Much, much food for thought,... thanks. With this thesis...
I'm curious to know what the Founding Fathers thought about the American 'dynasty' families (which doubled as businesses) during their time... that there would always be a place for said families?
Secondly, were the Founding Fathers (the American 'dynasty' families) essentially rebelling against the King's pretorian financialized corporations (British East India Company, for example) -- which may be the correct 'financial/corporate structure' to facilitate international shipping and the insurance schemes needed to further facilitate that -- being applied to "on-the-land activities"?
If true, then it seems the Founding Fathers, put together a very detailed, elaborate scheme to keep the pretorian at bay: not only were the State legislatures enshrined with the power to sanction and revoke corporations, but that "all men where now equal under the law" (note: my understanding on the latter point was that in prior forms of government,... if a nobleman was brought into court for testimony or charges, his testimony carried more weight than a commoner's).
Why didn't the Founding Fathers (one could say, representing themselves, the landed American 'dynasty' families, and the various workers loyal to them -- the main/only "on-the-land business structure at the time that scaled (?)") just stop at "State legislatures enshrined with the power to sanction and revoke corporations"?
Was the "all men where now equal under the law" to increase loyalty for those working their way within the American 'dynasty' family businesses as an above-the-board declaration to further increase loyalty and win-win for both parties?
I legitimately thought this was an onion sketch for the first ten minutes. This guys is the biggest fraud I’ve ever heard. I dont know how he does it, but he says so much without saying anything.
Much, much food for thought,... thanks. With this thesis...
I'm curious to know what the Founding Fathers thought about the American 'dynasty' families (which doubled as businesses) during their time... that there would always be a place for said families?
Secondly, were the Founding Fathers (the American 'dynasty' families) essentially rebelling against the King's pretorian financialized corporations (British East India Company, for example) -- which may be the correct 'financial/corporate structure' to facilitate international shipping and the insurance schemes needed to further facilitate that -- being applied to "on-the-land activities"?
If true, then it seems the Founding Fathers, put together a very detailed, elaborate scheme to keep the pretorian at bay: not only were the State legislatures enshrined with the power to sanction and revoke corporations, but that "all men where now equal under the law" (note: my understanding on the latter point was that in prior forms of government,... if a nobleman was brought into court for testimony or charges, his testimony carried more weight than a commoner's).
Why didn't the Founding Fathers (one could say, representing themselves, the landed American 'dynasty' families, and the various workers loyal to them -- the main/only "on-the-land business structure at the time that scaled (?)") just stop at "State legislatures enshrined with the power to sanction and revoke corporations"?
Was the "all men where now equal under the law" to increase loyalty for those working their way within the American 'dynasty' family businesses as an above-the-board declaration to further increase loyalty and win-win for both parties?
I legitimately thought this was an onion sketch for the first ten minutes. This guys is the biggest fraud I’ve ever heard. I dont know how he does it, but he says so much without saying anything.