Government or corporation - pick your poison

[Lucid]

To oversimplify, there seem to be two extremes in current political thought.

The first is that the government should do nothing (or as close to it as possible) and everything should be done by private industry and corporations.

The second is that the government should do everything (or as close to it as possible) and corporations and private industry should be kept as small and limited as possible.

What's the difference, really, between these two ideologies? Both the government and private industry seem to have a tendency to expand beyond manageability and seek to control populaces, markets, etc. And both seem to be constantly slipping out of the constraints of any checks and balances put in place.

It seems that some people prefer that private industry and corporations do everything simply because the government is evil and bent on controlling them and subjugating them to backbreaking oppression.
And others prefer that the government do everything simply because corporations are evil and greedy and bent on extorting them and subjugating them to backbreaking oppression.

What's the difference between Boogeyman A and Boogeyman B, exactly?

[LaoTzu]

I've no doubt we will have a flurry of debate regarding the oversimplification of the OP position on both extremes.... maybe I can pre-empt and say "it don't matter!".

It's basically true, and that's enough.

There really needs to be a hybrid system. In Canada, we have a vibrant private sector. We also have a large government safety net. It can be done, and well.

I think it starts, once both sides realize that neither extreme is really tenable. Once both sides realize that there are inherent problems in anything we create. Once we all realize that just because you can find flaws in something, doesn't mean it's complete garbage requiring an extreme overhaul.

The tendency is to move fast, and in an all-encompassing manner. And that's where the problems arise. Personally, I think the Private sector has been kicking our asses for decades (see: Ike)...
I'd like to see them relax a bit, safe in the knowledge that whatever they gave up in the short term would be repaid over the long-term; and then some... it's not control that people like me would want over private interests. It's that private interests share in the public's interests.

[qwerty123]

Small government, low taxes is the answer (increases personal incentive). The government should take care of (I'm sure I'm missing something):

Defense (not go overboard like we currently do in the USA)
Federal court system
Public service/low income welfare
Regulation (obviously needs to be increased)
Highway system (maybe high speed rail)


The rest should be left to the private sector. They should as I stated be well regulated, and laws should be designed to incentivize optimal (find the balance between moral and economically efficient) behavior. Any company that is "too big to fail" is too big to exist, and it should be treated (basically) like a trust and broken into smaller pieces. Right now we are seeing the effects of an under-regulated oligarchy.

I think that minimal reserve ratios should be increased, and investors should plan for typical market fluctuation, as well as the (4000 year storm) or the fat tails/black swans.


When you look at these huge companies, the executives seem to have little incentives to maximize long-term performance. Sure, the market is valuing the company at it's "future value" but if people are being told that the way the corporation is being run is "just fine," and it's how all the competitors are functioning, then throw in a market that is more or less constantly trending upward, as well as investors who plan to hold for the medium term... it's a recipe for disaster. A lot of the big airlines went under as they couldn't afford their pensions, I'm sure that Detroit's pensions promises don't help them perform as companies.


We need to teach more ethics in business school. Right now executives are responsible to the bottom line, but as we can see, the whole world doesn't do well when all that matters is the bottom line. We need a more ethical "big picture" approach to top management. Basically, we need to realign the values of business. This won't happen, and the world leaders will not dig us out of the hole we're in. This is because there are too many people who are too powerful who can't afford to lose as much as a system overhaul would entail.

While it sucks (a lot) most people live through bad recessions/depressions. None of the big corporations make me fear my life. Government is scary though. Ideally, a government should be scared of it's people who demand allegiance to its constitution, and live it's values. The US government could not be overthrown. People are too dumb. (Patriotism has been killed, and the flag has somehow turned into a right-wing symbol. The biggest deflation we've seen is in the value of logic.)

Look at what the treasury and FED are doing. If I were on Capitol Hill I'd be pissed. So you're going to make the American people back the bad bets? The banks get to hand pick the bad securities, and buy them back? If it goes up, the banks profit, if they go down, they lose a little money, but the taxpayers lose even more? This is a terrible blunder of backpedaling.

I won't even bring up the rising issue of Social Security and Medicare with the baby boomers...

[Lucid]

I've no doubt we will have a flurry of debate regarding the oversimplification of the OP position on both extremes.... maybe I can pre-empt and say "it don't matter!".

It's basically true, and that's enough.

Thank you. The reason I'm oversimplifying is because otherwise this would be an incredibly unwieldy topic of conversation.

Also, I see lots of posts on this subforum (and I read them all :)) stating, essentially, that the government can't do ANYTHING and should be beaten within an inch of its life. Conversely, I see plenty of posts stating that corporations are the bane of modern existence and should be beaten within an inch of their lives.

Small government, low taxes is the answer (increases personal incentive). The government should take care of (I'm sure I'm missing something): .....

Actually, it seems that I completely agree with you. Smaller government and smaller corporations are best. These two things must both have some power and some control, but not all and should work together. While I'm happy to have found someone who agrees with my position, unfortunately this doesn't answer my question. :)

EDIT: It seems I mostly agree with you. I think there are some fine points we might differ on.

[Factoid]

The question is a bit oversimplified. Let's look at the what it means to be corporate instead of splitting government and corporations apart.

corporate:   
–adjective 1. of, for, or belonging to a corporation or corporations: a corporate executive; She considers the new federal subsidy just corporate welfare.
2. forming a corporation.
3. pertaining to a united group, as of persons: the corporate good.
4. united or combined into one.

Corporatism:
–noun the principles, doctrine, or system of corporative organization of a political unit, as a city or state.

One of the best examples is Mussolini. He was quoted to say he did not like the term Fascism. He did not think it fit. He thought the term 'Corporatism' fit much better, and I think he was right.
It is not government or business in themselves that are the problem.
I think it is more of corporate thinking (in the literal sense) that is the problem.
That is the reason Utilitarian logic really bugs me to the core.

utilitarianism
the ethical doctrine that virtue is based on utility, and that conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons.

[Lucid]

The question is a bit oversimplified. Let's look at the what it means to be corporate instead of splitting government and corporations apart...

Thank you for your interesting definitions. However, I think you know what I mean when I say government and when I say corporations or private industry.

Your post is interesting and it raises some good points. I agree that they share a common mindset (if that's what you were saying) and that this mindset is a problem.

