Also, tyranny is the same as heavy, heavy, regulation. Look through history: when has any country ever experience tyranny through a lack of regulation? Never!
As an example of why regulation is bad, consider the 10% margin I mentioned earlier. Now we have regulations that don't allow us to use less than 50% margin. But who does this rule hurt? Banks and the profesh came up with options, derivatives, etc. that allow them to get the leverage they desire. So the regulation ends up doing nothing more than limiting the choices of the common people.
I am fine with a tax, a progressive income tax. The problem is when some central planner tells people what they should do. People don't need a central planner to protect them from their own voluntary choices. They may need a government to redistribute wealth and provide for a number of great goals like education, the military, space research, etc., but not to regulate the people.
If you want to end corporate influence in politics, stop the regulation! What company would bother spending money to influence a government that did not regulate? The government would no longer be in a position to do anything to help them.
You don't need to fear corporations unless they are using the government. We don't need regulations to protect us from corporations without government, we need less regulations to protect us from corporations in cahoots with government.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
You vote the most important parts of government into office. You will never have a vote in any corporate decision unless you are a shareholder. Even as an employee, as part of the company, you have no voice. A government is only accountable to no one if it doesn't hold free and public elections.
You have a huge voice in any corporate decision. You are a customer. You can refuse to buy their product! On the other hand, you cannot say no to the government. If you do you will be hauled off to jail.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
I think you only need look at the global warming issue and how much money has been spent convincing the public that it is a lie to see that corporate power is to be feared, is not good for the population, and cannot be solved by a simple "just don't shop at those places."
Global warming is one issue on which we need international action, because there is no incentive for anyone by themselves to cut emissions. But as for people spending money to campaign for something, I'm not scared of that. It's their money, they can spend it how they wish. When they come to your house to confiscate your electric car and force you to drive a gas guzzler, then it will be time to fear!
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
People have been fighting for international action for the last decade, though! And what has always been the roadblock? The US, acting as a result of the corporations lining politician pockets and being so awful that they have convinced a huge amount of the population that global warming is actually and fake and that we have nothing to fear. That's something you need a strong and accountable government for. People have to say "I want you to force our energy usage down cleaner roads" and every first and second world country has to do it. It's a worldwide disaster, and one that will never be addressed while corporate power has any say on policy whatsoever.
And also far less democratic. Killing people who disagree with you is more valuable than votes too. So is making sure you're the one counting the votes. I'd rather we just have votes.
You're forgetting about China, which refuses to even countenance the idea of lowering emissions. Their emissions go up 10% a year and are now higher than the US's.
Of course corporations have a right to defend themselves in the political process, if they are about to be deprived of a lot of profits. I'm not sure how this is supposed to generate fear of corporations- if the voters wanted to, they could get people elected who want to cut emissions. They don't, for whatever reason.
To the extent that corporations have too much control over government, the answer is to deregulate. With less regulation, corporations will not be able to wield government as a sword to harm others. Global warming doesn't fit this pattern, and is an unusual case. But I'm still not seeing anything to fear.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
Part of the American political tradition is that we also protect the civil rights of everyone, including the minorities. Even if half the population voted to enslave the other half (which I think is pretty dubious on it's face) we wouldn't consider it.
And before you ask, nope, I don't think "make a **** ton of money" is a civil right, and yes, I do think the rich should be taxed at whatever rate the public decides on. if the rich don't like the decision, they can make compelling arguments for why they should be taxed less.
if the voters wanted to, they could get people elected who want to cut emissions. They don't, for whatever reason.
I think Chomsky's description of the propaganda model covers this pretty well
And before you ask, nope, I don't think "make a **** ton of money" is a civil right
What about "the right to own property" at all?
Because if you acknowledge property rights exist, and the freedom to contract exists, then things like the progressive income tax clearly violate those rights.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
The WORST CASE SCENARIO by the most pessimistic distopian leftists is a future where corporations grow to be as powerful as.... the government. Because it is literally impossible to have more power than an organization which claims to own both your body and up to 100% of your property should enough votes decide to do that.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
I do think the rich should be taxed at whatever rate the public decides on. if the rich don't like the decision, they can make compelling arguments for why they should be taxed less.
Me too, and I think that rate should be a lot higher than for the bottom 80%. But I don't agree with regulation, only taxation and perhaps legal action under anti-trust laws to break up monopolies that are too large for comfort.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
The WORST CASE SCENARIO by the most pessimistic distopian leftists is a future where corporations grow to be as powerful as.... the government. Because it is literally impossible to have more power than an organization which claims to own both your body and up to 100% of your property should enough votes decide to do that.
