• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Putting Corporations in their place.

Is today's CORPORATISM any different from King George III?


  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Daily Kos: Putting corporations in their place

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country...corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war."
President Abraham Lincoln

" Corporations have taken over the government and turned it against its own people."
Ralph Nader

"Wait, back up a minute. Corporations? What corporations? Each colony formed by King George III in North America was a chartered corporation. That is how they were governed remotely from across the Atlantic Ocean. Governors of these colonies were appointed by the king. He vested in them a chip off the block of his sovereignty. Their job was not to be explorers, or to create communities of happy people. Their job was to make a profit for the monarch by turning natural resources into the coin of the realm. Nothing more, and nothing less."
Didn't these Corporations work for the Bank of England, also King George III's Family Bank?

What is different today?

Is it Corporatism or Capitalism?

 
I always laugh a little when people criticize corporations or businesses by saying something like, "they only care about making money." There's a term for corporations that don't turn a profit - bankrupt.
 
The issue is not about changing the mandate of corporations. It's about the ludicrous amount of power we allow corporations to have in society and lawmaking.
 
I always laugh a little when people criticize corporations or businesses by saying something like, "they only care about making money." There's a term for corporations that don't turn a profit - bankrupt.


I don't believe anyone criticized corporations for making money, but for political excess. Corporations are not people.
 
It seems strange that Liberals would dislike corporations.

Who else would hire them? Small businesses avoid Obama Supporters like the plague they are, while corporations, afraid of running afoul of the government or the Jessie Jackson extortion types, have outreach efforts for the Liberals and pretend they have something to contribute, corporations promote them regardless of their silly rhetoric and corporations allow them to obtain an income.

The relationship of the loons with corporations is very similar to their relationship to America, the country they couldn't exist without.
 
I always laugh a little when people criticize corporations or businesses by saying something like, "they only care about making money." There's a term for corporations that don't turn a profit - bankrupt.

The reason you laugh is because you miss the point. We don't want to stop profit. We want to stop those who make profit from dominating politics. There is a difference, and it is an important one, obviously. At least I hope it is obvious to you. It would be unfortunate if it wasn't, and you were still laughing.
 
It seems strange that Liberals would dislike corporations.

Who else would hire them? Small businesses avoid Obama Supporters like the plague they are, while corporations, afraid of running afoul of the government or the Jessie Jackson extortion types, have outreach efforts for the Liberals and pretend they have something to contribute, corporations promote them regardless of their silly rhetoric and corporations allow them to obtain an income.

The relationship of the loons with corporations is very similar to their relationship to America, the country they couldn't exist without.

I live in the boonies. I don't need even one Corporation. The point is that the Country doesn't need Corporations that are "too big to fail" and have accumulated overreaching political powers. If you like the big banksters up your rectum, that's on you. As for me, I'd prefer hemmhroids.
 
The reason you laugh is because you miss the point. We don't want to stop profit. We want to stop those who make profit from dominating politics. There is a difference, and it is an important one, obviously. At least I hope it is obvious to you. It would be unfortunate if it wasn't, and you were still laughing.

Well why don't you let the rest of us know who you'd allow to participate in politics?
 
The reason you laugh is because you miss the point. We don't want to stop profit. We want to stop those who make profit from dominating politics. There is a difference, and it is an important one, obviously. At least I hope it is obvious to you. It would be unfortunate if it wasn't, and you were still laughing.

If that's true, then why haven't liberals fought for campaign finance reform? That's all it would take, after all.
 
I don't believe anyone criticized corporations for making money, but for political excess. Corporations are not people.

Really? So you're fine with corporations making as much money as legally possible?
 
I live in the boonies. I don't need even one Corporation. The point is that the Country doesn't need Corporations that are "too big to fail" and have accumulated overreaching political powers. If you like the big banksters up your rectum, that's on you. As for me, I'd prefer hemmhroids.


As it is, you have both.
 
Really? So you're fine with corporations making as much money as legally possible?


As long as it does not endanger living, breathing entities. You will note that Corporations are fictitious entities and not subject to living, breathing problems.
 
If that's true, then why haven't liberals fought for campaign finance reform? That's all it would take, after all.

What do you propose? Every avenue I can think of to limit the influence would be shot down by this current Supreme Court. Just like the last campaign finance reform measure fought for by liberals was.
 
I live in the boonies. I don't need even one Corporation. The point is that the Country doesn't need Corporations that are "too big to fail" and have accumulated overreaching political powers. If you like the big banksters up your rectum, that's on you. As for me, I'd prefer hemmhroids.

I live in the boonies as well..... and I don't think you've thought the " I don't need even one corporation" schtick through.

