quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
http://mises.org/daily/6807/Thomas-Piketty-and-Mises-The-AntiCapitalistic-Mentality

quote:

Thomas Piketty and Mises’s ‘The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality’
Mises’s treatise on why capitalism sits in the dock, falsely accused of various crimes against humanity, is a classic: bravely saying what still needs to be said. It offers a robust rebuttal to the jaundiced view of capitalism found (most recently and conspicuously) in Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century.

"Bravely saying what still needs to be said"? Isn't that spreading it on a bit thick?
The current view of capitalism is not unlike many people's view regarding politics. Yes, it might seem "jaundiced" at times, but that's to be expected when the prevailing political/economic system fails to meet the needs of the people or the nation as a whole.
I don't even believe that the view of capitalism is all that "jaundiced" though. Some people might be inclined to look at economic and political systems from a more objective and realistic standpoint, noting both the good and the bad. There are others who tend to be more ideological about their chosen belief system, turning more into religious fanatics and only looking at the good of their system, never the bad. They won't acknowledge anything negative about their "holy" beliefs, and anyone who does even remotely say anything negative can be said to have a "jaundiced" view (which would likely still be more accurate than a rose-colored view).
Capitalists simply can not handle even the slightest criticisms without becoming unglued and terribly emotional, invariably resorting to red-baiting, "love-it-or-leave-it," or "those-who-aren't-with-us-are-against-us" type of thinking. This was especially true during the Reagan-Bush years. If the tide of public opinion is starting to turn against them now, then a large part of it has to do with their arrogant and abusive manners in previous decades - and also due to the fact that their economic programs have failed to produce the results they said it would.
We went along with the policies and ideas that folks like Reagan and Bush said would be great for our country. They promised that America would be better off if we went along with "voodoo economics." Since America is quite clearly not better off today, then that means that capitalists have some serious 'splaining to do.
One thing I've noticed about capitalists: They take credit and reward for work done by others, yet blame everyone else for their own mistakes.

quote:

quote:

In The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, Mises asks: Why do so many people “loathe” capitalism? He gives a threefold answer.
1. "The first factor is simple ignorance."

Ignorance of what? Unlike those who are cocooned in academia, most of the rest of the public is aware of what system they're living under and can clearly see the results of that system, both the positive and the negative. Those who are doing well will embrace the system and support it, while those who are not will not. But I think it's safe to say that people are not ignorant of their own status. They know whether things are going well or not.

quote:

The first factor is simple ignorance. Few people credit capitalism for the fact that they “enjoy amenities that were denied to even the most prosperous people of earlier generations.” Telephones, cars, steel-making, and thousands of other advancements are all “an achievement of classical liberalism, free trade, laissez faire, and capital” — with the driving force being the profit motive and the deployment of capital used in the development of better tools and machines and the creation of new products. Take away capitalism and you wipe out most or all of the extraordinary progress that has been made in raising living standards and reducing poverty since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

quote:

quote:

2. "The second factor is envy, the green-eyed monster, which causes many people to think they have gotten the short end of the stick."

This is possible as a peripheral factor, although this should be expected as a natural reaction to any form of inequality or disparity in wealth. One problem here is that this statement carries the implication that there must necessarily be a "short end of the stick" in a capitalist society. It demonstrates ideological thinking and an inability to think outside the box.

quote:

The second factor is envy, the green-eyed monster, which causes many people to think they have gotten the short end of the stick. As Mises observes: “Capitalism grants to each the opportunity to attain the most desirable positions which, of course, can only be attained by the few … Whatever a man may have gained for himself, there are always before his eyes people who have outstripped him … Such is the attitude of the tramp against the man with the regular job, the factory hand against the foreman, the executive against the vice-president, the vice-president against the president, the man who is worth three hundred thousand dollars against the millionaire, and so on.”

quote:

quote:

3. "And finally, the third factor is the unceasing vilification of capitalism by those who seek to constrain or destroy it. "

This is a circular point, as much as saying "people hate capitalism because they hate it." Nothing to address here.

quote:

