Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When you study the history of corporations, you find they were created by the state for the purpose of enrichening the state. That being the case, it follows that they derive their legitmacy from the state. For that reason, the state has the power to limit and even dismantle them as it sees fit, right? Corporations should exist to enrichen the public. The public should only allow them to exist so long as their serve the public's interests, right?
If you disagree, please explain to me why the public should exist to serve the corporation rather than the other way around.
I see there are no takers on this topic. Oh well. I didn't expect much. I find it very interesting though that many people scream words like "tyranny" when states assert their power (natural and legitimate) over corporations. So, I guess for these people, corporate power should be supreme. Corporations have a natural right to do whatever they see fit because their power trumps state power.
I think we have big govt/big corp model. It is unsustainable in my view. Both govt and the corporate model need corrections. However, the only way I see that happening is for enough people to get involved w/ an understanding of what needs correction and mobilizing to correct it.
Corporations should exist to enrichen the public. The public should only allow them to exist so long as their serve the public's interests, right?
If you disagree, please explain to me why the public should exist to serve the corporation rather than the other way around.
Clueless IMO.
People go into business to make a profit for themselves and their families.
A corporation is filed to limit liability against lawsuits so you don't lose everything you earned across your lifetime to stupid lawsuits and things beyond your control.
If it is profitable to expand, employ people and to put up with all the garbage they do it. If they are very talented you get an APPLE Corp.
They don't get successful in any way because of government or because small people got to decide when they may and may not exist. Nobody elected such small people as god.
When you study the history of corporations, you find they were created by the state for the purpose of enrichening the state. That being the case, it follows that they derive their legitmacy from the state. For that reason, the state has the power to limit and even dismantle them as it sees fit, right? Corporations should exist to enrichen the public. The public should only allow them to exist so long as their serve the public's interests, right?
If you disagree, please explain to me why the public should exist to serve the corporation rather than the other way around.
I don't know about the history, honestly... but I sure can tell you that a corporation today really has nothing to do with expressly "serving the state"; it's strictly about (1) utilizing a set of laws that allow the entity to operate more efficiently, and (2) accessing large capital pools otherwise not available. The state supports this only so far as a successful corporation produces many other general economic benefits for the state. The people who the corporation really directly serves are the shareholders.
Clueless IMO.
People go into business to make a profit for themselves and their families.
A corporation is filed to limit liability against lawsuits so you don't lose everything you earned across your lifetime to stupid lawsuits and things beyond your control.
If it is profitable to expand, employ people and to put up with all the garbage they do it. If they are very talented you get an APPLE Corp.
They don't get successful in any way because of government or because small people got to decide when they may and may not exist. Nobody elected such small people as god.
You make some good points.
My issue w/ the Big Corp model is "ever increasing profit" above all else. This has been amplified w/ Big Govt and you don't have a free market w/ healthy competition. You also end up w/ no personal responsibility for damages. Plenty of people have made money from the govt. and are too big to fail.
This is different than free enterprise and healthy business innovation.
There should be a separation of corporation and state, otherwise, we get what we have now, where heads of corporations and banks buy our government to serve them, over what is best for the country overall.
The politicians job in Washington is to serve the best interests of majority of the people in this country and not an elite few which is what we have.
Obama or Bush, it matters not to them, because they don't vote democrat or republican but rather vote for people on both sides with their money that represent their best interests, which is irresponsible since it places them ahead of the pack in what should be a fair and open market.
The elite at the top need to be more responsible for their own actions and not look for the government to give them a free ride via rules and regulations they help tailor to their own benefit at the expense to the rest of the nation.
I don't know about the history, honestly... but I sure can tell you that a corporation today really has nothing to do with expressly "serving the state"; it's strictly about (1) utilizing a set of laws that allow the entity to operate more efficiently, and (2) accessing large capital pools otherwise not available. The state supports this only so far as a successful corporation produces many other general economic benefits for the state. The people who the corporation really directly serves are the shareholders.
It benefits the shareholders and the people or entities it sells it's stuff to.
If the stuff isn't good enough the corporation could go out of business due to market forces just like anyone else.
Remember Thrifty, Woolworth, Zodys? Big corporations that went down because they couldn't put good enough things in the market at competitive prices.
They have enough things to worry about in surviving without including small minded people playing Caesar who thinK they have the right to fling their thumbs up or down in a live or die scenario.
Clueless IMO.
People go into business to make a profit for themselves and their families.
A corporation is filed to limit liability against lawsuits so you don't lose everything you earned across your lifetime to stupid lawsuits and things beyond your control.
If it is profitable to expand, employ people and to put up with all the garbage they do it. If they are very talented you get an APPLE Corp.
They don't get successful in any way because of government or because small people got to decide when they may and may not exist. Nobody elected such small people as god.
Which is why no one affiliated in a high position with a Corporation or Bank should be allowed to serve in politics, nor donate to any campaign, because there exists a conflict of interest, where they serve only their cronies over what is best for the country.
You yourself, acknowledged they only exist to make a profit for themselves and their criminal friends on Wall Street, so it boggles the mind why we should allow these same criminals to serve in our government, when the logic follows they will only be serving their cronies and not what is in the best interest of the country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
