It's May 13, 2024, 02:29:37 AM
Brian, I'm not sure Microsoft is the best way to support your case. Without the good services of the government Microsoft wouldn't be the empire that it is. In other words, Bill Gates didn't make it on his own. The question is whether you support the idea of allocating public funds and goods to corporations. You claim you "speak against it". If so then why did you just attempt to justify the parasite nature of Microsoft. Sure, it provides jobs, so did slavery, so do sweatshops, does that make them legitimate? If not, it also doesn't justify the privatization of public funds.You seem to be concerned with individual rights. Corporations infringe on individual rights non-stop. They dominate the traditional media, they are making attempts to dominate the internet, they dominate the government, they constantly deceive the public through propaganda, not to speak of their tremendous impact on foreign policy.Let's also not forget their institutional structure which is straight totalitarian top-down control.Yet, all of this does not count as infringements on individual rights in your moral calculus.Now, clearly you understand the idea of collectivist entities existing for their own purpose.I share your disgust with such entities.However, there is hardly a more paradigmatic example for such entities than modern corporations, which were initially designed to be temporary public projects, with revocable charters, untill early in the 20th century when they were granted the rights of human beings, not through legislation, not through the constitution, but through judicial activism. They were also ordered a new pathological purpose by the courts- to maximize profit, without any regard for the human environment, unless it serves their business interest. Governments, though often corrupt, have at least some accountability to the public. In addition, people like Adam Smith, not indifferent to individual rights and markets,would be disgusted by such monopolies that totally undermine free markets, while subjecting people's labour to external control.
We need more post like this, lets get legit discussion going in this section again.
Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on April 02, 2009, 02:50:09 PMBrian, I'm not sure Microsoft is the best way to support your case. Without the good services of the government Microsoft wouldn't be the empire that it is. In other words, Bill Gates didn't make it on his own. The question is whether you support the idea of allocating public funds and goods to corporations. You claim you "speak against it". If so then why did you just attempt to justify the parasite nature of Microsoft. Sure, it provides jobs, so did slavery, so do sweatshops, does that make them legitimate? If not, it also doesn't justify the privatization of public funds.You seem to be concerned with individual rights. Corporations infringe on individual rights non-stop. They dominate the traditional media, they are making attempts to dominate the internet, they dominate the government, they constantly deceive the public through propaganda, not to speak of their tremendous impact on foreign policy.Let's also not forget their institutional structure which is straight totalitarian top-down control.Yet, all of this does not count as infringements on individual rights in your moral calculus.Now, clearly you understand the idea of collectivist entities existing for their own purpose.I share your disgust with such entities.However, there is hardly a more paradigmatic example for such entities than modern corporations, which were initially designed to be temporary public projects, with revocable charters, untill early in the 20th century when they were granted the rights of human beings, not through legislation, not through the constitution, but through judicial activism. They were also ordered a new pathological purpose by the courts- to maximize profit, without any regard for the human environment, unless it serves their business interest. Governments, though often corrupt, have at least some accountability to the public. In addition, people like Adam Smith, not indifferent to individual rights and markets,would be disgusted by such monopolies that totally undermine free markets, while subjecting people's labour to external control.Obviously im against corporatism, but you can't blame these CEO's for wanting to befriend the government, especially now when the government is firing CEO's. And even before that they were burdening businesses by having so many tax laws and regulations on the books that its nearly impossible for an employer to know what's legal and not legal. They can be sued for millions over spilt coffee, have the government strip their liscence or charge exorbitant amounts for liscencing, and so on....And your explaination of the history of capatlism was nonsense. There is capatlism everywhere and at everytime in your life. When you walk into the bar, you are a commodity, and women will bid for you, and if they can offer you what you want, looks, sexuality, money... or just good convo, common interest.... whatever it is you like.... when you take her home you've basically secured a business deal in that you and her are agreeing on something.Let me take it to an even more basic level. you decide who you want to have conversation with during the day.... people want to talk to you and you want to talk to other people, but you will only talk if you have something they want to hear or vice versa.. this is also a business transaction at its root....money is only a means of exchange, but don't let the size of the private sector fool you, its still the same basic principal. If an employer offers you a better offer than other employers you will deal with him and vice versa, just like you will deal with the girl that offers you what you want, or you will have conversation with those you choose....Life is a continuous series of exchanges amongst humans and money is only a means of exchange, this is nature and can not be controlled or manufactured by government.you choose what product to buy and what job to work at, but once government gets involved it becomes and issue of FORCE, and a socialist government can force you to work for a certain cause and pay taxes for whatever the leader feels is most important to him.
