No companies over 100 million in revenue. Every single one gets split.
I think this is a simplistic view. Sure, it would help, but not much, and only temporarily.
Because then the next thing that happens is that you have shell companies, indirect usage contracts, and a lot of messed up complicated complex systems to circumvent the rules. I mean, that’s already what’s happening, if you consider how companies avoid taxation by shuffling money abroad, but it could be even worse.
I think that the fate of a country, or (avoiding the term “country” because it’s too closely related to Nationalism) region or group of people is largely dependent on the nature and quality of the people and their ability and more important willingness to do good for the group. Like, if you have assholes in your society, no matter what law you come up with, assholes will always find a way to enrich themselves by fucking up society. No rule can prevent that. You really just need well-meaning people at the top to make rules and decisions. That’s not something you can avoid by just implementing a different rule-book, because who makes sure these rules are actually followed? You need people for that too, and there it starts being a circular problem. I think.
You’re just expressing the core problem of liberalism… If you write clear boundaries, inevitably people will seek to exploit the rules
That’s the other 20%. Enforcement.
My rule didn’t have such a loophole. You made one up, and in doing so broke it several times over. Every holding company has a revenue over the limit, and they’re really all just one big company anyways
A liberal would scramble to adjust the rules while ceeding ground, because they defend ownership like it’s a virtue
I would say fuck you, you know you not only broke the rules but tried to cheat them, so not only are your companies getting split you’re losing all of them. Maybe jail time, maybe we just ban you from holding a corporate charter for life
The law is only what you enforce, we can’t continue to have a legal system based on wordplay. It’s a cultural issue we need to fix
that’s exactly what we’re actually having today. i think the term for that is legalism, i.e. deciding what is right and what is wrong based on what is written in the law, without considering anything else like context or subjective opinion of the judge.
That’s right, I’d argue we’re even past that though… We’re at a place where the supreme Court is humoring grammar based arguments to create constitutional powers never mentioned anywhere
I think this is a simplistic view. Sure, it would help, but not much, and only temporarily.
Because then the next thing that happens is that you have shell companies, indirect usage contracts, and a lot of messed up complicated complex systems to circumvent the rules. I mean, that’s already what’s happening, if you consider how companies avoid taxation by shuffling money abroad, but it could be even worse.
I think that the fate of a country, or (avoiding the term “country” because it’s too closely related to Nationalism) region or group of people is largely dependent on the nature and quality of the people and their ability and more important willingness to do good for the group. Like, if you have assholes in your society, no matter what law you come up with, assholes will always find a way to enrich themselves by fucking up society. No rule can prevent that. You really just need well-meaning people at the top to make rules and decisions. That’s not something you can avoid by just implementing a different rule-book, because who makes sure these rules are actually followed? You need people for that too, and there it starts being a circular problem. I think.
You’re just expressing the core problem of liberalism… If you write clear boundaries, inevitably people will seek to exploit the rules
That’s the other 20%. Enforcement.
My rule didn’t have such a loophole. You made one up, and in doing so broke it several times over. Every holding company has a revenue over the limit, and they’re really all just one big company anyways
A liberal would scramble to adjust the rules while ceeding ground, because they defend ownership like it’s a virtue
I would say fuck you, you know you not only broke the rules but tried to cheat them, so not only are your companies getting split you’re losing all of them. Maybe jail time, maybe we just ban you from holding a corporate charter for life
The law is only what you enforce, we can’t continue to have a legal system based on wordplay. It’s a cultural issue we need to fix
that’s exactly what we’re actually having today. i think the term for that is legalism, i.e. deciding what is right and what is wrong based on what is written in the law, without considering anything else like context or subjective opinion of the judge.
That’s right, I’d argue we’re even past that though… We’re at a place where the supreme Court is humoring grammar based arguments to create constitutional powers never mentioned anywhere
It’s honestly civilization ending