And finally, the third factor is the unceasing vilification of capitalism by those who seek to constrain or destroy it. As Mises notes, the critics and anti-capitalists go on telling and re-telling the same story: saying that “capitalism is a system to make the masses suffer terribly and that the more capitalism progresses and approaches its full maturity, the more the immense majority becomes impoverished.”

quote:

quote:

But there is something else to worry about — something that caused Mises to lose sleep. That is the thought that the natural tendency under capitalism “towards a continuous improvement in the average standard of living” will be stymied by a growing “absence of capitalism” due to “the effects of policies sabotaging the operation of capitalism.” Among those perverse policies, Mises pointed to credit expansion, gunning the money supply, and raising minimum wage rates. Still more, he railed against progressive policies that diminish individual choice and leave more and more economic decision-making in the hands the state. Mises’s greatest fear was that people would “renounce freedom and voluntarily surrender to the suzerainty of omnipotent government.”

If capitalists are losing sleep and worried that people would "renounce freedom and voluntarily surrender to the suzerainty of omnipotent government," why can't capitalists try to offer a better choice and show some willingness to negotiate and compromise? That's where they lose credibility, since a little flexibility on their part would work wonders right about now. But time and time again throughout history, we've seen political systems overthrown and countries turned upside down, mainly as a result of those in power being too stubborn, arrogant, narcissistic, and egotistical to give even just a little bit. When facing such a brick wall of ideological intransigence, what can people do? What choices do they have?
What would capitalists be willing to give up in order to avoid "the suzerainty of omnipotent government"? If capitalists simply raised wages on their own - before they're asked to, before workers threaten to go on strike, before the government forces them to raise wages - then they could avoid a lot of the "unpleasantries" that come with government interference. But no, they stubbornly stick to their guns until the issue is forced and THAT'S what brings about all this loathing of capitalism.
I'm not saying that capitalism is ALL bad, but it's not all good either. As long as capitalists are willing to acknowledge this and willing to negotiate on a fair and objective level, then perhaps a balanced compromise can be achieved which would help us all sleep better at night. What are they willing to offer? Maybe if capitalists actually tried to look at this issue as practical business people rather than as rigid ideologues, they might be able to come up with better ideas.
Another aspect that needs to be examined is not just economic but the overall condition and position of the country as a whole. The role of the government in the economy became more predominant largely because it was necessary for our national security, such as active intervention in the free market during WW2. The government determined that the nation's survival was at stake, so they had to do what was practical - even if it mildly broke some of the tenets of capitalist orthodoxy.
Back then, they were willing to be flexible for the good of the country, but I don't see very much of this flexibility among capitalists of today.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

http://mises.org/daily/6807/Thomas-Piketty-and-Mises-The-AntiCapitalistic-Mentality

quote:

Thomas Piketty and Mises’s ‘The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality’

Mises’s treatise on why capitalism sits in the dock, falsely accused of various crimes against humanity, is a classic: bravely saying what still needs to be said. It offers a robust rebuttal to the jaundiced view of capitalism found (most recently and conspicuously) in Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century.

In The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, Mises asks: Why do so many people “loathe” capitalism? He gives a threefold answer.

• 1. "The first factor is simple ignorance."
  
• 2. "The second factor is envy, the green-eyed monster, which causes many people to think they have gotten the short end of the stick."
  
• 3. "And finally, the third factor is the unceasing vilification of capitalism by those who seek to constrain or destroy it. "
  
  

  quote:
  
  But there is something else to worry about — something that caused Mises to lose sleep. That is the thought that the natural tendency under capitalism “towards a continuous improvement in the average standard of living” will be stymied by a growing “absence of capitalism” due to “the effects of policies sabotaging the operation of capitalism.” Among those perverse policies, Mises pointed to credit expansion, gunning the money supply, and raising minimum wage rates. Still more, he railed against progressive policies that diminish individual choice and leave more and more economic decision-making in the hands the state. Mises’s greatest fear was that people would “renounce freedom and voluntarily surrender to the suzerainty of omnipotent government.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Nicely laid out, zonie...without rancor.

In that same vein...you laid out some things capitalists could "give" on such as raising their employees' wages without being forced by the government to do so. I concede that this may be a valid point.

