[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.

[Havoc]

Your problem is that you take things to far. Duty to the law is achieved through duty to profit,

No, it is not. Nor does saying it make it true. Nor is it either logical or historically sound.

breaking the law is usually unprofitable.

Ah the familiar look of squirming in place. *usually*. So we've gone from duty to the law being achieved through duty to profit and it is now that this is *usually* the case. Fidget, wiggle and handwring. One wonders what your next position will be.

Slavery was profitable. Slavery was made illegal. And rather than comport with the law, those advocating the disenfranchisment of the rights of Black and Caucasions in this country in slavery decided to go to war to have their way. All I had to do is grab blindly at history to pull it out of the ether as an example. There are countless more - it's not like it taxes anyone to grasp these things.

Corporations don't have a duty to any constitution,

Really, is that why treason committed by a company in time of war is actionable? Do tell. No duty to any constitution. Tell you what, go break the embargo to Cuba blatently and let's see how long you stay a free man. If you are bound by it, you have a duty to it. You'd rather we not dwell on such things; but, you're a liar and I've just demonstrated it with a known fact.

They also don't have a duty to "the people",

Ah, but it's the people who hold you to the constitutional penalties of treason in wartime if you see fit to violate them. Just who are you seriously intending to kid here?

Words do mean things, and when you repeatedly take things well beyond their logical conclusion

Well beyond - you mean like far enough to make you look like an ass for saying assanine things like you have no duty to any constitution. I mean, It isn't like Enron isn't sitting out there as an example of a company made to answer to the people and the constitution for it's wrongdoing. Yet you say these things as if we should just close our eyes and turn off our brains so we can be lulled quietly into subservience with the discostu free traitor lulliby. And I'm purposedly using the term free traitor because it fits - not because it is insulting, though given the demonstrable lies you present in your position - and readily demonstrable at every turn as being lies, the insult fits.

The sophist here is yourself, taking everything too far

Maybe you should shut up for five minutes - seriously - not intended as gruff - just shut up for five minutes and look at this from another mindset. Back away from the philosophy and put down the talking points, then start looking at it from a standpoint of logic. a + b = c. You can't on the one hand proffer that you have no duty to the Constitution of the United states while admitting you can be held for treason by violating Government restrictions in wartime or otherwise. I don't go too far, I just demonstrate the absurd by displaying it's absurdity for all to see. The truth is the truth. You state these things as though true but in examination at even a basic level their is no truth to the statements. If you can't live up to a basic standard of truth, that's your problem. It's also why we have to regulate business - because rather than be forthright, business will sometimes do and say things without regard to truth so long as there is profit in it. That includes having you on this thread to spew propaganda that is demonstrably false on it's face.