Campaign Finance Reform

[tobetrained]

35 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

This is how the government can and should encourage entrepreneurs to expand the existing base of that particular service/product supply

and this comment is way off thread topic, but I've always thought of either a "distance" tax (applied to physical distance of parts and finished goods/services) as a way to maintain physical communities...which is directly applied to a community redevelopment fund.

But also a some kind of bigger-ain't-better progressive corporate tax system. I'm generally pro-business and pro-competition (in every sense), but I hate massive 1000s-of-employees type companies. They are, almost by definition, anti-competition. In my made-up world, we need a progressive tax system on corporate taxes like personal income. The first $10 million of annual revenue is $0%.

The two items above are about building small and individual businesses.

[hntnhole]

Thanks for your response.  

You may have noticed that often the original topic of BZ's "threads" wanders off into a different, even unrelated subject matter? That's one of the more interesting facets of Breeding Zone, in that it's the contributors and readers that have the freedom to add, subtract, multiply aspects of a thread, all within the confines of what we might call genteel discourse.  

That fact may not be ideal for pedants, but it is nevertheless the case.  

12 minutes ago, tobetrained said:

The two items above are about building small and individual businesses.

Which I did for years, in two different industries, publishing "trade" books, periodicals, business publications.  The actual costs of producing, marketing, selling ads for, all the various aspects were common to each, despite the fact that the actual product of each industry could not be more different.  One result of a "greater good" issue was not resolved by the government, it was resolved by business owners within x industry agreeing to work together to impact certain governmental issues.  

I don't particularly care for "Big Business" either, but then I have not been asked to solve those issues and I rather doubt I will be.  Big Bro business is, by definition, interested in self-preservation first, customer satisfaction second, and skirting the legal requirements as tightly as possible.  That said, Big Business simply is, and the rest of us have to figure out ways to nibble around the edges.  

Again, thanks for your incisive thoughts.  

[tallslenderguy]

1 hour ago, hntnhole said:

I think that's entirely laudable. 

If/when an individual comes up with a new, innovative idea for whatever activity (assuming legality), there's no reason that entity shouldn't receive benefits that other businesses (in the same general area of transacting business) receive.  This is how the government can and should encourage entrepreneurs to expand the existing base of that particular service/product supply, and I see that result as one of the excuses for governments to exist.  In the end, it's not only the general population that may benefit, it's the government to, via taxation, duties, etc.  

It was a franchise company. The owner ("Master Franchise Owner") had the rights to a couple of territories to sell franchises. He was a former bank president, a really good numbers guy, and he hired me for my business management background.  He was close to bankruptcy after the first year, following the parent companies model didn't really work for him. i gave him a few suggestions and he asked me  if i'd run the company and he could do the books, so i became the companies VP.  

He gave me complete freedom to run things, so i used a type of consensus model  where everyone got a say, and i got voted against more than a few times lol. But it worked, it was a 15m a year business when i left. After 20 years, he came to me one day and told me he'd sold the company, back to the parent company.  He also told me it was transferring the next day.  They had stipulated in the purchase agreement that he was to keep the purchase underwraps while he worked out the details for 8 months.  He really was a decent fellow, but myself and those who built the business felt betrayed.  The business was essentially us, the people. 

The new company gave me a very large signing bonus if i'd stay at least a year, which i did no wanting to make a snap judgement. The new owner was an international company with over 200 offices worldwide.  I doubted they'd allow me to use the same  consensus management methods i'd used to build the business, but gave it a shot.  i'd pushed back against the Master Company  because i thought their franchise fees were too high, and that ended up building trust with the franchise owners, and everyone ended up more  successful.   The parent company dismantled the system over the next year, and i watched as each of the people who  worked with me to build the business, left, as  did i after my year was up. 

There's a lot more to the  story, but when i left, i tried to do the same method with a different company.  They didn't like it either and i left after two years, went back to school and earned a BSN, and have been a critical care nurse since then. 

[Rillion]

On 2/5/2026 at 6:23 AM, tobetrained said:

@Rillion so then we agree, "Corporations -- any size -- must register with governments for regulatory and tax purposes...obtaining legal status in doing so." Which is what I wrote and you quoted.

What is not clear: if AitBnB spends $100 million on advertising during a campaign talking to home owners about the financial benefits of their service, it's brand advertising and not political -- as the campaign, candidates, election are not referenced. Nothing to do with Citizens' United.

However, if a candidates makes (apt rental) affordability an election issue, then that candidate has to financially compete with the messaging from AirBnB above. And on it goes through product categories.

I don't have an issue if AirBNB spends a $100 million advertising it's business models to homeowners or customers. I do have a problem with it giving $100 million to a super PAC that then runs ads against that candidate and in favor of his opponent. I do think there is a substantive difference between the two even if it would be gaining some potential political benefit from its direct and campaign promoting its service. 

[Rillion]

If there is no government there are no corporations since there are no rights anymore including property rights. A corporation would be nothing more than an agreement by the people involved to follow their own set of rules that they would have to self enforce as would any other group of individuals. Honestly it's limited liability rules would be moot since those are purely something enforced by courts when adjudicating creditor claims. 

Sure everything can still exist without government, but the reality is that without government there wouldn't need to be corporations since they are legal entities that can only really exist in an environment where there is the rule of law with an entity that has the power to recognize and enforce the corporations existence. 

ETA: Your post office example is a really bad example since the creation of the post office is embedded in the Constitution and it is solely a creation of the government. It continued to exist and function while the government was temporarily shut down because it's funding and operation is not entirely dependent on Congress having a spending bill in place at that time.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Rillion

[tobetrained]

1 hour ago, Rillion said:

If there is no government there are no corporations since there are no rights anymore including property rights. A corporation would be nothing more than an agreement by the people involved to follow their own set of rules that they would have to self enforce as would any other group of individuals.

Exactly. 

A business, a corporation, a merchant...names of same meaning: people who are selling or trading goods and services. These people are not dependent on government and less dependent on others, esp. farmers.

I'm not implying, as some do, to get rid of government. It has a role. I'm just saying they are not gov't entities.

re: USPS, um, I don't know why we're having a tit-for-tat on this. If the US Federal gov't "goes away" as in my example, and now to your point above, re: Constitution, it's a null document -- the government it defines no longer in exists. But, as it has an income stream independent of taxation, the USPS can continue...if people want to mail stuff and send boxes and lease data files, etc.