But...compromise requires give on both sides, generally of something you don't necessarily want to give but that is what makes the "give" valid and sincere.

So...name one thing that those on the other side of the table from the capitalists would be willing to give from their side? And it can't be something that comes from the capitalists in the first place. What government nicety or personal nicety would be given to the capitalists?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
What really grates people who support Capitalism is criticism of Capitalism when it's not really Capitalism at work. The Corporatism we have today isn't really Capitalism. Therein lies the issue.

quote:


I linked to the article, brother! I wasn't going to quote it all out, but give a synopsis.

You asked, so...

quote:

The first factor is simple ignorance. Few people credit capitalism for the fact that they “enjoy amenities that were denied to even the most prosperous people of earlier generations.” Telephones, cars, steel-making, and thousands of other advancements are all “an achievement of classical liberalism, free trade, laissez faire, and capital” — with the driving force being the profit motive and the deployment of capital used in the development of better tools and machines and the creation of new products. Take away capitalism and you wipe out most or all of the extraordinary progress that has been made in raising living standards and reducing poverty since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

quote:

quote:

quote:

2. "The second factor is envy, the green-eyed monster, which causes many people to think they have gotten the short end of the stick."

This is possible as a peripheral factor, although this should be expected as a natural reaction to any form of inequality or disparity in wealth. One problem here is that this statement carries the implication that there must necessarily be a "short end of the stick" in a capitalist society. It demonstrates ideological thinking and an inability to think outside the box.

quote:

The second factor is envy, the green-eyed monster, which causes many people to think they have gotten the short end of the stick. As Mises observes: “Capitalism grants to each the opportunity to attain the most desirable positions which, of course, can only be attained by the few … Whatever a man may have gained for himself, there are always before his eyes people who have outstripped him … Such is the attitude of the tramp against the man with the regular job, the factory hand against the foreman, the executive against the vice-president, the vice-president against the president, the man who is worth three hundred thousand dollars against the millionaire, and so on.”

quote:


The "short end of the stick" mentality isn't a necessity, but it's a reality. I'd love to make Lebron James type money, but I quite easily admit to not having the abilities that he has and is getting paid for. But, I don't begrudge him getting paid what he gets paid.

quote:

quote:

quote:

3. "And finally, the third factor is the unceasing vilification of capitalism by those who seek to constrain or destroy it. "

This is a circular point, as much as saying "people hate capitalism because they hate it." Nothing to address here.

quote:

And finally, the third factor is the unceasing vilification of capitalism by those who seek to constrain or destroy it. As Mises notes, the critics and anti-capitalists go on telling and re-telling the same story: saying that “capitalism is a system to make the masses suffer terribly and that the more capitalism progresses and approaches its full maturity, the more the immense majority becomes impoverished.”

quote:

quote:


If capitalists are losing sleep and worried that people would "renounce freedom and voluntarily surrender to the suzerainty of omnipotent government," why can't capitalists try to offer a better choice and show some willingness to negotiate and compromise? That's where they lose credibility, since a little flexibility on their part would work wonders right about now. But time and time again throughout history, we've seen political systems overthrown and countries turned upside down, mainly as a result of those in power being too stubborn, arrogant, narcissistic, and egotistical to give even just a little bit. When facing such a brick wall of ideological intransigence, what can people do? What choices do they have?
What would capitalists be willing to give up in order to avoid "the suzerainty of omnipotent government"? If capitalists simply raised wages on their own - before they're asked to, before workers threaten to go on strike, before the government forces them to raise wages - then they could avoid a lot of the "unpleasantries" that come with government interference. But no, they stubbornly stick to their guns until the issue is forced and THAT'S what brings about all this loathing of capitalism.
I'm not saying that capitalism is ALL bad, but it's not all good either. As long as capitalists are willing to acknowledge this and willing to negotiate on a fair and objective level, then perhaps a balanced compromise can be achieved which would help us all sleep better at night. What are they willing to offer? Maybe if capitalists actually tried to look at this issue as practical business people rather than as rigid ideologues, they might be able to come up with better ideas.
Another aspect that needs to be examined is not just economic but the overall condition and position of the country as a whole. The role of the government in the economy became more predominant largely because it was necessary for our national security, such as active intervention in the free market during WW2. The government determined that the nation's survival was at stake, so they had to do what was practical - even if it mildly broke some of the tenets of capitalist orthodoxy.
Back then, they were willing to be flexible for the good of the country, but I don't see very much of this flexibility among capitalists of today.

