Originally posted by Eladar So how does what he was responding to negate the ridiculousness of his statement? Or are you just intimidated?
No, he's not an idiot like you are and can read and understand. You asked two questions and they were accurately responded to. That you can't grasp the answers is your own pathetic failing.
Originally posted by no1marauder That's not what the SCOTUS has been saying; they are saying the corporation itself has rights.
Your second sentence is incoherent; your possession of a right has nothing to do with whether you can afford it or not. Natural Rights predate money ya know.
EDIT: And to top it off, the Constitution doesn't "give you" any rights at all.
OK, according to you no US citizen has Constitutional rights.
Your head is so far up your own arse that you can't possibly understand why Corporations have rights. No use in trying to explain to you that people own Corporations which is why they are given rights.
Natural rights for you are simply a way of trying to rationalize why everyone should be pushed into your leftist utopian society.
Originally posted by no1marauder No, he's not an idiot like you are and can read and understand. You asked two questions and they were accurately responded to. That you can't grasp the answers is your own pathetic failing.
Yes I know, actually reading the Constitution means you are a pathetic idiot according to you.
Originally posted by Eladar OK, according to you no US citizen has Constitutional rights.
Your head is so far up your own arse that you can't possibly understand why Corporations have rights. No use in trying to explain to you that people own Corporations which is why they are given rights.
Natural rights for you are simply a way of trying to rationalize why everyone should be pushed into your leftist utopian society.
People own shovels, should shovels be given rights?
I give up with right wingers trying to explain the political philosophy of the Framers - it just seems to hard for them to grasp. They routinely disparage the idea of Natural Rights seemingly unaware that the entire basis of our governmental system is that philosophy. And they really, really, really think that the Constitution "gave us" our rights and that without it we would have none.
What more can I say? The Eladarites don't have the faintest idea what the country is about or the principles it was based on. I'd suggest a reading of the Declaration of Independence as a crash course for them, but I know it would be utterly useless.
Originally posted by no1marauder People own shovels, should shovels be given rights?
I give up with right wingers trying to explain the political philosophy of the Framers - it just seems to hard for them to grasp. They routinely disparage the idea of Natural Rights seemingly unaware that the entire basis of our governmental system is that philosophy. And they really, r ...[text shortened]... Declaration of Independence as a crash course for them, but I know it would be utterly useless.
You have the right to make money.
Corporations are ways that allow people to make money with legal protections. I know that leftists have difficulty understanding the right to have a business and make money for yourself. It is at odds with your worldview.
The courts have said that you can keep your rights even if you incorporate.
Originally posted by Eladar You have the right to make money.
Corporations are ways that allow people to make money with legal protections. I know that leftists have difficulty understanding the right to have a business and make money for yourself. It is at odds with your worldview.
The courts have said that you can keep your rights even if you incorporate.
Before there was money, did you have a right to make it?
What legal protections a corporation has is solely based on corporate law. There is no "right" for corporations to even exist and few did at the time the Constitution was put into effect. General incorporation laws did not come into being in the US until the mid 1800's.
"You" don't "incorporate". You exist separately and distinctly from any corporation and it exists separately and distinctly from you.
EDIT: You really should cut the "you don't understand the business" crap. I've filed the paperwork for hundreds of incorporations and operated my own business for decades. Saying it is "at odds with my worldview" is just your usual crazy talk based on ridiculous stereotypes you have regarding anyone who doesn't agree with your extremist positions.
A and B decided to open a business: Libs R' Us. A contributed $10,000. B contributed $20,000. Because A and B did not want their customers to think that they were part of the 1%, they decided not to incorporate. A and B did not learn how to run a business in liberal arts school. So after a couple months, Libs R' Us went out of business. Libs R' Us's liabilities exceed its assets.
Originally posted by MoneyManMike I have a little hypo for you all:
A and B decided to open a business: Libs R' Us. A contributed $10,000. B contributed $20,000. Because A and B did not want their customers to think that they were part of the 1%, they decided not to incorporate. A and B did not learn how to run a business in liberal arts school. So after a couple months, Libs R' Us went out of business. Libs R' Us's liabilities exceed its assets.
Result?
Obviously the main reason to incorporate is to leave the owners with limited liability by creating an entirely separate entity - the Corporation - that has legal existence.
Originally posted by no1marauder Obviously the main reason to incorporate is to leave the owners with limited liability by creating an entirely separate entity - the Corporation - that has legal existence.
Originally posted by Eladar I understand that you see your beliefs as reality and anything that differs is simply error.
Leftists are like that. It helps them rationalize the use of government to enslave the population to make their lives better.
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.
Originally posted by no1marauder No, he's not an idiot like you are and can read and understand. You asked two questions and they were accurately responded to. That you can't grasp the answers is your own pathetic failing.
Well it only took 7 years, but no1marauder has finally put in writing that I am not an idiot.
02 Jul '14 21:39
Hobby Lobby Wins
Back to Top