If corporations are bad, why is bigger government good?

[i_am_not_john_galt]

A serious question.

Like most here, I'm no fan of corporations. They are legally considered "persons", with the same or greater rights than you or I. They are legal constructs, soulless yet immortal, that shield individuals (management, shareholders, etc.) from true liability for their actions. They have far more economic and political power than individuals, and pretty much steamroll their way over individuals who get in their way. I would strongly favor changing the status of corporations so that they have no rights at all, nor the legal status of persons, and instead are what they originally were - free associations of individuals who come together to conduct business. An idea discussed elsewhere.

But my question is this. A government is basically a corporation with the additional powers of coercion, a corporation with the ability to deprive you of your liberty and even your life. A government has a relatively small number of people at the very top who are accountable to the electorate, but is 99.94% careerists. Governments have been responsible for the most appalling crimes against humanity in our lifetime - far surpassing even... wait for it... Haliburton!

So I've never understood how people can see the evil in giving power to corporations, but not in giving it to governments. Our founders were pretty clearly fearful of giving more power to government than absolutely necessary, giving extremely limited power to federal government, somewhat more to states, and leaving all power not specifically enumerated to individuals.

Why is it bad to give more power to corporations but OK to give it to the government?

[fertilizeonarbusto]

1. Because

bigger government cuts into the corporations' profits from theft by having to fork out dough to elect Repukes to fix things for them.

[i_am_not_john_galt]

2. Well that's why modern Republicans like big government...

but how about DUers?

[RapidCreek]

19. Who said Du'ers like big government

The Government under Rethuglicans has grown more than Democrats....this is not opinion, it is a fact.

Debt of that government has swollen more under rethuglicans than it has under Democrats as well....this is not opinion, it is a fact.

The power of govenment to infringe on personal freedoms has been advocated more by Rethuglicans then Democrats....this is not opinion, it is a fact.

So contrary to the misdirection and obfuscation spouted by the right...it becomes obvious that Rethuglicans like big government...NOT Democrats.

Du'ers do not believe as you, that the government is a corporation. Corporation infers a privately held and directed organization whose prime objective is profit for it's share holders.

Du'ers believe....at least this one does...that government is by the people and for the people....NOT by CEO's for sharholders at the expense of the people. Get the difference? I will attempt to elaborate if you don't.

RC

[i_am_not_john_galt]

21. Repubs and Dems BOTH believe in bigger govt

Not one candidate on either side is talking about how they would shrink the government. Republicans claim to want smaller govt, but their actions now that they are in power betray them.

[denverbill]

101. There's a difference in motives, for one thing.

Government is the only vehicle which CAN reign in big corporations. Until Teddy Roosevelt and the trustbusters came along, Standard Oil was running roughshod over it's competition, driving dozens of companies into bankruptcy, inflating prices where they could, and doing all sorts of 'uncompetitive' shit.

Roosevelt initiated anti-trust legislation, which created a govt agency dedicated to preventing monopolistic abuses. That increased the size of government. Was that a bad thing? Fat chance. If Standard Oil had been allowed to continue, they would be the only oil company in the US today, and you can bet your life gasoline wouldn't be $1.50/gallon.

[leesa]

102. Why do you say DUers like big government. What most want would

probably translate into smaller government. We mostly want a shifting of priorities. 50%+++ of our budget goes to the military and it is far more bloated than it needs to be for defense and they have a nasty habit of misplacing trillions of dollars. Republicans ALWAYS make larger government but it goes to the military and to corporate welfare so it doesn't count. It is mythology that Dems want big government. The reality is the opposite. The amounts spent on social programs are tiny.
Additionally, gov run programs usually function far more efficiently that private corporations because of the huge greed and corruption factor in private business

[Selwynn]

34. It is only if bigger government is made up of the people, who have voice..

..if it become closed off or aristocratic and detached from the real people of society, like it is today, its not...

...but when we fight for "bigger government" its not just "bigger" we're fighting for - its better. And better comes from a government "big" enough to provide a decent standard of life for all its citizens, and yet remains transparent to the public, and inviting of participation and input.

Remember that "big" government is just a republican talking point. All the political parties want big government. Republicans want big government that bankrolls corporate interests maximizing the returns of a few at the expense of many. Democrats want big government for society and believe it is the responsibility of corporations (in part) to bear the burden of social spending aimed at elevating the quality of life for all citizens, not just a few.

So, the better question is: Which kind of big government do you want?
Sel

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

140. Government is democratic, Corporations are anti-democratic

But mostly, you miss the whole point - Corporations ARE the government. If you have big corporations, guess what, you have big government. Corporations do not exist without government.

Plus, the Libertarian shibboleth of "coersion" is mostly BS - corporations (which are government) just outsource their coersion to other institutions (another department of the government, or private armies).

Also, who said Democrats like big government? Aside from Ayn Rand libertarian fans I mean...

[salinen]

3. Bingo!

Government has a duty to the constitution to protect individuals, not corporate bodies. So corporations came up with the idea of, "let's just buy government (in the form of lobbiest and special interest). They have their boys in there as congresspeople and senators as well. Democracy ended when big business deflowered Washington.

[treepig]

4. maybe you can go educate yourself about the fact

that there are real and enormous differences between the government and corporations, and then get back to us.

[i_am_not_john_galt]

8. more similarities than differences

Both are assemblies of self-interested individuals.
Both put tremendous power and resources under the control of self-interested individuals.
Both are artificial constructs that shield their principles from liability for their actions.
And, history has shown, both are prone to atrocious abuses of their power, with results proportional to their power.

[dfong63]

42. our government leaders are elected; CEO's aren't

[Bandit]

57. The sole purpose of government is to maintain the health and welfare

of the nation. What is the sole purpose of a corporation?

[treepig]

75. the primary (really the only) goal of a corporation is to make money

for its shareholders.

the government has many diverse and legitimate roles that a corporation would never undertake because there is no profit involved (at least if done ethically).


society is best served when corporations and the government have an adversarial relationship (not overtly hostile, but rigorously watchful in any event).

look what happened in the fsu when the government and corporations were one and the same thing - definitely a dysfunctional society on many levels.

[cprise]

110. Disagree about adversarial relationship

Both sides need organs which are either adversarial or cooperative.

The Japanese and Europeans have significant cooperative structures in addition to regulatory bodies and advocacy groups. Some of the world's best brands are co-owned by their governments.

[treepig]

80. furthermore, based on the criteria you list

there is no difference between napoleon's army, the roman catholic church, and wal-mart.

like i said, perhaps your thesis needs a bit more thought . . .

[Devlzown]

5. Governments, at least good ones, are accountable

to the people. Corporations are private and are accountable to no one except maybe stockholders. The only way corporations become accountable is when the government passes regulations that force them to.

[Cat Atomic]

6. First, because we actually have a say in government.

We don't have a say in the actions of corporations.

Second, because government is supposed to act in the interests of it's citizens, while corporations act in the interests of their shareholders.

And third, calling it "big government" is really a misnomer. I think we'd like to adjust government spending. More money should go to social programs that help the citizens of the country instead of business men in the defense industry.

