The writer of the Thursday letter, “Profit is how fittest survive,” who thinks that corporations are people clearly shows not only a skewed view on the concept of being human, i.e. survival of the fittest, but also does not understand the legality or lack thereof for the Supreme Court’s ruling he mentions.
Just for fun, see another Supreme Court decision; Southern Pacific RR vs Santa Clara Co. of 1886. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what happened there and who benefited, but hey, you be the judge, which by coincidence is what the founding fathers had in mind when they said, “we the people” … wasn’t it?
The writer states that profit is not evil. At face value that is true, just as drinking is not evil, but when one becomes an alcoholic that nothing good comes from it is something we can all agree, for sake of argument, is evil. He also stated that corporations are owned by ordinary people … kinda makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, apologetic almost doesn’t it? Any real search of corporate investment portfolios will reveal that a very few own the large majority of the stocks he refers to. See a trend there?
Not so long ago railroads ran the country, arguably controlling business and government at the time. Now big money, still drunk with the power that their profits have bought, continues to wage the power struggle in a domain that was originally hostile to them. If all this seems a bit overdramatic, then why do we, simply put, currently have only two maybe three out of 10 in the village, living the so-called good life? The letter eloquently advocates for the good of all, the repetitive premise the other seven should be satisfied and feeling lucky to be where they are. Maybe it is just survival of the fittest or just greed, and then maybe its right but; when does alcoholism begin?