My Rant On T-Nation

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

I agree with the poster on most points–corporations are/can be very bad inherently–though I do not believe they are intentionally bad. It baffles me that some corporations can get wealthy (and by extension allow an elite few to also become uber-wealthy) by taking resources from nature–resources that should belong to everyone.

Oil, for example should not just belong to the people with the capacity to pump it. I am not saying it should be free either–I am saying there should be a limit to how much a corporation should be able to profit from nature.

I also support caps on executive salaries. This would not be necessary if the common laborers were taking away a larger percentage of the profit. Many argue this would take away the incentives to invest or work in certain industries. I think this is false. I think that all it does is create greed in people who would otherwise not have it. Greed is not the result of wealth; it is the result of the assumption that more than enough wealth is necessary.

I understand the concept of commission and am led to believe this is the assumption under which many executives get paid. It was my leadership that led to the company profiting $200 million so maybe I deserve a certain percentage of that profit. Many companies do this with all their employees–there are also many that don’t.

In a socialist society we would share the wealth and ensure all our citizens were taken care of–in a capitalist society we assume everyone is equal and thus capable of taking care of themselves and therefore responsible for their own prosperity or poverty. This has some benefits and some drawbacks.

One drawback is that if I weren’t smart enough to have gone to college and gotten a degree I would not be sitting here theorizing the downfall of society. I’d be scrubbing toilettes for $7.25/hour hoping my kid doesn’t get sick, hoping this winter the price of heating fuel doesn’t raise too much so my daughter can stay warm, hoping the bus drivers don’t go on strike so I can get to work because my car needs a new transmission…

But I am smart and I did graduate form college and I do make wicked good loot so fuck all that thinking…hooray for me and everyone like me.

[Nominal_Prospect]

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Just a quick question here: What kind of corporation will maintain a natural preserve, making basically zero money in the process, whilst ignoring the obvious advantages of developing the land that they rightfully own?

That doesn’t sound like good business to me, man.[/quote]

It’s not about maintaining a reservation, it’s about maintaining a renewable source of resources. Obviously, the companies would develop the land and harvest it’s resources. But they would also ensure that those resources lasted as long as possible, in order to maximize their return on investment. They would not “rape the land and leave”, which is the current situation that everyone is crying about. I’m not seeing why this concept is at all hard to grasp.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
That doesn’t sound like good business to me, man.

It is not.[/quote]

Tell that to the diamond companies, whose entire profit depends on carefully controlling the market supply of a natural resource that would otherwise be common and of little value.

I don’t think you’re thinking this all the way through.

Most people don’t.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I agree with the poster on most points–corporations are/can be very bad inherently–though I do not believe they are intentionally bad. It baffles me that some corporations can get wealthy (and by extension allow an elite few to also become uber-wealthy) by taking resources from nature–resources that should belong to everyone.

Oil, for example should not just belong to the people with the capacity to pump it. I am not saying it should be free either–I am saying there should be a limit to how much a corporation should be able to profit from nature.[/quote]

You hold some deep convinctions about human nature and the world that are – how shall I say – flat out wrong.

Has it never occured to you that, at the most fundamental level, the person or entity that controls the resources is the one that has the physical capability of doing so? In other words, the strongest, fittest, etc…

Your thinking is poisoned with the false Government vs. Market dynamic. Government doesn’t operate outside the market. Government is simply an agency in the market which claims a monopoly on the use of force. It establishes and maintains it’s “legitimacy” solely through violence. The market, by definition, encompasses all human individuals and institutions. It is a scientific term used by economists to try and quantify the sum of all human interactions.

Whenever you make statements about how things ought or ought not to be, you are waving a magic wand and invoking the power of some authority to make things right. So, you seek power to make things your way…and so does everyone else. The state of the world is precisely a reflection of this principle. If the world does not please you, then it is because you lack the power to change it.

[lucasa]

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

It’s not about maintaining a reservation, it’s about maintaining a renewable source of resources. Obviously, the companies would develop the land and harvest it’s resources. But they would also ensure that those resources lasted as long as possible, in order to maximize their return on investment. They would not “rape the land and leave”, which is the current situation that everyone is crying about. I’m not seeing why this concept is at all hard to grasp.[/quote]

A) What about the largest corporations that reap/sell non-renewable resources. Coal companies, Oil companies, Mineral companies, as shown repeatedly, would care less about the ecosystem as long as the coal/oil/mineral came out of the ground. And those companies that did care about their ecosystems would only care about theirs.

B) You retardedly assume that all the companies in the world would automatically consume all the land. Not even close, and this ignores oceans which would be largely unclaimable/usable.

C) Public lands are a requisite for the function of any society, even if only transiently. The right to peaceably assemble has a prerequesite of location.

