The three main goals of libertarianism

[Skull Pilot]

Are cops the good guys? I guess if you constantly get speeding tickets or are a real criminal, it probably doesn't seem so. Yet they're there to protect average citizens from the violent, from the dangerous and from theives. Just because most people are good doesn't mean that we don't need cops.

Now it's your turn to tell me that you don't understand this analogy or that it doesn't have anything to do with the government.

I hate to tell you this but the cops do not protect you from crime. They show up after you are robbed, beaten or killed and dust for fingerprints and analyze blood spatter.

That provides a deterrent to crime. In public, they can also intervene immediately.

That's funny. if they intervened immediately they wouldn't have to analyze the blood spatter.

Cops do not prevent crime. Period.

As the old and true saying goes: When seconds count the cops are only minutes away.

In my case it's more like 30 minutes.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Businesses are people.

Businesses are owned by people. Big difference.

come on opie, you can't be that dumb. you get all tangled up with the legal definition of a corporation as a legal "person" and make the stupid conclusion that others think that corporations are people.

That's exactly what kaz said:

Businesses are people.

so its not entirely unreasonable for me to think he means what he says he thinks.

as I have tried to teach you, corporations are considered legal persons in order to protect the employees and shareholders from personal liability for the acts of the corporation AND to be able to hold the corporation liable for those same acts.

Its the right thing to do. Your ignorant spin just verifies your ignorance.

I said absolutely nothing that contradicts anything you've said in the above quote. I hope your preaching made you feel better about yourself at least. You're real smart, and a valuable person. Pat yourself on the back.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Businesses are people.

Businesses are owned by people. Big difference.

How is that different? The business in that sense is a piece of paper. In reality, it's the people who comprise the business and earn a living.

Do you have a job? Are you paid? Why, are you greedy?

How is being a person different from being owned by a person?

Is that really a serious question?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So those that you listed were founded to screw their employees, the public in general, and to foul the environment? Is that what you really believe?

Were you dropped on your head as a baby?

Founded to screw their employees? Don't be a ******* retard. They were probably founded upon some product that either captured a significant amount of the market or created a paradigm shift of some kind. The screwing didn't come about until much later when the corporate culture had been established and the level of greed hit critical mass.

So let me see if I get it. A corporation is founded to make money for its shareholders, then at some point its managers decide its time to start screwing the employees, the customers, and to start destroying the environment. And that paradigm shift would have been made to improve the bottom line????????

So, forcing your employees to quit, your customers to go elsewhere, and to run up EPA fines is good corporate practice?????


Where do you get this shit?

If your employees can't find work elsewhere, you customers can't find your product elsewhere, and the chances of getting caught by an environmental regulation are low enough - a corporation will do all three. Its whatever is most profitable. It doesn't matter who it helps or hurts so long as it helps shareholder profit.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Founded to screw their employees? Don't be a ******* retard. They were probably founded upon some product that either captured a significant amount of the market or created a paradigm shift of some kind. The screwing didn't come about until much later when the corporate culture had been established and the level of greed hit critical mass.

So let me see if I get it. A corporation is founded to make money for its shareholders, then at some point its managers decide its time to start screwing the employees, the customers, and to start destroying the environment. And that paradigm shift would have been made to improve the bottom line????????

So, forcing your employees to quit, your customers to go elsewhere, and to run up EPA fines is good corporate practice?????


Where do you get this shit?

If your employees can't find work elsewhere, you customers can't find your product elsewhere, and the chances of getting caught by an environmental regulation are low enough - a corporation will do all three. Its whatever is most profitable. It doesn't matter who it helps or hurts so long as it helps shareholder profit.

 

[dblack]

Founded to screw their employees? Don't be a ******* retard. They were probably founded upon some product that either captured a significant amount of the market or created a paradigm shift of some kind. The screwing didn't come about until much later when the corporate culture had been established and the level of greed hit critical mass.

So let me see if I get it. A corporation is founded to make money for its shareholders, then at some point its managers decide its time to start screwing the employees, the customers, and to start destroying the environment. And that paradigm shift would have been made to improve the bottom line????????

So, forcing your employees to quit, your customers to go elsewhere, and to run up EPA fines is good corporate practice?????


Where do you get this shit?

If your employees can't find work elsewhere, you customers can't find your product elsewhere, and the chances of getting caught by an environmental regulation are low enough - a corporation will do all three. Its whatever is most profitable. It doesn't matter who it helps or hurts so long as it helps shareholder profit.

What, do you suppose, is the most effective means for corporations to limit employee options, product availability (competition) and environmental liability?

Anybody else?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So let me see if I get it. A corporation is founded to make money for its shareholders, then at some point its managers decide its time to start screwing the employees, the customers, and to start destroying the environment. And that paradigm shift would have been made to improve the bottom line????????

