[Angel1]

The idea of slavery to the corporation is a cop out for people who do not want to deal with the very real dependence on government. You can quit a job if you don't like what your company or boss is doing. You can seek additional training if you don't like the value that you hold to your organization. You can move to an area where there is more demand for your skills. The charge of corporate slavery bears no truth.

Fact of the matter is that everyone runs a proprietorship of selling their skills and their services to companies who need such skills and services. Want to get a better price for your skills and services? Then gain new skills or experience or certifications. You can do any number of things to make your employment more profitable.

[Tocsin]

Originally Posted by Angel1 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The idea of slavery to the corporation is a cop out for people who do not want to deal with the very real dependence on government. You can quit a job if you don't like what your company or boss is doing. You can seek additional training if you don't like the value that you hold to your organization. You can move to an area where there is more demand for your skills. The charge of corporate slavery bears no truth.

Yeah... absolutely. In this regard, having children is actually a plus. Infant and young children can fetch a high price on the black market for parents hoping to adopt. Teenage children? They can always make good money in prostitution and on-line porn.

If you have kids, you don't have to worry about things like bills, food, and rent or mortgage payments while you train up for that high paying position you've always dreamed about.

[Angel1]

Originally Posted by Tocsin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yeah... absolutely. In this regard, having children is actually a plus. Infant and young children can fetch a high price on the black market for parents hoping to adopt. Teenage children? They can always make good money in prostitution and on-line porn. If you have kids, you don't have to worry about things like bills, food, and rent or mortgage payments while you train up for that high paying position you've always dreamed about.

What you're describing has a name...it's called life. We are all slaves to life. The only escape from that slavery is only illegal if you don't succeed.

[Tocsin]

	Originally Posted by Angel1 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The only escape from that slavery is only illegal if you don't succeed.

So.... I guess that means pimping, peddling kiddie porn, drug manufacturing, drug dealing, extortion, swindling, robbery, burglary, bank robbing, forgery, identity theft, running numbers rackets or protection schemes, kidnapping, making snuff videos, and murder-for-hire are all "reasonable" means of escaping corporate slavery - just as long as you're good enough at it to "succeed."

[Savagelight]

Originally Posted by Angel1 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The idea of slavery to the corporation is a cop out for people who do not want to deal with the very real dependence on government. You can quit a job if you don't like what your company or boss is doing. You can seek additional training if you don't like the value that you hold to your organization. You can move to an area where there is more demand for your skills. The charge of corporate slavery bears no truth. Fact of the matter is that everyone runs a proprietorship of selling their skills and their services to companies who need such skills and services. Want to get a better price for your skills and services? Then gain new skills or experience or certifications. You can do any number of things to make your employment more profitable.

Authoritarianism is authoritarianism. Whether your boss is called a CEO or is voted in by a Democratic process, it's still ultimately a centralized power structure which seeks to control your behavior, tell you how to live, what you can and can't do, and treat you like a number. Neither respects you as an individual, neither cares about your self interest. Collectivism is collectivism, centralized authority is centralized authority, to try to claim that merely changing it's name from "government" to "corporation" or "corporate-government" it does not at all change it's function. It's like the choice of being spied on and controlled by private corporations vs being spied on and controlled by government. Either way you are dealing with an unaccountable authority who seeks to control, dominate, regulate and conquer you.

And it's not a fact at all that we have to sell our skills to companies. We can work for ourselves selling our skills and services directly to consumers. The obsequiousness of "conservatives" disgusts me even more than the government dependence of "liberals". Each of you are submitting, the difference is that when people submit to the government everyone admits it's submission to government. Nobody is going to dispute that when someone gives the government power that the government is probably going to abuse that power, but somehow when dealing with "conservatives", they appear even more naive and obsequious than "liberals", because they want to completely whore themselves out to corporations who will own them as property.