Therein lies the problem, Zonie: finding the right mix of Capitalism and Government. There are those who want more G than C. There may be people who don't want any C, unless it's really all G. There will be those who want no G at all, too. Then, there are those people who want more C than G. Within that last group (and within the first group mentioned), you're also going to find people who are going to argue about the specific levels of both. It's not surprising to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Nicely laid out, zonie...without rancor.

In that same vein...you laid out some things capitalists could "give" on such as raising their employees' wages without being forced by the government to do so. I concede that this may be a valid point.

But...compromise requires give on both sides, generally of something you don't necessarily want to give but that is what makes the "give" valid and sincere.

So...name one thing that those on the other side of the table from the capitalists would be willing to give from their side? And it can't be something that comes from the capitalists in the first place. What government nicety or personal nicety would be given to the capitalists?

Well, the one point that should be made at the outset is that capitalists have already received quite a bit from being in the United States. Our independence and ability to secure our territory, along with a policy of expansionism which gave capitalists vast tracts of arable land and a whole continent teeming with resources. Our government was quite friendly to business interests from all sectors from the very beginning.

The one thing that government provides is protection, security of the state, and the enforcement of law. Without political harmony and civil order, capitalists wouldn't be able to accomplish thing one. That's something capitalists always seem to neglect when they formulate their business plans. How can a capitalist produce anything if his workers are rioting and burning down their factories? In order to prevent things like that and promote a balanced, harmonious society, government has to act as an arbiter. For their own interests, capitalists should allow the government the flexibility and latitude to be able to arbitrate fairly. That, to me, sounds like smart business.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Nicely laid out, zonie...without rancor.

In that same vein...you laid out some things capitalists could "give" on such as raising their employees' wages without being forced by the government to do so. I concede that this may be a valid point.

But...compromise requires give on both sides, generally of something you don't necessarily want to give but that is what makes the "give" valid and sincere.

So...name one thing that those on the other side of the table from the capitalists would be willing to give from their side? And it can't be something that comes from the capitalists in the first place. What government nicety or personal nicety would be given to the capitalists?

Well, the one point that should be made at the outset is that capitalists have already received quite a bit from being in the United States. Our independence and ability to secure our territory, along with a policy of expansionism which gave capitalists vast tracts of arable land and a whole continent teeming with resources. Our government was quite friendly to business interests from all sectors from the very beginning.

The one thing that government provides is protection, security of the state, and the enforcement of law. Without political harmony and civil order, capitalists wouldn't be able to accomplish thing one. That's something capitalists always seem to neglect when they formulate their business plans. How can a capitalist produce anything if his workers are rioting and burning down their factories? In order to prevent things like that and promote a balanced, harmonious society, government has to act as an arbiter. For their own interests, capitalists should allow the government the flexibility and latitude to be able to arbitrate fairly. That, to me, sounds like smart business.

I don't believe any of the above answers the question I asked, zonie. I asked what one thing those on the other side of the table would be willing to give in exchange...in compromise...for the one thing the capitalists gave in my example.

Instead of stating what you think they would give, you give me the above which lays out even more that the capitalists should give; what they should be grateful for. We can get bogged down all day in what capitalists should be grateful for and what those in the other side of the table should be grateful for but that's an exercise in futility.

I asked a level-headed question, based on compromise and negotiation. Related to what you had talked about in your post. Can you not answer that, even in a spirit of what you and your friends would be willing to give?

Or do you want to divert from that path again?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

By stating what "we've" given in the past, it implies what "we're" willing to continue to give in the future. I thought that would answer your question. Unless you want to start your capitalistic enterprise in outer space or somewhere in international waters, then "we" will give you space on dry land for you to be able to conduct your business affairs. How's that for a start to our negotiations?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Nicely laid out, zonie...without rancor.