Right, but I will always have a say in government decisions. And if I can make compelling arguments for a cause, my power increases for that specific issue. I will never have any say in any company's decision unless I'm a stockholder. My ability to influence them by my shopping habits is marginal. Maybe for small businesses fighting for survival, you can say they're sort of democratic because they have to be extremely responsive to their customer base's needs. But large corporations, no way.
I am opposed to any large body of power ruling over me if I have no say in it.
From: red sox 777 | #267 The power to build a gigantic plate making it so millions of people can never see the light of day.
Nah, the US government totally claims powers like this, they just haven't bothered to exercise them just yet.
Right, but I will always have a say in government decisions
Not if you're among the 49% in the minority. And if you mean "I always get to vote," well not so fast. What if the government declares something totally harmless, like say, selling marijuana to a friend, to be a felony, and you get caught doing it, and you lose your voting rights?
I will never have any say in any company's decision unless I'm a stockholder
Totally untrue. Your whole train of thought of "You can argue your point and convince others" applies just as well to corporations as it does to governments. Pressure groups who own zero shares affect corporate decisions CONSTANTLY.
But large corporations, no way.
Why did bank of America choose to rescind their debit card fee? Why did Netflix not go through with Qwikster?
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Right, but I will always have a say in government decisions. And if I can make compelling arguments for a cause, my power increases for that specific issue. I will never have any say in any company's decision unless I'm a stockholder. My ability to influence them by my shopping habits is marginal. Maybe for small businesses fighting for survival, you can say they're sort of democratic because they have to be extremely responsive to their customer base's needs. But large corporations, no way.
I am opposed to any large body of power ruling over me if I have no say in it.
Large corporations do not rule over you. If you wanted to avoid doing business with any company in the US, you could. They have no power to force you to do anything.
Also, I daresay your decisions as a consumer matter a lot more to any company that your vote does to US politics. What distinguishes wonderful companies that grow and grow from companies that go bankrupt? How much consumers buy their products. If a company was so callous as to consider you as insignificant, then it'd have to consider everyone else in your position insignificant too. Well, that's a lot of people, and I probably would not invest in such a company. Because it's going to alienate all its customers.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
Omar, do you really think you have more influence in the federal government than you do corporations?
Do you really think that you have more influence in, say, whether the US attacks Iran or not, versus whether Domino's improves their sauce formula, or whether Hasbro releases show-accurate MLP toys, or whether Nintendo releases a better 2nd analog stick thing for the 3DS, etc.?
You can't do anything to change the federal government. Let's say you don't want a war in Iran, what do you do? Vote Romney? Don't vote? You can't change anything. Your power over corporations as a customer is infinitely greater than your power as a voter over the federal government (because 0 times infinity is still 0).
-- _foolmo_ 'You are obviously intelligent and insightful' - Sir Chris about me
Nah, the US government totally claims powers like this, they just haven't bothered to exercise them just yet.
If you mean that some people in the executive and legislative branches claim such powers, that's true. But they have not been held to have them legally.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
And if you're a shareholder, you're practically a demi-god to these corporations. They will kiss your ass so hard, because without you, they are literally worthless.
-- _foolmo_ 'he says listen to my story this maybe are last chance' - ertyu quoting Tidus
If you mean that some people in the executive and legislative branches claim such powers, that's true. But they have not been held to have them legally.
They have claimed, legally, the right to have a secret list of people they are allowed to kill, to include American citizens.
Do we really need to sweat the details here?
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
And if you're a shareholder, you're practically a demi-god to these corporations. They will kiss your ass so hard, because without you, they are literally worthless.
I don't know about that. Maybe if you're a really big shareholder. I feel confident if I walked into McDonald's and announced I was a shareholder, I wouldn't even be able to get a 1 cent discount on my food.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
say a corporation says "you will buy our product or we will shoot you" or maybe "you will buy our product or you will starve to death." what am I going to do about it? nothing. I can gather everyone up and we can use violence to annihilate them altogether, but that's it.
what if a government does the same thing? well, I have more options. I can still use violence as a last resort, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants" etc. but I can also vote whoever is responsible for that out of office. I can send money to politicians who don't want to kill me. I have every option I have with the corporations, plus I have a direct vote. a government would have to seize control of business/agriculture completely and remove my right to vote to be in the same position that a powerful corporation could be in. and in that case, it wouldn't be meaningfully different from a powerful corporation.
in response specifically to the last couple posts: I think corporations only have to be responsive to our needs as long as there's competition. which I think it's fair to say does not last without force backed by popular government. monopolies didn't stop existing because they didn't make sense, the government forcibly broke them up and put rules in place to prevent them from happening (mostly) because the public was outraged about how they were being treated. we've already had an era of unregulated business and it was a disaster for the public, while being great for the few people who controlled these massive corporations. no one but a strong federal government can challenge that kind of power.
