Vaccine or not?

[hog88]

If they arent filed as sole proprietorships the owners dont see it as an extension of themselves.

The owners dont face taxes an individual would. They dont face legal requirements an individual would. The owners dont list the business's assets as their own. Claim the workers on their taxes, and usually act as an employee of the business. That's definitely a distinction from the individual liberties.

Business owners dont lose any of their rights if a business is not considered a person. They just choose to operate their business in a manner where they dont want to be classified as an individual. You want the benefits but not the responsibility.

Yeah, there is nooo responsibility in owning a business or being on the BOD of a business. There are 10s of thousands of corporations that are owned by individuals, families or small groups yet you rubes want to treat everyone of them as if they are WalMart. Even if you are just a shareholder in a major publicly traded corporation you have a right to express your wished in how that business is ran and do have money on the line.

 

[hog88]

100% accurate.

The moment a business owner files for liability protections is the moment several of their "rights" should be forfeit.

Why? At that same moment they assume different liabilities and responsibilities.

 

[ButchPlz]

Yeah, there is nooo responsibility in owning a business or being on the BOD of a business. There are 10s of thousands of corporations that are owned by individuals, families or small groups yet you rubes want to treat everyone of them as if they are WalMart. Even if you are just a shareholder in a major publicly traded corporation you have a right to express your wished in how that business is ran and do have money on the line.

You CANNOT have a functioning economy where you businesses have carte blanche to do what they want. That is simply asinine.

 

[hog88]

You CANNOT have a functioning economy where you businesses have carte blanche to do what they want. That is simply asinine.

I'm not saying they should have the right to "do what they want" that's an asinine oversimplification. All I'm saying is business should have the same rights of free association in setting their employment and service policies as any individual does. If I could "do what I wanted" I wouldn't be paying taxes, insurance, I'd strip all the pollution control of my trucks and dump the waste we haul in Manhattan for free.

 

[ButchPlz]

Why? At that same moment they assume different liabilities and responsibilities.

Financial risk and that's about it (insurances, taxes, natural market pressures, etc.). To pretend that that risk alone should give a business the ability to dictate how a person lives is immoral at the absolute best. Especially when businesses start to act as a collective which is precisely what is happening now- and there is no argument you can make that that isn't happening.

You are directly taking the side of the legal protections Pfizer, etc. get from all the damage their drug is causing. Responsibility flows downhill. Until business owners personally can get sued into oblivion for damages from their actions, all you're doing is advocating for a liability shield from irresponsible decisions. It's quite literally welfare for businesses and its embarrassing.

 

[ButchPlz]

I'm not saying they should have the right to "do what they want" that's an asinine oversimplification. All I'm saying is business should have the same rights of free association in setting their employment and service policies as any individual does. If I could "do what I wanted" I wouldn't be paying taxes, insurance, I'd strip all the pollution control of my trucks and dump the waste we haul in Manhattan for free.

Then drop all liability protections for the individual owner. A "business" doesn't make decisions. A person does. Giving an owner freedom to set their employment conditions is fine- but they should be fully subject to the damages those conditions cause (i.e., vaccine side effects and subsequent medical bills).

 

[whodeycin85]

100% accurate.

The moment a business owner files for liability protections is the moment several of their "rights" should be forfeit.

Yes. Couldn't have been better.

 

[hog88]

Financial risk and that's about it (insurances, taxes, natural market pressures, etc.). To pretend that that risk alone should give a business the ability to dictate how a person lives is immoral at the absolute best. Especially when businesses start to act as a collective which is precisely what is happening now- and there is no argument you can make that that isn't happening.

You are directly taking the side of the legal protections Pfizer, etc. get from all the damage their drug is causing. Responsibility flows downhill. Until business owners personally can get sued into oblivion for damages from their actions, all you're doing is advocating for a liability shield from irresponsible decisions. It's quite literally welfare for businesses and its embarrassing.

A business cannot dictate how a person lives their life, it is impossible and collusion is illegal. If there is collusion amongst different companies then the .gov that you want protecting you isn't doing it's job from the state up to the fed.