If you are a conservative why aren't you fighting to empower the employee? Why aren't you fighting against collectivist ideas like corporate personhood? Why aren't you fighting for organized labor? This is fully compatible with the goals of libertarianism because if you are a libertarian and a worker it's in your best interest to empower yourself through any and all available means. Resigning yourself to serfdom is not libertarianism. Being loyal to corporations is not libertarianism. The only thing that is going to happen for you is that your corporations that you cherish will become the new government, and it's already happening as we speak. Governments are just paying corporations to do the governing, the spying, the policing, the soldiering.

---------- Post added 09-15-2010 at 10:36 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Angel1 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What you're describing has a name...it's called life. We are all slaves to life. The only escape from that slavery is only illegal if you don't succeed.

You are not a "conservative" or a "libertarian", you are the polar opposite of a libertarian. You are a slavist. Yeah I had to create a new word to describe the behavior of a person who willingly promotes, accepts, embraces the idea of being owned as property by entities other than themselves. The word slavist is more accurate in this context than merely obsequious which is what I thought you were originally. You want to be owned by the market.

I don't believe in being owned by the market. I believe the market is a means to an end. It's a way to get what we want from each other without having to resort to violent coercion. I can now pay you to do work that I need done, or pay you for a product that I need, rather than have to take it by force. Unfortunately for you, your curmudgeon way of thinking is anachronistic, it's out of date. Worker-slaves are now worthless in an age of machines, robotics, automation, and a growing population which cheapens labor with every new generation.

My way of thinking is to promote the autonomy of the individual against the coercive force of large entities with centralized power. These large entities may be corporate organizations, may be government organizations, may be non-government or religious organizations, but any organization which seeks to needlessly regulate human behavior is a source of misery in the world. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anarchist. I believe we need some laws, but the philosophical basis behind the laws in my opinion should be to maximize human autonomy with minimal interference from collectivist authoritarian organizations except when absolutely necessary.

The market has to be regulated on some level because if it wasn't we'd all be hiring hitmen to have each other killed. So murder is illegal. Child slavery is also illegal because we want to allow children the autonomy to choose their destiny. An adult on the other hand is not a child and has the ability to enter into a contract for any reason which includes selling their sexuality, buying products which may be unhealthy or addictive, or just gambling their money away. The option to be stupid must also be a liberty we cherish, even if we aren't stupid and don't promote stupidity by our actions.

[Angel1]

Originally Posted by Savagelight To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You are not a "conservative" or a "libertarian", you are the polar opposite of a libertarian. You are a slavist. Yeah I had to create a new word to describe the behavior of a person who willingly promotes, accepts, embraces the idea of being owned as property by entities other than themselves. The word slavist is more accurate in this context than merely obsequious which is what I thought you were originally. You want to be owned by the market. I don't believe in being owned by the market. I believe the market is a means to an end. It's a way to get what we want from each other without having to resort to violent coercion. I can now pay you to do work that I need done, or pay you for a product that I need, rather than have to take it by force. Unfortunately for you, your curmudgeon way of thinking is anachronistic, it's out of date. Worker-slaves are now worthless in an age of machines, robotics, automation, and a growing population which cheapens labor with every new generation.

I must have missed several pages of debate between us, because I don't recall ever saying that people should be slaves. I merely find the notion of be enslaved to a corporation that you voluntarily choose to work for and under to be insulting to the people now enslaved and those who have been enslaved throughout human history. Choosing to work under a corporation is not slavery, it is a choice made out of free will. You seem to like free will, but seem perfectly willing to deny people the free will to choose to join into larger organizations. How does that make you any less controlling than the corporations that now exist?

For the record, I have not nor do I believing in fighting organized labor that acts within reason and that understands the position of each player in the equation (not just their own). A union that decides to act solely to its members benefits without considering the needs of the stockholders and debtholders can drive companies to the edge of bankruptcy. When this begins to occur, that is when I turn my wrath on that particular union. Sometimes I decide that regardless of any change that union makes they need to be eliminated to set an example for other unions. The same can be said of stockholders and debtholders.