But my question is why is one better or worse than another? Which is the lesser of two evils and why?

[Factoid]

I would say neither is better if they employ corporate conduct. However, I think there is a strong belief that most companies (most are by definition small businesses) do not employ any sort of real corporate behavior. I have worked for both small and very large companies and the differences are there. The smaller the entity (government or private enterprise) the more likely that the decisions best for the individual will prevail.

[qwerty123]

Why is one better or worse than another? Which is the lesser of two evils and why?


My first rant didn't answer the question very well. I realize that now.. I guess I was thinking out-loud.

How many corporations are you physically scared of? How many have standing armies? Sure, bad business practices will kill a few people. A big government is dangerous and should by feared.

Look at big governments in the past. Then ask, do you trust your government now? What about their policies on listening in on conversations? What about torturing people in Cuba? There is a lot of stuff that goes on behind the scenes for "national security" reasons. Personally, I'd rather know what's going on and have an occasional attack than live in a "don't ask, and don't worry, we won't answer" world.

Sure, have a good police presence, do your reconnaissance. National security is important, but it's been heralded as a big power game for an elite few for far too long now. No one likes blind faith, and I don't like or believe in blind trust in the government.

[LaoTzu]

The smaller the entity (government or private enterprise) the more likely that the decisions best for the individual will prevail.

Agreed. Neither, when too large, is a good thing.





LaoTzu added to this post, 2 minutes and 57 seconds later...


How many corporations are you physically scared of? How many have standing armies?

I hate to sound like a tin-foil hat wearing nutcase.... but we aren't that far away from it.

Blackwater for ex. Where do you think they will turn when their profiteering in Iraq is over?

The private sector....

However, your insinuation that the military is the plaything of the private sector is spot on.

[Factoid]

How many corporations are you physically scared of? How many have standing armies? Sure, bad business practices will kill a few people. A big government is dangerous and should by feared.


qwerty won me over. I am much more scared over an army. I would choose a slow death in servitude to big business rather than a cleansing by a government. Oh, crap. I forgot. I sold my soul to the company store!

[Lucid]

My first rant didn't answer the question very well. I realize that now.. I guess I was thinking out-loud.

How many corporations are you physically scared of? How many have standing armies? Sure, bad business practices will kill a few people. A big government is dangerous and should by feared.

Look at big governments in the past. Then ask, do you trust your government now? What about their policies on listening in on conversations? What about torturing people in Cuba? There is a lot of stuff that goes on behind the scenes for "national security" reasons. Personally, I'd rather know what's going on and have an occasional attack than live in a "don't ask, and don't worry, we won't answer" world.

Sure, have a good police presence, do your reconnaissance. National security is important, but it's been heralded as a big power game for an elite few for far too long now. No one likes blind faith, and I don't like or believe in blind trust in the government.

Ok, that's a valid point. The government has an army and sometimes commits torture. However there is a case for private corporate armies, which seem to be much ... worse... than most national armies. Blackwater comes to mind.

In addition, torture by the government of the US is illegal. It is committing it because it has got loose of its checks and balances. Likewise, the financial sector got loose of its checks and balances and crashed the economy. This affects many more people than torture in Cuba does. However, I think an excellent case could be made for why torture is worse than crashing the economy and am prepared to cede to that point.

Governments listen in on conversations, corporations keep records of your purchases and spending habits, as well as your personal information and sell them. In several cases, companies were selling lists labeled as "Gullible And Ready To Believe Anything" to many, many organizations that turned out to be fraudulent and predatory. (I know, what a surprise, right?)

I'm not actually any more or less afraid of the government than of any corporation though. When government does something horrible (like torture), it's generally rare and I have a better chance of getting hit by lightning. If a corporation does something horrible (like ruin my credit or charge me for something I never bought) it's much MUCH more common, but less devastating. It still seems to be 6 of one, half dozen of the other to me, but I guess I can see how others might feel differently.

[qwerty123]

I agree that Blackwater doesn't make me sleep better at night. I'm not exactly sure what to do with it. If you're in bed with the king, you'll get cake. Look for conflict of interest? Require fair bidding for contracts? I agree that torture is rare, and I won't use a slippery slope argument as I can't like all the steps in the chain. I would hate to commit a logical fallacy. Because of this, it's hard to link isolated torture cases to a government that silences anyone who speaks up against it. Instead we need to turn to personal liberty and the power of incentive. I think that individual choice, and freedom to choose is what drives society. When people lose their agency, they lose hope, and it’s a race to despondency. One can foresee being a slave to a big company, and one can see being a prisoner of the state. I think that this drives home the importance of limited government, as well as limited size to business.

If a private citizen walked up to me tomorrow and shot me, he would likely be found and put in jail. If the government wanted to kill me, they could easily get away with it. That scares me. I don’t think it will happen, but that it could is unsettling. There is limited transparency. Unfortunately the media doesn’t argue for transparency. They just cover the fraud committed by the people running the government. (also unsettling) How come no one questions anything related to national security? It’s like a shawl pulled down over peoples faces. Ohh!! National security, sure do whatever you want.

The people who founded this country knew the dangers of big government. They tried to escape them. When times are relatively good, its easy to lose that revolutionary spirit. England is rioting now, America is happily sleeping. Only bad people riot. The government is so effective at quelling civil unrest that the process of increased awareness can’t even get started.

[reb]

to answer the question about the boogeymen in a roundabout fashion, i see no difference. when any 'group' reaches a size where they can push the population around, either through force or manipulation or 'advertising...whatever....they need dismantling. this is the reason for 'monopoly' laws, and anti trust laws. the problem to me, that is the root of this whole matter is the floating currency...

as Glenn Beck has been saying, for gosh sake, no matter how big, we out number 'them'. but, they have the economic and press power to nullify or confuse enough of the population that we argue amongst ourselves....to say nothing of the fair percentage of people who would not say 'boo' if the hogs were eating them.

what really troubles me about this situation is the monied and powered interests are conflagrating at the G20, and there is minimal 'working person' representation. do not doubt that corporations are well represented. a major strategic mistake that the public allowed was to let corporations become 'legal entities' with so many rights. corruption goes back at least to our revolutionary war (in the u.s.s. of a.), so perhaps it is simply a constant...'i scratch your back, you scratch mine'.

another major societal mistake was allowing the merchant class to ever have any real social legitimacy....prior to the middle ages and/or industrial revolution, merchants were mostly looked down upon by royalty/military and serfs alike.

late...wandering thoughts....

