Corruption *is* the system working as intended.
Re: Cruelty to Animals. I'll tell you something that people who are close to animals told me. First, the constitution affords precisely zero rights to animals. Second, in order to tortune animals all you need is to get a license. All of that is more bureaucracy, or as a sane person would say, more corruption.
Re: "lobbying... [] does not... [] require money." The original statement was: lobbying is corruption. Lobbying is bribery. Here you say the opposite: lobbying is not bribery, because it doesn't involve money. But we all know that it does. So, you may want to retract you statement that lobbying does not involve money, because it does.
Re: "trade unions... [are] outside the scope of lobbying as a concept." The original statement was: lobbying is corruption. Your counter point was: trade unions lobby and they are not corruption. Now you say: trade unions are irrelevant to lobbying. I think you have to retract some of your contradictory statements. (Trade unions are not people. If you think or imply that a government "deserves" to rule over people, you are about as wrong as a human can be.)
Re: "Corruption is errant in a system." Be careful with your grammar please. Errant is an adjective. Phrase your thoughts better.
And speaking of phrasing your thoughts better: trade unions do not "deserve a voice". You are saying that corruption deserves a voice. No, it does not deserve a voice. A wrong statement does not deserve to be expressed. Understand this.
Like I said, and I think you and I can agree on this. The system works as intended. Corruption *is* the system working as intended.
Re: Cruelty to Animals. I'll tell you something that people who are close to animals told me. First, the constitution affords precisely zero rights to animals. Second, in order to tortune animals all you need is to get a license. All of that is more bureaucracy, or as a sane person would say, more corruption.
Re: "lobbying... [] does not... [] require money." The original statement was: lobbying is corruption. Lobbying is bribery. Here you say the opposite: lobbying is not bribery, because it doesn't involve money. But we all know that it does. So, you may want to retract you statement that lobbying does not involve money, because it does.
Re: "trade unions... [are] outside the scope of lobbying as a concept." The original statement was: lobbying is corruption. Your counter point was: trade unions lobby and they are not corruption. Now you say: trade unions are irrelevant to lobbying. I think you have to retract some of your contradictory statements. (Trade unions are not people. If you think or imply that a government "deserves" to rule over people, you are about as wrong as a human can be.)
Re: "Corruption is errant in a system." Be careful with your grammar please. Errant is an adjective. Phrase your thoughts better.
And speaking of phrasing your thoughts better: trade unions do not "deserve a voice". You are saying that corruption deserves a voice. No, it does not deserve a voice. A wrong statement does not deserve to be expressed. Understand this.
Like I said, and I think you and I can agree on this. The system works as intended. Corruption *is* the system working as intended.