ClearWest

I don't hate government. I just think they should ask my personal opinion about whether or not I want to be a part of their system, rather than asking the majority whether or not I should be a part of their system. Democracy VS Libertarianism. Within Libertarianism, people can still govern themselves. They can still be governed if that's how they choose to live their lives. They just can't force others to be governed. That's what I mean by voluntarily, you can be governed if you want to be. It's an even better virtue within Libertarianism. Because in Democracy there can still be a minority who disagrees with a decision, but they're forced to go along with it. In Libertarianism, everyone can go their own way as long as they don't interfere with the rights of others. (Life, Liberty, and Property) "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for supper. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." (No, I'm not implying violent rebellion, I'm implying standing up for your liberty) But it's a constant tug-of-war between privatization and socialism. My fear is that socialism will win, and we'll soon find ourselves the pawns in Jack Layton's fantasy revival of the soviet socialist republic. I agree with your premise, but I would also take it a step further, because I see a problem with the government using OUR money to pay for our insurance. Or worse yet, using someone else's money to pay for our insurance. Let's let buying insurance be up to the individual.

Because your posts are incoherent otherwise and no one is likely to read anything formatted in such a way. Other than that, I heartily agree with you, Rbacon. I assume you're a Libertarian? That is the steps that I would want the government to take as well. Downsize. Stop expanding your empire and your monopoly over our lives. What started with collectively paying for basic infrastructure became collectively paying for education. Soon we were collectively paying for healthcare (thanks, Mr Douglas), collectively paying for media (CBC), collectively paying for car insurance. And now the future is that we will be collectively paying for daycare, real estate, groceries--and everything we do will be through the government. In the USSR it happened with a revolution. In Canada it is happening piece by piece. I think it can be done differently. Voluntarily.

Yes, I think Harper is taking the right steps to promote legal immigration. He has promised to slash the 'Right of Permanent Residence' Fee from $975 to $490. And he has announced an extra $300 million in settlement funding over two years, which will include the setting up of an agency to assess and recognize foreign credentials. And in addition, the government is commited to streamlining the foreign adoption process, so that Canadians can more easily adopt children from overseas, with less "beurocratic hurdles". It's interesting how the Canadian Conservative Government is taking steps to encourage immigration, while the US Conservative Government is putting up more barriers, demanding passports for Canadian visitors, and plus there's that whole issue of Mexican illegal aliens in the US. The US government made it a felony to be an illegal immigrant. The bill they passed calls for the three measures including: the deportation of all illegal immigrants, the construction of a massive fence along the Mexican-U.S. border and criminal repercussions for employers who hire them. So compared to that, I think that Harper's policy is way better.

Long before I read the book I knew it was fiction and I knew as part of the story line there were people searching for some documentation that allegedly would show that Jesus of Nazareth was married with children. I knew that it wasn't intended to be fact and that it was put in the novel for purposes of plot development. People who haven't read the book but accept it as fact because they talked to someone who had read it, or saw a movie commercial are, in my opinion, both stupid and gullible. *Banging head against table* Allow me to outline a scenario that you have obviously never encountered involving *Intelligent* people who are not so arrogant as to believe that they know everything black and white: "Hey, Bob. Have you heard of that DaVinci code book? It's been on the bestseller list for a few weeks now." "No, what's it about?" "It's about how Christ was actually married, and his bloodline is traced through clues that DaVinci left through his artwork." "Wow, it sounds interesting. I should look it up on the internet." "Yeah, I'm very intrigued by the idea as well. Have you ever heard of the illuminati?" -------END CONVERSATION----------------- Now here is a conversation involving Warwick Green: (lol) "Hey, Warwick. Have you heard about that theory that Christ was actually married." "Shuttup, stupid head. That's fiction. You are both stupid and gullible." (Other guy goes and cries, and burns his DaVinci code book) lol, I'm just kidding, Warwick. But I think you are misunderstanding my point; you're taking it way too black and white.

I would suggest that anyone who doesn't know that a work of fiction is fictiousness is way beyond ignorant. Anyone who is gullible enough to read a work of fiction and believes what he reads probably feels that the National Enquirer is a legitimate news source. The fact that the book is clearly fiction is besides the point. That doesn't matter. It has been advertised as a new discovery in the past. Even in the movie's advertisement campaign its slogan is "Seek the Truth". Yes, I know it's fiction, everyone knows it's fiction. But you can't blame the people who haven't read the book for thinking that the book is anything other than fiction. It's not stupidity.