[tom_paine]

108. Bingo

I would go further by saying that, while government and business both share the negative aspects of Large Institutions, businesses are 100% devoted to the bottom line, and there are numerous examples of corproations brutally sacrificing human well-being for profit (Ford and the Gremiln...every Superfund site in existence, etc. etc.)

Government has many problems associated with Large Institutions but being driven to cruelty by profit motive isn;t one of them.

Government can unintentionally harm people, but that usually occurs because they are helping another group of people.

Other than the Bushevik "intelligence" section of government, it usually doesn't intentionally harm people without some eqivalent benefit.

Actually the Busheviks probbaly see their Intelligence Arm the same way...the benefit is that the Busheviks have saved their own asses.

[trotsky]

7. Maybe, just maybe...

because I stand a reasonable chance of affecting government policy by participating in the electoral process.

Unless I am a majority shareholder in a corporation, I have absolutely no way to do the same.

Ultimately, one or the other needs to be more powerful, so which one would you rather trust? Corporations to look out for the public good?

But don't worry, a lot of Republicans stuggle with the same question.

[i_am_not_john_galt]

11. Don't get me wrong

I beleive government should have far more power than corporations (remember, I think that corporations should have no power at all beyond the individual rights of their members). One of government's primary responsibiltiies should be to protect individuals from the powerful.

My question is why give more power to government vs. individuals.

[Cat Atomic]

14. It's not government vs. individuals.

People here regularly rail against things like the PATRIOT Act. That's government vs. individuals, and most everyone here is against it.

We ARE the government. The government should serve our interests. The only people that I see arguing for greater government *control* of individuals are far right wingers.

48. repeat this point over and over

WE are the government.
Ever notice that, in general, people who are against big government are actually against government of the people, not against big government? Recent history is certainly evidence of that.
If the country is big, I'd say over 270 million is big, then the government is going to be big too.
These people who claim they are against big government are actually against government of any size if the government is of the people.

Maybe I'm overstating a bit, but I'm in a rant mood.

[RapidCreek]

31. Givng more power to government is giving more power

to individuals unless that government no longer serves the individual but corporations....in which case it is no longer a republican democracy but a fascist state.

RC

[IrateCitizen]

9. It depends on what "government" you're talking about

IMHO, the absolute perfect system would be one in which high powers were not given to a government that was bigger than one in which the average citizen can have say and influence. As soon as it moves beyond that mark, it becomes unaccountable to the people (and ceases to be a true democratic republic).

Of course, the biggest size at which this can occur is probably only at the county or city level -- if even that. So, I realize I'm dreaming with such an idea.

Personally, I'm NOT a big fan of giving more power and/or money to the federal government. I'd prefer (and once again, we're talking LONG TERM here) that we promote a model of society in which we can actually rediscover the idea of real community -- because that would help take care of a lot of the problems we have that a huge government bureaucracy is ill-equipped to handle. But such an endeavor would require a large-scale renouncement of all of the distractions we now enjoy (TV in particular), so I'm not expecting it to happen anytime soon.

But I'm going to do what I can to work toward it.

[i_am_not_john_galt]

12. You are not dreaming

that was the basic form of things for the first 50 years or so of this country. The federal govt. was relatively weak. States and localities had a much larger role and power.

[IrateCitizen]

18. But the US was agrarian then, and much less populated

The population of NYC alone might be more than the entire country was back then. The challenge lies in developing some kind of governmental model that can apply the "local control" model to a densely-populated, industrialized society.

On an aside, what you brought up re: the US for its first 50 years is interesting. Do you realize that, prior to the Civil War, when the US would announce its position in diplomatic matters, it would say, "The United States are..." Following the Civil War, it became, "The United States is..."

[i_am_not_john_galt]

24. Yes, and now when you talk about state's rights

everyone thinks it is code for bring back slavery. Sigh.

[IrateCitizen]

38. That's only because for most of those who talk about states' rights

it IS a code for bringing back slavery.

<double sigh>

[lucidmadman]

10. Governments are operated for....

...the public good. Corporations are operated for private profit.

[PeeWeeTheMadman]

13. Balance of power

How I see it, is that the power in our society is yielded by either private interprises or the state. The private enterprises have considerable power, because people work for them, and when someone has something you need, they have power over you. I think that both powerful corporations and a powerful state is neccesary to have a proper balance of power in society.

An important difference is that corporations always want something in return for what they give you. You will have to do work for them! From government, you can get something without giving anything in return. That means that government doesn`t neccesarily take power away from you, they also give it. Also, government can strengthen your hand in your dealings with your employer. If your prospective employer knows that you can go on welfare if you don`t take the job, he will have to offer you decent terms. In a libertarian society hovewer, you can be in a situation where it is "work or starve", and that will affect the terms you get.

Yes, the state have the power to kill you, but that does not change with the size of the state! The funny thing is that this is an argument that I often hear from libertarians. When the branches of government that the libertarians want to keep, is exactly the same branches that are used for coercion! It is the branches of government that are not used in coercion, like welfare, health and education, that the libertarians want to do away with.

Then, what is the problem with a nightwatcher state? Before the state, societies were very egalitarian. Economic and social differences are therefore not natural. They are caused by the fact that government enforcens property rights and other negative rights. This means that if government just enforces negative righst, government is not neutral! Because government allows people to come into power and wealth, that would not have been able to do that under the "natural state". This means that the government becomes the "prolonged arm of the rich and powerful", just like in the ninetinth century.

Also, you claim that most crimes have been comitted by government, something that is not true! The worst crimes of the late middle ages up to around 1648 were comitted by mercenaries. Also, mass murders in countries like Indonesia, Argentina and many other rightwing dictatorships were not done by government, but "civil society" organisations, that often killed a heck of a lot more people that the government leaders really wanted.

[i_am_not_john_galt]

15. welfare and education

are good examples of where government does exercise coercion - taking money from one person to give it to another, or requiring parents to educate their children in particular ways. These powers were given to the federal government by the people in just the last 100 years or so.

[PeeWeeTheMadman]

20. Coercion and coercion

Property rights themselves are based on coercion. Welfare is giving something to the people that lost out on the government sponsored coercion property rights are.

Also, I don`t really see anything wrong with coercion in itself. If you don`t use coercion on the powerful in some means, the powerful will get to powerful.

I also think that this focus on coercion is wrong. Because it is based on the "everyone lives on their own island where they farm their own food and don`t interact with anyone else"-hypothesis. This hypothesis is wrong! Our society makes all people dependant on each others decisions. The market is nothing but a gigantic system to make other people decide the destiny of person A. It is other people that desire to hire you or not or to buy your services or not. If person A is more dependant on person B than person B is on person A, person B has power over person A.

Coercion is just a part of what can be known as power. I therefore reject this focus on coercion, and think that power is a more useful phenomenon to combat. If using some coercion on person B reduces person Bs power over person A, that coercion will actually reduce the total amount of power in society.

[i_am_not_john_galt]

30. Your argument makes no sense

by definition those doing the coercion ARE the powerful.

[PeeWeeTheMadman]

36. It is you that is wrong

There are other sources of power than coercion, that can often be just as effective!

