http://sbinformation.about.com/cs/ownership1/a/corporation.htm

Then why not just stay a small corporation?

You see, now you're just arguing terminology. When I said the words I said, I think it was pretty clear I meant 'big business' when I said corporation, and 'small business' when I said... small business. The legal differences in terminology between 'corporation' and 'small business' aren't an argument when you know I wasn't using the words in the way they are used in the law.

Unless you didn't know I was using them differently then how they are used by the law, in which case, I apologize.

Please explain this, how dose the process of becoming and being a corporation automatically damage people?

Money does not come from nowhere. When you take money, you take it from a source, a source which starts with another person.

To grow as a corporation you need to take financial risks that involve taking money from sources and using it to either 1. gain more resources to make your company bigger, or 2. line your pockets. Either way, you are taking risks that take money from other people.

I'll make it simple: when you take enough money for yourself that is enough to feed a family for a year, you are effectively taking away money from someone that would feed them. It's likely never a specific group of people, or even people with not enough money to eat, but you're still taking away money from the market that could go towards making other people's lives better. If you line your pockets with this money, you are evil. If you use it to make your company bigger, you're not as directly evil, because more money into your company is likely to give more people jobs, but still ultimately evil since this is just a guise for you to justify making your company bigger so you can get more money for yourself.

And this is not to mention that making money to feed a family for a year is relatively easy the larger your company is. So once your company reaches a relatively large size, you could be taking money for yourself from a pool that could feed a family for 10 years. Once you start taking that much money for yourself or your company, you actually ARE directly damaging people's lives.

Another thing to point out is that you have to be evil to combat evil in the market. When a rival company sees your company growing greater, and tries to ruthlessly crush you, what do you do? Ruthlessly fight back, or give in? The only way to counter ruthlessness in the market is to be equally ruthless, which will, no matter what, damage the lives of your employees.

And saying everything I just said, that's under the presumption that the company owner is trying to be both moral but also have their company grow and survive. When a company owner is just trying to have their company grow and survive, they will commit other acts of damage such as replacing employees over minor mistakes, making example of employees for no justification other then giving others anxiety to make less mistakes, filing petty lawsuits and winning because you are richer, destroying or absorbing small businesses to make sure they never become a rival, etc. All of these things damage people's lives, but these strategies are required to become a powerful corporation.

Meaning, that every relatively large corporation out there is at least moderately evil. The very act of being a relatively large corporation means that you have had to commit immoral acts in the market just to survive.

And this is without me yet making this point: there is no reason to expand a company other then to be greedy. There is literally no reason other then that. The whole modern market could be governed by small corporations and small businesses, not product oligarchies. Neither small businesses or corporations need to be ruthless, because without the incentive to have more money and power that they don't need, they can all just work together.

But no. Company owners want more money and power for themselves, so they make their corporations huge so they can be dictators of their own financial nations. That is the only point. It doesn't matter what justification you have to try and say that you didn't start a huge corporation to be rich and powerful, because if you really didn't start a huge company to be rich and powerful, then you wouldn't have made the company huge in the first place because there is no benefit from it being huge other then you gaining more money and power.

What?! why?! Because they sell percentages of their company (stocks) in order to make extra money to grow the company?

See above.