The Ugly Face behind the Mask of Liberalism

[okboston]

Yankee Yahoo wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe you are right. But it is a myth that a free economy requires corporations. Historically, America hardly had any at all, and it wasn't necessary. We had a free economy long ago, and if only it had endured, before centralized banks, Wall St., and Big Business came along, we might have had a much more advanced society than today, based upon the huge technological, scientific, and innovative advancement made in the late 1800's and early 1900's, when intellectual property belonged exclusively to individuals, not corporations.
Much more incentive for people to do things when they own most of their intellectual property, and they cannot be bought out, or have to deal with countless government regulations just to invent something or put a new drug on the market, or open a small business.
It's out of control. And yet most people blame a free market that has not existed in over a century, when it's Big Government and socialistic regulations that were to blame to begin with.
Ask any European or college student today why we have a failing economy, and 99% will say "not enough regulation" or "the free market" or "capitalism." No one ever says "Big Business is killing the free economy and empowering the government through more regulation."
It's absurd.

Despite what Waterfer stated, I understand stagflation having lived through the 70's. I also understand hyperinflation.

I never stated that we could not exist without corporations, I just take the opposite view that you do and believe that life would not be better, from a quality of life view, without them.

There are various reasons to support my stance. For one, when individual owned everything they were also personally responsible for everything. Therefore creativity was stifled because developing the something with a flaw could send a middle class person to the poor house. Unless of course you want to take the stance that holding people accountable for wrongful, but not illegal actions, is unacceptable.

[Yankee Yahoo]

watefer wrote:

<quoted text>
I never said that corporations are required to have a free economy just that they have the ability to raise vast amounts of capitol much more quickly.

Sure, but they don't need vast amounts of power to raise capital. That's never been a problem since the days of joint-stock companies, or even Roman publicani. It's too much power vested with corporations that is a problem, just like with government.

[Yankee Yahoo]

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
Despite what Waterfer stated, I understand stagflation having lived through the 70's. I also understand hyperinflation.
I never stated that we could not exist without corporations, I just take the opposite view that you do and believe that life would not be better, from a quality of life view, without them.
There are various reasons to support my stance. For one, when individual owned everything they were also personally responsible for everything. Therefore creativity was stifled because developing the something with a flaw could send a middle class person to the poor house. Unless of course you want to take the stance that holding people accountable for wrongful, but not illegal actions, is unacceptable.

Ah, at long last, a good point.

But there's nothing wrong with making individuals accountable. With great power comes great responsibility, and the price of freedom. Despite this responsibility, the Wright Brothers plowed forward bravely, and Tesla made his inventions, and Ford built the car.

I see no evidence that innovation is stiffled in this way.

However, you raise the point of liability. That however is a corruption of laws to make frivolous lawsuits possible, and lawyers wealthy. There are things people are made responsible for they have not control over, or where responsibility lied elsewhere, but the one with the deeper pockets and better lawyer won the day.

This is called inequality under the law, and is a legal issue, not an economic one, where people are sued without just cause. Limited liability corporations would not even be necessary if laws were not corrupted from the start. But you point is valid.

The fact is that corporations get away with anything they want with protected liability, making decisions the Board is personally exempt accountable from. That is unacceptable, where the environment of this whole planet has been compromised by such corporations while the governments that protect them from liability look the other way,(or blame deregulation for what they always had a right to regulate, their own charters!)

But concerning small businesses, inventions by individuals, new ideas, etc. One has to adapt an attitude of "use at your own risk." And the fact that no one can guarantee one's own safety accept one's own self. A society that depends upon others of safety is unwilling to achieve anything great.

So where is this better quality of life? How do you know it would be better than a world of limited corporations, or no corporations?

[watefer]

Yankee Yahoo wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah, at long last, a good point.
But there's nothing wrong with making individuals accountable. With great power comes great responsibility, and the price of freedom. Despite this responsibility, the Wright Brothers plowed forward bravely, and Tesla made his inventions, and Ford built the car.
I see no evidence that innovation is stiffled in this way.
However, you raise the point of liability. That however is a corruption of laws to make frivolous lawsuits possible, and lawyers wealthy. There are things people are made responsible for they have not control over, or where responsibility lied elsewhere, but the one with the deeper pockets and better lawyer won the day.
This is called inequality under the law, and is a legal issue, not an economic one, where people are sued without just cause. Limited liability corporations would not even be necessary if laws were not corrupted from the start. But you point is valid.
The fact is that corporations get away with anything they want with protected liability, making decisions the Board is personally exempt accountable from. That is unacceptable, where the environment of this whole planet has been compromised by such corporations while the governments that protect them from liability look the other way,(or blame deregulation for what they always had a right to regulate, their own charters!)
But concerning small businesses, inventions by individuals, new ideas, etc. One has to adapt an attitude of "use at your own risk." And the fact that no one can guarantee one's own safety accept one's own self. A society that depends upon others of safety is unwilling to achieve anything great.
So where is this better quality of life? How do you know it would be better than a world of limited corporations, or no corporations?