A good way to have power is to control something that someone else needs. Those who offer positions on the job market have power over those who seek work. Those who can fire someone from their job have power over the person they are able to fire. They who control sources of information have power over those people that uses that source of information etc.

[i_am_not_john_galt]

53. coercion is the application of power.

co·erce ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-ûrs)
tr.v. co·erced, co·erc·ing, co·erc·es

1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
2. To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See Synonyms at force.
3. To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement.

[PeeWeeTheMadman]

56. Oh no............

I didn`t state that coercion was anything else. I argued that coercion isn`t the only form of power.

Anyhow, being against coercion in itself if irrational, because coercion is right so long as it creates more joy than sorrow.

[i_am_not_john_galt]

62. That's some theology!

What about justice - is it right to use coercion to create joy for 99 at the expense of 1?

[PeeWeeTheMadman]

81. Yes

It is.

But more importantly, you are overdramaticing. I am not thinking about killing anyone, but taxing them.

Also, being against an action without regarding it`s consequences are irrational.

[Pithlet]

98. Irrational. I agree.

That's the key. I don't think a lot of libertarians think about the consequences of what they propose enough. Taxes as coercion is a perfect example. We as individuals benefit when society is healthy. Maintaining a stable infrastructure cannot be done by a bunch of individuals doing their own thing. Government is required to make things get done.

When they complain about their taxes being used for social programs, they're really shortsighted. If all social benefits (and I'm not just talking about welfare) are cut, I don't even want to imagine the decline our society would take. The horrible slums that would spring up. The diseases that would run unchecked because of lack of health care. If everyone is left to fend for themselves, then eventually no one will be able to, because it weakens society. Like it or not, we all need it to survive and grow, and be successful in our lives.

[i_am_not_john_galt]

115. That's just plain silly

If, for example, a road is needed it's gonna cost a certain amount. Say $1 million dollars (insert Dr. Evil quotes here). Well if the federal government didn't build it it wouldn't go unbuilt - it would be built by a more local government, or by private individuals as a toll road. In the latter case it would be paid for by the people that use it, which is a good thing.

With the exception of enforcing laws, going across the world to shoot at people, and making Mars safe for democracy, everything that government does could be done (and has been done) by people themselves (ok, vast oversimplification, but really people aren't completely helpless without the nanny state to guide them).

[Pithlet]

118. Well, it's kind of hard for most people

to fit in road building into their busy lives. I guess I could strap the baby on my back and put my 3 year old to work alongside me the next time a pot hole the size of a Volkswagen appears on our road. Private toll roads everywhere? Let's just add to the problems and barriers that low income people have when it comes to the cost of working. Don't have money for your toll that day? How're you gonna get to work? Guess you're fired. Now, not only are you and your family out, but the job you were going to show up at that day has one less worker that day.

Look what happened when federal government started reducing the money it gave to local governments. They're becoming strapped. Like it or not, government, both local and federal, are there for us. Without it, we have no infrastructure.

Society simply couldn't function on the patchwork system you're advocating. It would fall apart.

[i_am_not_john_galt]

120. Not suggesting you take up a shovel

but there are lots of construction firms that would be happy to build that road!

[i_am_not_john_galt]

121. In fact, consider the internet

in concept a fruit of the public university system, but the building out of it was largely a private effort done on a for-profit basis.

[Pithlet]

123. I'm not saying private and for profit are always bad, or

that it never works. We just can't rely on that solely to ensure a healthy and even infrastructure. I can't comment specifically on the internet, because I don't know how much better or worse it could have been had it not been profit driven.

[treepig]

136. geeZ!!! the internet was funded by the government

for two or three decades before it reached commercial viability.

see, without government, you wouldn't even have this forum to present your myopic views!

[Pithlet]

122. Okay

Where do you think those roads will be built then. And who will pay those construction firms to build them? What If I live in a poor area where no one has the money to pay a construction firm to build or maintain a road? And roads are just one example.

By taking government out of the picture when it comes to the things we need for day to day living, you're suggesting just that. Take up the shovel, or live without.

[dpibel]

127. But there's no difference!!

In any discussion with a good libertarian, you come to realize that, in their moral geography, there is no difference between killing someone and taxing them.

It goes something like this: You acquire property through the sweat of your brow (or, in the more standard libertarian dream state, through your incredible intelligence). That property being the product of your singular, unsupported individual effort, it cannot be rationally separated from your being. QED, taking your property is the same as taking your life.

Personally, I find it difficult to deal with anyone who will argue with a straight face that there's no noticeable difference between burning your car and burning your body. But that's the box they put themselves in.

[cprise]

107. Question isn't right. It's about necessities, not joy.

That's why government power and ability to produce should have limits.

What we're heading toward, however, is extreme privatization whether the industry produces a necessity or not.

[Bridget Burke]

37. The Federal government runs education?

That's news to me. I thought we had individual school districts, mostly with elected school boards. Each school has a parent-teacher organization. Most school money is raised locally or on the state level.

The recent "No child left behind" bill gives the federal government more power over education, but no funds are offered to support its dictates.

Welfare is also a good idea, although it may need adjustment from time to time. I have no problem with some of my tax money going to those who need it. If you look at the Federal budget, a very small portion goes to welfare (or education). Also, some of what you may consider "welfare" comes from non-Federal sources.

Just discovered Ayn Rand?

[i_am_not_john_galt]

55. What about "no child left behind"

the federal government imposing (coercing) its will on schools.

You might also note the word "not" in my name.

[Bridget Burke]

109. I mentioned it.

It's rather new, don't you think? Historically, schools are controlled locally. The "No child...." program installs control, but offers no funds to help the schools.

My literary remark was prompted more by your beliefs than by any cute nomenclature tricks.

[i_am_not_john_galt]

116. Not that new

over the past 50 years or so power migrated from local school boards to the state, and is now migrating to the federal level. The results are pretty dismal.

[dpibel]

105. How is it coercion when people agree?

As is pointed out elsewhere on this thread, most, by a huge margin, of public school funding is local. As pointed out elsewhere in response to your pointing to "No Child Left Funded," that great Booshy program is an unfunded mandate.

Where I live, school levys are determined on a district-by-district basis; you'd be hard-pressed to name any other financially significant governmental matter that is subject to such close local control.

Your belief that welfare and school funding represent coercive confiscation may reflect your belief that you should be able to opt out of paying for those things. Personally, I wouldn't mind being able to earmark my taxes to go somewhere other than corporate welfare, either in its straightforward form or in the form of military spending. But that is not the system under which I live.

You may feel oppressed by the majority, which seems to disagree with you on the issues of welfare and schools: Most people agree with the proposition that society should pool resources to educate its children and to help the less fortunate.

I find it endlessly fascinating that those who follow your line of thinking have no difficulty with "coercing" money from people to pay for infrastructure which is beneficial to all, but is absolutely necessary for brave, individualistic entrepreneurs to carry out their courageous battle for money; frequently, for those who think like you, that isn't even coercion--it's just the appropriate function of the state. When it comes to matters where the benefit is nonmonetary, such as schools, then taxation is unbearable coercion. Many people, probably even most, believe that there's a great common benefit to having a literate population. There are even vast numbers of people who believe that we all benefit from living in a society which cares for its elderly and unfortunate people.

