Fukusjima

[Monica]

Once it's clear what one's responsibility is, then yes.

it is always the entity's responsibility. thats why choice exists.

I didn't dispute that. I'm saying, the entity might not be aware of what his/her responsibility is. That is part of the process. As we evolve spiritually, we increase our awareness, and that results in a corresponding increase in responsibility.

according to law of responsibility, if you had aided a negative effort, you had aided a negative effort. your justifications and reasons and excuses and whatnot, would not change that. the inertia created with that act, will keep going until offset through any means.

That's what karma is all about; it's a mechanism for catalyst. However, Ra also stated that intention plays a role.

it is not complex at all. regardless of circumstances, law of responsibility will act.

I didn't say the law of responsibility is complex. I said the everyday situations, the catalysts that we all encounter, are complex. Our understanding of these catalysts, and our learning wisdom from them, utilizing them for our spiritual evolution, and understanding what our responsibilities are, can be quite complex.

Example: The mother who is struggling to feed and clothe her children, and learns that her corporation engages in unethical behaviors. Her situation is not simple. She can't just quit her job, because then she would fail to meet her responsibilities of caring for her children.

What's complex is the process of making decisions in such cases. That is where we cannot judge, because we are not in that situation. We cannot just say, "Oh she should just quit her job" because we aren't in her shoes. We might make the same decision she did, if faced with the same situation.

In the conventional corporate structure, you're probably right. However, new companies are being formed, with new structures, that empower their distributors, rather than feeding the shareholders. Network marketing and direct sales companies utilize a new, cutting-edge marketing structure that largely eliminates the dog-eat-dog, back-stabbing aspect. They are based on the concept of cooperation instead of competition.

the system acting against individuals in the corporate world is no different from the system acting against corporations in the corporate world, if you consider corporations as individuals.

those corporations which are more dastardly, will work with equally dastardly corporations, and either consume or put down corporations that are not like them. this may happen through any means.

I don't understand your response, and how it relates to my comment. Can you please clarify? (Particularly how it relates to my comment.)

can you name just one exception ?

I can name 2 who I believe are, in the present time, but I know you don't agree with me on them, so there's really no point.

Ra named a few STO entities who were in positions of power.

that was the thing of earlier decades, like at least 30 years ago. character assassinations are questioned less than real assassinations, and seems to be the order of the day since a while.

For the most part, at least in the US. But there is evidence to suggest it still happens; they've just gotten better at covering it up.