Comment Re:Not so unusual - Maverick! (Score 1) 81
correction to my first statement - Sherman Act of 1890
To deaddrunk:
1. They elected through revolution and not stopping government controls.
2. What is your definition of "evil"? Contorl from the top down doesn't enter into my definition:
Anything which impairs the happiness of a being or deprives a being of any good; anything which causes suffering of any kind to sentient beings; injury; mischief; harm.
The difference between a dictatorship and a company is you can leave the company. You have the choice not to be harmed.
3. Corporations have to be efficient in a capitalist society. Otherwise someone who is will win their clients/market. You won't find an efficient democracy, you have to wait for EVERYBODY to vote to get even one thing done.
4. Whenever you remove a person's right to ownership someone has to use force to take it away. The government is the only one who can do that. Hence the Sherman Act reference. That is one set of laws doing exactly what you are suggesting we do. Now we are reaping the results where companies HAVE to bend rules and do all the bad things you say just to stay in business.
The Sherman Act gives the government a blank check to write Retroactive Laws. What I mean by that is a company may not be doing wrong by the laws established in the current justice system, but the anti-trust laws can make a law and apply it to your business befere it was even created. Imagine if someone decides after the fact that picking up a penny on the street is theft or that you helped someone else in your office out to get a better result on a task you were assigned and called it anti-competitive and sent you to jail. Is that fair? It wasn't a law when you did it! But for businesses this process seems to be OK.
Your suggestion of stealing property from a business owner and give it to "the people" would only make this worse. Someone will need to force business to do this and then you get Socialism.
To Telal:
Seems to work well for who? The people that started the company and made the jobs that were taken over? I don't see many new ideas or business starting over there. If I'm mistaken then show me some proof that it works.
To RedGuard:
I don't understand what you are refering to.
To prizog:
1. A stock holder invests money and is only responsible for the loss of his/her investment (That should be pleanty damaging if they make a poor investment decision).
2. Absolutely, the owners should be responsible for it's outstanding loans and losses. That is just bad management on their part. Maybe that will keep those that don't know how to run a company from trying. Capitalism has it's own checks and balances, let it do it's job.
We the consumers vote (with cash and our time) on a company based on their product or service. No one forces us to buy their product. No one forces us to work anywhere.
To deaddrunk:
1. They elected through revolution and not stopping government controls.
2. What is your definition of "evil"? Contorl from the top down doesn't enter into my definition:
Anything which impairs the happiness of a being or deprives a being of any good; anything which causes suffering of any kind to sentient beings; injury; mischief; harm.
The difference between a dictatorship and a company is you can leave the company. You have the choice not to be harmed.
3. Corporations have to be efficient in a capitalist society. Otherwise someone who is will win their clients/market. You won't find an efficient democracy, you have to wait for EVERYBODY to vote to get even one thing done.
4. Whenever you remove a person's right to ownership someone has to use force to take it away. The government is the only one who can do that. Hence the Sherman Act reference. That is one set of laws doing exactly what you are suggesting we do. Now we are reaping the results where companies HAVE to bend rules and do all the bad things you say just to stay in business.
The Sherman Act gives the government a blank check to write Retroactive Laws. What I mean by that is a company may not be doing wrong by the laws established in the current justice system, but the anti-trust laws can make a law and apply it to your business befere it was even created. Imagine if someone decides after the fact that picking up a penny on the street is theft or that you helped someone else in your office out to get a better result on a task you were assigned and called it anti-competitive and sent you to jail. Is that fair? It wasn't a law when you did it! But for businesses this process seems to be OK.
Your suggestion of stealing property from a business owner and give it to "the people" would only make this worse. Someone will need to force business to do this and then you get Socialism.
To Telal:
Seems to work well for who? The people that started the company and made the jobs that were taken over? I don't see many new ideas or business starting over there. If I'm mistaken then show me some proof that it works.
To RedGuard:
I don't understand what you are refering to.
To prizog:
1. A stock holder invests money and is only responsible for the loss of his/her investment (That should be pleanty damaging if they make a poor investment decision).
2. Absolutely, the owners should be responsible for it's outstanding loans and losses. That is just bad management on their part. Maybe that will keep those that don't know how to run a company from trying. Capitalism has it's own checks and balances, let it do it's job.
We the consumers vote (with cash and our time) on a company based on their product or service. No one forces us to buy their product. No one forces us to work anywhere.