[dogwoodlover]

What's the difference between Boogeyman A and Boogeyman B, exactly?

There is none.

"Freedom means more than the right to change masters."

No gods, no masters.

[deinotes]

I'm not actually any more or less afraid of the government than of any corporation though. When government does something horrible (like torture), it's generally rare and I have a better chance of getting hit by lightning.LOL it depends on what government you are talking about, America has recently tortured a whole bunch of poeple during the bush years both openly and secretly . And pol pot did the most horrendous forms of things in our lifetime.
I think this topic is oversimplified both the government a corporations are potential dangerous because of the structure it produce and the people who end up at top.

[Indy]

This public vs. private debate gives about as much of a resolution as a nature-nuture debate to me.

With a spirit of oversimplification, a way to look at it is to compare:

Market failures
(when companies or private industry are fucking up: anarchy, pollution, monopolies, cartels, income inequalities, etc)


vs.

Government failures
(When the government is fucking up; corruption, taking away incentives for people or companies to do or produce stuff, etc)

So you try to evaluate in every situation, which is the lesser evil. This is really complicated to calculate and depends on aggregating peoples personal trade-offs, which are not known. So for example, losing some potential profit for financial firms and causing some unemployed banking people could be worth trading for protecting the security off the other workers in the form of unions.

When it comes to your own personal safety, we have poison nr. 1: Anarchy, and poison nr 2: Totalitarianism. (Who knew oversimplification could be so much fun?)

So with 1. public security is replaced with businesses offering similar deals by means of organized crime, bodyguards for those who can afford it and selfreliance for the rest. Family organization, social networks and organized crime are highest in places where there is an absence of government that provides security or economic functions succesfully.

A word on privacy protection might be worthwhile. Regulation is necessary to prevent insurance companies and the like from obtaining your personal information. Corporations are evil this way.

With option nr.2, see 1984, Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and my own favorite case study of the moment: North Korea. No need to elaborate here I reckon.

[Beulah]

IMO theres no difference. Corporates expand like the Unverse swallowing all smaller businesses eventually, and Govts are generally just enabling fronts for them.
Looking after those who can't do it for themselves is shared in different mixtures by Govt or corporates - either way the consumer or taxpayer pays. Democracys point fingers at countries that aren't into elections but never concede how pseudodemocratic it all really is.

[MaleVolentworld]

Anarchism vs Totalitarianism? No government vs total government? well, I don't see any of this in current political thought, it's just the same old mixed economy and right now the government is favoured in the mix more so than reliance on business.

But if you're asking what the difference is between a government and corporation, the government has the legalised monopoly on the use of force, disobey it and get a fine or prison sentence, a corporation cannot force you to buy its product or service. Another obvious difference is that corporations create wealth and governments take wealth and distribute it.

[dogwoodlover]

a corporation cannot force you to buy its product or service

According to whom? Monopolies, when conjoined with necessity, look like coercion to me.

[Pandemonium]

One must remember that free market efficiency relies on numerous numerous of 'small firms' (too small to manipulate pricing) selling homogeneous products.

An environment incorporating corporate oligopolies and monopolies is no worse than an fascist state. Currently the world is run and governed by oligopolies. "He who controls a nation's wealth, need not care who creates a nation's laws." <-----Someone said it.

Since the free market is just never achieved I will go for a Resource Based economic model which includes the abolishment of the monetary system and increased personal liberties. Hence, large government. This is just a fantasy. People don't like pragmatism.

[Ersatz]

This dichotomy is a false one and it stems from peoples mammalian desire to categorize and to fall in line. Both systems, as clearly established, can commit great acts of evil. But what we must realize is that the free market and governmental policies are simply two different bags of tricks created for specific purposes. In the case of capitalism, the end is to create profit, and, in the case of government, to ensure stability. These do not even consider the value of a human life. Listen, you have value apart from how stable the social/political climate is and you have value apart from the amount of "value" you create for your fellow man (technology, profit, comfort, ect.) Both of these systems see men as a means to an end and not as an end in themselves. How do I know that man has value apart from these things? Supply and demand. We cannot find another sentient life form and therefore the only ones there are have value because of their scarcity. See, I just used market principles to establish value for humanity, but to say that because I can do this, this bag of tricks is applicable to anything else in the scheme of life, is a fallacy. In the same way, I can use law to establish value for humanity by saying that if there was no value in life, governments would have no need to protect it. This also doesn't mean that this bag of tricks, chest of tools, or set of motivators is in any way applicable in establishing, say, moral good of evil. I would also suspect religion as being one of these tool sets. But all systems clearly get it wrong. Now, I don't really know where this leaves me, and it may be that we can only see the world through a set of pre-conditions. This seems fitting as we are a tool-making species and desire to view and modify our environment to our comfort and advantage. The real question seems to me to be "Do we as humanity have the option of not viewing the world through our tools?" My answer is no and I suspect that we will have to settle with the conflict until we modify our physicality or mentality to be comfortable in this vague, grey, conclusion-less world.

[Phalanx]

The absurdity of this question shows just how effectively large-government has ingrained in us a state of perpetual dependence over the past century. Shall we suckle the teat on the left, or the teat on the right, so accustomed to the weight of the yoke we have become.

My grandmother grew her own food in her backyard and canned it herself, because they didn't have refridgerators. She used an oil lamp to read at night because they didn't have lightbulbs or electricity. She didn't have a telephone either. When they needed more nails, she would ride into town on a horse because they didn't have cars. She made all of her clothes by hand. She heated the house using wood they had chopped themselves. My grandfather built an entire farm with his bare hands from nothing after being liberated from a German concentration camp and coming to America. The Nazis certainly didn't ask him if he wanted to go play in a concentration camp one day.

Corporations don't need to exist. They exist for your benefit, to trade with you a service that you want. If nobody wanted the service, the corporation would not exist. If every corporation on the planet vanished, my grandparents would not have noticed, because they were self-sufficient and knew the definition of personal responsibility. If an evil corporation exists, it is because it provides something we have chosen to become dependent on and through our dependence it aquired power. Just like government, except corporations give you a choice on whether you want them running your life.

