my point was to ask questions and learn your point of view. no other intent.

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate

kuzi16:

my point was to ask questions and learn your point of view. no other intent.

I Understand that Kuz. I was not taking offense or getting pissed about anything. Just a discussion.

It may have been better not to read other people posts about "Liberals" and other derogatory names, as it added NOTHING to this conversation. And for the record what I undestand and what we agree on are two very different things. Just cause I don't asgree with you does not make me a Liberal or anything else. Just someone who doesn't agree with you. I learned to leave name calling as a means of debate back in grade school.

That comment was NOT intended for you Kuzi. You generally hold discussions and debates fairly without name calling or taking things said too personally.

---

yeah i know it wasnt directed at me.

i do get passionate about my discussions, but like you i try to keep name calling out of it.

in the defense of people in general...
it is easy to let emotions get out of control when such important matters are being discussed.

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate

kuzi16:

and just to play devils advocate...
if i am a massage therapist, and i open a business for myself and only make house calls, then am I not the business? or am i not a person?

I'd agree that in a small business such as this the business and the person are the same. The sole person bares the profits and the responsibility. I also feel that there is certainly a major difference in a small business such as this and a corporation. In a small "company" the owner is liable for the actions of the company and in the event that the company fails to meet it's obligation, they personal property of the business owner can be ceased. In a corporation, the directors are not financially liable for the actions of the company. In most cases, they can drive the company out of shear greed, drain the businesses assets to line their own pockets, and once they totally destroyed business' financial integrity they file bankruptcy and lay the burden of their irresponsibility on the taxpayer.

This is not to say that these are the actions or intentions of every corporation!

clearlysuspect:

kuzi16:

and just to play devils advocate...
if i am a massage therapist, and i open a business for myself and only make house calls, then am I not the business? or am i not a person?

I'd agree that in a small business such as this the business and the person are the same. The sole person bares the profits and the responsibility. I also feel that there is certainly a major difference in a small business such as this and a corporation. In a small "company" the owner is liable for the actions of the company and in the event that the company fails to meet it's obligation, they personal property of the business owner can be ceased. In a corporation, the directors are not financially liable for the actions of the company. In most cases, they can drive the company out of shear greed, drain the businesses assets to line their own pockets, and once they totally destroyed business' financial integrity they file bankruptcy and lay the burden of their irresponsibility on the taxpayer.

This is not to say that these are the actions or intentions of every corporation!

i think this is touching on where people miss my points on corporate regulation.

if the corporation has violated the rights of the workers by intentionally running the business into the ground for a profit, or something of the like, then the people who did this violating should be punished.

however, this should never mean putting limits on how much a person can earn through good work that does not violate any rights. if a person builds up a company and makes millions doing so, then makes one very bad decision and the company falls apart and hundreds lose their job, that is a very different story.
this also does not mean that firing someone is a violation of rights.
regulation should be on the basis of if rights are violated, not based of if the person is "greedy."
if a person is "greedy" and can get a few million a year but has done so by not violating any rights, i fail to see a problem.
again, the only moral thing a government can do is uphold the rights of the individual. i hope that has helped to clear up some of my point of this thread and other threads.

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate

They have changed the billboard by my house. Check it out!! Prepare for war!!

Good in-depth response kuzi....but I have kind of reserved my taking position on this issue... But one thing that really comes to mind for me is...How people can say they want this and that from the government...don't want to pay taxes...no taxes---where does the money come from to pay for the programs that the government administers...(the ones that are administered as they should be) corporate America has developed all sorts of ways not to pay taxes..even going as far as to establish corporate offices in Dubai after receiving mountains of government money under contracts to avoid paying taxes... this discussion could go on and on...but I won't belabour the issue....and Wall Street is another issue...

---

JUST ANOTHER DAY IN PARADISE...