Tesla died deep in debt.

The Wright Company was incorporated on November 22, 1909. The brothers sold their patents to the company for $100,000 and also received one-third of the shares in a million dollar stock issue and a 10 percent royalty on every airplane sold.

I think Ford is self explanatory.

Just a few factoids.

I just don't see that corporations are any worse than any other business.

John D. Rockefeller started Standard Oil as a partnership and it soon became a 'trust'.
Standard Oil was also convicted of being a monopoly.

"Despite improving the quality and availability of kerosene products while greatly reducing their cost to the public (the price of kerosene dropped by nearly 80% over the life of the company), Standard Oil's business practices created intense controversy. The firm was attacked by journalists and politicians throughout its existence, in part for its monopolistic practices, giving momentum to the anti-trust movement."

This evil man also defined the modern concept of philanthropy.

"His foundations pioneered the development of medical research, and were instrumental in the eradication of hookworm and yellow fever. He is also the founder of both The University of Chicago and Rockefeller University."

[Yankee Yahoo]

watefer wrote:

<quoted text>
Tesla died deep in debt.
The Wright Company was incorporated on November 22, 1909. The brothers sold their patents to the company for $100,000 and also received one-third of the shares in a million dollar stock issue and a 10 percent royalty on every airplane sold.
I think Ford is self explanatory.
Just a few factoids.
I just don't see that corporations are any worse than any other business.
John D. Rockefeller started Standard Oil as a partnership and it soon became a 'trust'.
Standard Oil was also convicted of being a monopoly.
"Despite improving the quality and availability of kerosene products while greatly reducing their cost to the public (the price of kerosene dropped by nearly 80% over the life of the company), Standard Oil's business practices created intense controversy. The firm was attacked by journalists and politicians throughout its existence, in part for its monopolistic practices, giving momentum to the anti-trust movement."
This evil man also defined the modern concept of philanthropy.
"His foundations pioneered the development of medical research, and were instrumental in the eradication of hookworm and yellow fever. He is also the founder of both The University of Chicago and Rockefeller University."

"I just don't see that corporations are any worse than any other business."

And yet, you provide evidence to the contrary, showing the many abuses of corporate power. Tesla died penniless, for two reasons. One, because he didn't care. Science, not money, was his motivation. Two, he was ripped off by emerging corporate power. Read his story in more detail.

Companies are fine, until they become artificial entities with equal rights as humans with the power to buy an sell everything. Once that occurs, there is no equality under the law (and artificial entity is never equal). And without equality under the law, a free economy is impossible.

[watefer]

Yankee Yahoo wrote:

<quoted text>
"I just don't see that corporations are any worse than any other business."
And yet, you provide evidence to the contrary, showing the many abuses of corporate power. Tesla died penniless, for two reasons. One, because he didn't care. Science, not money, was his motivation. Two, he was ripped off by emerging corporate power. Read his story in more detail.
Companies are fine, until they become artificial entities with equal rights as humans with the power to buy an sell everything. Once that occurs, there is no equality under the law (and artificial entity is never equal). And without equality under the law, a free economy is impossible.

Perhaps had Tesla incorporated he need not have died in debt, no?
He wasn't ripped off. He failed to protect his interests.
But, really I don't want to argue about this small detail when there is health care to kill and liberals to stop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[okboston]

Yankee Yahoo wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah, at long last, a good point.
But there's nothing wrong with making individuals accountable. With great power comes great responsibility, and the price of freedom. Despite this responsibility, the Wright Brothers plowed forward bravely, and Tesla made his inventions, and Ford built the car.
I see no evidence that innovation is stiffled in this way.
However, you raise the point of liability. That however is a corruption of laws to make frivolous lawsuits possible, and lawyers wealthy. There are things people are made responsible for they have not control over, or where responsibility lied elsewhere, but the one with the deeper pockets and better lawyer won the day.
This is called inequality under the law, and is a legal issue, not an economic one, where people are sued without just cause. Limited liability corporations would not even be necessary if laws were not corrupted from the start. But you point is valid.
The fact is that corporations get away with anything they want with protected liability, making decisions the Board is personally exempt accountable from. That is unacceptable, where the environment of this whole planet has been compromised by such corporations while the governments that protect them from liability look the other way,(or blame deregulation for what they always had a right to regulate, their own charters!)
But concerning small businesses, inventions by individuals, new ideas, etc. One has to adapt an attitude of "use at your own risk." And the fact that no one can guarantee one's own safety accept one's own self. A society that depends upon others of safety is unwilling to achieve anything great.
So where is this better quality of life? How do you know it would be better than a world of limited corporations, or no corporations?