From: foolm0ron | #274 And if you're a shareholder, you're practically a demi-god to these corporations. They will kiss your ass so hard, because without you, they are literally worthless.
ehhhhh this isn't really true. I own 23 shares of Microsoft. There are about 8.3 billion shares outstanding. They aren't kissing my ass anytime soon!
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
monopolies didn't stop existing because they didn't make sense, the government forcibly broke them up and put rules in place to prevent them from happening (mostly) because the public was outraged about how they were being treated.
I'm really sad to see someone whose opinions I respect espouse such historically ignorant positions.
We're just going in circles on this so I'm not going to re-hash the entire argument again, but I will state the facts very clearly.
Monopoly CANNOT exist in a free market. Monopoly is defined as exclusive privilege granted by the state. No state, no monopoly.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
From: red sox 777 | #276 I don't know about that. Maybe if you're a really big shareholder. I feel confident if I walked into McDonald's and announced I was a shareholder, I wouldn't even be able to get a 1 cent discount on my food.
From: SmartMuffin | #278 ehhhhh this isn't really true. I own 23 shares of Microsoft. There are about 8.3 billion shares outstanding. They aren't kissing my ass anytime soon!
It's all about the attitude. You gotta act like a big shot. Don't even give them the opportunity to think you only own 0.001% of shares.
-- _foolmo_ 'Most people at least try to say something funny. See foolmo's post as an example.' - The Real Truth
From: OmarsComin | #277 say a corporation says "you will buy our product or we will shoot you" or maybe "you will buy our product or you will starve to death." what am I going to do about it? nothing.
For the first one, that is a direct threat to a life so they would definitely have to get arrested
For the second one... you would just buy a different company's product? Is this really that hard to figure out? Unless you're proposing that this is the ONLY company in the existence selling food, which doesn't make any sense at all.
-- _foolmo_ 'but that statement is something only an Aspergers patient would say' - UltimaterializerX
For the second one... you would just buy a different company's product? Is this really that hard to figure out? Unless you're proposing that this is the ONLY company in the existence selling food, which doesn't make any sense at all.
well in my hypothetical, they would've bought all the other food companies. I didn't make it clear but I was responding to what S-Muf said here:
The WORST CASE SCENARIO by the most pessimistic distopian leftists is a future where corporations grow to be as powerful as.... the government. Because it is literally impossible to have more power than an organization which claims to own both your body and up to 100% of your property should enough votes decide to do that.
So my example is a "ridiculous extreme" like I said. A situation where we've limited government power and corporations have risen to power in their place, and bought out any notable competition. Which I suspect would happen pretty quickly, there's no reason to compete if you don't have to.
say a corporation says "you will buy our product or we will shoot you" or maybe "you will buy our product or you will starve to death." what am I going to do about it? nothing. I can gather everyone up and we can use violence to annihilate them altogether, but that's it.
This is not a corporation. This is a government.
what if a government does the same thing? well, I have more options. I can still use violence as a last resort, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants" etc. but I can also vote whoever is responsible for that out of office. I can send money to politicians who don't want to kill me. I have every option I have with the corporations, plus I have a direct vote. a government would have to seize control of business/agriculture completely and remove my right to vote to be in the same position that a powerful corporation could be in. and in that case, it wouldn't be meaningfully different from a powerful corporation.
Do you really think your vote counts in a totalitarian regime?
in response specifically to the last couple posts: I think corporations only have to be responsive to our needs as long as there's competition.
Bingo
which I think it's fair to say does not last without force backed by popular government. monopolies didn't stop existing because they didn't make sense, the government forcibly broke them up and put rules in place to prevent them from happening (mostly) because the public was outraged about how they were being treated. we've already had an era of unregulated business and it was a disaster for the public, while being great for the few people who controlled these massive corporations. no one but a strong federal government can challenge that kind of power.
No. There are probably more companies that have used government to enforce their monopolies than vice-versa. As for the monopolies that were broken up, they were broken up. They were not broken up by being regulated by rules, they were broken up by a legal action seeking to break them up. No regulation is needed, what is good is more competition.
And it's silly to say that without a strong government, the trend will be towards consolidation into massive conglomerate monopolies. You might get some, but not many, and no more than you would with a government. Less than you would get with regulation, which as I have been explaining is inherently anticompetitive in nature. The goal is to spread out power in many different locations, and that is best accomplished with little regulation.
And the era of unregulated business (1840 - 1929) was the greatest period of growth in our history. It was a time of very rapid improvements in prosperity. We went from a backwater nation to the richest, most prosperous, country on earth.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
So my example is a "ridiculous extreme" like I said. A situation where we've limited government power and corporations have risen to power in their place, and bought out any notable competition. Which I suspect would happen pretty quickly, there's no reason to compete if you don't have to.