We have a whole generation shrieking about how evil corporations are, but we choose not to just walk away because we can't live without our stupid ipods, cell phones, and electricity, like every single human being has for the entire history of the world. So we just bend over like golddiggers who can't say "no" to our abusive lover-corporations because even though they beats us, they are the only ones that can give us our jollies. We need to get exploited at our minimum-wage jobs and demand the government save us because we have collectively forgotten how to put seeds in the ground and eat what comes out. Whine to someone in Auswitz about how we need stronger government because when we choose to give our money to the mean corporations for something we don't really need, they charge us too much. Yeah, Blackwater killed a few civilians and you lost your hat in the stock market so all of private industry is morally equivalent to millenia of atrocity and genocide that mysteriously results every single time a government expands beyond the point that it no longer fears the people; from the Populares of the late Roman Republic, to the Communist bloodbaths of the twentieth century, it happens the same way every time: steal from the few so you can rain dollars on the ones you want to control in the name of progress. After years of everyone bowing at his knees, the tyrannt sees himself as above them and their laws. Ditches full of bodies are so progressive.

Lets give all our power away to the government because a couple of corporations won't play nice and I am too dependent to choose not to do business with them. I'm telling dad to make you share or he is going to spank you.

Maybe one day a free people will come across the ashes of our internet, find this question, and ask themselves: "Why did our ancestors choose to lend their hands, feet, eyes, and heart so freely to the will of evil men? From where do they recieve their million bloodied swords if not lent freely to them by you?"

[Lucid]

@Phalanx:

I believe you're missing the point of the question. I'm not saying that we are being forced to choose either. I guess the question may have been too abstract for some, since it's not based on any actual real life situation, but on two extremities of political thought sometimes espoused on this forum and others taken their ridiculous extremities for the sake of interesting conversation.

Also... did you actually read the OP or many of the following posts? I'm not saying that corporations are evil, or that government should abolish them OR that we need stronger government. Please take the time to read a post before you go off on a long drawn out rant about it and accuse people of ridiculousness, lacking personal responsibility, laziness or blah blah blah blah.

So while it's certainly nice to have you with us... please try to keep up. :)

Unless, of course, I'm grossly misunderstanding your post, which is always a possibility.

[Tyrant Soup]

Is there really any difference between an unrestricted government and and unrestricted corporation. Both will aggressively impose it's will on the population.

Neither must be allowed to function without control if public welfare is desired.

[Lucid]

Is there really any difference between an unrestricted government and and unrestricted corporation.

This is the question I am asking. Would you care to answer?

[Tyrant Soup]

This is the question I am asking. Would you care to answer?

I think both will result in the same degree of harm to the population. So the difference is moot.

If I was forced to pick, I would say that unlimited corporate powers would result in greater harm to me, because corps don't need to answer to voters. One cannot argue that people can vote with their wallets because once a monopoly is achieved, there is no alternative.

[Lucid]

If I was forced to pick, I would say that unlimited corporate powers would result in greater harm to me, because corps don't need to answer to voters. One cannot argue that people can vote with their wallets because once a monopoly is achieved, there is no alternative.

This is another extremely good point and, I think, may counter the one brought up previously about the government maintaining a standing army.

To add to the voting with wallets issue; it's not always evident which companies are ultimately getting one's money, since it's all so interrelated and many companies own many other companies, which, in turn are owned by still other companies.

Nabisco is owned by Kraft Foods and Kraft Foods is owned by the Philip Morris Company (now known as Altria Group), which merged Kraft Foods with another subsidiary. So by buying Fig Newtons you're supporting Phillip Morris.... 'Big Tobacco.' (It's actually kind of funny.)

Ownership aside, another example is the fact that much of the TARP money given to AIG ended up being funneled to foreign banks, Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch. I don't want to get into it about AIG and the TARP funds (that's an issue for another thread), but how can it really be said that 'voting with ones' wallet' is possible in such circumstances?



Thus far I still think they are equally horrible. Other opinions/cases for or against? :)

[firebee]

On a libertarian site I read, there's something of a classic theme where a private citizen or company behaves badly, and gets heavily criticized by commenters -- and it inevitably follows that a set of commenters tears into them for not being "twuuuuue libertarians" in that the private entity had a perfect right to be a shit. Which fine, you can be a shit, but you shouldn't be...

One possible difference between "unrestricted government" and "unrestricted corporations" is that corporations are subject to law while the government is the source of law -- but this only applies if the corporation is not being protected by the government. AHEM.

But in any event, I'm against whatever proves to be a threat to individual liberty and self-determination.

[PunkinA]

I see the conflict differently. To me it seems fruitless to personify either government or corporation. Even if you believe in an ethical system where indivual citizens should fulfill responsibility (which I do not believe), organizations such as government or corporation do not immediately inherit this same duty. Government and corporation are emergent features of social groups. To confine them with moral obligations is about as silly as expecting my lamp, or my shoe to fulfill a moral obligation. Lamps and shoes are not evil. Neither is government, nor is corporation.

If there is a tragedy here it is that we have stopped recognizing the individual. When a corporation fails its public, it is not the structure that has failed. It is a chain of individuals who have willingly corrupted their opportunities to prey on the public. The failing is that the public does not pursue the individuals responsible. Instead our eyes glaze over as we are distracted by logos for Enron, Worldcom, and Blackwater. In each case it was specific individuals who failed our values. Analogous arguments can be generated for government.

Depersonalization does not just occur from the perspective of the outside either. Individuals tend to believe that they are separate from the body they actually make up. Specifically, in democracies we the people tend to forget that when we blame government for our ills, we are the government. If government is failing, what are the critics doing to improve the situation?

I guess what I am saying in reference to the OP is the first step to recovery is admitting you are the problem.

"Hi I'm John, and I am part of a corporation."

[HackerX]

I daren't try answer this, but I will add that people tend to hold onto more idealism in government laws than over corporations "aspirations".

No corporation in their right mind would force themselves to self regulate in the name of customer happiness.