There are also many people who, in response to the endless propaganda, strain at the gnat of social spending, which is only a vast number if you include social security and medicare (programs which only a tiny minority would like to see go away), yet swallow the camel of a military budget representing 50% or more of the discretionary spending.

Finally, I note a post below which mentions you and Ayn Rand in the same breath. You give the same response you gave to the same statement on another thread: "Note the 'not' in my name." Believe it or not, there are people in the world who would actually identify themselves as something other than what they are for the purpose of making their arguments more palatable.

If you're not John Galt, which Rand character do you identify with? That's a simple rhetorical trick, isn't it? For my money, I've seen you post nothing but the Randy lib party line, a major feature of which is "taxation is coercion."

Perhaps I am utterly simple-minded, but it seems to me that if you quack like John Galt, and you waddle like John Galt, you shouldn't be too surprised if people think you are John Galt, regardless of that "not."

[i_am_not_john_galt]

119. Ayn Rand extols the virtues of corporations

And I do not, not at all (read the opening post).

I have a BIG problem with taking money from rich and poor alike to go around the globe meddling in other people's business and making Mars safe for democracy.

I can't think of a character in Atlas Shrugged that I'd identify with, but I did identify a lot with We the Living.

[dpibel]

125. But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...

You are a very busy fella on this thread, so I'll not try to make too much of the fact that you didn't respond to the substantive portion of my post.

As for the rhetorical dodges, why don't you just take the liberating step of saying, "I'm a proud libertarian." I don't care too much what flavor you are. My assumption is that you chose your handle in the hope that people would assume it means, "I am the anti-John Galt." As far as I can tell, it really means, "I don't lick the Ayn Rand ice cream cone; my libertarianism is a different flavor."

[i_am_not_john_galt]

137. that's about right

[mojo2004]

16. Any concentration of power...

is bad. That's why our founding fathers put checks and balances in the Constitution. Corporations are not inheriently evil, they become evil if and when they obtain too much power. Corporations have been good to this country in a lot of ways by creating jobs and helping the US become the strongest economy in the world. Of course corporations have also destroyed environments and have taken advanatage of workers. Some of this the government has stepped in and partially corrected. Excessive corpoarate power needs to be reigned in by government and unions, but not destroyed.

[arcane1]

17. employees cannot vote the CEO out of office...

who is arguing for "bigger government" anyway? It's a nice RW buzz-word, but means nothing. I'm sure if the gov't were applied to the places it is needed, and the gross waste is eliminated, it would likely be smaller than it is now

[i_am_not_john_galt]

27. Both reps and dems are pushing bigger govt

govt run health care, govt jobs programs, etc.

[PeeWeeTheMadman]

39. Then why not remove the government completely?

Why not remove the whole thing? Anarchism is the longest functioning economic system of human history, for over ten thousand years. Don`t let government dictate what is wrong and what is right.

[arcane1]

67. how does that compare with corporations?

and why are corporations automatically considered "bad"?

[Trajan]

22. Apples and Oranges ...

WHY is a small apple tart and a large orange sweet ? ...

WHY is a small man's clothes more expensive than a Big dog's food dish ??? ...

Big .. small ...

WHAT is 'big' ? ...

Is government too 'big' ? ..

How so ? ....

length ? ...

breadth ? ...

depth ? ...

Population ?? ...

Influence ?? ..

These comparisons are worthless .... and fallacious ....

[devilgrrl]

32. You got it!

I'm_John_Galt! I'm a contrarian! Look at me stirring up the DUers!!! George W. Bush isn't a desterter... I'm right - you're wrong. Blaa, blaa, blaa, blaa.... :eyes:

[Cocoa]

23. so how do you feel about federal civil rights laws?

let's bring this down to earth a little.

[i_am_not_john_galt]

26. They are precisely what govt should be doing

protecting individual rights.

[PeeWeeTheMadman]

29. They are useless

Individual rights are close to useless in a society with property rights. Every person is part of a system, with the persons body, the resources that body and mind needs to function, and the other persons the person have to interact with to get what it needs. Focusing on the individual is taking out a part of the system, forgetting about the rest. That is not the correct view of the world.

[Cocoa]

41. are you conflicted at all about that?

what about the right for you to hire who you want to hire?

[i_am_not_john_galt]

51. If it weren't for the abuses of the past

I'd agree with that. Those who restrict their hiring to their religion, sect, or klan would be limiting their access to labor and talent. But you can't ignore our government's previous complicency and promotion of discrimination, so some corrective action is required.

[Cocoa]

58. no philosophical conflict at all?

Suppose you believed blacks were inferior and would hurt your business?

Who is the federal government to coerce you to hire them, against your beliefs, and your knowledge of your business?

[i_am_not_john_galt]

64. Then my business would not compete well

against businesses that took advantage of the larger labor pool. Remember, I'm FOR corrective civil rights because of govt wrongs in the past.

It's called free association, and it's in the constitution.

[Cocoa]

76. not true

complying with civil rights laws has a cost, like any restriction on a business. Even just the paperwork has a cost. What right does the federal government have to impose this cost on your business?

Put civil rights aside. What about federal labor laws? How do you feel about those?

[i_am_not_john_galt]

87. Govt should protect the rights of workers

to assemble and operate corporately in exactly the same way as their employers. Govt has a legitimate role in promoting "general welfare" through safety standards, etc. (most of which would not be necessary if individuals were not shielded from liability for their actions by corporations - industrial safety would skyrocket if managers and executives were personally sued everytime there was an injury).

[Lars39]

90. What you propose would increase the government.

OSHA was gutted and doesn't have enough inspectors. Food inspection is lax, too. There are legitimate reasons to have *big government*.

[Cocoa]

95. you need to address the conflict

your statement "government has a legitimate role, etc." seems to completely contradict your whole point. Why does the govt. have role here?

Or, conversely, what roles are NOT legitimate for the government?

[i_am_not_john_galt]

111. because the first responsibility of government

is to protect its citizens. Simply passing criminal law and enforcing civil liability would be sufficient.

[Cocoa]

139. so which laws would you repeal?

You enthusiastically embrace federal civil rights and labor laws, while at the same time sound radical libertarian rhetoric.

It's hard to get a handle on exactly which functions of government you are disputing.

[i_am_not_john_galt]

141. I embrace the primary role of govt

to protect its citizens, which civil rights and labor laws do. I'm not anti-government at all, I just believe that "that goverment governs best which governs least." So why should the federal government administer charity, medicine, education, etc.?

I differ from the libertarians that I know because of my views on limiting the rights of corporations.

I have about as much chance of seeing my ideas voted into practice as Dennis Kucinich has of ruling the free world, but it's nice to exchange views and ideas.

[Pithlet]

142. How is government governing best

when it is letting society crumble by not administering those things you mention? It seems to me that a government that lets the problems that will boil up and fester by removing those things is a bad government. To me, it is much easier to be free in a society that provides those things. No charity? Horrible slums. No medicine? More people die, many more get so sick they can't work. No education? Then only the rich get educated.

