Ayn Rand

[Lanval]

This:

The point I make often, people were deceived into thinking they need the gov to violate someones rights to property for their own good, after they get the people to do this they have the people by the balls, cause the people have just begged the gov to throw away the very thing we fought for, protection of rights. So now the people rights are violated often, things are turned upside down and we now look to a mommy gov to tell us our rights.

and this:

Tell me more about this Potato famine.

Steve, why should I (or anyone) take seriously your discussion of rights and constitutional interpretation when you don't even know/understand basic elements of the history of this country?

Your comments are dismissive of others in a way that's wholly surprising given how often you are the one lacking in understanding or knowledge ~ as above; why do you assume that Russell not agreeing with you is the same as not understanding? A: Because you believe you see The Truth and that anyone else who sees it will by extension will agree with you. No. Many of your basic assumptions about the nature of the US, and it's form of government, are wrong; not opinion wrong, factually wrong. Which in turn forces even people who might otherwise agree with the aims of your beliefs to argue against you.

You would do well to arm yourself with fewer claims of "conspiracy" and more knowledge of the context and history of the things you discuss. Operating in ignorance and expecting the rest of us to treat you like an oracle is not going to achieve your desires ~ if in fact you wish to reveal some hidden "truth" to the greater collective here.

Best,

Michael L

I either disagree with you or I don't understand what you are saying.
Please clarify.

1. In your discussions of the Constitution and the Declaration you do a good deal of interpretation.
2. Interpretation depends upon context.
3. The context for the Constitution and the Declaration is US History.
4. You apparently don't know simple, basic facts about US History.

Thus, your discussion = not convincing.

Mike

[steve74baywin]

4. You apparently don't know simple, basic facts about US History.

Thus, your discussion = not convincing.

Mike

Oh, I don't agree with that.
I think I did very good in those threads where we was breaking it down, getting down to the nitty gritty. In fact, I thought I may learn something from you, but, you never did answer some of my concerns. Why don't you go back in those threads and set me straight. I am here willing to read.

[Lanval]

4. You apparently don't know simple, basic facts about US History.

Thus, your discussion = not convincing.

Mike

Oh, I don't agree with that.
I think I did very good in those threads where we was breaking it down, getting down to the nitty gritty. In fact, I thought I may learn something from you, but, you never did answer some of my concerns. Why don't you go back in those threads and set me straight. I am here willing to read.

Fair enough. I won't have time to do that during the next several days, so I'll follow up at the end of the week; this will give me time to work through your writings and see what you've said. I will then follow up with a response be it agree/disagree/what-have-you.

Best,

Mike

[ruckman101]

A corporation is the epitome of selfishness. A corporation is legally obligated to focus solely on the bottom line. That's it. There is no concern for nation, country, people, environment, society, world, time, space, nothing. Bottom line, that's it. Everything else is incidental, including shareholders. Labor is but another raw resource. A corporation is legally obligated to only be concerned with perpetuating itself. Originally, a public good the corporation would serve was necessary before a business could incorporate. No more.

It would seem a corporation is a shining example of Randian perfection. Oops, no soul. I guess that is the true cost of pure selfishness.


neal

[steve74baywin]

Originally, a public good the corporation would serve was necessary before a business could incorporate. No more.

neal

Yes, that is what I heard too. Also, a corporation was allowed for as long as it was useful to the people.

I think we really need more history on how this changed.
I bet it growing to the mess it is today is closely connected to our growing government which is connected to our growing legal system, these two things I bet are big factors in how corporations changed over the years.

I am not excepting your connection to Rand at this time, there is still too much we do not know about the history of corporations. Rand is for smaller gov, I think the rise of corporations is partly due to those rising the gov.

Edited to add
A movie I posted years ago in my movie list thread.
It is where I first learned how corporations evolved.
The Corporation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y

Edited to add,
I saw the above many years ago.
I am re-watching some of it now, don't know if I will watch it all again or not.
Part two mentions what you said Neal, Let me just post what it says in the description.

How the corporation came to be. Originally, corporations were set up to serve the public good. Corporation lawyers gained rights through the US Supreme Court using the 14th Amendment (set up to protect slaves) that gives them the rights of a person. In the last century, the corporation is given more and more rights while people are increasingly stripped of theirs.

[steve74baywin]

Oh, I don't agree with that.
I think I did very good in those threads where we was breaking it down, getting down to the nitty gritty. In fact, I thought I may learn something from you, but, you never did answer some of my concerns. Why don't you go back in those threads and set me straight. I am here willing to read.

Fair enough. I won't have time to do that during the next several days, so I'll follow up at the end of the week; this will give me time to work through your writings and see what you've said. I will then follow up with a response be it agree/disagree/what-have-you.

Best,

Mike

This will be nice to see.
I see you posting a lot, hope you get to this as mentioned.

[Amskeptic]

A movie I posted years ago in my movie list thread.
It is where I first learned how corporations evolved.
The Corporation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y

Edited to add,
I saw the above many years ago.
I am re-watching some of it now, don't know if I will watch it all again or not.
Part two mentions what you said Neal, Let me just post what it says in the description.

How the corporation came to be. Originally, corporations were set up to serve the public good. Corporation lawyers gained rights through the US Supreme Court using the 14th Amendment (set up to protect slaves) that gives them the rights of a person. In the last century, the corporation is given more and more rights while people are increasingly stripped of theirs.

Long ago on theSamba:
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 1:45 pm Post subject:
I like to see people think about and wrestle with the possible scenarios. I am like many people. I can bear the disruption and the pain as long as I am sharing it with others. But if there is a party going on at the top. . . . no way.
Colin
(ever see the film, "The Corporation"? Utterly chilling)
_________________
http://www.itinerant-air-cooled.com


You were in the middle of it when I posted this rant on this forum June 18, 2007:
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2264

I loved how The Corporation applied the DSM IV psychiatric diagnoses to the corporation and rightly concluded that as "individuals" they are psychopathically insane.
Colin