So, forcing your employees to quit, your customers to go elsewhere, and to run up EPA fines is good corporate practice?????


Where do you get this shit?

If your employees can't find work elsewhere, you customers can't find your product elsewhere, and the chances of getting caught by an environmental regulation are low enough - a corporation will do all three. Its whatever is most profitable. It doesn't matter who it helps or hurts so long as it helps shareholder profit.

What, do you suppose, is the most effective means for corporations to limit employee options, product availability (competition) and environmental liability?

Anybody else?

1) Get as big as possible
2) destroy the unions
3) destroy the EPA

 

[RKMBrown]

Businesses are people.

Businesses are owned by people. Big difference.

How is that different? The business in that sense is a piece of paper. In reality, it's the people who comprise the business and earn a living.

Do you have a job? Are you paid? Why, are you greedy?

I have to side with poop on this one. There are big differences between "Businesses are people" and "Businesses are owned by people."

First, the former is false and the later is true. Second, a business is not just the people it employs. So you are wrong on that point.

From an accounting view a business, is some combination of assets and liabilities. Said assets may be any number of resources, such as employment contracts with valuable employees, and other intellectual property. From a human perspective, a business is some combination of workers, owners, managers, customers, partners (government and private ), and other suitable types of business, individual, and group relationships that people and groups may have with a business. From a lawyer and stock owners perspective, the business may be some combination of profit, loss, share price, liquidity, etc.

The point is, a business is many things but it is not a person and it does not merely comprise a person. Nor is the purpose of most businesses to employ people. The purpose of most businesses is to make money for the owners.

 

[kaz]

Businesses are owned by people. Big difference.

How is that different? The business in that sense is a piece of paper. In reality, it's the people who comprise the business and earn a living.

Do you have a job? Are you paid? Why, are you greedy?

How is being a person different from being owned by a person?

Is that really a serious question?

OK, let me rephrase the question. If other people work for money, why are they greedy but if you work for money, you're not?

 

[kaz]

Businesses are owned by people. Big difference.

How is that different? The business in that sense is a piece of paper. In reality, it's the people who comprise the business and earn a living.

Do you have a job? Are you paid? Why, are you greedy?

I have to side with poop on this one. There are big differences between "Businesses are people" and "Businesses are owned by people."

First, the former is false and the later is true. Second, a business is not just the people it employs. So you are wrong on that point.

From an accounting view a business, is some combination of assets and liabilities. Said assets may be any number of resources, such as employment contracts with valuable employees, and other intellectual property. From a human perspective, a business is some combination of workers, owners, managers, customers, partners (government and private ), and other suitable types of business, individual, and group relationships that people and groups may have with a business. From a lawyer and stock owners perspective, the business may be some combination of profit, loss, share price, liquidity, etc.

The point is, a business is many things but it is not a person and it does not merely comprise a person. Nor is the purpose of most businesses to employ people. The purpose of most businesses is to make money for the owners.

PooPoo cut my quote down to that line, I wasn't just talking about the owner of the business. A business is everyone who works there, invests in it, lends it money and does business with it. The stuff you're talking about are just the squibbles and dibbles that make it legal, which has nothing to do with what the business is all about.

I own and run a business to make a living. Which makes me greedy. But if PooPoo works for a company, he isn't. But if I don't do what I do, PooPoo won't have a job. Or money. That part including if he works for government or just lives on the dole. None of this is coming back to that I'm the greedy one.

 

[JoeNormal]

I hate to tell you this but the cops do not protect you from crime. They show up after you are robbed, beaten or killed and dust for fingerprints and analyze blood spatter.

That provides a deterrent to crime. In public, they can also intervene immediately.

That's funny. if they intervened immediately they wouldn't have to analyze the blood spatter.

Cops do not prevent crime. Period.

As the old and true saying goes: When seconds count the cops are only minutes away.

In my case it's more like 30 minutes.

Dude, use your imagination a little. When I say they can intervene immediately in public, I mean if you're being accosted by some gang bangers in a public place, they can use deadly force if neccessary to protect you.

 

[asterism]

For about the fifth time in this thread, I didn't say that all corporations are inherently evil. Granted I might have painted with a bit of a broad brush for simplicity's sake but please tell me you aren't really that much of a black-and-white thinker.

Yet you insist that government screws more gently than corporations. I take that to mean that you screwed people over when you ran your company and now you can't screw people over as much and are merely taking advantage of others through soft tyranny of the majority?

Well, I guess I should pat you on the head for a nice attempt at reading between the lines but after all that, you missed it by a mile.

I had a sole proprietorship in a technological field that was more cutting edge than my comfort level would allow. It was no more polluting than an average home and my customers apparently didn't feel screwed. They were sad that I'd called it quits.

