Originally posted by no1marauder
This is a waste of time, but what do you suppose A and B's "respective liabilities" to be?

Well it depends on the jurisdiction. Typically partners are jointly and severally liable for the partnership's obligations.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes, using currency is quite typical of communism.

It isn't the use of currency that is the problem here, but what that then implies. You think it implies total subservience to the State. I think it implies that people can collect money for services rendered.

But hey, you are so closed minded that you can't think outside your Communist point of view. Asking you to see another point of view is asking too much I think. Sorry if you don't like my use of the word Communist, I know your point of view leads you to believe that you are not a Communist.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, I've realized that you are too dogmatically stupid to have the slightest clue what my "belief system" is and too lazy to do anything but voice some code words you heard on Fox News or some other intellectual wasteland.

You think I watch Fox? Lol, I gave up on that Republican establishment station long ago. My beliefs are not based on Fox, but what the Constitution actually says and how the country operated as a free society up until the beginning of the 20th century.

Originally posted by Eladar
It isn't the use of currency that is the problem here, but what that then implies. You think it implies total subservience to the State. I think it implies that people can collect money for services rendered.

But hey, you are so closed minded that you can't think outside your Communist point of view. Asking you to see another point of view is asking too ...[text shortened]... the word Communist, I know your point of view leads you to believe that you are not a Communist.

Here is my previous post again:

In a barter economy, you have control over what someone else does in return for your labour, products or services. For instance, you could make some spears, in return for which a hunter may provide meat.

In an economy based on currency, you have no such control. You provide some labour, product or service in return for money. This money will, directly and indirectly, spread through the users of the currency, which means that the labour, products or services you have provided will be in return for a multitude of things; pretty much everything that is happening in the economy. This allows great specialization and productivity, but also implies that working means you are funding abortions as long as they are happening.

Where do you distill "total subservience to the State" from this? A state is not even required to use currency.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Here is my previous post again:

[quote]In a barter economy, you have control over what someone else does in return for your labour, products or services. For instance, you could make some spears, in return for which a hunter may provide meat.

In an economy based on currency, you have no such control. You provide some labour, product or service in ...[text shortened]... still "total subservience to the State" from this? A state is not even required to use currency.

When you claim that this gives the right to the government to take money from one person to aid another person is when you make the giant communist leap in your logic.

If your point is that people make money and you can do with your money what you wish, then I apologize for making an incorrect assumption.

Originally posted by no1marauder
First, Hobby Lobby was created by a single person. There is no indication that it was ever intended to be ran as a partnership. Partnerships are equally owned unless the partnership agreement says differently. That is completely different even from a closely held corporation in which each owner holds a specific percentage of overall stock.

...[text shortened]... /nysstlc.syr.edu/Law_Resources/Law_Library/Business/GeneralLimitedPartnerships/partnerships.aspx

And in addition to your description of partnerships, the partnership arrangement offers no limitation of liability to business assets, nor for that matter protection of unrelated personal activities and liabilities of the partners.

The two major reasons for corporations are: 1. Limitations of liabilities to assets of the corporation, and stemming from its activities. 2. A means of funding growth of a business by selling shares in it.

Originally posted by normbenign
And in addition to your description of partnerships, the partnership arrangement offers no limitation of liability to business assets, nor for that matter protection of unrelated personal activities and liabilities of the partners.

The two major reasons for corporations are: 1. Limitations of liabilities to assets of the corporation, and stemming from its activities. 2. A means of funding growth of a business by selling shares in it.

According to no1, if you want the protection that the tool gives you must then become the tool. You no longer have rights given to you as a person.

Originally posted by Eladar
When you claim that this gives the right to the government to take money from one person to aid another person is when you make the giant communist leap in your logic.

If your point is that people make money and you can do with your money what you wish, then I apologize for making an incorrect assumption.

When you claim that this gives the right to the government to take money from one person to aid another person is when you make the giant communist leap in your logic.

That was not my claim, although the notion that the government has to re-assign resources in order to fund its operations seems trivial to me.