Controlling the power of corporations is relatively easy, divorce them from the political process.

Economies of scale. How would you have a company with Boeings abilities without it being a company? You mention the Wright Bros., even they formed a company. There intention was to see if they could fly. Once they could fly, they intended to market, produce and sell the product.

Business has the ability to bring together different patents all for the same purpose in an orderly, efficient fashion.

[Yankee Yahoo]

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
Controlling the power of corporations is relatively easy, divorce them from the political process.
Economies of scale. How would you have a company with Boeings abilities without it being a company? You mention the Wright Bros., even they formed a company. There intention was to see if they could fly. Once they could fly, they intended to market, produce and sell the product.
Business has the ability to bring together different patents all for the same purpose in an orderly, efficient fashion.

Confusing business with corporations again? Business is fine. Corporations ARE the political process. How can you hope to debate when you make such an absurd comment about "divorcing corporations from the political process" then there very existence is REQUIRED by the political process? They cannot exist, at all, with the political process, silly.

Once again. Corporations, in and of themselves, are not necessary for business and mass production. Nor are they necessary for a free economy.

[Yankee Yahoo]

watefer wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhaps had Tesla incorporated he need not have died in debt, no?
He wasn't ripped off. He failed to protect his interests.
But, really I don't want to argue about this small detail when there is health care to kill and liberals to stop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Perhaps, if the RULE OF LAW was upheld, he would not have died penniless. Why should one have to be blackmailed into chartering with the state just to protect their business?

Being ripped off is the same as failing to protect one's interests. Just because one makes the best effort to protect themselves, doesn't mean they won't fail.

This issue is KEY to you just cause for eliminating healthcare. The current problem was created by government to begin with. Big Business exists sorely by government sanction, which is also causing problems with the healthcare issue.

Think about it. Most people now believe that the "free market" created or allowed Big Business Insurance Companies to exist. Ergo, most people want to abandon the free market.

This issue of corporations is critical to that debate. Divorce the concept of Big Business from the free market, and show the people how it was government, not the free economy, that caused the problem, and you win your war.

Liberals (by which I know you mean socialists) can easily be stopped when you divorce their ideology from classic liberalism. Socialism is ancient and conservative, and it will never be exposed as a failure when you allow it to be attached to words like "liberal" and "progressive." Which, as any politicians has known since ancient Rome, the same words always win the hearts and minds of the young. Being labeled a "conservative" is an automatic defeat. The American Revolutionaries knew this.

Fight fire with fire.

[okboston]

Yankee Yahoo wrote:

<quoted text>
Confusing business with corporations again? Business is fine. Corporations ARE the political process. How can you hope to debate when you make such an absurd comment about "divorcing corporations from the political process" then there very existence is REQUIRED by the political process? They cannot exist, at all, with the political process, silly.
Once again. Corporations, in and of themselves, are not necessary for business and mass production. Nor are they necessary for a free economy.

A corporation is just another form of business. A limited partnership with political interests provides the same problems that a corporation does, albeit most times on a smaller scale.

How do you propose to disassociate business from the political process when they are both regulated (OSHA/EPA, etc...) and protected (Patents, lawsuits, OSHA, EPA) whether or not they are a corporation? Do you include LLC's in your dislike of corporations?

What specifically do you dislike about corporations that does not apply to other business models?

[Yankee Yahoo]

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
A corporation is just another form of business. A limited partnership with political interests provides the same problems that a corporation does, albeit most times on a smaller scale.
How do you propose to disassociate business from the political process when they are both regulated (OSHA/EPA, etc...) and protected (Patents, lawsuits, OSHA, EPA) whether or not they are a corporation? Do you include LLC's in your dislike of corporations?
What specifically do you dislike about corporations that does not apply to other business models?

No, corporations are a legal piece of paper authorizing a special privileged from the state (or the county in the 1800's), or the Crown in Europe), and creating an artificial entity like a trust.

A corporation is NOT a business. A city incorporates as well, which is a GOVERNMENT. ALL corporations are governments by nature. They are interchangeable words. Thus, we still use the same title of president and secretary and many others for both, because obviously they are the same kind of entities.

I did not realize I was going to have to teach you the basics just to have a debate. The rest of your questions are pointless until you dispense with the fallacy that corporations are anything other than government contracts creating legal entities.