Why don't you tell me how you've been wildly fucked by the government and I promise to listen with an open mind. (You too Kaz.)

IRS audit.

The process itself is damaging and punitive. They start with an assumption of guilt and one has to prove innocence.

 

[RKMBrown]

How is that different? The business in that sense is a piece of paper. In reality, it's the people who comprise the business and earn a living.

Do you have a job? Are you paid? Why, are you greedy?

I have to side with poop on this one. There are big differences between "Businesses are people" and "Businesses are owned by people."

First, the former is false and the later is true. Second, a business is not just the people it employs. So you are wrong on that point.

From an accounting view a business, is some combination of assets and liabilities. Said assets may be any number of resources, such as employment contracts with valuable employees, and other intellectual property. From a human perspective, a business is some combination of workers, owners, managers, customers, partners (government and private ), and other suitable types of business, individual, and group relationships that people and groups may have with a business. From a lawyer and stock owners perspective, the business may be some combination of profit, loss, share price, liquidity, etc.

The point is, a business is many things but it is not a person and it does not merely comprise a person. Nor is the purpose of most businesses to employ people. The purpose of most businesses is to make money for the owners.

PooPoo cut my quote down to that line, I wasn't just talking about the owner of the business. A business is everyone who works there, invests in it, lends it money and does business with it. The stuff you're talking about are just the squibbles and dibbles that make it legal, which has nothing to do with what the business is all about.

I own and run a business to make a living. Which makes me greedy. But if PooPoo works for a company, he isn't. But if I don't do what I do, PooPoo won't have a job. Or money. That part including if he works for government or just lives on the dole. None of this is coming back to that I'm the greedy one.

>>> A business is everyone who works there, invests in it, lends it money and does business with it. The stuff you're talking about are just the squibbles and dibbles that make it legal, which has nothing to do with what the business is all about.

Yeah a business is not "everyone who works there, invests in it, lends it money and does business with it." You mean to say, correct me if I'm wrong, a business is nothing if it does not have people who work for it, invest in it, lend it money and then produce something.

>> I own and run a business to make a living.

Yeah that's what a business is. An organization the owners construct to do something. For example, to waste time having fun if the business is just for fun and games such as hobbies, to help others if it's a charitable business, to get people elected if it's a political organization, but most businesses are constructed by the owners to make money (aka. make a living).

>> squibbles and dibbles
You as an owner have one perspective for what your business is. As a business owner I'm sure you understand that your customers may have a different perspective. My point to you is that not only do you, your workers, and customers all have different perspectives, so to will lawyers, investors, accountants, government employees, unemployed and welfare recipients, etc. Different people see different businesses through filtered glasses.

 

[Redfish]

Founded to screw their employees? Don't be a ******* retard. They were probably founded upon some product that either captured a significant amount of the market or created a paradigm shift of some kind. The screwing didn't come about until much later when the corporate culture had been established and the level of greed hit critical mass.

So let me see if I get it. A corporation is founded to make money for its shareholders, then at some point its managers decide its time to start screwing the employees, the customers, and to start destroying the environment. And that paradigm shift would have been made to improve the bottom line????????

So, forcing your employees to quit, your customers to go elsewhere, and to run up EPA fines is good corporate practice?????


Where do you get this shit?

If your employees can't find work elsewhere, you customers can't find your product elsewhere, and the chances of getting caught by an environmental regulation are low enough - a corporation will do all three. Its whatever is most profitable. It doesn't matter who it helps or hurts so long as it helps shareholder profit.

total bullshit

 

[RKMBrown]

The point being when you make a statement that starts with "a ___ is," the understood meaning of those words is that you are going to provide a definition that could be found in a dictionary of terms. Pretty sure you wont find a dictionary entry that reads "Business-noun- 1a. People b. Person."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are cops the good guys? I guess if you constantly get speeding tickets or are a real criminal, it probably doesn't seem so. Yet they're there to protect average citizens from the violent, from the dangerous and from theives. Just because most people are good doesn't mean that we don't need cops.

Now it's your turn to tell me that you don't understand this analogy or that it doesn't have anything to do with the government.

In general?

In the real world police are not there to protect us from anyone or anything.

You are correct that the fact that police kill unarmed people all the time does not mean that we do not need them, but we should remember that that they are just as capable of killing us as the gang banger you are so afraid of.

Ok, give my regards to the people on your planet.

I live on Earth, where do you live?

http://gunrightsalert.com/documents/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia_444_A_2d_1.pdfhttp://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1061352.html

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, the reasons corporations lobby government officials is because they are trying to buy enough influence to get the government to leave them alone, so that they can rape the environment and screw the workers.

are you a total moron? all corporations exist to rape the environment and screw the workers ?

Damn man, grow the **** up.

