If All The Wealth In The U.S. Were Divided Up Equally ...

My point is that, it's not connected. If you want people to work hard and be reliable, and appreciate their job; you first have to have a business plan that can afford to hire workers, that you need, at rates that cover their cost of living. If you cannot afford to do that, don't pass the buck to your workers (i.e. as if its their problem), its your problem, fix your company or find another line of business that you understand how to operate.

 

"Funny how you oppose this, but support the welfare state."

Funny non sequitur in trollish straw man attack form as usual. Funny because you look so.

 

I'm not sure how accurate it is to say "most" production is carried out by slave labor, but their is a lot of it going around. Typically I like to first know that I can pay employees(that I need) a living wage, and second I try to make the job fun so it doesn't feel so much like work.

 

You said slavery was when you did work and didn't get paid enough to cover living expenses. I slam dunked all over your definition with an example that proved how silly it was, just like how Donald Trump slam dunked all over Crooked Hillary in the debates. Me and Emperor Trump are the winners, you and lying Hillary are the losers.

 

First of all, don't put me in the same boat as Hillary. Second, you are living in an alternate universe if you really think you did any such thing. When you get done back patting yourself (because you have no one else to do it for you) come back and rejoin the topic.

 

Straw man? LOL
Do you oppose slavery, defined by you as "Labor that is coerced and inadequately rewarded, or the people who perform such labor"?
Do you support the welfare state?

 

Yeah -- that's a big stinking pile of unsupportable BS, eh?
Why do these people seek to diminish the abomination of slavery?

 

That's right.

There are 27,281,452 businesses in the US...and 21,351,320 businesses have no employees.

Those are people that started their own business.

It just takes a little hard work and some courage to do that.

 

According to LNU02026619 from the BLS, 7,425,000 Americans hold multiple jobs. So it can be done.

 

That is not why corporations exist.

The Hopi Tribe...never changes, right? It's the same people all the time. The Hopi people are immortal.

No, of course not.

We need to make a distinction between the groups of many different peoples and the groups those people create, and how they relate to other such groups.

That is a political science theory known as Entity Theory.

Entity Theory is the origin of corporations.

What is implied by Entity Theory? Sovereignty. That's what allows Entities to enter into agreements or pacts with other Entities. This sovereignty may be limited.

After the collapse of the [Western] Roman Empire, you see the formation of distinct Entities by towns, cities and villages, and also later with trade guilds and trading companies.

The Imperial Roman Catholic Church then begins to push its hegemony and exert control over those Entities. In fact, you arrive at a point where the Church claims it is the only Entity on Earth with the authority to grant permission for lesser Entities (towns, villages, guilds etc) to exist.

As an aside, some commentators on the Book of Revelations claim the Papal Seal is the "Mark of the Beast," since without the Papal Seal, you are persona non gratis or a non-entity.


Later, you have the Nobility also claiming they have the authority to confer power upon an Entity. As the Nobility evolves further and the feudal system solidifies, these towns, cities, guilds and trading companies are viewed as a threat to the supremacy of the Church and the "State."

The Church and the Nobility join forces to crush any challenges to their authority, but that sets up the later conflict between the Church and the States.

That leads to the evolution of Concession Theory.

Technically, corporations are a franchise of the State. That's why it's called Concession Theory, since the State is actually conceding certain limited powers to the corporation.

What powers might those be?

What did corporations do? They boarded their ships and sailed to other foreign States to conduct trade. Effectively, corporations functioned as a "State Department." It was the corporations making foreign policy, instead of the King/State.

How was America colonized? By the granting of charters to form all manner of corporations and municipalities, and even colleges (see Dartmouth College). Then you had groups claiming to be corporations/Entities via grant by colonial governors.

What happens when British rule ends? The States move to take over the power of granting charters or articles of incorporation.

A very important case was Dartmouth v Woodward. The chief justice of the US Supreme Court at the time was Marshall, who said:

A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence.

That view (read the entire decision) led to the belief that corporate charters could only be granted if the corporation performed a public service. If you read these early articles of incorporation, you;ll see they go to tremendous lengths to justify their usefulness to the public.


Which brings us to Amesbury Nail Factory Co. v. Weed, 17 Mass. 53 (1820)

In spite of the 1st Amendment's prohibition on establishing religion or preventing the free exercise thereof, Massachusetts permitted taxation to support churches.

Amesbury argued that the nail factory had no soul and so the tax didn't apply. The court ruled that the factory benefits in the same way an individual benefits from any tax, and so the tax must be paid.