First of all, notice you didn't dispute any of the corporate infringements on individual rights I pointed to. Plus, you once again tried to justify government intervention by saying "you can't blame these CEO's for wanting to befriend the government". "Befriend" is not the most accurate term, try "influence". There's a good study on the mechanics of this. Just look up Thomas Ferguson's "Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Parties and the Logic of Money Driven Politics", at the local library. Second of all, I didn't offer an "explanation of the history of capitalism". Instead, I gave a general outline of the evolution of corporate law. If you want to dispute it-you appear to think it's "nonsense"- you might want to write a critique on the excellent series of studies called "The Transformation of American Law" by this guy from Harvard named Morton J. Horwitz, cause that's where I got it from.Third of all, you seem to think you're living under capitalism, where there is competition and free markets. You'll notice I referred earlier to Adam Smith, who provided the intellectual foundation for free markets and capitalism. I said he would be disgusted by the current shape of the system. The reason I said this-and this should be obvious to anyone who hasn't lost touch with reality-is that free markets and competition don't really exist in systems like the U.S, where the leading players rely on huge government subsidies, as well as other practices (the ones I mentioned earlier) that are designed to undermine markets. There may exist some limited degree of competition between the few bodies receiving huge government subsidies, but this is oligopoly, not what Adam Smith had in mind in "The Wealth of Nations".
If you disagree with "America's current state of corporatism", explain why " you can't blame these CEO's for wanting to befriend the government"?(my emphasis).In your answer remember to address the fact corporatism means, as you said, "businesses using government to strengthen their position in the market".Secondly, I didn't claim you "consider America in 2009 to be a great and shining example of capitalism and the free market". Instead, I was commenting on your statement that "There is capitalism everywhere and at everytime in your life". And I pointed out that if the intellectual foundation of capitalism matters, then capitalism doesn't really exist in the US. To borrow your words, capitalism is not "everywhere and at every time".
Now, in systems like ours, we have state subsidized corporations, we have propaganda-advertising and P.R - which is intended to undermine markets.
That means competition is not ubiquitous, it's highly localized, as is wealth.
Capitalism, in the Adam Smith sense, means market competition under conditions of perfect freedom, conditions which are absent from our societies, if only for the government intervention in favor of big business. I can see you have some problem with Chomsky, but I'm not quoting Chomsky, I'm relying on the intellectual foundation of capitalism.
And again, if u're opposed to corporatism, why can't we blame the CEOs seeking government intervention?
I didn't say capitalism doesn't exist as an idea, I said it doesn't exist in reality due to the way our systems function. You may call it a thief. But theives are marginal, while this is the core of the system.
Secondly, the question that was posed to you was indeed a question of principle. And I don't see how one can both support government intervention and be against it at the same time.
As I said earlier- and also bothered to refer you to the relevant scholarship-
maximizing profit was to be the chief concern for big business,
also gave a reference to a study dealing with business exerting pressure on government. Now in such conditions, where else do you go to mitigate the harm of publicly unaccountable entities, other than to the government, which is at least accountable to some extent.
I kinda feel like we're talking in circles now.
You also said we shouldn't blame big business for wanting government intervention, while claiming to be against government intervention.
Finally, big business is accountable to its shareholders, not to its employees-whose salaries often need to be kept at a minimum for reasons of profit(Remember what happent to Ford early in the 20th century-Dodge vs. Ford- when he wanted to give his employees greater salaries- the shareholders sued him and won on grounds that business should not engage in altruistic deeds unless it is for more profit). It is also not accountable to it's consumers unless we're talking about business-to-business. Human consumers, as opposed to other corporations, can be, and are, routinely deceived through what you regard as legitimate methods like propaganda.