What are you guys talking about? This is a legitimate post, and I think he has a good point. I'm a Christian, but that doesn't mean I think all the other religions are dead wrong. The first parents, Adam and Eve had the full knowledge of God's existence, and then as their children's children began to branch off, they probably carried on telling their children about God. After several thousand years the stories are quite different, but that doesn't mean they didn't all begin with the same kernel of truth. Perhaps we are all worshiping the same God. And thus we have no reason to hate each other. God cares about each and every one of us, whether you're a Bhuddist or a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew. EDIT: Dang, I just realized that this guy posted like ten new topics in the same area. I see what you guys meant about trolling. But other than that, this is a legitimate topic.

Some people aren't up to date with all the latest popular books so they wouldn't have a clue about the fictitiousness of it. People just hear about how, according to the book, DaVinci planted lost clues about Christianity. That's enough to get people's interest. It's like a UFO theory--people are going to explore it whether they know it's fiction or not. Many people take it seriously. That's all I was saying! What are we arguing about anyways, lol. So, no you don't have to be stupid, just ignorant. Completely different.

Point taken. I was speaking from my own experience (and in reference to the original poster), where I have known people who have taken the DaVinci code to be this big new discovery. Of course, it is not. That's all I was saying. For those of you who already knew the book was fiction, congratulations. Some people think that Dan Brown is claiming that these things are true.

How does one "disprove fiction"? Sounds like an oxymoron. *sigh* Let me rephrase that then. "The DaVinci code has been disproved. It is a work of fiction." (How's that?)

the DaVinci code is fiction. It has been disproved. But even if Jesus was married (which is still a possibility in my mind), then I don't think it makes any difference. It doesn't change the doctrine. It doesn't change his teachings. The only thing that it would change is that priests should be allowed to marry--As far as I understand they are not allowed to within the Roman Catholic Church. Jesus never advocated a life of celibacy--he taught that men should not have lustful thoughts, but never said they must remain celibate. In fact, his disciples even taught that men [clergy, I assume] should marry if it would be easier for them to control their passions. So, to me it is neither good nor bad. But we don't know for sure whether or not it is true.

Quinton, I sympathize with your views. I think it's great how you're taking steps to adjust your own lifestyle and to raise awareness so that other people will consider adjusting their lifestyles. This is the best way for us to do our part to maintain and improve our environment. It should always be a personal choice and not a government force. This is why I become hesitant when governments start talking about environmental issues. They have the best intentions, but in going through with their agenda they often affect our freedoms. For instance, if the government implimented food rations to reduce our consumption. That would be going too far. Or taxing gasoline rather than asking people to cut down on their consumption and find more cost-effective ways of travelling. I think we need to be doing things like causing awareness and asking (not forcing) people to consider making changes to their lifestyle for the sake of the environment.

Whatever happened to people making their own money instead of raping the earth of its resources for it? We need to use the earth's resources for almost everything that allows us to survive. How can you suggest that this is wrong? So what if someone makes a profit from it--they're doing a service by turning a raw material into something that can be used and sold. They add value to it, and there should be no problem with them getting something in return for that value--Profit. If you are concerned that a company is wastefully using the earth's resources, by all means, you don't have to support it.

And what about government charity? When the government donates money to them they get better, but when private charities donate to them, they get worse? I don't think that's the case. I think it's the same.

They could be anywhere in the spectrum. It seems that you're stereotyping righties. Just to let you know, I am not one of those selfish pleasure-seeking hedonists. In fact I abstain from tobacco, alcohol, pornography, and other degrading media and substances. You might say that those are some of the more hedonist things to seek out in life, I don't live that way. The difference between me and a populist is that I don't think my lifestyle should be forced on other people. As soon as a governing body begins to be delegated with problems to solve, it often uses means of force to accomplish its goals. All I want is for us to use voluntary means to solve our problems. For example, if I think drugs are a problem for our society (which I do), I will first of all choose not to use the drugs myself. Secondly I will teach my children to abstain from drugs (but I will not force them). And thirdly, I will always be there to help people whose lives have been damaged by drugs. I can do this by donating to a Rehabilitation clinic, a drug awareness organization, and groups which put on activities for youth to keep them out of trouble. If the government operated in this way rather than through taxation, then I would probably be much more at peace with them. But no, April 30th--Collection Day.