Except the CURRENT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, which you seem to have no issue with, ALREADY claims the LEGAL AUTHORITY to say "We've decided you're a terrorist and we're going to have a drone drop a bomb on you."
That's not some crazy distopian future. That's now.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
From: OmarsComin | #285 So my example is a "ridiculous extreme" like I said. A situation where we've limited government power and corporations have risen to power in their place, and bought out any notable competition. Which I suspect would happen pretty quickly, there's no reason to compete if you don't have to.
Ah, well I hope you don't think we want to get rid of anti-trust laws and all that stuff. There's a difference between limited regulation and no regulation.
I also hope that you realize the parallels between your "buy our product or starve to death" scenario and Obamacare's "buy our product or go to jail"
-- _foolmo_ 'Oh please, if foolmo made that analogy you'd think it was picture perfect' - Biolizard28
Oh I have a lot of problems with our current federal government. It's where I've found common ground with everyone else ITT. I still think RP is better than every other Republican candidate and there's a good chance he's better than Obama too. I might still find myself voting for him. Our government simultaneously tramples on civil rights while declaring wars we don't want and crippling business competition with regulations that only help certain people.
I just wish we had someone from the Chomsky line of thought running. I'd probably vote for them over pretty much anyone else.
anyway I gotta split for now but it's been good discussion. I'll catch up next time I'm around!
Ah, well I hope you don't think we want to get rid of anti-trust laws and all that stuff. There's a difference between limited regulation and no regulation
Yes we do.
Anti-trust laws are an unconstitutional assault on individual freedom.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
SmartMuffin posted... Ah, well I hope you don't think we want to get rid of anti-trust laws and all that stuff. There's a difference between limited regulation and no regulation
Yes we do.
Anti-trust laws are an unconstitutional assault on individual freedom.
Who's we? Also, the principles of the free market don't really work very well without competition!
-- No I'm not a damn furry. Looney Tunes are different. - Guiga I wanted Sonic/Shadow romance at that time, not sex. - MWE
Who's we? Also, the principles of the free market don't really work very well without competition!
Anyone who loves freedom.
Competition will always exist in a free market. The only time there would be no competition is if the consumers chose to have a monopoly because one company was truly THAT DAMN GOOD.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
I love freedom and I'm a fan of antitrust laws. This is because I know that something being good doesn't mean we should always carry it through to the absolute extreme.
You know that the reason the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed was because problems with monopolies/cartels/etc actually existed, right? Not because someone wanted to restrict freedom for the hell of it.
-- No I'm not a damn furry. Looney Tunes are different. - Guiga I wanted Sonic/Shadow romance at that time, not sex. - MWE
You know that the reason the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed was because problems with monopolies/cartels/etc actually existed, right? Not because someone wanted to restrict freedom for the hell of it.
Like what? The major problem of Standard Oil dramatically lowering the price of oil for the masses? AND improving product quality greatly. AND improving safety for workers and consumers alike? Good thing government was around to put a stop to all of that!
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Why are liberals so afraid of corporations? Just stop shopping at/supporting them and encourage others to do the same.
You really think, say, Walmart would cease to exist if you stop shopping at it/supporting it?
Competition will always exist in a free market. The only time there would be no competition is if the consumers chose to have a monopoly because one company was truly THAT DAMN GOOD.
More people use Windows than Linux, but many would argue Linux is a better OS. You're assuming 100% of consumers are aware of what the best product is, but this isn't necessarily the case.
From: Mr Lasastryke | #297 More people use Windows than Linux, but many would argue Linux is a better OS.
No they don't. It's different. There is a market for Windows, and there is a market for Linux, and clearly the market for Windows is larger, but there will always exist the Linux market no matter how much market share Windows/Mac takes.
-- _foolmo_ 'You are obviously intelligent and insightful' - Sir Chris about me
Regardless, I'm skeptical of Muffn's "if product A is better than product B, this will automatically result in a monopoly of the product A company in a free market system" reasoning. I wouldn't assume all consumers will always know what the better product is.
From the lawsuit: "The evidence is, in fact, absolutely conclusive that the Standard Oil Company charges altogether excessive prices where it meets no competition, and particularly where there is little likelihood of competitors entering the field, and that, on the other hand, where competition is active, it frequently cuts prices to a point which leaves even the Standard little or no profit, and which more often leaves no profit to the competitor, whose costs are ordinarily somewhat higher."
Yep, things sure sounded great, until they'd successfully strangled all competition around!
-- No I'm not a damn furry. Looney Tunes are different. - Guiga I wanted Sonic/Shadow romance at that time, not sex. - MWE