Just because I frequently turn my wrath against unions doesn't mean I've changed my position, it just means that the fight is more frequently hitting in such a manner as to turn me against particular unions. It is a matter of balancing out all parts of the equation. A must = B must = C must = A.

I won't deny that leaving a company's service can sometimes be difficult to achieve from the standpoint of providing for families and getting a new job and surviving until you get a new job or your new proprietorship starts bringing in money. Absolutely, it might be very difficult. Difficult endeavors are difficult, not impossible. Leaving is never impossible. Yes, leaving may be improbable.

However, free will and free choice means that you can make a product and sell it yourself or you can be a small part in a larger company. Your choice and noone else can make it for you. Nor in a world of free will and free choice can you be told that you can't accept employment in a corporation because that somehow makes you a slave. With that view point, you are the one that wants to control people. I say that people should have complete free choice, including the choice to place themselves under the command and direction of someone else.

[Savagelight]

Originally Posted by Angel1 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I must have missed several pages of debate between us, because I don't recall ever saying that people should be slaves. I merely find the notion of be enslaved to a corporation that you voluntarily choose to work for and under to be insulting to the people now enslaved and those who have been enslaved throughout human history. Choosing to work under a corporation is not slavery, it is a choice made out of free will. You seem to like free will, but seem perfectly willing to deny people the free will to choose to join into larger organizations. How does that make you any less controlling than the corporations that now exist?

Most people don't choose to work, they have to work. They are in debt. Because of their debt they are virtual slaves in the way that a peasant or serf would be. This form of slavery by debt has always existed and still exists. Yes you put yourself in debt but once again you cannot even get a job without going into debt, you can't really avoid debt. On top of that to claim that it's voluntary does not mean we can choose working conditions. If unions were plentiful I would not have this view but because of the lack of unions, and the law of rights for workers, a majority of workers are clinging to their jobs for their very survival and what is at stake is a lifetime of debt in which collections agencies or the government will go into their paychecks and take money out of it. It's not all that different from a tax in many ways.

	Originally Posted by Angel1 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	For the record, I have not nor do I believing in fighting organized labor that acts within reason and that understands the position of each player in the equation (not just their own). A union that decides to act solely to its members benefits without considering the needs of the stockholders and debtholders can drive companies to the edge of bankruptcy.

Okay thats fine.

	Originally Posted by Angel1 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	When this begins to occur, that is when I turn my wrath on that particular union. Sometimes I decide that regardless of any change that union makes they need to be eliminated to set an example for other unions. The same can be said of stockholders and debtholders.

What about corporations? Should monopolies be broken up?

	Originally Posted by Angel1 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I won't deny that leaving a company's service can sometimes be difficult to achieve from the standpoint of providing for families and getting a new job and surviving until you get a new job or your new proprietorship starts bringing in money. Absolutely, it might be very difficult. Difficult endeavors are difficult, not impossible. Leaving is never impossible. Yes, leaving may be improbable.

So you can choose to work for them or not, but you don't get to influence your working conditions?

Originally Posted by Angel1 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

However, free will and free choice means that you can make a product and sell it yourself or you can be a small part in a larger company. Your choice and noone else can make it for you. Nor in a world of free will and free choice can you be told that you can't accept employment in a corporation because that somehow makes you a slave. With that view point, you are the one that wants to control people. I say that people should have complete free choice, including the choice to place themselves under the command and direction of someone else.

I'm fine having a world where corporations exist. Corporations have a right to exist. Where I disagree is on the corporate personhood. Corporate immortality. The lack of corporate accountability is so high that governments are beginning to run their programs as corporations. They've learned that corporations can get away with doing things that governments would be held accountable for. This is why all the anger towards government programs is misguided and pointless as corporate governance is even worse than the most authoritarian version of the US government. You don't get to vote on the President of a corporation, the corporation does not value civil liberties at all, the corporation does not value the environment at all.

