cambodia under khmer rouge, pretty limited north korea under the kims.
gosh a ruddies we are talking about corporations and there effect on society. and judge marshall has given the legal description of them. government has granted them and "exisiting only in contemplation of the law."

Con_Alma;1233629 wrote:Great add on that has nothign to do with my point. Thannk you for it, however.

A true demecracy, which we are not, isnot favorable to the minority nor their rights. Those "protections" you speak of are based on the constituion as opposed to the people voting for such protections. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution created and managed through representative is what creates protection of the minority. A democracy could squash the minority with but one voting effort by a determined majority.

you do understand that the bill of rights is repealable. But we have found in America is as democracy expanded, rights expanded. you know black people are free now and they can vote. and gosh women can vote, and gosh gay people can be in the military.
gosh it sure would have surprised those framer guys.

Con_Alma;1233630 wrote:It matters not but to you that you have such wishes.

and Merry Chrismas to
and a happy new year

*too

It matters only to you that you extend such patronizing offerings.

isadore;1233655 wrote:you do understand that the bill of rights is repealable. But we have found in America is as democracy expanded, rights expanded. you know black people are free now and they can vote. and gosh women can vote, and gosh gay people can be in the military.
gosh it sure would have surprised those framer guys.

Of course it's able to be repealed. That means that a majority group has the ability to take away rights from the minority which is why we chose to be a constitutional republic.