So are grocery stores. But they both provide a service, and yes they should be profitting from it. Profit is the motivation for providing goods and services. If people want to provide goods and services out of the goodness of their hearts, then by all means, start a charity. Or donate to one. I would applaud your generosity. And you know what, I bet you could probably make much more of a difference if you were charitable directly rather than giving your money to the beurocrats in Ottawa to take care of the issues that are important to you. Concerned about the homeless? Make a contribution to an organization who is out to make a difference for the homeless. Don't pass legislation that says everyone must pay for the homeless. If you're concerned that there are no charities that address your concern, then think about all the concerns that the government doesn't address. Or think about all the concerns that they handle poorly. Or think about their means of handling the concerns... Taxation. Governments shouldn't be charities. Not unless they're willing to be voluntary and optional.

Then let's cut back on the cause. We shouldn't have to provide people with health insurance, education, or pensions. It should be available for people to obtain on their own. We shouldn't have to subsidize artists and businesses that can't get by on their own. People can take care of themselves without a nanny state looking after them! It is possible! We need to wean ourselves off of the dependency that we have trapped ourselves in--and that is the dependency on socialism.

Dang. How can you go from Libertarian to Marxist? What made you turn away from freedom to support despotism? I'd be interested in hearing your story...

You think human rights and the environment are issues that interest only the left? I think people on the right must resent being labelled earth-destroying torture lovers. Well think about it. Take a homeless person--A lefty would want to create some sort of expensive social program to get this person off the streets, whereas a conservative would say "Get a job, you bum". That's how it is. Otherwise, a conservative would wish to help the man in a different way--by donating to charity for instance. And the environment--A lefty would want it preserved at all costs, a righty would be more immediately concerned about economic impact before he stood up for environmental problems. Righties aren't 'earth-destroying torture lovers'. In many cases righties and lefties have the same wants and needs. We're all humans. We all want clean air and peaceful societies, but they have different ways of going about it. To me the best way to go about it is as an individual.

I was probably originally quite socialist. I believe the reason is because I went to public school--and I was good in school, and I enjoyed the praise from the teachers. So eventually I became conditioned to giving the teachers answers that were pleasing to them. Anytime there was an important world issue we were discussing, I would naturally stand up for human rights and for the environment. As was popular. Later I began to notice that for every issue that we gave to the government to solve, they received more and more power over different aspects of our lives. Then I began interested in history, of how tyrannies were formed. They almost always started innocent enough. There was a common problem that the people wanted solved, so they collectively attempted to solve it. They elected a leader, gave him power to solve the problem. And the leader later used his power to the disadvantage of many others. Hitler, for example, was very popular because he was the one who would solve all of Germany's economic problems. Soviet Russian, for another example, was created to eliminate inequalities in society. And so, in my quest for a better solution to government, I discovered Libertarianism. It is a philosophy which allows individual freedom. People are free to choose whatever lifestyle they want, and they are free to trade goods and services without coersion or force. Government will have no power to take people's property or liberty or life. So I guess you could say I went from left to right. Or in another sense, populist to free.