In some ways government has a role which corporations aren't designed for. There are new options for corporations, L3C corporations provide the hybrid option of running a corporation in a way which values civil liberties or human rights, but as corporations currently are designed it's usually LLC and these types of corporations don't value civil liberties or human rights and this is the problem I have with corporate authority.

Unless we start creating L3C's, mantras like "Do no evil" are meaningless because the corporation by law does not have to follow it's mission statement or it's constitution. The L3C has to follow it's constitution. I would promote free choice and human rights through promotion of L3C corporations. Not all corporations in general but this specific kind of corporation above all others.

Beyond that I would promote government entities which promote free choice. Security is nice, but if the government is priming us into becoming robots it's eventually not going to be life as we know it.

[Angel1]

Originally Posted by Savagelight To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Most people don't choose to work, they have to work. They are in debt. Because of their debt they are virtual slaves in the way that a peasant or serf would be. This form of slavery by debt has always existed and still exists. Yes you put yourself in debt but once again you cannot even get a job without going into debt, you can't really avoid debt. On top of that to claim that it's voluntary does not mean we can choose working conditions. If unions were plentiful I would not have this view but because of the lack of unions, and the law of rights for workers, a majority of workers are clinging to their jobs for their very survival and what is at stake is a lifetime of debt in which collections agencies or the government will go into their paychecks and take money out of it. It's not all that different from a tax in many ways.

In Tennessee the reason that people have not pushed to make unionization easier and in many cases just don't want unions is because they don't need them. A union is one more hassel to deal with, so it must be capable of eliminating more hassel or problems than is inherent in the union itself. Unions have driven industries out of states. People tend to live where they like and like working where they want to live. Unions do exist in Tennessee.

Tennessee is an "Employment-At-Will" state. This basically means that aside from discrimination, they can hire, fire, suspend, or discipline employees at will. Unions may exist inside this structure, but if any employee is not providing value to the company, it is far easier to remove them. Don't take this wrong, they can't be terminated for jury duty, military service, voting, or exercising free-association.

Private companies cannot take money from paychecks in Tennessee without the consent of the employee or a court order.

	What about corporations? Should monopolies be broken up?

Monopolies should be broken up, yes. However, that does not mean that companies like Microsoft should be broken up. Yes, Microsoft sells both hardware and software and many different types of both, but they are not the only company selling hardware and software. I am specifically referring to the EU action against Microsoft because they include Windows Media Player in their Windows software. Frankly, I have two media players on my computer. I only use the Dell-provided MediaDirect for movies, but I have options. I guess my point here is that simply dominating in near absolution a market is not enough to constitute a monopoly. The company must actively seek to remove/prevent competition. If they simply produce a product that renders any attempt to break into the market prohibitively hard, that's not a monopoly. If you are the only internet service provider in a town and you buy up the infrastructure that a potential competitor would require to move in, then you are acting as a monopoly in that town (it doesn't matter if you have competition city by city). Sanctions and even breaking up monopolies should absolutely be done.

Summary: Building a product that staves off competition is never monopolistic. Actively barring competition when you are the only game in an area is monopolistic (potentially excepting if the area can't support two competitors).

	So you can choose to work for them or not, but you don't get to influence your working conditions?

Um, this is the most important reason (in my opinion) for the existence of unions. Workplace conditions are and should be a major focus of unions.

I'm fine having a world where corporations exist. Corporations have a right to exist. Where I disagree is on the corporate personhood. Corporate immortality. The lack of corporate accountability is so high that governments are beginning to run their programs as corporations. They've learned that corporations can get away with doing things that governments would be held accountable for. This is why all the anger towards government programs is misguided and pointless as corporate governance is even worse than the most authoritarian version of the US government. You don't get to vote on the President of a corporation, the corporation does not value civil liberties at all, the corporation does not value the environment at all.

Without the ability to separate the company from the owners and making them separate entities, you can't have companies that can move moutains. For some public works projects, you need massive companies. Massive companies don't exist if their existence is connected to and depends on the life of all it's owners. Partnerships end the moment that one partner dies. Proprietorships end the moment that their owner dies.