In that same vein...you laid out some things capitalists could "give" on such as raising their employees' wages without being forced by the government to do so. I concede that this may be a valid point.

But...compromise requires give on both sides, generally of something you don't necessarily want to give but that is what makes the "give" valid and sincere.

So...name one thing that those on the other side of the table from the capitalists would be willing to give from their side? And it can't be something that comes from the capitalists in the first place. What government nicety or personal nicety would be given to the capitalists?

Well, the one point that should be made at the outset is that capitalists have already received quite a bit from being in the United States. Our independence and ability to secure our territory, along with a policy of expansionism which gave capitalists vast tracts of arable land and a whole continent teeming with resources. Our government was quite friendly to business interests from all sectors from the very beginning.

The one thing that government provides is protection, security of the state, and the enforcement of law. Without political harmony and civil order, capitalists wouldn't be able to accomplish thing one. That's something capitalists always seem to neglect when they formulate their business plans. How can a capitalist produce anything if his workers are rioting and burning down their factories? In order to prevent things like that and promote a balanced, harmonious society, government has to act as an arbiter. For their own interests, capitalists should allow the government the flexibility and latitude to be able to arbitrate fairly. That, to me, sounds like smart business.

I don't believe any of the above answers the question I asked, zonie. I asked what one thing those on the other side of the table would be willing to give in exchange...in compromise...for the one thing the capitalists gave in my example.

Instead of stating what you think they would give, you give me the above which lays out even more that the capitalists should give; what they should be grateful for. We can get bogged down all day in what capitalists should be grateful for and what those in the other side of the table should be grateful for but that's an exercise in futility.

I asked a level-headed question, based on compromise and negotiation. Related to what you had talked about in your post. Can you not answer that, even in a spirit of what you and your friends would be willing to give?

Or do you want to divert from that path again?

By stating what "we've" given in the past, it implies what "we're" willing to continue to give in the future. I thought that would answer your question. Unless you want to start your capitalistic enterprise in outer space or somewhere in international waters, then "we" will give you space on dry land for you to be able to conduct your business affairs. How's that for a start to our negotiations?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
I don't believe any of the above answers the question I asked, zonie. I asked what one thing those on the other side of the table would be willing to give in exchange...in compromise...for the one thing the capitalists gave in my example.

Instead of stating what you think they would give, you give me the above which lays out even more that the capitalists should give; what they should be grateful for. We can get bogged down all day in what capitalists should be grateful for and what those in the other side of the table should be grateful for but that's an exercise in futility.

I asked a level-headed question, based on compromise and negotiation. Related to what you had talked about in your post. Can you not answer that, even in a spirit of what you and your friends would be willing to give?

Or do you want to divert from that path again?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
so...in other words, nothing, despite what I noted about what capitalists give and what you give. I stated the concession you noted...the capitalists would raise wages...now what would you give...and your compromise is that you " would continue to give what you have.

quote:


That's not compromise...that's the position that only your side gives. Surely you dont really believe that? If you do, then you need only look in the mirror for the answer to " is it just the capitalists who refuse to budge...who refuse to give"?

Come on, zonie...prove me wrong. Answer the question I've asked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

By stating what "we've" given in the past, it implies what "we're" willing to continue to give in the future. I thought that would answer your question. Unless you want to start your capitalistic enterprise in outer space or somewhere in international waters, then "we" will give you space on dry land for you to be able to conduct your business affairs. How's that for a start to our negotiations?

... and people wonder why businesses move over-seas.

