Con_Alma;1234488 wrote:Ahhh, so it is faith in people that you rely upon for the protection of the minority. Got it. Without the presence of such protection the type of government we have fundamentally changes....no matter whereby the power exists.

isadore;1234490 wrote:True It gives me personal pleasure spending my time being gracious to others.
as to corporations and your generic answer that deals in no way with the nature and actions of these dominating business structures.

isadore;1234492 wrote:and in our "liberal democracy" based ultimately on popular sovereignty, the people have the right to fundamentally change our government

Con_Alma;1234493 wrote:I am glad we agree that your wishes are for your benefits as opposed to those who you offer them to.

These "dominating business structures". will be used advantageously by those participating in commerce no matter what government does or tries to restrict. If they become useless to the commerce process people will continue to engage in commerce without them.

Con_Alma;1234496 wrote:No disagreement there.....if they do the minority will be smothered. Our current form of government offers the protection to those minorities. Once it's changed we no loner have the current form of government.

isadore;1234503 wrote:I graciously will write:
the dominating business structures do not exist without the privileges that government grants to them, the amount and value of commerce will be greatly diminished.

isadore;1234507 wrote:yes we are a liberal democracy, and though it would not be good to take certain protections we would still remain a representative democracy. the people want to allow those protections to continue, it is ultimately their choice to make.

Con_Alma;1234541 wrote:We continue the dance of repetition I see....not surprising now that I understand the purpose is your amusement.

Should the people remove such protections the government we have now would no longer exist based on the fundamental definition of our present form being inclusive of such protections.

Con_Alma;1234537 wrote:Why the "dominating business structure exists is irrelevant. I disagree that commerce would be greatly diminished without them. Commerce will continue after an adjustment period inclusive of preparation in delivering products and services outside of the construct of the prior.

isadore;1234579 wrote:That corporations are the dominating business structure is hardly irrelevant. Quite the contrary as opposed to much of what you have written about commerce, the description of corporations is right on topic for this thread. It is your opinion that their disappearance would do little to diminish commerce, in fact they are the dominating business structure in America in terms of assests, revenue and profit. The disappearance of such a large part of our economy would of course greatly diminish it. And would be hard to completely replace except with another structure that granted similar advantages to business.

isadore;1234575 wrote:as I graciously continue: we would still remain a representative democracy, which we are. ultimately the basic fairness and goodness of the people allow the system of protections to remain in effect in our democratic state.

Con_Alma;1234649 wrote:The activity wouldn't disappear. The assets wouldn't disappear. They would still exist. Commerce wouldn't disappear. It wouls still occurr. The structure of a corporation would. That's what makes why it exists irrelevant to me.

Con_Alma;1234651 wrote:The lack of protection of the minority changes us.

We disagree with they type of government we believe we are. It's my understanding we are a constitutional republic.

isadore;1234812 wrote:Without government the structure of corporations would not exist, because the reason for their success is based on the privileges government grants them. if they disappeared the large majority of our commerce would disappear with them. That commerce is so much based on the activities of the corporations. and the activities of corporations would not happen without the advantages granted to them by government.

isadore;1234814 wrote:gosh back at 421# you were writing we were "liberal democracy."
We are a democracy ultimately based on popular sovereignty. it is good that since the people are the ultimate power they support the protection of the rights of minorities.

Con_Alma;1235067 wrote:The activity wouldn't cease, it merely wouldn't be through a corporation.

Con_Alma;1235068 wrote:....as a response to your post of us being a democracy...which we aren't. The people only protect such minority rights through the government...which changes if the people vote out minority protection.

Con_Alma wrote: Lol. So it is luck that you rely upon for the protection of minorities. To rid them of such protection the government we have would no longer exist. By repealing such fundamental rights the actions would be such that the definition of our government would change for these rights are considered the essential element of any liberal democracy.

isadore;1235692 wrote:gosh you can go back on previous statements if you want, there is no law against it, you are not under oath, But you do write the US is a liberal democracy in 421# Then after doing some spinning you write we are not.

Con_Alma wrote: Lol. So it is luck that you rely upon for the protection of minorities. To rid them of such protection the government we have would no longer exist. By repealing such fundamental rights the actions would be such that the definition of our government would change for these rights are considered the essential element of any liberal democracy.

Con_Alma wrote:I don't accept that we have are a democracy.