If your point is that people make money and you can do with your money what you wish, then I apologize for making an incorrect assumption.

Indeed, that was my point. The only way Hobby Lobby can prevent their services being used to trade for contraceptives is by boycotting currency. It's a pity SCOTUS judges are so dumb, or it would have taken them about two attoseconds to come to a 9-0 verdict. A corporation cannot possibly boycot currency, after all, so the question of whether a corporation can be forced to pay for something they don't like is pointless.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[b]When you claim that this gives the right to the government to take money from one person to aid another person is when you make the giant communist leap in your logic.

That was not my claim, although the notion that the government has to re-assign resources in order to fund its operations seems trivial to me.

If your point is that people ...[text shortened]... estion of whether a corporation can be forced to pay for something they don't like is pointless.

You are engaging in a gigantic dodge. Each of us can at least theoretically refuse to use currency. Laws making Federal Reserve Notes "legal tender" notwithstanding, many people when possible do resort to barter, exchanging service for service, or service for goods.

In fact the reason for the Fed, and its paper money being "legal tender" is to avoid people refusing to take bank commercial paper when the bank turned out to be in trouble. The problem with this course is that banks still make overly aggressive decisions, and just plain mistakes and are not held to account and punished in the market for those mistakes.

Originally posted by normbenign
You are engaging in a gigantic dodge. Each of us can at least theoretically refuse to use currency. Laws making Federal Reserve Notes "legal tender" notwithstanding, many people when possible do resort to barter, exchanging service for service, or service for goods.

In fact the reason for the Fed, and its paper money being "legal tender" is to avoid ...[text shortened]... d just plain mistakes and are not held to account and punished in the market for those mistakes.

I don't think I am "dodging", but perhaps you just misunderstand what I am saying since your post does not address mine.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra

Indeed, that was my point. The only way Hobby Lobby can prevent their services being used to trade for contraceptives is by boycotting currency. It's a pity SCOTUS judges are so dumb, or it would have taken them about two attoseconds to come to a 9-0 verdict. A corporation cannot possibly boycot currency, after all, so the question of whether a corporation can be forced to pay for something they don't like is pointless.[/b]

Your point is that people can do what they want with their money? Yet you say if Hobby Lobby wants to do that then they need to give up using money?

You are one sick twisted individual.

Originally posted by normbenign
You are engaging in a gigantic dodge. Each of us can at least theoretically refuse to use currency. Laws making Federal Reserve Notes "legal tender" notwithstanding, many people when possible do resort to barter, exchanging service for service, or service for goods.

In fact the reason for the Fed, and its paper money being "legal tender" is to avoid ...[text shortened]... d just plain mistakes and are not held to account and punished in the market for those mistakes.

Either his problem is one of not understanding English or he is just a total Communist nut job.

Originally posted by Eladar
Your point is that people can do what they want with their money? Yet you say if Hobby Lobby wants to do that then they need to give up using money?

You are one sick twisted individual.

No, that is not at all what I am saying. Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote and attempt to comprehend it.

I am saying that if Hobby Lobby wants to control what services are provided in return for their own, they should stop using currency, exclusively barter and not barter with anyone using currency with third parties.

For the record, I also don't believe corporations should be forced to purchase health insurance for their employees, other than through their possible contribution to a universal health care system.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
No, that is not at all what I am saying. Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote and attempt to comprehend it.

I am saying that if Hobby Lobby wants to control what services are provided in return for their own, they should stop using currency, exclusively barter and not barter with anyone using currency with third parties.

For the record, I also ...[text shortened]... eir employees, other than through their possible contribution to a universal health care system.

If you think a reasonable option is to stop using money, then you are psychotic.

Originally posted by Eladar
If you think a reasonable option is to stop using money, then you are psychotic.

It is reasonable if your goal is to control what others do in return for your services (personally, I don't care what other people buy with their money as long as it doesn't disproportionately harm others).

It's not reasonable to use currency and then demand control over what other people do in return for your services, when said control has been ceded through the endorsement of currency.