Can you imagine what life would be like? It stops being about the pursuit of happiness and starts being more about survival, period. It's also about privilege; if you weren't already born into it, there's nothing there to help you attain it.

The exchange of ideas is interesting, and thought provoking. I have to admit, I'm glad many of your ideas wouldn't have a chance, and hopefully never will. They sound interesting, but I cannot see how they could possibly be implemented without eventually harming almost everyone.

[i_am_not_john_galt]

143. Well, they are how the country ran until around the civil war

Just because the federal government doesn't do something doesn't mean it doesn't get done. Things just get done through other means.

[Pithlet]

145. Okay, well. edit

if pre-civil war is the kind of society you aspire to, then we truly are two very different people. I think things like child labor, illiteracy and slavery are things best left to the past.

And, even if things were hunky dory even without such conviences mentioned above, newsflash: we aren't in the 19th century. There are far more people in this country, for one thing. We didn't have the urban centers back then that we do now, for one thing. We didn't have the technology either.

[Pithlet]

144. The thing with most Libertarians.

is that they completely ignore the things that helped them achieve what success they have. Sure, your hard work has a lot to do with it. But most never would have been educated if no public schools existed. Without the educated pool, where do we get the police officers who protect us? The people to work for the corporations that provide services? Buildings have to get built. Do you think uneducated and illiterate people could learn those kinds of things? If health care isn't provided somehow for all (or to be charitable, even a majority) then what happens if I can't send my kids to the school (that wouldn't exist because no one could build it and the government shouldn't provide that anyway) for fear they'll get sick from kids who don't get any health care, causing deadly outbreaks of diseases making a comeback because they can't get vaccinated?

You want to see places where governments don't provide those things? They're called 3rd world countries. Do you know that there are places in this world where shop keepers hire corrupt cops to shoot the street children? Do you want to live in a place like that? It's bad enough we live in a world where that happens anywhere.

[i_am_not_john_galt]

148. There's a huge fallacy in your reasoning

which is that if the government didn't run schools there wouldn't be any education. Lots of other organizations could and do provide education - from civic organizations, private schools, church schools, and in the times past guilds and unions.

This fallacy is pervasive - the idea that if government didn't do it it wouldn't get done.

[Pithlet]

150. Yes, there would be education.

for those who could afford it. Do you really think that civic organizations, private schools, church schools etc. could educate ALL children decently, with absolutely no help from the government? Who pays the teachers? Who maintains all those buildings? They would not be able to provide education free of charge. So, education gets relegated to only those who can afford it. We used to do that. Guess what we did with the rest of them? They worked dangerous jobs in factories, unless they were lucky enough to have parents who owned a farm they could slave on. Bully for the corporations who could get cheap labor. Bad for the rest of us.

There is absolutely no fallacy in my reasoning, and tons in yours.

There is absolutely no way you can deny that the more people who are educated, the better it is for everyone. You benefit every day from the fact that everyone who wants one can get an education.

[Cocoa]

147. double-talk city

I don't consider what you're writing here ideas or views, a better word is games.

[peachy]

25. Dismantle the corporate machine first

Corporations have no accountability whatsoever to the public and are motivated by nothing other than the short term bottom line. Democratic governments hold out the hope of accountability through open records and a genuine desire to work in the public interest. As long as corporate power is strong we need something equally (?) strong to oppose it in the public interest. Dismantle the corporate machine - then we can talk about reducing government.

[Buffler]

52. Thats just false

Corporations have no accountability whatsoever to the public

They have tremendous accountability to the public. If they engage in activity a large portion of the public disagrees with then people will stop using their products and services and they will go out of business.

And if they bring products to market that the public does not want or will not pay the price they are asking they again will go out of business.

[PeeWeeTheMadman]

60. blah, blah

You really believe in this yourself?

[Buffler]

73. Damn right I believe it

What did I say that is wrong?

You, and fellow consumers have ultimate power over corporations through your wallet.

[sendero]

66. What a ridiculous argument.

You are basically saying that any thing a corporation can do that earn money is "good". The only real accountability corps have now is to make money or appear to be making it.

That is not good enough.

[Buffler]

72. Not even close

I said that consumers have the power to put businesses out of business by not buy their products or services. Period.

[Pithlet]

112. But they don't do it.

They continue to buy products that hurt themselves and the environment all the time. Put the proper advertising spin on anything, and it can sell, regardless of the harm it causes. Usually it is because they don't know what they're buying is harmful. Do you think the corporations will tell them that? Of course not. Left to police themselves, the bottom line is the only thing that matters, and anything that gets in the way, including pesky little laws that protect consumers, they work hard to get rid of.

[IrateCitizen]

96. And who, may I ask, will inform the public of their misdeeds?

Will it be the major network news programs? Nah, probably not -- considering they're owned by many of those same corporations, or at least don't want to lose advertising revenue.

Will it be the major print media? Nah, probably not -- see above.

Will it be the grassroots community groups? In a few instances, yes -- but most times these groups don't have the budget or manpower to effectively get a message out. And it's also often not mentioned by the media, for the reasons cited above.

Will it be the politicians elected to represent us? Probably not, as those corporations are probably contributing heavily to their campaigns to ensure they "look the other way."

What you are describing is, in short, the proverbial tree in the forest. Sure, it will fall down. It will also make a noise. But in 99.99% of the instances, it will not be heard.

[peachy]

126. right

adbusters (www.adbusters.org) has been trying to advertise on television for years but none of the corporate media will sell them time. Now peta (www.peta.org) and move-on (www.moveon.org) have both been denied advertising time during the super bowl by CBS. In each case the corporate media won't show the ad because it isn't the message that the corporate powers want you to hear.

I think that this is ample evidence that the freedom of the "free" market is and always has been a bald faced lie - don't you?

[JasonDeter]

28. If welfare is so bad, why do republicans* give corporations so much of it?

And they have to jump through far fewer hoops to get it than poor folk. No one ever asks the republicans that either, that darn liberal media!

[Cleita]

35. Good one.

Also, I don't see the small government people paving their own roads or providing infrastructure like pipes for water and sewers for their toilets. They seem to have no problem giving corporate agri-businesses money not to farm and government contracts for useless military hardware.

[sweetheart]

33. accountability, longevity and transparency

Corporations are not accountable or transparent, nor have they any longevity in time. A corp can be dissolved in a few days, and leave all interests in the lurch. A government has no such instability.

Government (when it is working correctly (not in USA)) is transparent and has checks and balances against the abuse of power. Corporations do not have these things unless mandated by shareholders, and these checkpoints (as we are more than aware) are biased and failed much of the time.

Corporations, being ungoverned and multinational simply shift their hydra of decision thinking to the place where they are least obliged to support labour interests. Government can't do this, yet increasingly the government is employing private military contractors to do off balance sheet work that would be criminal were it undertaken by a government... corporations are not bound to any law except what they make themselves. In this case, MBA-bush runs the USA government like a corporation and we see the results in the total destruction of the rule of law.

Your critique of government is better defined as "bad government" or "american government" but not simply government, as between civil human beings, constitutional government can be made to work a charm and create an order of great cooperative benefit for citizens.

