Archive

Why do you hate corporations?

  • isadore
    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.
    and in our "liberal democracy" based ultimately on popular sovereignty, the people have the right to fundamentally change our government
  • Con_Alma
    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.
    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
    isadore;1234492 wrote:and in our "liberal democracy" based ultimately on popular sovereignty, the people have the right to fundamentally change our government
    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
    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.
    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
    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.
    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
    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.
    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.
  • Con_Alma
    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.
    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.
  • isadore
    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.
    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.
  • isadore
    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.
    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.
  • Con_Alma
    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.
    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
    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.
    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
    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.
    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
    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.
    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
    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.
    The activity wouldn't cease, it merely wouldn't be through a corporation.
  • Con_Alma
    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.
    ....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.
  • isadore
    Con_Alma;1235067 wrote:The activity wouldn't cease, it merely wouldn't be through a corporation.
    no, economies grow and economies shrink. and the end of the privileges the government grants to corporations that dominate our economy will bring massive shrinkage.
  • isadore
    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.
    gosh a ruddies you must have had short term memory loss between 421# to 441# because according to you on 421# we are a liberal democracy and now you deny it. We are ultimately a government based on popular soveriegnty. From "We the people" onward to today.
    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
    Noooo. In #421 i am responding to your belief that we are a democracy. If you believe we are then such a government has a fundamental inclusive understanding that there's protection of the minority that must exist to be effective. If the people vote away such a protection then there' no longer a liberal democracy.


    I don't accept that we have are a democracy. We are a constitutional republic based on democratic principles.
  • isadore
    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
    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.
    Yeah, its call patronizing.

    I can assure you that we have never been a democracy. Pointing out to you, who believes we are one, the flaws in such a form of government has been the point of my recent efforts.
  • isadore
    patronizing is not a synonym for lying, which is what you did. you said we were a liberal democracy, then you denied you did.
  • Con_Alma
    Lol....You will not see my words stating we are a liberal democracy anywhere in this thread.

    You might go back and read the post you have referenced, #421, and you will see that it says "any" liberal democracy. That form of government is what you are describing and it is my effort to show you that it is not what we are....in a patronizing way of course.:)
  • isadore
    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.
    the definition of our government would change for these rights are considered essential element of any liberal democracy.
    Con_Alma wrote:I don't accept that we have are a democracy.
    your pants are on fire
  • Con_Alma
    The if indeed we had such a type of government.... which we don't. Sorry. You must put things into the entire context.

    This is an extension of proving to you that we don't have such a form of government...which we don't.


    We don't have a democracy. We have a constitutional republica based on democratic principles.
  • isadore
    I quoted your entire statement. I didn't change it in anyway, except for the bold face. There is the context. The statement stands on its own as a description of the form of government we have in the USA. If you wish to disavow it, that is of course your choice.