I stumbled upon this funny political quiz! A question is asked, and a rep from each major political idealogy (conservtive/liberal/communist/libertarian) each answer the question in a humorous way. I'll post some of the better ones: -------------------------- How would you define the word "profit"? CONS: What business owners earn by selling a quality product at a competitive price. LIBL: What business owners RIP-OFF from their customers. LBRT: What business owners are rewarded with for risking the loss of their own money. COMM: What business owners RIP-OFF from their employees. ------------- What's the best way to stop people from illegally crossing our borders? CONS: Seal the borders so no one can get in. LIBL: Do nothing to beef up security at the borders, and offer illegal aliens a wide array of free services. LBRT: Allow unrestricted passage across the borders. COMM: Seal the borders so no one can get out. ------------------- What are your thoughts on castrating (either through chemical or traditional means) repeat sex offenders? CONS: It's about time we gave those perverts a punishment that fits the crime. LIBL: That kind of sentence is certainly prohibited by that pesky little clause in the Constitution banning cruel and unusual punishment. LBRT: Excuse me, but what if the guy is innocent? Is the procedure reversible if years latter the person who really committed the crime confesses? COMM: Megadittos to the conservative response. ---------------------- Global warming... CONS: doesn't exist. And even if it does, its harmful effects are easily remedied by cranking up the air conditioning to full blast. LIBL: is already upon us. The sky is warming! The sky is warming!! We must tell Sixty Minutes!!! LBRT: is the Ecological Calamity of the Month. COMM: could have one silver lining, if efforts to combat global warming adversely impact The West's industrialized economies. ------------------------------ What is the meanest most low-down thing a person can do during a kid's soccer game? CONS: Cheat. LIBL: Keep score. LBRT: Play the game in a municipal park. COMM: Hog all the glory by not being a team player. ----------------------- What should be the highest law in the land? CONS: God's Law LIBL: The U.S. Constitution LBRT: The LITERAL intepretation of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights COMM: The Party Chairman's ----------------------- What would you consider a valid reason for releasing a convict from prison before he has served his entire sentence? CONS: - He is dead. LIBL: - He is dying. - His sentence was cut in half for not committing any other notably heinous crimes while serving his current sentence. - He has found God. - A famous celebrity thinks the convict is rehabilitated. LBRT: - He is innocent. COMM: - He has found Lenin. ------------------ The best things in life... CONS: have a substantial membership fee. LIBL: need price controls. LBRT: are subject to the whims of supply and demand. COMM: have a substantial waiting list. ------------------------ How would you define acts of true compassion? CONS: Tough love. LIBL: Rewarding irresponsible behavior. LBRT: Letting people learn from their own mistakes. COMM: Forcing thoughtless children to share their candy with the entire class. ------------------------- What are your favorite slogans? CONS: - In God we trust. LIBL: - Don't put profits ahead of people. - Put critters ahead of people. LBRT: - Do not tread on me. COMM: - Workers of the World, unite. - Embrace groupthink. - Misery loves company. ---------------------------------- What are the responsibilities of all good citizens? CONS: - Pay some taxes, begrudgingly. - Obey the letter of the law. - Military service (as long as they are not gay or lesbian). LIBL: - Pay lots of taxes for the betterment of all mankind--without whinny. - Military service (as long as they don't tell anyone they are gay or lesbian). - Vote. LBRT: - Fight foreign invaders on American soil. COMM: - Unquestioned obedience. ------------------------- What is the opiate of the masses? CONS: Television LIBL: Valium LBRT: Federal funding COMM: Religion --------------------------- What's the best way to get people to give money to charity? CONS: Give contributors a tax deduction LIBL: Embarrass all the stingy rich people who don't contribute by publishing their names in the press. LBRT: Let donating money be its own reward. COMM: Countries under communist rule have no poor people. Therefore, the most charitable thing anyone can do is to join the Communist Party. ---------------------- How do you feel about the death penalty? CONS: Three big benefits. First, rids the world of one less scumbag. Second, deters other scumbags from committing heinous crimes. Third, provides emotional comfort and solace to victim's families, knowing their loved one's death has been avenged. LIBL: If killing is wrong, then The State should not be allowed to get away with murder. LBRT: I just don't have enough faith in any government to give it the power to kill people. COMM: Public executions are an extremely effective deterrent to crime, however midnight disappearances work equally as well. ------------------------ Do you think infamous criminals should be allowed to profit from their crimes by writing books about their dastardly deeds? CONS: No. People who gain notoriety by committing horrendous crimes do not deserve to profit economically from their actions. LIBL: Yes. Writing one's autobiography is a tremendous catharsis and is usually the first step an offender makes in turning his life around. LBRT: Yes. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech. COMM: No. No one should be allowed to profit from anything. --------------------------- What's your interpretation of these words from the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"? CONS: The second amendment was established at a time when the average citizen owned a firearm comparable to the weapon used by the average soldier. These weapons were virtually identical in terms of technological advancement, and firepower. Therefore, citizens today have the right to own the same rifles that are currently issued to U.S. Army infantrymen. This means all those gun control laws banning fully automatic assault rifles with fixed bayonets are totally unconstitutional!!! LIBL: The second amendment means that the only arms citizens have a right to own are the actual flintlocks and muzzle loading muskets used by soldiers during the Revolutionary War, but only if those guns are retrofitted with trigger locks, and other modern safety devices. LBRT: Consider the circumstances under which the second amendment was written. America had just fought a war for its freedom, and its people had a deeply rooted visceral distrust of despots. Clearly, "the security of a free State" that the people's right to bear arms is necessary to insure, means that if, perish the thought, America ever became an un-free state, the citizens would have within their means, the capacity to carrying out a successful rebellion. The second amendment is an insurance policy, and another shining example of one of those checks and balances that were so popular with the framers of the Constitution. Therefore, the second amendment means that citizens have the right to personally own even the most sophisticated military hardware. Because until the firepower possessed by all the citizens as a whole, equals or exceeds the firepower possessed by all branches of the U.S. Military, our freedoms will forever remain under a cloud of jeopardy. COMM: The second amendment means citizens have