When is using sex to sell, going to get metoo'd?

[IReallyDoTrainUFC]

Yes, but they aren't legal entities whose existence is legally limited to those susceptibilities. The difference is pretty fundamental and should be easy to understand: people are different than legal entities.



No, they're not, particularly when they become publicly traded, which most large corporations are.

Color me shocked that you don't understand this subject.



More evidence that you don't proofread your own posts.

Hold on. A corporation does not have the power to make law. And in the instances that a corporation does influence legislation or a politician to pass favorable laws that benefit them, IT IS THE POLITICIANS THAT ARE TO BLAME.

If there was true freedom in this country, there would be no state, and therefore any business would stand or fall on its own success in delivering whatever good or service it deals in when people voluntarily exchange with it.

You have a thing against powerful corporations, which I understand, but you have no understanding that it is the collusion with the state which makes it truly monstrous.

Fascism, or corporatism, is wrong... I'm completely against it. But it is the state which calls that situation into being.

 

[Trotsky]

Hold on. A corporation does not have the power to make law.

A legal entity is something that is created by law, not something that makes law.

Definition:

An association, corporation, partnership, proprietorship, trust, or individual that has legal standing in the eyes of law. A legal entity has legal capacity to enter into agreements or contracts, assume obligations, incur and pay debts, sue and be sued in its own right, and to be held responsible for its actions.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/legal-entity.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/legal-entity.html

And in the instances that a corporation does influence legislation or a politician to pass favorable laws that benefit them, IT IS THE POLITICIANS THAT ARE TO BLAME.

Agreed. But that is completely irrelevant to the topic being discussed. Try to stay on topic.

If there was true freedom in this country, there would be no state, and therefore any business would stand or fall on its own success in delivering whatever good or service it deals in when people voluntarily exchange with it.

This is a laughably simplistic and naive view that is diametrical to US history. Without the state, the exact same incentives would exist and the race to the bottom would be more intense. Monopolist enterprises like US Steel could establish monopolies through extortion and predatory pricing, thereafter charge monopoly prices, and render shitty services and no one could say boo.

You have a thing against powerful corporations, which I understand, but you have no understanding that it is the collusion with the state which makes it truly monstrous.

Yes, there is a great deal to be criticized of that intersection between corporations and the state. I'm glad that you have been able to make it to that conclusion. Realizing such, however, is not some great understanding, and you thinking that you understand the topic more than me (or anyone) is embarrassing.

Fascism, or corporatism, is wrong... I'm completely against it. But it is the state which calls that situation into being.

So we neuter the state. Limit its existence by constitutional amendment. You know what happens next? Private interests increase their economic power (now likely deregulated) and up their game in coercing state action against a government that is now even less able to defend itself and more susceptible to coercion. They do this both on the front end of campaigns (funding business friendly candidates) and on the back end in government (bribing government officials and funding their opponents). They immediately create a business state, however small, that narrowly serves its interest. They expand it wherever necessary or expedient to their cause - if its small size becomes an issue (it wouldn't), then they leverage a constitutional amendment to expand its scope.

How you think we can just theoretically "remove the state" is beyond the understanding of an adult.

Have you even seen what it's like in Africa? Regulation of corporations is nearly impossible and rife with corruption. And never in the history of the world have consumers been a sufficient check on corporate malfeasance, both because of the coercive capabilities of corporate actors and because of the limited understanding and bandwidth of consumers in considering anything other than convenience, especially when said corporations can also defend themselves with propaganda - like the money they spent producing much of the faux-political ideology that you read.

 

[IReallyDoTrainUFC]

A legal entity is something that is created by law, not something that makes law.

Definition:

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/legal-entity.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/legal-entity.html



Agreed. But that is completely irrelevant to the topic being discussed. Try to stay on topic.



This is a laughably simplistic and naive view that is diametrical to US history. Without the state, the exact same incentives would exist and the race to the bottom would be more intense. Monopolist enterprises like US Steel could establish monopolies through extortion and predatory pricing, thereafter charge monopoly prices, and render shitty services and no one could say boo.



Yes, there is a great deal to be criticized of that intersection between corporations and the state. I'm glad that you have been able to make it to that conclusion. Realizing such, however, is not some great understanding, and you thinking that you understand the topic more than me (or anyone) is embarrassing.



So we neuter the state. Limit its existence by constitutional amendment. You know what happens next? Private interests increase their economic power (now likely deregulated) and up their game in coercing state action against a government that is now even less able to defend itself and more susceptible to coercion. They do this both on the front end of campaigns (funding business friendly candidates) and on the back end in government (bribing government officials and funding their opponents). They immediately create a business state, however small, that narrowly serves its interest. They expand it wherever necessary or expedient to their cause - if its small size becomes an issue (it wouldn't), then they leverage a constitutional amendment to expand its scope.

How you think we can just theoretically "remove the state" is beyond the understanding of an adult.

Have you even seen what it's like in Africa? Regulation of corporations is nearly impossible and rife with corruption. And never in the history of the world have consumers been a sufficient check on corporate malfeasance, both because of the coercive capabilities of corporate actors and because of the limited understanding and bandwidth of consumers in considering anything other than convenience, especially when said corporations can also defend themselves with propaganda - like the money they spent producing much of the faux-political ideology that you read.

Whoa whoa whoa hold on. In the absence of the state, which reserves for itself the monopoly of force to enforce it's decrees, what power does any business have?

Let's answer that question first. In the absence of the state, what power does any business have?