D) What about companies who have little/no overhead and/or minimize it? Does Dell or Amazon need to buy land? If they pollute and don’t need to buy/maintain land, then nothing gets solved.

E) Having worked on several farms, I can say that some of the single largest and most numerous offenders of EPA pesticide and herbicide regulations are people who are using them privately on their own land. The corporately owned farms are, more often than not, the more stringently regulated, regimented, and enforced.

I could go on, but these are some pretty HYOOGE (and easy) reasons why privatizing land doesn’t solve the issue your talking about. If the car pollutes, it doesn’t matter if it’s a company car or not.

[Nominal_Prospect]

[quote]lucasa wrote:
A) What about the largest corporations that reap/sell non-renewable resources. Coal companies, Oil companies, Mineral companies, as shown repeatedly, would care less about the ecosystem as long as the coal/oil/mineral came out of the ground. And those companies that did care about their ecosystems would only care about theirs.[/quote]

If the resource is non-renewable, then conservation is a moot point however you slice it. Conservation only applies to renewable resources. As for pollution, I’ll address that in a minute.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
B) You retardedly assume that all the companies in the world would automatically consume all the land. Not even close, and this ignores oceans which would be largely unclaimable/usable.[/quote]

No, I assume that property rights laws would be enforced. There’s no reason why they couldn’t be enforced in aquatic territory. If governments can claim jurisdiction over oceanic territories, then corporations could, too.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
C) Public lands are a requisite for the function of any society, even if only transiently. The right to peaceably assemble has a prerequesite of location.[/quote]

That issue can be handled locally. There’s absolutely no need for federal gov involvement.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
D) What about companies who have little/no overhead and/or minimize it? Does Dell or Amazon need to buy land? If they pollute and don’t need to buy/maintain land, then nothing gets solved.[/quote]

If they pollute and don’t own any land, then they are polluting on someone else’s land and thus violating that person’s property rights. This is the “missing piece” to the puzzle and is the reason why I keep citing property rights as my response to everything.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
E) Having worked on several farms, I can say that some of the single largest and most numerous offenders of EPA pesticide and herbicide regulations are people who are using them privately on their own land. The corporately owned farms are, more often than not, the more stringently regulated, regimented, and enforced.[/quote]

Alright, that’s an interesting piece of information. But I’m not sure how it affects the debate. Once again, if people choose to pollute on their privately owned lands, and this pollution does not affect anyone else’s property, then of what concern is it to anyone besides the farm owner?

[orion]

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
orion wrote:
I cannot share Lothario1132s excitement about powerful government in cahoots with powerful business though, the most extreme form of that is called Fascism and has earned its less than stellar reputation.

I guess our definitions of fascism are different. A powerful capitalism-driven economy and a powerful government to work with it and somewhat keep it in check (regulation) is pretty much the best thing anybody has come up with yet in terms of getting shit done.

America gets shit done… period.

Remember always that our corporations are at the mercy of the consumer’s will, and our government is just as captive to the voter’s will. The folks who forget this are the ones who feel helpless and unempowered; and I see them throwing around terms like “fascist” and “evil” for the very things which made us great in the first place.

If modern American life sucks so much, why are people jumping on floating doors and shit and hiking over fences to get here?

I’m sorry, dude… but we kick ass. :)[/quote]

I am not trying to throw the word fascsim out there whenever possible, usually I mean government being way to intimate with big corporations or vice versa…

It does not matter to me who actually leads the dance…

Yes, I also called the WOD fascism, and for good reasons, it started as a chemical industry/ government,um, joint effort…

[Nominal_Prospect]

Fascism is what is known as a mixed economy (regulation) but practically nobody understands why this is so.

Most people are familiar only with the end-stages of fascism and have no idea how it takes shape. They sure as hell don’t associate it with Welfare or the Federal Reserve, although these are hugely significant aspects of its economics.

Fascism is all about nationalizing major industries, putting big business in cahoots with big government. Liberals call this “corporatism” and incorrectly describe it as the result of unchecked capitalism. It is, in fact, a direct product of statist intervention in the free market.

The belligerent nationalist mentality that is associated with traditional fascist regimes such as those in Germany and Italy comes about from the incorporation of nationalist sentiments into all elements of the private sector.

It starts by having people work for big, national corporations, having them drive cars produced by national automakers (Volkswagon/Ford), having a national media and film industry, national sporting events (Munich 1936 Olympic Games/Superbowl), name-brand products from trusted national corporations, and so forth.

The lower classes are kept in check through welfare benefits, unemployment is kept to a minimum through public works programs (this point is so adamant in Keynesian economics that an old gag suggests that, “if there are no jobs, we’ll hire people to pave the roads – twice, if need be!”). The status quo remains firmly intact and thus, the Middle Class has the opportunity to take root and breed.