 

[ButchPlz]

A business cannot dictate how a person lives their life, it is impossible and collusion is illegal. If there is collusion amongst different companies then the .gov that you want protecting you isn't doing it's job from the state up to the fed.

I don't disagree that the government isn't doing their job.

But what you are very explicitly advocating for is a hierarchy of rights with business (not people, owners, etc.) at the top. That is precisely how we ended up in the crony capitalist mess we are in now. Again, you are very explicitly advocating for endless "bailouts" from bad decisions by business owners. It's welfare by another name. And it's ridiculous.

 

[hog88]

Then drop all liability protections for the individual owner. A "business" doesn't make decisions. A person does. Giving an owner freedom to set their employment conditions is fine- but they should be fully subject to the damages those conditions cause (i.e., vaccine side effects and subsequent medical bills).

Why? No business owner it forcing a needle into anyone's arm. People are free to leave and pursue other employment, start their own business or do whatever makes them happy. It's amazing how you faux conservatives turn to big nanny government for protection from the very people that provide your livelihoods. If you don't like your employers policies then leave.

 

[ButchPlz]

Why? No business owner it forcing a needle into anyone's arm. People are free to leave and pursue other employment, start their own business or do whatever makes them happy. It's amazing how you faux conservatives turn to big nanny government for protection from the very people that provide your livelihoods. If you don't like your employers policies then leave.

I'm not a faux conservative. I'm a realist watching folks like you do exactly what is crushing this country over and over- abdicate all personal responsibility.

After all, the moment you signed up for an LLC what did you do but trust the nanny state from protecting you from the big bad individual? Don't be a hypocrite.

 

[hog88]

I don't disagree that the government isn't doing their job.

But what you are very explicitly advocating for is a hierarchy of rights with business (not people, owners, etc.) at the top. That is precisely how we ended up in the crony capitalist mess we are in now. Again, you are very explicitly advocating for endless "bailouts" from bad decisions by business owners. It's welfare by another name. And it's ridiculous.

That is 100% not what I am advocating for. I am advocating for the freedom of the individual (whether that be the employee or the employer) to make the decisions that are best for them. You're a dang idiot if you believe that I am advocating for bailouts.

 

[ButchPlz]

That is 100% not what I am advocating for. I am advocating for the freedom of the individual (whether that be the employee or the employer) to make the decisions that are best for them. You're a dang idiot if you believe that I am advocating for bailouts.

Freedom involves facing the consequences of bad decisions. You seem to be saying that businesses should be able to mandate employment contracts yet not be subject to punishment for direct harm for those contracts. Ergo you're asking for a "bailout" from a bad decision, a shield provided straight from the nanny state you ramble about.

You're the same side of the coin, just begging government to protect the faceless nameless "business" over an individual. It's immoral.

 

[hog88]

I'm not a faux conservative. I'm a realist watching folks like you do exactly what is crushing this country over and over- abdicate all personal responsibility.

After all, the moment you signed up for an LLC what did you do but trust the nanny state from protecting you from the big bad individual? Don't be a hypocrite.

People like me? I never implemented a vax mandate, I kept every employee I have employed and paid during this whole mess. When one of my drivers got sick in NM and had to be hospitalized I flew his wife out there, paid her hotel/meals for a month so she could be with him and he never missed a paycheck. Don't talk to me about responsibility until your decisions directly effect the livelihoods of 40 or more families.

 

[ButchPlz]

People like me? I never implemented a vax mandate, I kept every employee I have employed and paid during this whole mess. When one of my drivers got sick in NM and had to be hospitalized I flew his wife out there, paid her hotel/meals for a month so she could be with him and he never missed a paycheck. Don't talk to me about responsibility until your decisions directly effect the livelihoods of 40 or more families.

Bold of you to assume anything.

Again, you have an LLC, yes? Your charity defense is well and good yet you still hide behind the state to protect you from damage your businesses causes. Communist to the core.

 

[hog88]

Freedom involves facing the consequences of bad decisions. You seem to be saying that businesses should be able to mandate employment contracts yet not be subject to punishment for direct harm for those contracts. Ergo you're asking for a "bailout" from a bad decision, a shield provided straight from the nanny state you ramble about.