In some ways government has a role which corporations aren't designed for. There are new options for corporations, L3C corporations provide the hybrid option of running a corporation in a way which values civil liberties or human rights, but as corporations currently are designed it's usually LLC and these types of corporations don't value civil liberties or human rights and this is the problem I have with corporate authority.

So long as the existence and life of a corporation can be separated from its owners, then these might be viable options and I'd be willing to consider them on an appropriate thread. This is getting rather off-topic here.

	Unless we start creating L3C's, mantras like "Do no evil" are meaningless because the corporation by law does not have to follow it's mission statement or it's constitution. The L3C has to follow it's constitution. I would promote free choice and human rights through promotion of L3C corporations. Not all corporations in general but this specific kind of corporation above all others.

Corporations with legally binding constitutions? Interesting. Can these constitutions be amended? I'd want an amendment process, just in case.

	Beyond that I would promote government entities which promote free choice. Security is nice, but if the government is priming us into becoming robots it's eventually not going to be life as we know it.

On the surface I agree, but I think we might not agree on details and what constitutes promoting free choice.

[Savagelight]

Without the ability to separate the company from the owners and making them separate entities, you can't have companies that can move moutains. For some public works projects, you need massive companies. Massive companies don't exist if their existence is connected to and depends on the life of all it's owners. Partnerships end the moment that one partner dies. Proprietorships end the moment that their owner dies.

A corporation should be it's owners and shareholders. It's not a person, it's a group of people. This group of people in my opinion can have limited liability but they must be held accountable for the crimes and offenses in regard to the environment, in regard to human rights, there should be no where anyone on earth can avoid accountability on the level of human rights abuses and environmental degradation. Owners of corporations including shareholders should be personally sued in certain instances such as when the cigarette company says "tabacco is not addictive" and "cigarettes do not cause cancer.", they lie and so by making this statement of their personal opinion, there should be some mechanism where the inventor of a toxic product, who invents that product on purpose, should be charged and convicted.

If this happened in the government we would call it treason. If it happens in a corporate setting it's business as usual. Now we have the food industry trying to say high fructose corn syrup is "corn sugar" and that it's as harmless as table sugar. This is a lie, false advertising. This lie will cost people their lives, who will be held accountable? The quest for profits has lead to the early deaths of many, as well as higher healthcare costs due to the increased obesity rate, the increased cancer rate, the increased rate of asthma from second hand smoke, the increased rate of unusual diseases due to allergic reactions to virtually unknown toxins and pesticides which are designed by corporations and then irregularly and irresponsibly placed in childrens toys, food, and bottled "health" drinks, all while encouraging individuals to buy it with advanced highly targeted behavioral marketing.

Large corporations may be able to move mountains but they usually become evil. This is why all corporations which become too big to fail, or too large to compete, have to be broken up. Microsoft should have been broken up a long time ago. Now the problem will be companies like the broadband phone companies. These companies will not offer faster speeds because they have no competition. They must in my opinion be broken up by region.

Verizon should be broken up into different companies by region. AT&T should also be broken up by region. If this does not work then break them up by state and have a different company in each state if necessary. Currently they are too big and they threaten network neutrality and the internet itself by their monopoly.

You also have Google. Google is not a monopoly yet, and it's not time to break them up yet, but if they keep growing and gaining influence at the rate they are, and if they stop innovating and being competitive, they should be broken up also. Along with the cable companies, the media companies and any other company that gets too big and influential. In specific the companies which gain too much influence over the operation of the federal government have to be broken up as a priority as this would threaten the entire democratic process.

	Corporations with legally binding constitutions? Interesting. Can these constitutions be amended? I'd want an amendment process, just in case.

Of course the constitution can be amended. What cannot be amended is the social mission. If your corporation exists to solve a social problem then it cannot ever change that, but it can change it's methods of solving that problem and it's internal rules which govern it's behavior.