I agree with your endemic premise, that ungovernned organized bodies are equally bad, just without longevity and accountablity, corporation are vaporous ghosts. Without public demand, there is no transparency from either, and we live as we do today, in a fog of lies where nobody trusts any organized system of power. Then they start to sing the republican mantra that all government is bad... and people become the victems of propaganda.

If you go live in say, holland for a few years, you'll come to discover a very very very responsive, effective government that is a vital, trusted spokesbody for the nederland's people. This would be "good" government to contrast to your mistaken term simply government... you mean "bad government."

[GuyFawkes]

47. As an employee, I support strong corporations

Get real folks. If not for a corporation, how would we mange to make a decent living? Some of your may be entrepreneurs and can make it on your own. Most of us are not. Get a government job you say, but where does the government get it's money? From taxpayers (who get their salaries from corporations), excise taxes (product of corporate activity), sales tax (product of corporate activity), property tax (once again, comes from the salaries of the taxpayers).

Furthermore, I don't think that corporations should pay any income tax at all because this just adds a drag on the bottom line and makes products costlier and reduces the incentive to hire more people. Corporations will still contribute enourmously to government funds through the income and payroll taxes of employees and taxes on dividends paid out on profits.

As far as corporations not being accountable, I think that overall corporate heads are held to a hell of a lot more account than our elected representatives. Incumbent Reps running for re-election get reelected over 98% of the time. This is the great scandal, the power of political incumbency.

[i_am_not_john_galt]

61. A corporation can rip off people, pollute the environment, even kill

through negligence and no individual will be held accountable. The worst that can happen is the corporation ceases to exist and shareholders lose their money.

Here in Ventura County there are billions of dollars of environmental damage done by Rocketdyne. The worst consequence? Only economic. The people who made the decisions that resulted in the pollution sailed off scott-free.

[Lars39]

68. That's not the only consequence of a bad corporation.

A corporation can land in a community, supply the majority of the jobs and then fold and leave the people in the community economically devastated. A devastation BTW that some people never recover from, or escape from only by death.

[Pithlet]

114. I grew up in a town,

Flint, Michigan, where that very thing happened, and I witnessed exactly what happens when a community is ripped off and deserted by the corporation that helped build it.

[IrateCitizen]

70. Methinks its you who needs to get real...

Where to begin, where to begin...

I don't think that corporations should pay any income tax at all because this just adds a drag on the bottom line and makes products costlier and reduces the incentive to hire more people.

Let's see here... during perhaps the greatest long-term economic expansion in this nation's history (1946-1960) corporations were taxed at a much higher rate than they are now. The burden at that time was split pretty much evenly between corporations and individuals. Now, I think it's about 75% individuals and 25% corporations.

Are you also saying that corporations should also receive absolutely no government subsidy either?

As for hiring more people, could you please point to the hiring craze taking place in the wake of the corporate-friendly policies of the current administration?

As far as corporations not being accountable, I think that overall corporate heads are held to a hell of a lot more account than our elected representatives. Incumbent Reps running for re-election get reelected over 98% of the time. This is the great scandal, the power of political incumbency.

Just where in the hell do you think this "power of political incumbency" comes from? Surely it has nothing to do with all of the PAC contributions made to incumbents for their campaigns in exchange for favorable legislation, does it? And the last time I checked, it wasn't elected officials who were seeking to relocate to tax havens -- it was corporations. The simple fact is that there are at least LAWS set up to create accountability of elected reps to the people. With corporations, their ONLY accountability is to their shareholders -- outside of whatever regulation government puts in place.

IOW, spread your manure on another field -- because all you're doing is stinking up ours with this garbage.

[Lars39]

71. There is more corporate welfare paid out than social welfare.

When's the last time a baby corporation went to bed hungry?

[RapidCreek]

100. Corporations need people to exist. People do not need corporations

to exist.

RC

[sweetheart]

106. regulated corporate governance and "moral hazard"

Ironic that you, moniker'ed after the attempted terrorist destroyer of parliment (a hero), would like corporate governance as it stands today. It makes you somewhat untrue to your name.

I have, in past career lives, been an MBA chief of operations of 2 multinational corporations, and i can tell you from direct experience that what you say is bunk. I was in a very difficult position, as the board wanted me to pressure the labour to work longer harder for cheaper, and to rally the troops for free to break their balls, all the while, i was given a list of whom to fire because they did not meet owner expectations.

It was a brilliant act of irresponsibility. While "I" was the figurehead who was in the hot seat, and though i signed the employment agreements and maintained the direct face to face trust with the staff... the instant i disagreed with being used as a stooge, the board replaced me after 2 years and swapped in a guy who broke all those trusts. Because were were not listed on a stock market, there was really no controls at all on what processes and controls were placed by private equity owners... and their primary objective was to squeeze profits out of a shop of people underpaid and overworked.

This multinational had sales operations in several european states before the euro, and we were taking a balance sheet hit by the german mark appreciation against the UK pound. Our price list and contracts in germany were not currency-risk insured, and the income of the company was going down to no fault of the british staff, but the cost base was staying constant. Finally, it involved layoffs and severe cuts. On one hand, i was charged with leading the company towards a long term vision, and yet in the boardroom, it was a month by month survival focus on cutting costs and hammering sales to survive to the next month. This is normal corporate world, and i think there is something slightly amiss.

I would change the laws that all employees worked for the state... ALL... and the state maintained retirement, healthcare and the "peoplesoft" system of vacation days and such... that the benefits of labour would be constant and universal for all citizens... linking retirement, social security, medicare and all these programmes in to a single digital certificate system per citizen.

Then a corporation would "rent" your contract from the government that you be an employee. Since the insurer of last resort is the government anyways, it is less a change than it appears. If you were decieved, cheated or abused in your "rental", you could appeal to your employer (government) and get justice. Every person would have lifetime employment, and no corporation would be in a position to abrogate labour rights. Your resume would be secure along with your contract references that your reputation could not be falsely repudiated.

The corporation would be a non-person and have no rights, rather priviledges given that it follows human rights in its practices.

You mistake that i loathe corporations... not at all, but i know the flaws and am very well schooled in them. Given a proper thinktank on corporations, i could structure a governance system that was a drastic improvement over the methods used today to shirk repsonisbility and screw people over, labour, environment, taxpayers and consumers.

I bet your company's pension is underfunded. Most are... you probably don't care yet... yet it is a criminal theft.

[Buffler]

40. One big difference

and one that is often forgotten or ignored is that no corporation can force you to do anything. You are under no obligation to ever use their product or services.

But government has the power of the gun to force you to do whatever it wants you to do and to take from you what it wishes.

I fear government more than I do corporations.

[cprise]

63. Corporations coerce people through monopolization and despotism

They can effectively monopolize what people need, and make them jump through hoops to get it.

They can monopolize the need for organization, for instance, by bribing government officials or repeatedly toppling governments that act in the local public interest.

That's why maintaining a heathly democracy is important.

[Buffler]

79. What corporation

has forced you through the power of the gun and threat of jail to use their products and services? Name me just one.

