Amoral, Not Immoral

I think you were right he first time when you said that corporations are amoral, but now you say they are immoral, which is not exactly the same thing. Corporations are not in the morality business, they are in the money making business. Churches and governments are in the morality business, and they're not expected to make a profit. All three are collectives, a group of people with a common interest who form an organization to further that interest.

I just thought of another type of collective that we haven't discussed before, the cooperative. Cooperatives are like corporations only different. Both have a board of directors, and both usually hire some kind executive to run the nuts and bolts of the operation, the board being mostly concerned with broad policy issues. Both may hire employees, although some of the smaller cooperatives make do with volunteer labor. Both may be either profit or non profit organizations, the difference being how the profits, if any, are distributed. Instead of stockholders, cooperatives have members. The difference is that each member has one vote, whereas stockholders get a vote for each share of stock they own. Credit unions are cooperatives, as are many providers of electricity and natural gas in rural areas. Artists, musicians, and farmers sometimes form cooperatives to market their products. I think that some investment companies could be classified as cooperatives, although they operate under different regulations than the other cooperatives I have mentioned. Well, maybe not so different from the credit unions, I'm not sure about that. Are cooperatives any more ethical than corporations? I don't know, but they certainly are more democratic.

I thought it interesting that this pot issue might put Republicans on the opposite side of states rights. I don't know if I like it or not, but it might be fun to watch. I'm not so sure about all that "clearing the underbrush" stuff you talked about. When people are trying to prevail in an adversarial situation, it's natural for them call up any resources that they can find to support their position. They might come off sounding high and mighty in the process, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. You could fall into the same trap using pure logic to win an argument. The challenge lies in using the guy's own sources against him. If he uses logic, you use logic. If he quotes the Bible or the constitution, you do the same thing. You still might not win the guy over, but you can have a lot of fun trying.