In that way, government seems as the better canditate for regulation, as long as the ground work (idealism) is placed early into the minds of the populace.

[firebee]

If there is a tragedy here it is that we have stopped recognizing the individual.

See, and this is something of the issue I have. Take the matter of the Sony rootkit scandal -- there, certain individuals who probably could have been identified did something that would get prison time and probation terms that included a prohibition on computer use if it was done by someone not acting on behalf of a large company. What happened with that? The Texas attorney general made some noises about prosecution... and suddenly there are crickets chirping and the odd tumbleweed.

In a more everyday light, there's nothing that will get your average primate to utterly abdicate responsibility for an action like "company policy" except possibly "holy scripture", and that only sometimes.

Individuals are indeed the cause of what they do. And I notice that it's awfully easy to take a passive stance with regard to how one gets employed and what one does to secure continued employment.

[MaleVolentworld]

According to whom? Monopolies, when conjoined with necessity, look like coercion to me.

Tell me when in the history of mankind that a corporation owned all the water in the world and/or all the food in the world, ensuring that we had to buy off it in order to survive.

No one forced me to use Microsoft (I use Linux), no one forced me to buy Reebok, no one forced me to buy a TV etc etc. Even if in the whole world there was only a Microsoft operating system, it doesn't mean that they force me to use it, I could just not use it or design my own UNLESS they have an unfair monopoly by using the government to bar other competitors from existing. In which case the fault still lies with the government since a company on its own cannot prevent competition from existing, it needs law and the force to back it up.

[Imposcillator]

I think both will result in the same degree of harm to the population. So the difference is moot.

One possible difference between "unrestricted government" and "unrestricted corporations" is that corporations are subject to law while the government is the source of law -- but this only applies if the corporation is not being protected by the government. AHEM.

But in any event, I'm against whatever proves to be a threat to individual liberty and self-determination.

Even if in the whole world there was only a Microsoft operating system, it doesn't mean that they force me to use it, I could just not use it or design my own UNLESS they have an unfair monopoly by using the government to bar other competitors from existing. In which case the fault still lies with the government since a company on its own cannot prevent competition from existing, it needs law and the force to back it up.

The first quote finds me in total agreement but I also have to agree with the differences between an unrestricted government and an unrestricted industry stated in the other two quotes.

I'm always hesitant about posting in the politics subforum because I'm not as well-informed about recent events as most users probably are and I tend to approach politics from a philosophical point of view.

I'm also not from the US and as far as I can see most of the topics are US-related. However, if I had to reply to this thread in general terms (that is including EU politics), I would have to say this:

Bottom line, both the government and the industry rely on the masses. They both use advertisement in different ways and wouldn't be able to survive without the power of the people. Whether it's voting or giving their money directly to the industry (sometimes to companies you don't even know of as Lucid pointed out earlier) it's the individuals that enable them to do whatever it is that they do. Sometimes it can't be helped, sometimes it's beyond our knowledge, but it's the sad truth.

If I had to choose between the two extremes (which I would only do at gunpoint) I would probably choose an unrestricted industry. There are still some countries in Europe where people actually do have a say in which law will pass and what the fate of their own country will be like (I mean an obvious influence on national decisions, not just voting for a favored party and then letting them take over), so at least for them there would still be hope for a combination of "healthy" capitalism and active socialism, if you will.

I apologize if I deviated from the original question with my views but they were used to support my opinion on this subject. I hope I made some sense. :)

[Lucid]

Speaking of voting, and how difficult it is to do so with one's wallet in any meaningful way, is it possible to vote for one's representatives in any more of a meaningful way? Here in the US they have lots of cute tricks to keep voters from voting, and in light of the 2000 election debacle, how much faith do we have in our elections here?

[qwerty123]

Speaking of voting, and how difficult it is to do so with one's wallet in any meaningful way, is it possible to vote for one's representatives in any more of a meaningful way? Here in the US they have lots of cute tricks to keep voters from voting, and in light of the 2000 election debacle, how much faith do we have in our elections here?


In NYC, Bloomberg (net worth about $16B) bought the ability to run for a 3rd term. Short of any big roadbump, he will surely buy the office of mayor this time around.. once again.

[reb]

Phalanx's post...i took it as reductio ad absurdum. there is some truth in the view, expanded more so than 'moderate discussion'. we do not, as far as i know, have to choose either government or corporations. gnp is made up of 'our income'. note that the government is howling about 'the savings rate increasing' which they feel is causing a contraction...iow, cash flow is slowing. so, the response is to expand 'money' to expand spending. bs. WE have the power in our pockets and checkbooks-had we not, government would not be squealing like a stuck hog.

the question of 'corporations vs. government' gives only two choices. there is a third choice, at minimum...hamstring them both. save every penny that we can. this would reduce the power of both...except they now have 'developing nations' to delude, which they are happily doing. yet, we in the 'developed nations' (note the implications of that phrase-the indians in the amazon are living as they wish, until 'corporations and/or governments' discover them...and try to sell them products.

i love a good rant, even if it drifts off topic. i am perfectly guilty of being completely off topic myself. the obscurity of my rants sometimes causes some to think 'he is off topic' when, in my mind, i am perfectly on topic, and trying to incite an obscure point or some 'different' thinking by others.

therein lies the point of this rant...we are born as free creatures. we have free will to do what seems best to us...and we have chosen in large part to participate in being slaves to 'organizations'. they do not own us, nor do they 'give' us our rights. our ownership and rights are inherent to our simple existence...and we choose what we do with them. mayhaps, thinking on this idea in depth might illuminate 'corporations vs. government'. to be trite 'think outside the box of societal fallacy'. because i live on this planet, does not mean i must believe in the silly idea of 'society'.

ps, Lucid, not to be a snot, but Kraft is no longer owned by Altria. they were spun off in either april 07 0r 08. i am currently trying to figure the spin off basis for taxes.....Altria also spun off 'American Tobacco' i think.....which may be Philip Morris. if one is interested, one can search their website to see the spinoffs:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[WanderLust]

Big business and big government is not an "either or"; left unchecked by the populace, both would continue expanding until they either collapse under their own weight, or until there's only one government/business left that controls the whole world. Big business when combined with big government politicians, lobbyists, and lawyers is a force of destruction that should rightly be feared.