I understand we do not agree on the details. I'm decidedly a left leaning libertarian as that is what would be in my self interest. I'm not a millionaire, and I went to school via financial aid, so why would I be against social programs? I'm against social regulations that are often attached to those programs, such as you cannot adopt this or that behavior because you accepted the government investment, and now you have to accept censorship and behavioral management? No I don't think so. The government has the right to influence behavior in my opinion by using incentives in the form of tax breaks or cash rewards, or punishments in the form of tax increases or lack of rewards.

Unfortunately these social programs aren't being designed in a way to actually promote any type of self empowering or self improving behavior. You go to college because you are poor and want out of poverty, the government gives you a loan, when you graduate now you are in debt for $50,000? Looks like you just got punished for doing what was in your self interest, by $50,000 debt. The government could start by erasing this debt as a way to encourage higher education, anyone who is poor who starts and finishes college, should have their debt forgiven in one way or the other.

Debt forgiveness is the most popular measure if you ask ambitious young people what they want the government to do. The second most popular measure is investment in small businesses which these young people would start if they weren't $50,000 in debt to the government. In fact the system should work in a way so that the poor kids who work hard, make it into and finish college, receive not only debt forgiveness but priority for grants for small business loans. To graduate and be given $20,000-50,000 to start a business would create jobs for many many people. Of course these individuals will have to run profitable businesses within 5 years else be punished in some way by bankruptcy or bad credit for 7 years, but this is better than the kind of debt college students have which does not go away even with bankruptcy. It's better to try to fly and crash and burn, than to never be able to leave the ground.

[Arkeph]

My perspective on the relationship between the corporation and the individual is that it is more complex than we'd like it to be--it changes form depending on the person, the corporation, and the social order in which people live.

Insofar as people rationalize their problems as the fault of those who have power over their circumstances and use their power as decision-makers within corporations to benefit themselves at the expense of employees, it tends to be of the form of a master-slave relationship. Insofar as successful (or merely favored) people blame those who are less successful (or less favored) for their worse circumstances and use their power as decision-makers within corporations to cultivate happy employees, it's of the form of a merchant-merchant relationship.

Some of these are more common than others, and I tend to think those are the master-slave factors, though this is beside my point. It may be true that everyone has freedom in some sense when it comes to their employment, but it's likewise true that everyone is coerced (that is, threatened with some form of loss, real or imagined). To ignore coercion is to ignore one of the most powerful tools people use to pursue their aims, while ignoring freedom is to ignore the most powerful coercion-mitigating behavior*.

*: That is, freedom to directly contradict the master-slave relationship. Some tactics are less effective than others, some are blatantly destructive, and some are backed by laws against the more odious forms of coercion.

[Warrior]

	Originally Posted by Savagelight To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes you put yourself in debt but once again you cannot even get a job without going into debt, you can't really avoid debt.

Out of all the things you said that I disagree with, this one stands out the most. It is completely false. It is entirely possible to get a job, start a business, keep a job, purchse a house, and all the other things people usually bring up, without going into debt. Many people live without debt of any kind. Unfortuantely the culture works against you, so you do have to put in some effort and you have to be able to delay gratification, but it can be done. There are many examples.

There are also many people who get into debt, but then get out of it. It isn't hard to find people that pay off tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt in just a few years. They don't win the lottery to do it either. It takes a lot of work and a lot of sacrifice, but I have yet to talk one person who has done it that said it was not worth it.

[Tocsin]

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It is entirely possible to get a job, start a business, keep a job, purchse a house, and all the other things people usually bring up, without going into debt. Many people live without debt of any kind.

I think that's called "inheritance," and most people aren't fortunate enough to be born with the "silver spoon" in their mouth.

(It never ceases to amaze me how people born into wealth consider themselves "self-made men" and brag about how they were able to do it all "on their own.")

[Warrior]

	Originally Posted by Tocsin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think that's called "inheritance," and most people aren't fortunate enough to be born with the "silver spoon" in their mouth. (It never ceases to amaze me how people born into wealth consider themselves "self-made men" and brag about how they were able to do it all "on their own.")

