cp,

There are no restraints of any sort from a for-profit using an org or a
com tag as much as there is a general expectation how they would be
used... even so far as biz.

The for-profit/non-profit distinctions in corporate/organizational
structure are arbitrary rules likely made by Congress (though I am not
exactly sure on this) and enforced by the IRS and pertains more to the
collection of taxes... rendering unto Ceasar sort of stuff, than it has
to do with how anyone feels about what they are doing with themselves
within an organization. When one looks further into the different types
of non-profits, and both their fiscal and legal implications insofar as
we are talking formation of constitutions and/or by-laws -- and what one
can or cannot do without risking attention from the IRS to remove a
non-profit status (NAACP as a current example), it readily becomes
apparent how a "capitalist" perspective dominates the social sense of
community. We can all relate with each other in an open society but only
for so far before there is the need of an accounting. Then there are the
virtual non-profits (BP) and the black market non-profits (barter
systems such as they have in Ithaca?). Also of interst is the fine lines
between profit & non-profit organizations, whereas a non-profit can hire
a for-profit consultant, management team, or contractor. Then there are
the non-profits that have no other mission than to give money away...
which is how the Carnegie Libraries came into existence. Carnegie
complained that it was more work to give away the money than it was to
accumulate it. And then there is government which may seem to be
non-profit to most employees, but is certainly profitable for aerospace
industries that make smart bombs.

Be happy non-profit in BC.

][<


Cuyler Page wrote:

> Thanks Dan,
>
> I was trying to figure out if they are an org or a com.
>
> Are orgs more likely not-for-profit and therefore more likely to share
> information as opposed to coms that are more likely commercial and
> therefore competitive?
>
> Not-for-profit is such a strange concept because it implies the
> for-profit otherness, and yet the only benefit I (as a commercial
> enterprise according to the tax man) have ever gotten from many
> projects is the intangible type that has no tax attached, like good
> feelings inside and smiles and hugs.
>
> cp in profitless bc

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>