" too big to fail " is an abomination.... but worse, it's a choice that your government has made into a truth.
they too can fail.. they too can be held accountable... if the government chooses to make it so....it's no surprise that cowards will make cowardly choices.

do your part by not doing business with "too big to fail" corporations or those who you personally believe "overreach".
I don't do business with mega banks, mega corporations, or public sector unions myself... at least not directly... it makes me feel dirty to mess with 'em
 
The reason you laugh is because you miss the point. We don't want to stop profit. We want to stop those who make profit from dominating politics. There is a difference, and it is an important one, obviously. At least I hope it is obvious to you. It would be unfortunate if it wasn't, and you were still laughing.

Actually it looks like you have missed the point. My comment was that I laugh when people complain about corporations only caring about making money. Someone truly ok with profit wouldn't be indignant about corporations caring about making money.
 
What do you propose? Every avenue I can think of to limit the influence would be shot down by this current Supreme Court. Just like the last campaign finance reform measure fought for by liberals was.
we can start by restricting the actions of candidates for office instead of trying to restrict the political speech of citizens.

unfortunately, politicians aren't going to cut their own throats.. they will continue to prefer to cut ours.
 
Actually it looks like you have missed the point. My comment was that I laugh when people complain about corporations only caring about making money. Someone truly ok with profit wouldn't be indignant about corporations caring about making money.

This thread has nothing to do with corporations making money. Absolutely nothing. You probably did not read the link.
 
Actually it looks like you have missed the point. My comment was that I laugh when people complain about corporations only caring about making money. Someone truly ok with profit wouldn't be indignant about corporations caring about making money.

And again, it is truly you who have missed the point. In order for your notion to be the point, people would be proposing the abolishment of profit. They are not. Instead, they are proposing the abolishment of power following money. Saying "all they care about is money", is a way of pointing out that such single mindedness makes them unfit for political influence.
 
And again, it is truly you who have missed the point. In order for your notion to be the point, people would be proposing the abolishment of profit. They are not. Instead, they are proposing the abolishment of power following money. Saying "all they care about is money", is a way of pointing out that such single mindedness makes them unfit for political influence.

However you try to justify the comment, a comment like that shows a complete lack of understanding as to the very reason for a corporations existence. It also shows a lack of awareness that a profitable business is actually a good thing.
 
The concept of corporate personhood isn't half as funny as the OP swearing up and down that he's a conservative...while linking Daily KOS.
 
Is there and difference between Unions and King George III?

NONE!!
 
Corperations are fictional legal enitities. They are creatures created by the government for the basic purpose of limiting liability to investors in a business enterprize. This means that Corperations while made up of people, ARE NOT PEOPLE. The people of the corperation have inaleinable rights. The corperation only has those rights granted by govenment for the promotion and furtherance of commerce. This does not mean that the individuals who are part of the corperation lose thir rights, far from it. Rather they retain their rights as individials and the GOVERNMENT protects them from CERTAIN liabilities as prescribed by law under SPECFIC circumstances. This is were it seems in my opinion the courts have got it wrong, that the Corperations are the EQUIVALENT of people. They clearly are not. Corperations DO NOT have minds of their own and CAN NOT exist without people running them. This is only common sense. But this leaves a small problem, which seems to be the crux of the matter, can a corperation particpate in the political areana. The answer is both yes and no. Corperation do NOT get a vote. Only the people who make up the corperation do. The question of Corperations voting is moot, they dont. The question of wheather they should be allowed to advocate for their own interests is not. Remember a corperation is a fictional legal enititie, and a GROUP of people with common interests. Therefore the real question is SHOULD a GROUP of people regardless of what they call themselves advocate for the causes that are in their interests and against those that are not. I would say YES. The reason being that the individual has an INALEANABLE right to associate with whomever they choose and further colaberate in whatever lawful manner they choose, in the excercise of their natural rights. As laws should be applied uniformally, the other option would be to limit the exercise of free speach to individauls ONLY. This means no adveratising by anybody but individauls. I trust that you are intelligent enough to begin to understand the implications of that train of thought.
 
I always laugh a little when people criticize corporations or businesses by saying something like, "they only care about making money." There's a term for corporations that don't turn a profit - bankrupt.
Thanks. I didn't know that I was so fully informed. I now know all I have to know about corporations. Even the ones in the Cayman Islands have to make a profit or they couldn't afford their facility, i.e. their PO Box.
 
Is there and difference between Unions and King George III?

NONE!!
So the King would have to go on strike to get a better deal from the unions and his family would go hungry too.
Perfect symmetry.
 
However you try to justify the comment, a comment like that shows a complete lack of understanding as to the very reason for a corporations existence. It also shows a lack of awareness that a profitable business is actually a good thing.

I am pretty sure the person stating it knows what the lifeblood of business is. You fool yourself that they don't ... in order to take an irrelevant cheap shot, and fool yourself further into thinking you have somehow made a point.
 
Back
Top Bottom