It doesn't have to involve any of that either. It never ceases to amaze me how much people are willing to live in debt and blame other people for it rather than just take some personal responsibility, get out of debt, and get on with a better life. Avoiding the problem and whining about it doesn't get them anywhere.

EDIT ~ In fact, you'd be surprised how easy it is for an inheritance to derail someone's plan to get out of debt. Unless carefully planned for, it can make matters much worse.

[Angel1]

Originally Posted by Savagelight To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A corporation should be it's owners and shareholders. It's not a person, it's a group of people. This group of people in my opinion can have limited liability but they must be held accountable for the crimes and offenses in regard to the environment, in regard to human rights, there should be no where anyone on earth can avoid accountability on the level of human rights abuses and environmental degradation. Owners of corporations including shareholders should be personally sued in certain instances such as when the cigarette company says "tabacco is not addictive" and "cigarettes do not cause cancer.", they lie and so by making this statement of their personal opinion, there should be some mechanism where the inventor of a toxic product, who invents that product on purpose, should be charged and convicted.

Stockholders in companies don't usually have that much personal power. I absolutely disagree with holding them personally responsible. By allowing stockholders to be sued for certain crimes, you will poke a hole in a damn that will eventually wash away stockholders altogether. If a company does something truly horrible, then you fine and sue and prosecute them out of existence, but stockholders should be held accountable only to the loss of their investment. If a stockholder new of some of these goings on, then they become a co-conspirator. If co-conspiracy can be proved then charge them criminally or sue them as someone who should have blown the whistle regardless of the stock they have in the company.

Large corporations may be able to move mountains but they usually become evil. This is why all corporations which become too big to fail, or too large to compete, have to be broken up. Microsoft should have been broken up a long time ago. Now the problem will be companies like the broadband phone companies. These companies will not offer faster speeds because they have no competition. They must in my opinion be broken up by region.

Absolutely not, it is not Microsoft's fault that demand for their products is so high. They meet the demand. Not their fault, not a monopoly. They also receive competition in hardware and software manufacturing. Hardware via competitors like Dells, Toshiba, etc. Software via Apple, and a few others. There is competition. It's not competition like local restaurants have, but it is competition and they do fight over their market. Where there is competition, there is no monopoly.

	Verizon should be broken up into different companies by region. AT&T should also be broken up by region. If this does not work then break them up by state and have a different company in each state if necessary. Currently they are too big and they threaten network neutrality and the internet itself by their monopoly.

Break Verizon and AT&T up? You're missing the whole point of those large companies existence...service across the country. I can go to california and I don't pay roaming charges because I get Verizon signals. I can travel to almost every part of this country and use my cell phone without additional charges. Verizon and AT&T compete with each other over the national market. Furthermore, numerous small and local competitors exist to service those people who don't need the nationwide coverage. Breaking Verizon and AT&T up would be bad for the country.

You also have Google. Google is not a monopoly yet, and it's not time to break them up yet, but if they keep growing and gaining influence at the rate they are, and if they stop innovating and being competitive, they should be broken up also. Along with the cable companies, the media companies and any other company that gets too big and influential. In specific the companies which gain too much influence over the operation of the federal government have to be broken up as a priority as this would threaten the entire democratic process.

Google has competition, whether or not they innovate should have no bearing on their staying in one piece or not. Now, if Google attempted to aquire a company like Facebook or Myspace, then we might start to see a problem. As it stands, they provide searching for several different purposes, email, cloud document work, a group organizer, and a video service. That's it and that's not too much.

Companies big and small always influence the operations of government. Computers have influenced the operation of our government. Do you propose boxing them up and discarding them? Google and other search engines are helping the government find criminals, should we stop this? You want to stop influence vis a vis lobbies? Then let's get bans on lobbying in place for Washington, D.C. and in the state capitols.