The system has the outward (or, more accurately, inward) appearance of being neat, organized and efficient because it lacks the productive chaos of the free market. Each person has a clearly defined role in the great machine that constitutes the nation’s economy. Everything seems to have a greater purpose.

This is precisely what Germany was like in the mid-to-late 30’s and what America has been like since the 1950’s.

What’s WOD?

[vroom]

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Those “fucks” got to the top because they demonstrated an aptitude for doing their jobs, which is managing affairs at the highest levels of the business operation. In keeping with my analogy as a corporation being similar to a person, these are the brain cells. Now if we take a muscle cell and stick it in the brain, does it accomplish anything? Is this a good idea? Of course not.[/quote]

LOL.

Don’t confuse the top echelons of big companies with middle management.

A very large number of muscle cells have certainly been stuck in the brain, for various reasons.

Of course, it would be nice if companies were actually a meritocracy, or if society were, but we all know that isn’t exactly true… though it certainly can and does apply here and there.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

Zap Branigan wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
That doesn’t sound like good business to me, man.

It is not.

Tell that to the diamond companies, whose entire profit depends on carefully controlling the market supply of a natural resource that would otherwise be common and of little value.

I don’t think you’re thinking this all the way through.

Most people don’t.

[/quote]

You sure are not. You have very little understanding of most things. If you expect corporations to do much more than maximize prfits you are incredibly naive.

Let’s look at gold mines instead of diamond mines.

If gold mines were not environmentally regulated by the government they would release massive amounts of cyanide. They release too much as it is.

If power companies were not regulated we would have filthy air.

The list goes on and on. To pretend we should give the land to some corporation and hope they protect it for future generations is absolute insanity.

I have no problems with logging companies cutting trees on government land as long as they pay reasonable use fees and restore the land.

Your idea is sheer insanity.

[Nominal_Prospect]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Let’s look at gold mines instead of diamond mines.

If gold mines were not environmentally regulated by the government they would release massive amounts of cyanide. They release too much as it is.

If power companies were not regulated we would have filthy air.

The list goes on and on. To pretend we should give the land to some corporation and hope they protect it for future generations is absolute insanity.

I have no problems with logging companies cutting trees on government land as long as they pay reasonable use fees and restore the land.

Your idea is sheer insanity.[/quote]

Insanity, huh? Sometimes you need to be insane in order to see the truth. If the pollution – air, land, or otherwise – has a quantifiable impact on someone else’s property, the property owner can sue the polluter and the government should, by all means, take the appropriate measures to remedy the problem.

It’s still about property rights, dummy.

(The above is presented as a play on “it’s the economy, stupid” rather a jab at your person. I do not mean to cause any offense).

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
If you expect corporations to do much more than maximize prfits you are incredibly naive.[/quote]

To the contrary, I hold no such expectation. The actions you wrote about are precisely those that I would expect from any company or individual.

At some point in studying the inner workings of the world, you reach the fundamental conclusion that, contrary to what you were told in your youth, greed is good and self-interest is the drive behind all human progress.

I guess you’re not there yet.

I’m a bit suprised by the reactions I’ve been getting to my suggestions. I would have expected more from a conservative board, one whose members claim to be in opposition to most forms of regulation. I’m seeing the same sentiments here that I did over at Left-Wing Nation.

[lothario1132]

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Insanity, huh? Sometimes you need to be insane in order to see the truth. If the pollution – air, land, or otherwise – has a quantifiable impact on someone else’s property, the property owner can sue the polluter and the government should, by all means, take the appropriate measures to remedy the problem.[/quote]

Let’s use Zap’s idea of a power company’s pollution. Let’s say they do the predictable thing and fuck up our air. So who sues the power company? Everybody. I mean, we all have the right to breathe, right? So next, we all take the power company to court. In other words, the public sues.

Let’s say it’s pretty obvious that the pollution is from smokestacks or whatever and we win. The court orders that the power company A) pays for the damage they have done, and B) complies with a monitoring program to prevent further infractions against our air.

In other words, they get taxed and regulated.

Which is already what we do now.

It just seems to me that your proposal is kind of a silly way to get right back to where we started.

We regulate businesses for a damn good reason, Prospect. I have mentioned this in another thread already; I could give you many examples of why it is paramount to maintain strict regulations about who can practice medicine, as one example.

You just sound like you have this idea that business regulation is some red tape retarded idea cooked up for no reason, but I can assure you that this is most definitely not the case. I know you hate government oversight for stuff, but this is really just common sense here. Honest.

[Skystud]

The corporation and the worker need to maintain an even balance. Please read below.

By David Sirota

San Francisco Chronicle - 9/4/06 (Permalink)

U.S. Education Secretary Rod Paige labeled one ?a terrorist organization.? Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, called them ?a clear and present danger to the security of the United States.? And U.S. Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., claimed they employ ?tyranny that Americans are fighting and dying to defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan? and are thus ?enemies of freedom and democracy,? who show ?why we still need the Second Amendment? to defend ourselves with firearms.