That leads to Goodell Mfg. Co. v. Trask, 28 Mass. (1831).

The argument here was that since none of the shareholders lived in the church parish, the company could not be taxed. The court ruled that "a corporation is an independent legal person" and subject to the tax.


Finally, that led to a new theory called "Natural Entity Theory."

The philosopher Durkheim had a huge impact on that: group behavior has to be evaluated as a real, independent phenomenon that cannot be reduced to the wills of individual actors.

So the theory is that when a company is formed by the union of natural persons, a new real person, a corporate "organism" is created. Consequently, as a Natural Entity, the corporation is entitled and subject to the same treatment as an individual.


That's why corporations exist.

 

So you have changed your mind and agree with me, slavery is not about how much you get paid for work. That's a silly definition for losers like Hillary, and you aren't like Hillary, right?

 

Well what exactly would he have liked different and why?

 

Well you must have studied Western Civilization a LONG time ago because that is surely NOT what they teach today listening to the younger generations.

Not only would we NOT have the Western Civilization we have today without the invention of the legal corporation (and a legal system), the same with insurance companies that spread the risk involved the bigger commerce and businesses get. Anb both are now demonized as the evil beings that suppress everyone and want to make everyone else poor and destitute. Never figured out the reasoning as to why Corporations would want everyone to be poor.


AND for individuals liability and risk as more and more people gained wealth. And we can thank ole Ben Franklin for advocation many forms of mutual insurance.

 

If those people are the owners they do and that is what they do. Whose else interest are they suppose to represent?

They do of the people who own it, whose else interest are they supposed to represent?

Your elitist perspective noted. Who do you imagine you are again?

Do you invest your retirement savings? If so in what do you invest?

 

So have you ever been coerced into working for someone? If so why did you let them? I'd like to hear this story.

 

Dividing wealth equally is too much. Providing everyone with food, shelter (a room) and reasonable medical care would be great.

 

Say hello to little tattoo before you leave Fantasy Island

 

He wanted me to treat them like slaves for the lowest wages he could get away with.

 

USA has 540 billionaires. By taxing them, USA could provide housing to all homeless people and medical care for all who need it.

Their net worth is $2.4 Trillion. And yet hundreds of thousands of people are dying due to lack of health coverage.

 

I keep getting mistaken for a dictionary.

That history review was timely and sounded correct, but a "for profit" corporation should clearly exist for reasons distinct from those of a "non-profit."

 

Liberals never learn.

How much are you suggesting is taxed? How are you going to prevent them moving their money away from your grasp?

Post your statistics on the deaths you are claiming are taking place.

 

I am neither Liberal nor Conservative. Care for poor people has been a Jewish value for over 33 centuries, a Christian value for over 20 centuries, and Muslim value for over 14 centuries. It has been a Humanitarian value since George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

Hundreds of thousands of people a year die in USA from preventable causes. About 59,000 people died from drug overdoze due to lack of psychological and psychiatric help.

 

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson fought for the rights of the worst criminals -- murderers could be executed in USA, but in Europe they would be broken on the wheel.

Strangely, law abiding people who have mental or physical conditions become homeless and prisoners due to their inability to obtain food, shelter and medical help.

 

I said no such thing.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am a kid. I did attend college, but that was 25 years ago. Both of my kids are currently in college. I have in fact started my own company. Two of them if you want to be precise. I have never had your experience of starting a company and then having to return to minimum wage or even a low wage. I wonder why ? For that matter, not one time in my life did I ever have to work for minimum wage. Why do you suppose that is ?

FWIW....my father was a truck driver, so the answer is most certainly NOT that I had a silver spoon in my mouth. I was the first person in any of my extended family to graduate from college.

 

You know, one of the first effects of the minimum wage was to put thousands of black kids out of work. Before the first minimum wage law went into effect, unemployment among black teens was lower than that for white teens. After the law went into effect, black teen unemployment skyrocketed to 50+%, white teen unemployment went up to 40+%, and those numbers have been pretty much unchanged ever since. Interesting Orwellian logic, eh?

That linked to a Wikipedia article on elitism. I fail to see how it applies to me. Why did YOU call me elitist?

*claps* Very nice. And yet the limited liability corporation, as it stands today, exists solely to make money for its owners while protecting them from unlimited liability in case it fails. I'm sure there are a few incorporated entities whose owners have other purposes (mainly tax protection), but I'm also sure they are relatively rare comparatively.