corporatizing your life

[ccbatson]

What is it that you think corporatism is? Is it anything wiothout government involvement? If not, the logical conclusion is to remove government from the equation [[not corporations).

[rb336]

What is it that you think corporatism is? Is it anything wiothout government involvement? If not, the logical conclusion is to remove government from the equation [[not corporations).

no, the answer is for government siding with people instead of capital, and forcing the corporations to do what their corporate license was intended for - serve the public good

[ccbatson]

Corporation are licensed to serve the public good?? McDonalds? The tobacco companies? Alcoholic beverage manufacturers? Do I need to go on? What planet are you from Rb?

[Lorax]

Corporation are licensed to serve the public good?? McDonalds? The tobacco companies? Alcoholic beverage manufacturers? Do I need to go on? What planet are you from Rb?

Rb is correct again, and you are......come on, you know the answer- WRONG again!

I own my own corporation, and in my corporation documents are standards of ethics which all officially sanctioned corporations must adhere to, or face punishment. One of them is to not under any circumstances violate the public trust.

Most companies follow this ethical guideline, some do not. Your beloved banking institutions are immume via republican legislation from keeping the public's trust, and are therefore now in bankruptcy, or permanently discredited.

Corporations often change their names to avert public attention from high profile lawsuits, or for harming the public in a very public way.

Phillip Morris comes to mind, remember them? Well, they are now the good people at Altria.

Remember Blackwater USA? They are now XE, pronounced "Z"

There are dozens more. So a little education and a little humility might suit you better.

[ccbatson]

Define public trust please. A more vague statement you could not find in any serious contract. Business ethics supported by the rule of law, pertain to participants in a contractual relationship. In some cases, the public may be one of the concerned parties, however, they have the same rights and protections as any other party, not more.

[Lorax]

No, actually the public is SUPPOSE to have a more protected role, since the "public" represents untolled numbers of individuals, who, if necessary, can singly, or collectively confront the corporation, such as in a class-action lawsuit.

The corporation, contrary to rethugnican ideals, is NOT and does NOT have the rights of an individual, or a collection of individuals.

Rethugnicans over the years, especially since the Reagan years have tried, unsuccessfully to grant individual rights to corporations in an effort to circumvent the idea of serving the public trust.

If that happened in legal terms, we would be officially a capital "F" fascist dictatorship, as opposed to the authoritarian small 'd' democracy we were under Tush/Cheney.

[ccbatson]

Where in the constitution is it explained that groups of individuals acting as a corporation do not have the same rights to free enterprise as a singular individual?