No. What I've been positing is that if you formally entangle yourelf with "government", you effectively become part and parcel of that vile entity and must therefore toe the same lines as may be codified by statute or even Law. If "government" cannot discriminate, then neither can you. And to be clear, I have no problem with discrimination by private parties. If you have an ice cream parlor and don't want to serve white males, then put up your sign and let the chips fall where they may. The market will respond as it will and either you will remain in business or you will not. That's all part of the freedom thing, but it's the side of freedom the squeams don't want to accept because it offends their delicate sensibilities.
Only partially and that lies, so far as I can tell without drilling down on it, in financial considerations.
There are aspects of liability that go well beyond the money. Consider Norfolk Southern and their disastrous decision to set alight 500 tons of vinyl chloride. Those people should already have been in cells since the day after the event. They should be charged. They should be convicted. They should be sentenced to life in solitary confinement and given a .357 revolver with a single round and good instruction on how to most effectively end their felonious existences.
Certain brands of limited liability are valid. Others, not so much so.
We agree, so long as the condition of no criminality is a fact. In the case of fraud and other felonies, the area quickly goes very grey.
I assure you that it is not, and it is obviously so when you understand what, precisely, is a "person". We have unwisely conflated personhood with humanity, and this is a fine example of why farting around with language, with words and their meanings, is a very bad idea... And yet, we appear incapable of avoiding it, which would seem to mean that there be an entire body of study ready for the studying: bringing certain ancient documents to proper understanding in the context of mangled current colloquial language relative to those documents. As I have stated many times before, language is the single most important thing in our lives. Nothing else even compares. It is quite literally EVERYTHING. Everything we know, live, do, judge, and so on down the long list of human activities. Yet we treat it so shabbily and with such casual dismissal. Thsi has gotten us into more trouble and all other causes combined, and by several orders of magnitude. It is a disaster of unmeasured proportions and it will likely be our undoing.
This is mistaken. Corporations have formal rights and must have them. The question is what
are those rights, and that is where we run off the rails. They do not possess human rights in a plenary sense. Their rights are in some cases very similar. Rights to property, for example. But do they have the right to petition "government" for redress? I'm thinking yes, but only in very limited ways. For one thing, they do not have the right to contribute to political causes of any sort. This, of course, begs questions of what are "political causes", for one thing, as well as a few other issues that can get thorny. Contributions to political campaigns for office, that is rather better defined and I would get rid of that yesterday. They should have no right to lobby at all. If they have a beef with "government", let them take it up in the courts and let the issues be settled in accord with proper procedures, including absolute public transparency. So much as the mention by a corporate officer (board member) to any government official regarding such beefs should place every human being at the risk of a life sentence. After sending the first couple to a supermax for this would straighten the troops up very quickly.
Non sequitur. These are not at all the same things. A farm is defined by the actual ground, a materially extant entity in sé. A corporation is not defined by anything other than an
idea. It is a set. It is a group defined by the algebra of the corporate charter. Look up group theory if you do not understand this, but I will warn you that it is dangerously abstruse math that will make your head hurt a lot. It made mine migraine a lot. That algebra will define the group, whether loosely or tightly, depending on its wording, which in turn depends on the nature of the corporation and perhaps the skill of the corporate architects to put their wills into written form.
The physical assets of the corporation are the set- or group members that are included in the definition at any given time. An auto manufacturer might have forges, foundries, machine shops, upholstery shops, coach-assembly lines, and so forth. Those are not the corporation, but properties belonging thereto. The shareholders are owners, but in a sense they are indirectly so. They own the CORPORATION, but not necessarily the physical assets. If I hold $50K worth of Ford stock, I cannot just waltz into the Dearborn plant (assuming it still even exists, does it???) and walk out with one of their Hardinge HLV lathes to use for a week because "I own it". So ownership in this sense has some twists because ownership is
shared. This is different from the circumstance where I open a job shop, buy an HLV and use it on my free time to make things for my wife at home. And even then I am limited in what I can do, particularly if I place that lathe on the corporate assets lists, in which case it becomes NOT mine in the usual sense, but the corporation's and it thereby subject to seizure in the event of bankruptcy or an adverse court decision.
Ask that of the lefties who curse corporations every which way. They seem to think they have all the answers.
Corporations are only as good or bad as the people associated with them, whether those of the corporations themselves or the "governments" that oversee them. Ours is very, VERY bad. Corporations are allowed to get away with literal murder, and I submit that the NS train disaster in East Palestine will prove out to have been murder because those people will be dropping like flies in the coming years. Vinyl chloride is a
very bad hombre see
this.. IMO, releasing 500 ton of Vx would have been more merciful.
Don't forget that a "corporation" is literally nothing. It is vapors in the minds of human beings. It is an idea. It is a script, much as is the case with "government", where a theoretical structure is defined with roles and rules, the actual script, and roles are defined - the players, or actors/characters of the script. Remove the human beings and the corporation mysteriously vanishes into thin air, just as with "government". And that is the reason I always repeat the caution of not mistaking a map for the terrain it represents, except a map has reality, whereas a corporation has only that of its people.
I already explained it to you. I'll explain it to you again. With personal bankruptcy there is still a negative consequence. You're credit rating is damaged. With corporate bankruptcy, if you dissolve the corporation you can just pretend it didn't happen. Read what I said through several times and THINK about it before you attempt to respond again. Please.