[RapidCreek]

103. Haliburton

Need some more? Let me know.

RC

[cprise]

117. Corp. seek monopolies for: water, electricity, and now food production

Often they get this monopoly status abroad (and increasingly here in the US) and where there isn't a monopoly there's often a cartel.

I left out MEDIA, which belongs in that list.

Production of food is a new one, and by no means has it been achieved; Genetic Engineering firms are still working hard on this one.

[Buffler]

135. Haliburton?

Where is the Haliburton store so I can go check it out and see if they have anything i want.

I know, your talking about tax dollars going to Haliburton. Which again, is being done through the force of government. Not from free choice as a consumer.

But then some of the companies I do use as a consumer use Haliburtons services, but I am not required by law or force to buy from those companies.

[IrateCitizen]

138. Hello, McFly!

I know, your talking about tax dollars going to Haliburton. Which again, is being done through the force of government.

Which, I'm certain, has nothing to do with the massive political donations made by Haliburton and its executives -- not to mention it's former CEO moving into the VP's office.

Nah, nothing to see here. Move along. :eyes:

[Robin Hood]

43. If big corporations are good, then why is big government bad?

Perhaps that is the real question.

[i_am_not_john_galt]

45. Who here is arguing that big corporations are good?

[PeeWeeTheMadman]

49. The most important part of government

No government intervention have changed human societies the way property rights have done. Why not remove them? And why not remove the police? If person A want to kill person B, that should be person Bs problem, not mine.

[Robin Hood]

93. Perhaps not here,

But, big corporations good and big government bad is a steadfast republican mantra.

[leftofthedial]

44. regulation

capitalism is increasingly laissez faire in these "free trade" corporatist times.

[cprise]

46. That's why we have local governments

...they can't "supersize" on us and detach themselves from the population.


"Why is it bad to give more power to corporations but OK to give it to the government?"

That question is situational. Enterprises which genuinely belong in the public sector have been privatized; many of these are natural monopolies and require public accountability (whereas a private monopoly has ZERO accountability, neither from the market or the public sector). Also, the legally-enforced drive for a corporation to profit (and also dump their costs on others whenever possible) is diametrically opposed to the public interest. When put under pressure by the masses, governments reform, but corporations eventually flee and take their entire indutries.

A government is nothing like a corporation, which is a legal construct chartered by the government to limit the liability of the rich and powerful and is probably more like an ameboa in character. A democratic government grants equal votes to all its citizens, who all play the roles of shareholder, worker, boardmember and many other roles outside the corporation/profit paradigm. A government does not regularly spin-off pieces of itself or consume others governments without a trace. Governments are tied to actual people and a geography, not assets, a chosen market and "human resources".

Governments are good at defense, ensuring essential resources and groundbreaking research, while corporations are good at refinement and motivating the working class.

We should be asking: If its bad to give unlimited power to government, why is it good to give unlimited power to corporations? Why is complete privatization of production evil?

Government is currently the better model if there is democracy at multiple scales. 'Corporations' or the general idea of private enterprise needs serious re-thinking and reform.

[Buffler]

50. Unlimited power?

If its bad to give unlimited power to government, why is it good to give unlimited power to corporations?

What corporation has unlimited power or anything approaching unlimited power?

Name for me a single corporation you are forced to use its products or services, or a single corporation that has the power of the gun to force you to use its products and services.

[devilgrrl]

54. How about Wal-Mart?

Let's move into a community, force everyone else out and take over... it's happened all over the place. Wake up! :eyes:

[IrateCitizen]

59. Not just that, but they don't take "no" for an answer

They've taken over entire towns and cities, politically, in order to get the OK to move in.

Don't believe me? Ask G_j for a first-hand account of how Wal Mart did this in Asheville, NC.

[Buffler]

69. So actually

government, through the force of their power made the town allow Wal-Mart in. Owners of the land they built on could have said no and not sold to them. Did Wal-Mart use the governments gun of emminent domain in Asheville as they have in other cities?

[IrateCitizen]

77. No. They bought a new city council

That's a trick of Wal Mart -- they have deep pockets and time beyond almost any municipality.

First, they bring in the advertising agencies to do marketing on their behalf.

Then, they hire full-time signature collectors to get a referendum on the ballot. If they succeed in this, you can bet they will outspend any citizens' groups by at least 50:1, if not significantly more.

Should that fail, they set up their PAC's and just start financing political candidates willing to further their agenda. They have the resources to pay whatever the costs might be.

Sad thing is, in the end, municipalities are left with Wal Mart AND an horrible regressive council, based on the values often commonly held by those willing to support Wal Mart's efforts.

[Buffler]

84. So again

through actions of the government Wal-mart got what it wanted. And since the people elected the city council, the people got what they wanted.

[IrateCitizen]

92. Nice simplistic reasoning

Lemme guess... you're a Libertarian, aren't you? Do you think that political races should be subject to no fundraising guidelines or limits, or that candidates should be eligible to run on public funding alone? I think your answer to these questions would be quite telling.

Most voters vote based on name recognition, plain and simple. If a candidate is able to spend significantly more money in getting their name out there, most times they win. At the local level, incumbents aren't blessed with the kind of name recognition that a Senator or US Representative can enjoy.

In many instance, people may be getting what they DESERVE due to their lack of keeping informed -- but in instances such as the one cited, they are not necessarily getting what they WANT.

[Buffler]

99. Not a libertarian

Clearly there are and need to continue to be limits on what people can donate to political candidates.

I also think that political candidates should be severly punished for violations of fundraising laws. Upto and including the removal from office for gross violations if discovered after the election and removal from the ballot if found prior to the election.

I just don't have an irrational fear of corporations nor a hatred for them that I find to be far to prevelant around here.

[IrateCitizen]

104. It's not about "fear" or "hatred" of corporations

It's about recognizing abuses of power, and wanting to move to limit them.

Personally, I'm distrustful of any large organization that has the ability to control food sources (big agribusiness), drinking water (see Bechtel in Bolivia), or the flow of information (see any of the ten major media holdings left in the US) -- among others.

And I'm not alone in this natural distrust for large corporations. The "father of capitalism", Mr. Adam Smith, was also quite distrustful of them -- because he recognized that the biggest key to a truly efficient market economy was that there be no advantage held between buyer and seller. In the modern marketplace, corporations have a HUGE advantage over the buyers of their products and services, for many reasons including the ones I cited above.

[Buffler]

128. Abuses of power

It's about recognizing abuses of power, and wanting to move to limit them.

Give the book "Mugged by the State" a read.

[IrateCitizen]

130. Nice strawman

If you read some of my previous posts on this thread, you'll note that I'm not a big fan of placing undue power in the hands of a centralized federal government, either.

But why let a simple reality like that get in the way of your propaganda efforts? I noticed that you have not addressed any of the excessive concentrations of power by corporations, but rather simply tried to deflect the argument into an area in which you are not quite so vulnerable. I'll give you an A for effort, but a D- for effectiveness.

BTW, for that one book you cited on excessive state power, I could probably cite a 1/2 dozen off the top of my head dealing with excessive corporate power. You can start with When Corporations Rule the World by David Korten.

