[Havoc]

Anytime good business is bad for a society that society has issues that need resolving. -478

When you're competing in the US market your only DUTY is to do so profitably -481

you said it, not me. And these arguments are right in line with the rest of the talking points in your repertoire. Same stuff all the others here have been spouting. The only duty is to make profit. No duty to the law, no duty to the constitution, no duty to the people - the only duty is to the dollar. Your words. Words mean things. And when we carry the words to their logical end, this is where we end up. You'r compadres have already stated the other side plainly - regulation is all bad. I mentioned abolition on another thread and the response was as unbelievable as it was haughty and ignorant. You guys say things because they sound good; but, your constructs are equations - you don't like when we solve the equation with real world examples and real world consequences. There's nothing a sophist hates worst than having his words turned back on him to show him a fraud. Sorry, but you're arguments lead where they lead.

[discostu]

Your problem is that you take things to far. Duty to the law is achieved through duty to profit, breaking the law is usually unprofitable. Of course sometimes following the law is unprofitable, look up "cost of compliance" in regards to environmental regulation, especially look it up in relationship to Bush's time as governor of Texas. You'll learn a lot. When following the law is more expensive than breaking the law guess what businesses do? They just pay the fines and don't worry about it. That's a fine example of something being good for business (the path of least cost) and bad for society (polution), the fix is to modify the fines and the environmental laws until it's cheaper to follow the law than to break it, but you have to maintain balance, just raising the fines might make both costs too high then companies either go away or cease to exist.

Corporations don't have a duty to any constitution, they exist to make money, they don't vote, they don't fight in wars, they can't be elected for office. They pay taxes, that's about as deep as it gets.

They also don't have a duty to "the people", except for the members of the people that are investors in the company, their duty to them is to create profit so these people have a return on their investment.

Words do mean things, and when you repeatedly take things well beyond their logical conclusion you show a desperation that is frankly embarassing. Anything can be taken too far, that doesn't mean it's bad. If you drink too much water you'll die, that doesn't mean you shouldn't drink water. If you let business do anything they want they'll turn into the mob, that doesn't mean you shouldn't avoid unnecessary regulation.

The sophist here is yourself, taking everything too far, and running in terror from inconvenient points. As a person who worked for WalMart, whose business model is built on undercutting competition, which you say is immoral, you're part of your own problem. Welcome to reality, your own life experience clearly shows that your position is wrong at its face.