[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
The topic is should we let corporations or the common workers control things. I’m on the side of corporations as far as taxing and such goes. A few of my points are:
-
most capable people rise to the top, they know how to run buisnesses the best.
-
To hold a monopoly in a truly free marker you need to maintain quality and resonable pricing in both the end product and how you treat your employee. Or you could hold a limited resource, which is going to be a monopoly in any system.
-
There would still be no infringement on human rights.
-
More would be produced with lower taxes, more goods means more people having goods.
-
Most corporations will never reach their maximum production potential without a lower tax rate preferably a flat tax. gov’t revenue won’t be lost and will probably be gained through the laffer curve
-
excess govt revenue could be reinvested through building roads and military spending(which creates jobs) and giving it back to the coorporations if it means increasing avaiable jobs or increasing wages/benefits for workers or lowering prices.
Does anyone have any good reading or opinions they have?[/quote]
I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Corporations hold more power in America than Jefferson ever dreamed of.
Corporations are not people. They do not grow old, die in Iraq, or have children. They should not have the constitutional rights guaranteed to people. When corporations control government, all civic, social, and environmental values are subverted to profiteering motives.
Corporate control of government means that there will be no more enforcement of laws protecting people from corporate fraud, breach of contract, environmental violations, and other crimes. It means that the end of rule of law.
If unchecked by the government, the profiteering motive stops at nothing and is not adequately restrained by the marketplace. Scroll through history if you do not believe this. 19th century land and coal companies with high degrees of influence over Washington illegitimately seized most of the land in Appalachia, allowing locals to keep living on “company land” if they subjected themselves to horrific labor conditions, 16 hour work days, and pay so measly that most workers fell into severe debt to the company store. Company towns were set up beneath slurry dams that illegally tampered with rivers and streams, and when these dams broke, killing hundreds, companies controlled local government and got away with a slap on the wrist or no punishment at all.
Meanwhile, corporate lobbyists and corporate lawyers in Washington were hard at work in the courts reinterpreting the constitution so that corporations could be entitled constitutional rights granted to persons.
It wasn’t supposed to be like this. When this country was founded, corporate charters – rights to exist – were granted and could be revoked for violation of the law. Corporations could only engage in a very specific set activities for their chartered purpose. They could not own stock in other companies, and could not make political contributions are attempt to influence law-making.
Corporate control of government does not result in free market capitalism. It brings about a state subsidized capitalism where corporations are lavished with subsidies, bailouts, special favors, lax or nonexistent enforcement of law, all at the expense of the American taxpayer. In fact, it is not capitalism at all when huge corporations are not allowed to fail and are always bailed out.
Your suggestion that the poor should have no voice in government sounds like a great way for public roads, services, libraries, the police force, etc to deteriorate in low income neighborhoods, while the city decides to run an noisy elevated track through the heart of a residential area which farther erodes property value. Sounds like a great way to end up with liberal usage of eminent domain to relocate the poor out of entire neighborhoods to make way for a shopping mall.
Meanwhile, your gasp welfare state won’t disappear at all. Walmart will try to get the government to give some kind of welfare to its workers so that it can get away with paying even lower wages.
And say goodbye to start up companies and other competitive threats.
Oh, and if you were hoping that something would be done about illegal immigration, your little idea of surrendering our country to corporations is the best way to ensure that illegal immigration will grow to be an even greater problem.