a right to bear arms while serving in the military. --------------------------- The primary purpose of carpool lanes is to... CONS: punish the evil, Earth unfriendly commuters. LIBL: reward the good, self-sacrificing, resource conserving commuters. LBRT: demonstrate the illogic of The State. The worst thing any agency responsible for building a road system could possibly do, is to deliberately design roads that impede the flow of traffic. While some might think carpool lanes protect the environment by enticing people to use fewer natural resources, carpool lanes are actually an unmitigated ecological disaster. By forcing non-carpooling commuters to spend more time inching their way through gridlocked traffic, the environmental impacts of all those commuters are magnified. More smog is produced. More offshore oil is imported. Cars wear out sooner. And, there is a dramatic rise in stress related road rage. COMM: make people in carpool lanes feel like they are special, which sadly runs counter to government's mandate to treat all citizens equally. -------------------------- What's your opinion concerning estate taxes? CONS: Estate taxes are imposed to punish the wealthy. LIBL: Estate taxes are necessary to level the playing field, by preventing rich families from accumulating too much undeserved wealth over the course of several generations. And thank God, we know no longer live in the Dark Ages, when the firstborn son inherited everything! LBRT: Estate taxes are an unseemly revenue source--money collected on the backs of widows and orphans! COMM: The State can certainly put large sums of money to much better public use than some Fat Cat's heirs. In fact, abolishing the right of inheritance is one of the major goals discussed in the Communist Manifesto. But until that glorious day arrives, estate taxes will just have to fill the void. -------------------------- The best place to educate children is... CONS: in private schools, that stress the Four R's (Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, and Religion), with classes taught by fundamentalist members of the clergy. LIBL: in public schools with classes taught by credentialed, unionized teachers that stress self-esteem, and that what matters most is not the ability to correctly answer questions on standardized tests, as long as students can at least make an "educated" guess. LBRT: in home schools, that stress self-reliance, taught by parents or private tutors. COMM: in public schools, that stress self-sacrifice, taught by members of the Communist Party. ------------------------------- What is the best method to combat unplanned pregnancies? CONS: Require any unmarried woman who gets pregnant to marry the baby's father before their child is born. LIBL: Protect all schoolgirls by immunizing them with contraceptives, such as Depo-Provera. LBRT: Encourage parents to maintain good lines of communication with their children, so when that special day finally arrives, their son or daughter won't be ashamed to ask if his or her new love interest can spend the night. After all, young love is a far more warm and positive experience, if kids don't have to go sneaking around behind their parent's backs. This would mean less anxiety for parents too, because they can closely monitor the young couple, to insure they practice Safe and Sane Sex. COMM: Keep students so busy and malnourished, they are much too weak and physically exhausted to even think about sex. ---------------------------------- Should parents spy on their children? CONS: Yes. Sometimes a parent's got to do what a parent's got to do. LIBL: No. Parents shouldn't violate their children's privacy unless there is strong evidence of severe misbehavior--such as having to bail them out of jail at 3:00 A.M. for curfew violations and armed robbery. LBRT: No. I trust them. COMM: Yes, and vise-versa. -------------------------------------- Should students be allowed to bring weapons to school? CONS: Ordinarily, no, except perhaps on special occasions, such as the opening day of hunting season, "Show and Tell" type class projects, or when taking courses to get a concealed weapons permit. LIBL: No. Students should not even be permitted to play with imaginary toy weapons, let alone bring a real weapon to school. LBRT: Absolutely. Many of today's schoolyards are battle zones of gang warfare. A student packing heat to insure his personal safety is surely a constitutionally protected form of bearing arms. COMM: No. The only people normally on school premises who should be permitted to carry weapons are members of the secret police. --------------------------------------- Your 13 year-old daughter says she is pregnant. You... CONS: tell her she must carry the baby to term, and then give it up for adoption. LIBL: have her go see a doctor at your local women's health/abortion clinic. LBRT: tell her she has to solve her own problems. Then invite the baby's father over to the house for dinner, and tell them that if they truly love each other, maybe it's time they seriously considered marriage. COMM: ask the government to support the child from cradle to grave. -------------------------------- I commute to work... CONS: alone in my enormous monster 4x4 pickup truck that measures its gas consumption in barrels per mile. LIBL: in a very, very, very tiny electric car that would probably lose if it ever crashed into anything larger than a small sized dog. LBRT: on my own two feet. COMM: using transit for the masses. --------------------------- Describe your ideal prison. CONS: A cold dark castle dungeon, with naked prisoners hanging by their ankles. No heat. No electricity. And especially--no conjugal visits!!! LIBL: Win over the prisoners' hearts and minds by showering the inmates with gracious living. LBRT: There is neither a legal nor a "moral" justification for putting anyone in prison. COMM: A prison's physical structure is irrelevant; prison is a state of mind. ----------------------------- If you were to seek high office, what in your own personal background would qualify you to hold such a lofty position? CONS: Years of selfishly running a large multinational corporation LIBL: Years of selflessly working as an activist for community causes LBRT: Years of selflessly avoiding government services and entanglements COMM: Years of stealthily running a communist front organization, wherein you manipulated innocent dupes into writing letters to their congressmen urging them to pass pro-communist legislation. ------------------------- Freedom of religion means... CONS: freedom for everyone--including The State--to practice religion, and the freedom for me to lobby my congressman to pass laws that force everyone else in the country to follow the rules of my religion. Of course, legislators do not accomplish this goal by blatantly passing a law that says everyone must obey the Ten Commandments. Instead, each commandment is quietly enacted as ten separate pieces of legislation. LIBL: freedom for everyone to censor the government from speaking about God, or even indirectly acknowledging His existence. LBRT: freedom from government establishing an official State Religion that everyone must follow. COMM: freedom from religion. --------------------------------- How should every school day begin? CONS: Prayer, and the Pledge of Allegiance. LIBL: A free hot brunch. LBRT: Roll call, and explaining why you don't have your homework. COMM: Asking each student to please explain to the class where his loyalties lie. --------------------------- And I'll have to post more later, let me know your thoughts!