ON EDIT: I'd also like you to reply to the issues I posed in response to a post of yours up the thread a bit. You can find my post HERE.

[RapidCreek]

113. should their corporate sponsors also be severly punished?

ARE THEY? What you speak of is corporate insurgancy into a republican democracy. This you feel is ok and entirely the fault of the government that has been infected with corpratism, eh?

It ain't the virus's fault that you're sick with it it's your own fault...so the answer must be to cut off your arms and legs.....yea that makes allot of sense I gotta admit. You seem to be under the misconception that treating the symptom and not the cause is the answer...not terribly logical.

RC

[cprise]

91. Walmart totally trumps that town and you know it

That government is practically a non-entity compared to the resources of that corporation.

Their government did not have sufficient power or backing to 1) establish a vision for the community, and 2) protect the public interest.

You rarely see this in regions with strong social-democratic governments.

[Buffler]

65. When is the last time

that someone from Wal-Mart came to your house, dragged you out of bed and forced you to shop at their store? And when is the last time Wal-Mart forced you to give them money against your will or deducted money from your paycheck?

[IrateCitizen]

83. That's not the issue -- the issue is they remove COMPETITION

which, in turn, can eliminate (or seriously limit) consumer choice.

You can defend them all you want, but it's not going to change anyone's mind about them on this site. Wal Mart isn't a business -- it's like a plague of locusts that destroys everything in its path.

[Buffler]

88. Wal-Mart is not the issue

Corporations is the issue at hand. Wal-Mart is but one, though the largest on the planet.

And last I checked, I do not have to ever set foot in a Wal-Mart nor give them a dime of my money through consumer spending.

[cprise]

94. Corporatism can force us to patronize the same shareholders

...no matter what we do.

It is a distinct possibility, and probably already happening.

[cprise]

82. They use starvation... rarely guns

Forced to use services? Maybe. Forced to accept their pillage... much more common.

Here is a link on the subject of water privatization:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/water/

[Terwilliger]

74. government is supposed to be accountable

private corporations account for very little of their actions...usually only the financial details of a corporation are available for regulation...certainly not the business plan or the overall goals of management

[camero]

78. Government will get bigger as the population rises

Because of the simple fact that there will be more to govern. Taxation is the governments gun. And since we in a democracy are the government, we choose where to spend the money that the government brings in.

When our government got hijacked by business interests, that is when our government refused to work for us.

Corporations on the other hand operate as fiefdoms, where the slaves are at the mercy of the masters. There is no "free association" in the operation of a corp. Only the need for a paycheck.

[evil_orange_cat]

85. the government is accountable to the people, private interests are not...

plus, I'm not for "bigger government"... I'm for more efficient government... less corrupt government. And I agree with Thomas Paine in the sense the best government is the one that governs the least. The government should look after the interests of public welfare, not police our bedrooms, tell us what we can't do to our bodies, or regulate (or even participate) in religion.

[Iverson]

86. accountability (although your phrasing is problematic)

In theory at least, government is accountable to the citizens. This most emphatically does not mean that giving greater power is an unmitigated good. However, it can be good, depending upon the situation. Consider the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act as examples.

Corporations are not accountable to citizens. They are accountable to their shareholders, technically, and their boards of directors and executives in practice. Since they operate according to the profit motive and not the public good, their actions can act in direct opposition to the public good (e.g.- polluting everyone's air and water).

When governments act as you suggest, then their power is malevolent. However, the possibilities for change are far greater than with corporations.

Now you see why it is vitally important to have mainstream political parties altogether beholden to corporate masters.

[i_am_not_john_galt]

89. Just a quick thank you

This has been a GREAT conversation and I really appreciate all of the viewpoints expressed.

[cprise]

97. Agree. And for dessert...

Corporations Need Treatment, Documentary Argues

 
TORONTO - Corporations are not only the most powerful institutions in the world, they are also psychopathic, a new Canadian documentary on globalization elegantly argues.

While the corporation has the rights and responsibilities of ?a legal person?, its owners and shareholders are not liable for its actions. Moreover, the film explains, a corporation's directors are legally required to do what is best for the company, regardless of the harm created.

.snip.
A person with those character traits would be categorized as a psychopath, based on diagnostic criteria from the World Health Organization (WHO), points out the film.

more..
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0120-03.htm


Movie Website:
http://www.thecorporation.tv/psycorp.html

[Ksec]

124. Profit makes a man do things he normally wouldnt.

Gov is non profit. Bringing profit in always reduces services and we lose. Prices will rise and only a few could afford the service/

[Buffler]

129. wrong

Bringing profit in always reduces services and we lose.

The profit motive encourages business to increase their services and customer satisfaction to increase the bottom line.

[IrateCitizen]

131. Wrong again

The profit motive encourages business to increase their services and customer satisfaction to increase the bottom line.

The profit motive encourages nothing more than the pursuit of more profit. It encourages shitting on workers, seeking monopoly, and charging whatever you can get away with in order to maximize your profits.

Don't believe me? Read up a little bit on cable TV deregulation -- or just look at the way the companies have raised rates AND cut jobs over the past several years.

Your statement applies only when applied to an ideal market society as envisioned by Adam Smith -- one which had no place for corporations.

[ieoeja]

132. Also, he is ignoring the other half of the equation

Profit = Income - Costs


Increased services may increase income. But decreased services are guaranteed** to decrease costs. Do you know ANYONE who believes moving help desks to India improved services? Sorry. Wrong question. Do you know anyone who does NOT believe moving help desks to India made services worse? And yet they were moved.


** This assumes corporate leaders do not completely mismanage affairs which is admittedly a pretty big assumption.

[IrateCitizen]

134. He's ignoring plenty of other halves to the equation

Scroll through some of the things buffler has written on this thread, you won't be disappointed.

[Pithlet]

133. That's funny.

You mean like the RIAA? How they fought for years to prevent downloadable music files? The movie industry fought to prevent recordable VCRs. Drug companies are in the habit of applying for patents on drugs just as the old patent is about to expire by claiming that the drug now does "x" despite the fact that the drug has always done "x" which prevents people from getting generic drugs. Profit motive hurts the public in these cases. Anywhere where there is a natural monopoly, the profit motive hurts. The problems in California were the results of companies gaming the system to increase their own profits. For a lot of companies, in the short term, i.e. just long enough for their CEO to make a bunch of money on the stock options, it is in their interest to do things that hype their stock price, while, say, improperly dispose of toxic waste.

Profit motive is about making money. Period. Sometimes that can be used for public good. Sometimes that stands in direct conflict with the public good. Power is power regardless of whether it comes from the government or a corporation. It is flat stupid to allow corporate power to go unchecked.

[WoodrowFan]

146. wrong argument

No offense but that's the wrong argument. It's not that big government is "good" but that is is a useful counterweight to big business becuase it has different priorities and because it responds to different motivations.

[BiggJawn]

149. Who says "bigger government" is GOOD?

Not ME!
Gee, just who's idea was it to create all tese new agencies like DoHomeland Defense, and Faith-based doohickies, etc.

That stuff didn't come out of the end of Big Dawg's you-know-what like the ReTHUGs claim it did...