: Because in the First place the original charter laws were created with community input which included civilian control.Right! Now can we consider 'big business' as an impact on laws in light of this - and see that they are not as omnipotent as you seemed to suggest but just another (major) interest group. That this 'community control' is still expressed today via various groups.
The quoatation is interesting, but seems to lack the distinction between privately owned company and state 'owned' corporate entities. the distinction is an important one.
The charter idea is interesting too. there is an argument to be made for abandining the law-construct that is incorporation - even by capitalists.
: The principles I would uphold above trade "principles" include "First, do no harm" - to people or the environment.
A fine 4 words - but boy do people means ENTIRELY different things when they say them. You can appreciate the confusion thereby created!
: I'll rail for the people. You can rail if you want for the material.
Did you get the point of that? That if you want to say 'this is wrong' you must hold that true accross the piece, not just where it appeals most.
: No...because there is a fundamental difference between 'big business' and "fledgling and vulnerable populations". It is a "matter of principle";)
Name that difference and we can discuss it. If the idea id free movement then it must be universal, or it is not free movement. Either / or.
: Right...it's not just 'big business'. It's capitalism and anti-democracy.
cop out.
: I wasn't talking about private property as such so much as the process by which private property is accumulated.
They are part of the same process. One doesnt have private property without acquiring it.
None.