This is an example of government policy affecting huge societal changes. Public schools. Parents aren't raising their children anymore. They're given an education rather than an upbringing. Of course, the media has a huge impact as well--but it's primarily the parent's responsibility to monitor what their children watch, and to teach them what behaviour is expected of them.

Individuals that know they're liable for mistakes are also apt to be more careful. Firms are run by individuals, afterall. It's not like after you start a corporation it begins running on its own, lol. Anyways, I just don't understand your logic on this one. If an individual is put in charge of the safety of other people, things will suddenly become less safe?? But I see what you're saying about how the corporation as a whole should be responsible. Afterall, a corporation is collectively the property of its shareholders. And if the shareholders are pressuring the managers to cut safety in an effort to increase profit, then they should be responsible. That could be done, as you mentioned, by taking the corporation as a whole to trial--but I wish I could find a better way.

The risk is with whoever is doing wrong. And still, if someone thinks that something is dangerous or risky, they don't have to do it. We already have legislation for that, and Libertarians would support it because be believe that no one should be forced to something they don't feel comfortable with. I would think that this arrangement would lead to more responsible behaviour from the individuals running the corporation. If they know that they have to face the consequences for their actions, then they will think twice before ordering someone to act illegally or unsafely. Exactly, why can't it be this way with corporations? Corporations aren't people, they don't have responsibilities. The only function of a corporation is to deliver a profit to its shareholders. A corporation is a vehichle for profit, it is amoral. However, there are people who are in charge of corporations. They have responsibilities. They can be 'moral' or 'immoral', by doing things that others judge to be right or wrong. That's why it doesn't make sense to penalize a corporation for 'its' wrongdoings. A corporation can't do anything right or wrong. Individuals can. And they can learn to take responsibility for their own wrongdoings.

You're right, limited liability is where we run into problems. I personally believe in the individual, so sole proprietorship would be ideal. If a business causes a problem, the owner is to blame. Corporations, however, complicate things because there is always more than one owner/shareholder. But, if you have been harmed, then there is usually a single individual behind the decisions. He would be the one responsible. And he would have to be accountable for his own actions in a court of law--no corporation taking some of the hit for him. If he was the one who ordered people to dump toxic chemicals on your lawn, then he should be personally accountable to you. Not the corporation. If there is more than one individual involved in the problem-causing, then they will be tried seperately. It's like if a student is hurt at school. The law will investigate who was responsible for that child at that time, who the safety supervisor was at that time, who appointed the safety supervisor, and up and up the ladder until you get to the superintendent. And if a decision he made caused the injury of the child, then it is his responsibility. It shouldn't be the school district's fault collectively. People are individuals. They can be treated as such.

They don't owe anybody anything. We shouldn't have to owe anything to the government, nor the public whom they claim to serve. If someone chooses to donate their invention to public domain, great! If they choose to make a buck off of it instead, it's none of anyone else's business. If the the government (or anyone) has power to take anything from someone else, then we have no freedom. We have no individuality. We become property of the state when the state has power over our property.