[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not independant of this country. This is so much more evident then any point I have seen you make. If this country falls into a depression it affects me, if this country's laws change it affects me. The big things affect me, the little things do, that's why Americans take interest in politics. If you would like to define away reality you are welcomed to.
[/ QUOTE ]
NOne of this speaks to legitimacy,or efficiency or morality or anything, it is just an observation that people interact with other people. It serves no basis in helping people make effective decisions, you defend it because it currently is in place, and so you aren't doing anythingmore than making an observation.
[/ QUOTE ]
The discussion was over "vested interest." As for
legitimacy the definition speaks for it self. Efficiency and morality aren't relevant. But certainly, the current rules for counting share holder votes in a corporation are neither efficient to the investors nor are they moral.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there is nothing skeptical or doubtful about this phrase, it is simply a turn of phrase that attempts to obscure an issue. I have no reason to consider myself as having the burden of proof, since, the basic phrase indicates you don't actually care whether or not it is true. You instead seek to throw mud, point fingers and make up definitions.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, the issue is obscured because you try to avoid it. The issue is why do you have MORE of a right to tell me waht to do than i do to choose what i do? Your argument boils down to if 1.01 people want me to do something then i have to do it because the 1.01 outnumbers my 1, ie might makes right.
[/ QUOTE ]
Call it "might makes right" if you would like, but rights do not exist in a vacuum. Rights are a social construct. In any event, we're not talking about you playing ping-pong in your basement and 1.01 persons telling you not to, we're talking about the structural framework of corporations in America.