That said, I'd prefer to be subjugated by a greedy sonofabitch than a power-hungry control-freak sonofabitch. The greedy tyrant only wants your money, you get to keep your soul.

[PunkinA]

our ownership and rights are inherent to our simple existence...and we choose what we do with them.

Nope. I'd have to say the opposite is true. All rights, and property rights as a specific subset, occur as a result of the laws that are in place. We choose how to behave within the confines of our environment, and societal laws give additional structure to the environment. No thing exists which inheres to the individual.

[maxpot46]

Government is the worst of the two evils because it is the epitome of coercion. Corporations are only evil to the degree that they coerce, i.e. collude with government to gain advantages through use of force. Corporations that do not coerce are benefactors to humanity providing our unmatched standard of living by providing cheap goods for the masses.

Also, why is everyone concerned about Blackwater? I'm unaware of any coercive or criminal activity they've committed, except allegedly in Iraq under the auspices of our government.

[Rudy]

Government is the worst of the two evils because it is the epitome of coercion. Corporations are only evil to the degree that they coerce, i.e. collude with government to gain advantages through use of force. Corporations that do not coerce are benefactors to humanity providing our unmatched standard of living by providing cheap goods for the masses.

Also, why is everyone concerned about Blackwater? I'm unaware of any coercive or criminal activity they've committed, except allegedly in Iraq under the auspices of our government.
I agree with this completely. I'm curious about Blackwater as well, mainly because I have an acquaintance who works for them. What have they done that has earned them this emnity? I ask this as a serious question.

[Lucid]

I agree with this completely. I'm curious about Blackwater as well, mainly because I have an acquaintance who works for them. What have they done that has earned them this emnity? I ask this as a serious question.

I think the idea of mercenaries makes most people somewhat uneasy. They may not actually be different from the army of the US government. What has been reported of their behavior in Iraq seems to be worse than the behavior of the soldiers in the army, but it's possible that this is due to the worrisome nature (possibly irrationally so) of mercenaries.

Although, as I understand it, Blackwater's criteria are much less stringent than the armie's (which isn't very stringent either) and it often hires people who might not be such a good choice to be supplied with weapons and license.

Government is the worst of the two evils because it is the epitome of coercion.

Perhaps you could elaborate? And the opposite extremity of this argument would say that government is only coercive when it works with or on the behalf of corporations. For example, legal action and wealth can be used for coercion as well. If you're saying that government has a standing army and a police force to use physical intimidation and force to gain compliance, that would be a decent argument. But wouldn't organizations such as Blackwater be exactly the same thing on the corporate side? I still don't see a difference. Make your case.

[maxpot46]

Governments are defined as having a monopoly of force (the means necessary to coerce) and are funded by taxes (coercion in action). Legal action can be used for coercion because it is backed by government's monopoly on force. Wealth cannot be used to coerce except to acquire government favor.

[Tyrant Soup]

Governments are defined as having a monopoly of force (the means necessary to coerce) and are funded by taxes (coercion in action). Legal action can be used for coercion because it is backed by government's monopoly on force. Wealth cannot be used to coerce except to acquire government favor.

I think you're not giving government it's due. In a market driven system, selfish entities compete for resources. Having resources enhances one's ability to acquire even more. Left unchecked, some entities will eventually have enough power to force their selfish will on the population.

That's why we need government. It theoretically represents the collective will of the population. The pooling of resources make it overwhelmingly powerful. It can crush any of the private ones which attempts to act against the population.

Without government, you will live and die at the whim of corporate executives.

[Rudy]

I think you're not giving government it's due. In a market driven system, selfish entities compete for resources. Having resources enhances one's ability to acquire even more. Left unchecked, some entities will eventually have enough power to force their selfish will on the population.

That's why we need government. It theoretically represents the collective will of the population. The pooling of resources make it overwhelmingly powerful. It can crush any of the private ones which attempts to act against the population.

Without government, you will live and die at the whim of corporate executives.

I don't think anyone in this thread is proposing the complete abolition of government, Tyrant. I think even maxpot just wants an extremely limited one, though I could be wrong on that.

[Tyrant Soup]

The big point of contention is the degree.

[reb]

Nope. I'd have to say the opposite is true. All rights, and property rights as a specific subset, occur as a result of the laws that are in place. We choose how to behave within the confines of our environment, and societal laws give additional structure to the environment. No thing exists which inheres to the individual.

omg...i find myself almost 'speechless'. your attitude exemplifies how tyrants come to power, and evil is done on large scale. laws are made by people; people 'agree' in a social contract; they can negate that contract by their free will. absent this reasoning, you are simply 'here on earth to do as you are told'. i hope you have a king or queen to obey to keep you straight. good day to you, mr. or mrs. puppet.

Blackwater....while i was a dac, the philosophical discussion/debate was going on about 'contractors on the battlefield'. as with the 'contracting out' of government services, the next logical step was mercenaries. when the proper governance of the people, and the universe surrounding what should be 'accountable forces' is assigned to the private sector, the power of the contract exacts its toll. there is no doubt in my mind that the Blackwater contract had to come under scrutiny as a 'personal services' contract, one element of which is examined is 'does the government tell the contractor employees what to do'. as i understand it, Blackwater's first contract was to guard State Department employees. most of their people are ex-military. mercenaries have a long, long history in the world...typically either doing the same thing a country's military does, or 'wet work'. this is just another example of how interbreeding between the government and private sectors has occurred, and now we have the bastard child of the union...mostly accountable to no one. (think about that contractual relationship, if you have the energy to sort out the philosophy of it) read some roman history, or the history of Sierra Leone or a host of african countries....mercs...there's nothing wrong with mercs....they seem immoral to some, but, imo, they are simply hired soldiers without any benefits. the way our government treats our military, there's not much difference between our mil and mercs....the mercs actually make more money in most cases. buy a copy of 'soldier of fortune' sometime.....just to get some flavor. lol! not steak sauce, it taint.....

[PunkinA]

omg...i find myself almost 'speechless'. your attitude exemplifies how tyrants come to power, and evil is done on large scale. laws are made by people; people 'agree' in a social contract; they can negate that contract by their free will. absent this reasoning, you are simply 'here on earth to do as you are told'. i hope you have a king or queen to obey to keep you straight. good day to you.