	Of course the constitution can be amended. What cannot be amended is the social mission. If your corporation exists to solve a social problem then it cannot ever change that, but it can change it's methods of solving that problem and it's internal rules which govern it's behavior.

Would a social mission to create jobs count? I don't just mean good paying jobs, because those only go to the people who have earned the good paying jobs. Everyone else is screwed if the only jobs are good paying. Some jobs I'd support creating would be minimum wage jobs, but my preference would be a 6-12 month turn around on low pay, high experience jobs. In other words for 6-12 months you work collecting waste from an operation and learn a lot about the operation from observing and lending a little help if needed (nothing harder than they can handle or dangerous, but work that they can learn from), then I bump them up to a job a little higher than minimum wage. They get to the next higher job and I start encouraging them to spend some of that extra money on training outside of work (provide them with several options and maybe even help bring the opportunities in). They continue working and go to a few training seminars and other opportunities, then I bump them again. In a few years they could be much better off. Remember when considering whether a job is a good job or not that it is not your point of view that matters; it is the point of view of the person who will be doing the job.

I understand we do not agree on the details. I'm decidedly a left leaning libertarian as that is what would be in my self interest. I'm not a millionaire, and I went to school via financial aid, so why would I be against social programs? I'm against social regulations that are often attached to those programs, such as you cannot adopt this or that behavior because you accepted the government investment, and now you have to accept censorship and behavioral management? No I don't think so. The government has the right to influence behavior in my opinion by using incentives in the form of tax breaks or cash rewards, or punishments in the form of tax increases or lack of rewards.

I attend school via financial aid and loans. I am against many of the social programs we now have, because they are handouts, not hand-ups. The government actively resists individuals leaving welfare and that is just wrong. That is exploitation at its worst. That might just be deserving of the title "Slavery".

Unfortunately these social programs aren't being designed in a way to actually promote any type of self empowering or self improving behavior. You go to college because you are poor and want out of poverty, the government gives you a loan, when you graduate now you are in debt for $50,000? Looks like you just got punished for doing what was in your self interest, by $50,000 debt. The government could start by erasing this debt as a way to encourage higher education, anyone who is poor who starts and finishes college, should have their debt forgiven in one way or the other.

College is expensive and getting more expensive by driving some people who really shouldn't attend 4 year institutions into them. Automotive School is a fine education for some people. Two most valuable people to know, a mechanic and a lawyer. Why aren't we pushing more people into trade-guilds? A good carpenter or plumber or electrician can make a lot of money. I think we should expand education in the trades, possibly even through colleges and universities or even local school districts. Go to auto-school instead of a job after class.

Beyond pushing trade-schools, I think we need to work on ways to make universities more cost efficient. How much money do you spend on surrounding costs for attending university? I pay a lot, more than the very reasonable tuition I pay.

Debt forgiveness is the most popular measure if you ask ambitious young people what they want the government to do. The second most popular measure is investment in small businesses which these young people would start if they weren't $50,000 in debt to the government. In fact the system should work in a way so that the poor kids who work hard, make it into and finish college, receive not only debt forgiveness but priority for grants for small business loans. To graduate and be given $20,000-50,000 to start a business would create jobs for many many people. Of course these individuals will have to run profitable businesses within 5 years else be punished in some way by bankruptcy or bad credit for 7 years, but this is better than the kind of debt college students have which does not go away even with bankruptcy. It's better to try to fly and crash and burn, than to never be able to leave the ground.

Reduce the price of college and you may find the need to mitigate loans will be eliminated. Paying back loans isn't a bad thing, but some states are forcing students into excessive debt.

In my state, students can earn themselves 4k/year towards education. Poor students? Add a little more money. Do exceptionally well on the ACT/SAT? Add some more money. I get a fair amount of money for college from Tennessee (yes, Tennessee). Many states have lotteries, I just hope that they are using the money as wisely as Tennessee does. FYI, all money earned by the Tennessee Lottery goes to education, both K-12 and college/university.

In some states, you can buy your child's college education at today's rate and save some money in the future.