It seems to me that when it comes to dry land and national security, the US isn't the only game on the planet.

quote:


I'm not a full-on capitalist but I'm not out to destroy businesses, either.

quote:


I don't believe that government creates jobs; I believe entrepreneurs/businesses do. If we keep making the environment hostile to entrepreneurs/businesses, they're going to find a more welcoming environment.

quote:


I'm not talking about opening up the vault doors and giving businesses a free reign but, with the lethargic "recovery" we're experiencing, shouldn't we be doing something to encourage business growth?

quote:


More government jobs mean more tax money. We're already at a point where 47% are paying for 53%. Where is the breaking point (if we haven't reached it, already)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

I conceded that capitalists have received much. I've yet to see you concede that society or people in genneral have gotten anything from capitalism. In that, you are doing exactly what you accuse me of...you expect capitalists to own up to taking from your side of the table and never giving. Then continue to blame...and dodge...when someone says something like " o.k., we are going to start this process of negotiate and compromise. We will start it off by paying you a higher wage. Now then, a higher wage is not being paid to you so that you'll work harder...it is being paid to you in recognition of the work you've shown us and in hope that the same level will continue. Now then, that said...more money for the SAME level of work (because after all...that is what is 'fair'...and what you noted should be done) hurts...there are things we cannot do because we will have less since we gave you more. What are you going to give, from your side, that comes directly from your side? (and I am not talking about what you've already given or vague promises of something that cannot be seen such as 'more work and more productivity' (remember, that was not asked for in exchange for more money. And more work would eventually lead to whining about doing more work for the same amount of money)...I am talking about 'give'. Something that you don't want to give but is a sign of good faith and fairness from your side of the table.

Now, do you want to answer that without a mother railing at capitalism...an honest answer of what is to be given for THAT which I noted or do you wish to feel tap-dancing around it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
True, and if these businesses want to move overseas, then they should at least have a sense of honor and give up their citizenship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kinksterparty

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
True, and if these businesses want to move overseas, then they should at least have a sense of honor and give up their citizenship.

That attitude stopped making sense somewhere around the 1300's, with the advent of well-established trade routes.

Every business is intertwined with many other businesses. Would you say the chairman of Toyota should renounce his Japanese citizenship because Toyota sells cars in the US? Would Intel have to move out of California just because they built a factory in Ireland?

Oh, and my company in particular has production facilities in Italy and Germany, as well as distribution in Canada, USA, Mexico, Caribbean, and Brazil. Pray tell, what should WE be? American? Italian? Brazilian? Canadian?

It's a global economy. Deal with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
As for what the people have gotten from capitalism, I think the people and the country overall (which includes capitalists) have benefited from our political system and various other geopolitical factors which made us into a superpower with a high standard of living. Capitalism is just a method for doing things, although there are plenty of other methods which could have been used to achieve the same net result. Your argument seems to be that capitalism has been indispensable, that none of this would have been possible without it, and that's what I would question. It can't be proven either way, so it's more of a value judgment than anything else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kinksterparty

That attitude stopped making sense somewhere around the 1300's, with the advent of well-established trade routes.

Every business is intertwined with many other businesses. Would you say the chairman of Toyota should renounce his Japanese citizenship because Toyota sells cars in the US? Would Intel have to move out of California just because they built a factory in Ireland?

Oh, and my company in particular has production facilities in Italy and Germany, as well as distribution in Canada, USA, Mexico, Caribbean, and Brazil. Pray tell, what should WE be? American? Italian? Brazilian? Canadian?

It's a global economy. Deal with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: kinksterparty

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
True, and if these businesses want to move overseas, then they should at least have a sense of honor and give up their citizenship.

That attitude stopped making sense somewhere around the 1300's, with the advent of well-established trade routes.

Every business is intertwined with many other businesses. Would you say the chairman of Toyota should renounce his Japanese citizenship because Toyota sells cars in the US? Would Intel have to move out of California just because they built a factory in Ireland?

Oh, and my company in particular has production facilities in Italy and Germany, as well as distribution in Canada, USA, Mexico, Caribbean, and Brazil. Pray tell, what should WE be? American? Italian? Brazilian? Canadian?

It's a global economy. Deal with it.

A corporation is *NOT* a person. The corporation can not have national loyalties since its not a sentient being. Its a form of government onto itself. Now, where does the loyalty of the PEOPLE within that corporation lie? If those people are American, and seeking to undermine the United States of America directly or indirectly, all in the name of profit; should they stay as citizens? Since the Koch brothers use their business interests to funnel resources towards organizations that wish to undermine the nation's ability to operate.