For-profit corporations exist to reap profit and are not motivated by any other concern. This means minimizing labor costs and externalizing as many costs as possible.

Just to give an example. Suppose there is a toxic chemical that a company must dispose of. To do it legally cost them $C. However, they could just dump it in the lake behind the plant essentially for zero dollars. That would be illegal, however, so there is a cost associated with that action. If the chances of being caught are Y and the amount of the fine is $F, then the expected amount they will have to pay for the infraction is $(Y*F). if Y*F < C, a company that is risk neutral will choose to dump the chemical in the lake behind the plant because on average it is the least costly to them.

There is an additional cost - the externalized cost $E - that society bears for now having toxic chemicals in a public resource. This cost may be hard to compute but it is there. The company doesn't pay this cost - we do - which is fine by the company because that means it gets to pocket $E more in profit than if it were to actually have paid the true cost of dumping toxic chemicals.

This is how corporations operate and it is a natural consequence of them being motivated soley by profit. That is OK - except that We the People - as issuers of their Charter - bear a responsibility to keep them in check. For instance, we need to ensure that $(Y*F) > $C in the case above, so that companies will always choose to properly dispose of said chemical because it will cost them less on average. We also need to ensure that $(Y*F)$ >= $E, so that the total amount of fines we collect for infractions will at least be the cost We the People incur for it. The government can change Y*F. Profit motive itself can change C by developing technology that makes it cheaper to dispose of toxic waste. The libertarian idiots would prefer Y*F = 0, however, which means C doesn't matter anymore because the corporations will only choose Y*F.


The above is just one example of how profit motive can continue to be profit motive while not harming the environment.

Whole Foods is not motivated by any concern but making a profit? Seriously?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are cops the good guys? I guess if you constantly get speeding tickets or are a real criminal, it probably doesn't seem so. Yet they're there to protect average citizens from the violent, from the dangerous and from theives. Just because most people are good doesn't mean that we don't need cops.

Now it's your turn to tell me that you don't understand this analogy or that it doesn't have anything to do with the government.

I hate to tell you this but the cops do not protect you from crime. They show up after you are robbed, beaten or killed and dust for fingerprints and analyze blood spatter.

That provides a deterrent to crime. In public, they can also intervene immediately.

Or they can do something else that they think is more important and not be held liable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For-profit corporations exist to reap profit and are not motivated by any other concern. This means minimizing labor costs and externalizing as many costs as possible.

Just to give an example. Suppose there is a toxic chemical that a company must dispose of. To do it legally cost them $C. However, they could just dump it in the lake behind the plant essentially for zero dollars. That would be illegal, however, so there is a cost associated with that action. If the chances of being caught are Y and the amount of the fine is $F, then the expected amount they will have to pay for the infraction is $(Y*F). if Y*F < C, a company that is risk neutral will choose to dump the chemical in the lake behind the plant because on average it is the least costly to them.

There is an additional cost - the externalized cost $E - that society bears for now having toxic chemicals in a public resource. This cost may be hard to compute but it is there. The company doesn't pay this cost - we do - which is fine by the company because that means it gets to pocket $E more in profit than if it were to actually have paid the true cost of dumping toxic chemicals.

This is how corporations operate and it is a natural consequence of them being motivated soley by profit. That is OK - except that We the People - as issuers of their Charter - bear a responsibility to keep them in check. For instance, we need to ensure that $(Y*F) > $C in the case above, so that companies will always choose to properly dispose of said chemical because it will cost them less on average. We also need to ensure that $(Y*F)$ >= $E, so that the total amount of fines we collect for infractions will at least be the cost We the People incur for it. The government can change Y*F. Profit motive itself can change C by developing technology that makes it cheaper to dispose of toxic waste. The libertarian idiots would prefer Y*F = 0, however, which means C doesn't matter anymore because the corporations will only choose Y*F.


The above is just one example of how profit motive can continue to be profit motive while not harming the environment.

Corporations are not living things. Corporations are groups of humans. Some humans would do the dumping you describe others would not. Just as some humans would demand redistribution checks funded through theft of their neighbors income. Some people are just plain scum of the earth, some a little better, some better than most.

"Corporations are people my friend." - Mitt Romney

Since he was making the point that raising taxes on corporations means raising taxes on people, he was right. Do you think corporate taxes are paid out of magic money?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For-profit corporations exist to reap profit and are not motivated by any other concern

So are politicians. Explain why you're against one and fine with the other.

I'll toss in my two cents worth.

Politicians are in the public eye and can't get away with as much bald faced greed as private corporate execs. They're a more benign form of the same shitty kind of person. Of course, the ambitions of many of them compel them to take the lobbyist or 'consultant' role where they can screw the system without as much scrutiny but by that time, they're not politicians any longer.

I bet you think Harry Reid lives on a fixed income.