Wow! Without followup, I see that my base level explaination can be used to induce an idea of a normative standard which actually contradicts my overall approach to government matters.

Laws occur. (I have made no moral statement about the value or legitimacy of laws up to this point.) A man's freedom occurs up to the limits that natural physical barriers exist. Social groups develop their own laws and enforce them. A person's freedom occurs within the boundaries of they physical laws of the universe as well as the level of enforcement of the social laws. I am not free to fly like superman. Nature does not permit it. I am not free to stand outside the Modern Swimsuit store and catcall ladies trying on bikini's. The mall security will not allow it Trust me on this, they back it up with physical force.

I don't even have to agree with the laws. Whether or not I agree to the social contract does not prevent the mallcops from escorting me off mall premises. I am lucky though that I live in a situation where I have some influence over the enforcement of social laws on my person. Not everyone in the history of the world was so lucky. Enslaved people often live their whole lives without ever being given rights. I don't believe there is purpose to this. It just occurs. I recognize the possibility for totalitarian situations to occur.

That does not mean I advocate for totalitarianism. I do not profess its legitimacy. I most definitely was not promoting the advantage of laws. In fact I agree with your outrage. I find it most appropriate. I think the truth of it all is frightening. I am glad you were provoked.

[RBM]

Speaking of voting, and how difficult it is to do so with one's wallet in any meaningful way, is it possible to vote for one's representatives in any more of a meaningful way? Here in the US they have lots of cute tricks to keep voters from voting, and in light of the 2000 election debacle, how much faith do we have in our elections here?

Tricks, in the US look into the electronic voting machines ...

[Phalanx]

@ Lucid,

I saw two possible intended extremes of interpretation in your OP and chose the one that seemed to make the most sense as a topic for a discussion: "1: find a solution to the problems caused by various power balances shared between government and corporations" vs "2: compare why these entities suck and see if they suck the same amount or if one sucks less than the other we can agree which one is better to slave under, while ignoring the reason we must deal with them in the first place". I always read every word of every post before responding, but I do not always interpret the meaning in the context intended. My old post was originally many times longer, but I attempted to take out every sentence that was not relevent to the discussion or confused the meaning. Every line was deliberate. I am not a super-duper writer yet though. Here is why I thought my argument was relevent:

We are looking for a practical solution to the old problem of evil big government vs evil big corporation and the havoks, both real and exaggerated, they wreak on people's lives. Everyone can reason the basic arguments for either side, so I figured it would not be productive to post a point of view obvious enough to be derived from the premises in the OP or assimilated from a quick review of the entire libraries that have been written on this subject. I see no novel direct approaches to the problem either, but this is perhaps a limit of my perception or understanding of the problem. If the answer was somewhere within the boundaries framed by the question, someone during the past 3,000 years would have found it and it would be common knowledge. Since a practical reconciliation has not been proven for a problem considered by some of the greatest minds in history, a system which creates people who ask that question might have qualities which produce a structure in which the reconciliation cannot be found. Thus, I reasoned, staying on the topic as literally defined would not help resolve the problem the topic is meant to solve, because the problem is in the quality that produces the topic itself. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me to be completely relevent to finding a practical solution. The greater structure and its relationship to human nature must be probed, not the shadow.

It is easy to lose meaning when further abstracting a topic already so vague. An argument is like the face of a cliff: without color, there are no footholds for the mind to cling to while preparing to jump to the next, especially when the wall attempted is high enough to require such ventures. If I had described my answer to the question using moderate, pansy girly-man speech (like in the previous paragraph), it would be a sea of the grey technical, accomplishing little beyond seperating a voyager from his home, a voyager who should be climbing mountains. Would you prefer my writing be as dull and dusty as vomit spewn from the pen of a 100 year old librarian, sacrificing both the precision and clarity that comes with revealing unencumbered what I believe things are? I have difficulties compressing the space I see as the answer into the linear form appropriate to writing that can accurately recreate in someone else's mind my thoughts without reproducing the prejudices, no matter how vulgar, which define the edges.

Reb's summary of my post is more or less what I am trying to communicate. I call men ridiculous (and other terrible things) because they are, and the ridiculousness of men must be considered in a solution which governs men, as well as the structure creating the problem in the first place, so a ridiculous rant was to me the appropriate method to conduct this. (If humans are not lazy, then why do we have a word for it?)

Sorry if I am not up to speed, but I thought sometimes it isn't irrelevant to question the destination before driving there, especially if it seems that people who left ahead of me have been driving in circles for thousands of years.

[maxpot46]

I don't think anyone in this thread is proposing the complete abolition of government, Tyrant. I think even maxpot just wants an extremely limited one, though I could be wrong on that.It's the consistent outcome of the views I stated, so he's perfectly justified in (correctly) assuming that I hold the extreme position. I personally hate it when someone says they believe something, but when the assumption is made that their view is applied consistently, they say "oh, I don't mean to take it that far". It seems very wishy-washy.

In any case, I wouldn't be averse to a minimal government, since it would be a vast improvement over the current Leviathan. As a practical matter, I'm working towards a minarchist type system of voluntary taxation and non-coercively acquired funds (resulting in a "government" that retains only a monopoly on force, and does not fund itself coercively). But I do think no government at all (i.e. no coercion) would be best.





maxpot46 added to this post, 4 minutes and 18 seconds later...

Without government, you will live and die at the whim of corporate executives.I think that, without government, the opposite is true (over time). Whereas with government, you definitely live and die at the whim of government officials (even low-level ones, raise your hand if you've ever had an interaction with police where they abused their power). Corporations have to compete for customers; governments use force to maintain their monopoly and are not answerable to consumers (except every few years, in elections where the political elites choose the candidates and count the votes, minimizing consumer participation).

[Lucid]

@ Phalanx:

To summarize, no you're fine. I just thought you had misinterpreted my original post and the question, or the the intent behind it, I initially posed.