You're the same side of the coin, just begging government to protect the faceless nameless "business" over an individual. It's immoral.

Who the hell forced the employee to sign said contract? When does the individual own their decision to be employed at XYZ under terms they do not agree with?

 

[hog88]

Bold of you to assume anything.

Again, you have an LLC, yes? Your charity defense is well and good yet you still hide behind the state to protect you from damage your businesses causes. Communist to the core.

No, C-corp. And I'm not assuming anything with that statement, you can always tell.

 

[ButchPlz]

No, corp. And I'm not assuming anything with that statement, you can always tell.

So indeed you are hiding behind the government. Embarrassing.

And clearly you think you're smarter than you actually are. No point discussing with an open hypocrite.

 

[hog88]

So indeed you are hiding behind the government. Embarrassing.

And clearly you think you're smarter than you actually are. No point discussing with an open hypocrite.

Go cuddled behind the protection of your beloved nanny state.

 

[ButchPlz]

Go cuddled behind the protection of your beloved nanny state.

Excellent work.

Come back with your points when you have the sack to take full responsibility for your business.

 

[hog88]

Excellent work.

Come back with your points when you have the sack to take full responsibility for your business.

i do take full responsibility. Let me know when you have the balls to take responsibility for your decisions.

 

[ButchPlz]

i do take full responsibility. Let me know when you have the balls to take responsibility for your decisions.

You legally, literally do not.

 

[LouderVol]

Yeah, there is nooo responsibility in owning a business or being on the BOD of a business. There are 10s of thousands of corporations that are owned by individuals, families or small groups yet you rubes want to treat everyone of them as if they are WalMart. Even if you are just a shareholder in a major publicly traded corporation you have a right to express your wished in how that business is ran and do have money on the line.

Like I said, you want the best of both worlds and the responsibilities of neither. yet you still get special treatment as a business. You choose to be a business. You can be like the Chick Fil A guy. Hold you personal beliefs separate from your business. Just because a business has certain requirements that limit what it can do that differs from an individual, doesnt mean the individual is denied that right.

Outside of your business you still have your rights. Just like you believe you can place restrictions on workers while they are on the job, the same goes for the owners. Doesnt mean anyone's rights are restricted. Just for some reason you want owners to be held to a different standard than the workers.

 

[hog88]

Like I said, you want the best of both worlds and the responsibilities of neither. yet you still get special treatment as a business. You choose to be a business. You can be like the Chick Fil A guy. Hold you personal beliefs separate from your business. Just because a business has certain requirements that limit what it can do that differs from an individual, doesnt mean the individual is denied that right.

Outside of your business you still have your rights. Just like you believe you can place restrictions on workers while they are on the job, the same goes for the owners. Doesnt mean anyone's rights are restricted. Just for some reason you want owners to be held to a different standard than the workers.

Where the hell do you rubes get that I want anyone held to a different standard? If you want to trade your labor for someone else's money do what they ask you to do or move the hell on down the road. I don't want the .gov mandating decisions out of the individuals or businesses hands.

I guess if you hired on with a company and initially it was a work from home position and they changed it to where you had to come to the office you'd want WC if you got hurt in a car wreck on your way.

 

[ButchPlz]

Where the hell do you rubes get that I want anyone held to a different standard? If you want to trade your labor for someone else's money do what they ask you to do or move the hell on down the road. I don't want the .gov mandating decisions out of the individuals or businesses hands.

I guess if you hired on with a company and initially it was a work from home position and they changed it to where you had to come to the office you'd want WC if you got hurt in a car wreck on your way.

But you actually explicitly do want the government to mandate away an individual's choice, when it comes to potential liability for your actions in your business. Hence you have a corporation, through the form of which you entrust the government to protect you from responsibility for your own actions. You've effectively colluded with the government to mandate away the individual's right to pursue things like damages against a person responsible. All the benefits, none of the responsibility.

Like I said- turn your business into a sole proprietorship. Own it. Don't be a hypocrite, and don't hide behind the nanny state boogie man.