Post vociferously at will :)

[reb]

PunkinA,

i apologize. the brevity of your post lead me to an erroneous conclusion.

however, i strongly believe that the authority to make law does not derive from 'god' or from the inherent power of government, but from the existence of 'man' in totality. the 16-18th century thinkers-i wish i could remember the Englishman's name who wrote and suffered so for his views of man having an inborn right to be free-explain my outlook better than i ever can...among them, Mr. Thoreau (who was, to some extent, more talk than do) in his 'Civil Disobedience'-wiki expands this line of thinking, and i agree with their explication, and note they have left out much...were it not for civil disobedience, we would not have any societal change (arguably, good or bad):

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

there will always be times in history when some will have to stand on principle and sacrifice for what may or may not turn out to be 'the common good'. yet, this is the way existence works....'they' can imprison you, bankrupt you or kill you, but that's all 'they' can do if you have spirit...hoka hey!

[HackerX]

So I was asked to post this in thread:

To the original question:
It really is "pick your poison", since, ultimately, it doesn't make a difference in the marketplace that most of us experience:

The best way to succeed in a capitalist market is to remove capitalism from it. Which is to say, corruption, monopolies etc.

Whether it's governments, corporations or even just plain (capitalist) anarchy, you succeed in those forms by stepping away from fairy tale capitalism and into something a little more destructive (see current marketplace, or lack thereof), i.e. you succeed not by being better (i.e. fairy tale capitalism), but by having the biggest stick.

[Tyrant Soup]

But I do think no government at all (i.e. no coercion) would be best.

Without a central government to keep everyone in check, you would end up with local warlords doing whatever they want. Just look at places like Afghanistan.

Also, what about defense? With no central power, you would be susceptible to invasion.


Corporations have to compete for customers; governments use force to maintain their monopoly and are not answerable to consumers (except every few years, in elections where the political elites choose the candidates and count the votes, minimizing consumer participation).
As I said in my previous post, the government must ultimately answer to the voters. Corporation have no such limitations. They do NOT need to compete for customers. Without laws to restrict their activity, they would quickly realize that cooperation is more lucrative than competition.

[maxpot46]

Without a central government to keep everyone in check, you would end up with local warlords doing whatever they want. Just look at places like Afghanistan. Also, what about defense? With no central power, you would be susceptible to invasion. I don't agree that this would be an issue in an advanced free-market society with significant capital accumulation. Under such conditions, governments can be replaced by private producers (though not in Afghanistan where there is no such advanced free-market and very little capital accumulation).As I said in my previous post, the government must ultimately answer to the voters. Corporation have no such limitations. They do NOT need to compete for customers. Without laws to restrict their activity, they would quickly realize that cooperation is more lucrative than competition.So laws are the only reason McDonald's has to compete with Burger King? With no laws they would just form a burger cartel and could somehow include every burger producer such that there are no competitors left? I find this extremely unlikely.

[Tyrant Soup]

I don't agree that this would be an issue in an advanced free-market society with significant capital accumulation. Under such conditions, governments can be replaced by private producers (though not in Afghanistan where there is no such advanced free-market and very little capital accumulation).


What you describe appears to be more in tune with what Marx called the "withering away of the state". Under communism, the opposite happened. Under capitalism the same will occur. Totalitarianism is the more probable outcome. Idealism does not take into account people's propensity for greed. They will never be satisfied unless they have more than their neighbors.


So laws are the only reason McDonald's has to compete with Burger King? With no laws they would just form a burger cartel and could somehow include every burger producer such that there are no competitors left? I find this extremely unlikely.

A big corporation could easily drive small competitors out of the market. The fear of bankruptcy will prevent any new players from entering. If the remaining big players are evenly matched, there would be no benefit for them to engage in price competition.

[Lucid]

Under such conditions, governments can be replaced by private producers...

And how would they be any different than the government? Whether you're governed by private industry or by elected officials... what's the practical difference?

[maxpot46]

From a utilitarian perspective, the difference is competition vs. monopoly where the former turns out cheap high quality products and the latter expensive low quality products. From an ethical perspective, the difference is persuasion vs. coercion, where in the former the customer decides how his money is spent, and in the latter the producer decides (after taking money from the customer by force).

[reb]

Without a central government to keep everyone in check, you would end up with local warlords doing whatever they want. Just look at places like Afghanistan.

Also, what about defense? With no central power, you would be susceptible to invasion.


As I said in my previous post, the government must ultimately answer to the voters. Corporation have no such limitations. They do NOT need to compete for customers. Without laws to restrict their activity, they would quickly realize that cooperation is more lucrative than competition.

Tyrant, frankly, from a certain perspective, what you posted is what we now have in the u.s.s. of a.. we are invaded by those who are 'not legally immigrating', the corporate warlords are doing what they want, and the government is not responsive to the voters. yes, so we vote-no matter-government is still-after Clinton, Bush and into Obama-doing exactly as it pleases, with small notice of public opinion. i have seen a progression from Bush I to now of decreasing accountability.

really, i would call 'this' anarchy...somewhat controlled, perhaps, but anarchy nonetheless.

[Tyrant Soup]

the government is not responsive to the voters. yes, so we vote-no matter-government is still-after Clinton, Bush and into Obama-doing exactly as it pleases, with small notice of public opinion. i have seen a progression from Bush I to now of decreasing accountability.


The current system is far from ideal. The apathy and ignorance of the general population makes it easy for special interests to exert excessive influence over the government.

[JeffersonFawkes]

The government has a monopoly on legalized force, and may force you to comply with whatever it wants. The business relies on voluntary exchange or goes out of business. As soon as a business makes a ruling and tries to enforce it through violence or imprisonment than it becomes a government by the legal definition.
The most common concerns in regards to corporation is monopoly. Has there ever been a monopoly that is not the direct or indirect result of government intervention? (beyond the scope of protecting the people from fraud that is)





JeffersonFawkes added to this post, 12 minutes and 48 seconds later...

we're closer to oligarchy than anarchy. There is still a system of laws. Most of these are corporate protocols than the actual constitution. While I may not go with all of their ideas the John Birch's Society has a video on their home page To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. that does a decent job of laying out the different forms of government and what is what. The council is the law in an oligarchy. In total anarchy he who has a means of defense/offense and is willing to use it is the law. We definitely aren't under rule by law which would be a republic (see constituion and pledge of allegiance) though we do keep claiming to be a democracy which would be rule by whoever is able to manipulate the masses. The BBC documentary Century of the Self does an excellent job of showing just how well would work.