Who are these supposed threats to America? No, not Osama bin Laden followers, but labor unions made up of millions of workers ? janitors, teachers, firefighters, police officers, you name it.

Bashing organized labor is a Republican pathology, to the point where unions are referenced with terms reserved for military targets. In his 1996 article, headlined ?GOP Readies for War With Big Labor,? conservative columnist Robert Novak cheered the creation of a ?GOP committee task force on the labor movement? that would pursue a ?major assault? on unions. As one Republican lawmaker told Novak, GOP leaders champion an ?anti-union attitude that appeals to the mentality of hillbillies at revival meetings.?

The hostility, while disgusting, is unsurprising. Unions wield power for workers, meaning they present an obstacle to Republican corporate donors, who want to put profit-making over other societal priorities.

Think the minimum wage just happened? Think employer-paid health care and pensions have been around for as long as they have by some force of magic? Think again ? unions used collective bargaining to preserve these benefits. As the saying goes, union members are the folks that brought you the weekend.

The government?s numbers explain how unions have helped their members. According to an analysis of federal data by the Labor Research Association, average union members receive a quarter more in compensation than nonunion workers. Eighty-nine percent of union members have access to employer-sponsored health care, compared to just 67 percent of nonunion workers. Unionized workers receive 26 percent more vacation than nonunion workers.

Unions also benefit nonunion workers. That?s thanks to the ?union threat effect? whereby anti-union companies meet higher standards in order to prevent workers from becoming angry and organizing. For instance, Princeton researchers found in industries that are 25 percent unionized, average nonunion workers get 7.5 percent more compensation specifically because of unionization?s presence.

The flip side is obvious: The more corporations and politicians crush unions, the more all workers suffer. It is no coincidence that as union membership and power has declined under withering anti-union attacks, workers have seen their wages stagnate, pensions slashed, and share of national income hit a 60-year low. As Council on Foreign Relations scholars put it, the decline in unions ?is correlated with the early and sharp widening of the U.S. wage gap.?

Big Business claims union membership has declined because workers do not want to join unions ? a claim debunked by public-opinion data. In 2002, Harvard University and University of Wisconsin researchers found at least 42 million workers want to be organized into a bargaining unit ? more than double the 16 million unionized workers in America. A 2005 nationwide survey by respected pollster Peter Hart found 53 percent of nonunion workers ? that?s more than 50 million people ? want to join a union, if given the choice.

Increasingly, however, workers have no real choice. According to Cornell University experts, 1 in 4 employers illegally fires at least one worker during a union drive, 3 in 4 hire anti-union consultants, and 8 in 10 force workers to attend anti-union meetings. When workers petition the government to enforce laws protecting organizing rights, they are forced to go before the National Labor Relations Board, which is both run by anti-union presidential appointees, and chronically understaffed so as to slow down proceedings. When Democrats have tried to expand workers? union rights by introducing the Employee Free Choice Act, the GOP has prevented a vote on the legislation.

So when GOP lawmakers pledge their commitment to workers at Labor Day celebrations today, remember ? Republicans are waging a war on the very workers they purport to care about.
Hostile Takeover

Hostile Takeover Click here to see the official website of Hostile Takeover - the average citizen’s guide to decoding corrupt politicians’ lies, myths and half-truths. The book is due in bookstores April/May 2006 - but you can advance order it today. Click for more info, including the full book tour schedule>>

[lucasa]

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

No, I assume that property rights laws would be enforced. There’s no reason why they couldn’t be enforced in aquatic territory. If governments can claim jurisdiction over oceanic territories, then corporations could, too.[/quote]

You didn’t adress the issue, we have a gross surplus of ecosystem and companies won’t buy land they don’t need. As a result, there will be land that is either publically held or unenforcable from a property rights perspective. Your system ensures that the most polluting companies own the most and the most unactionable land. And some of the most polluting companies on the planet produce from non-renewable resources circumventing the need to worry about renewable resources alltogether.

Your ignorance of farming and EPA regulations tells me that you think/know very little about the issue and have an idea of how things should work. On top of that, it’s not a fundamentally better idea, just different.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Whenever you make statements about how things ought or ought not to be, you are waving a magic wand and invoking the power of some authority to make things right. So, you seek power to make things your way…and so does everyone else. The state of the world is precisely a reflection of this principle. If the world does not please you, then it is because you lack the power to change it.
[/quote]

According this axiology–Might makes right. If this is true then there is no such thing as democracy. I’m thinking you’ve recently read Nietzsche or Schopenhauer…?

You cannot apply biological axioms to social institution with out addressing the implications of these “laws” on democracy, for example. Specifically, if “might makes right” then why does the notion of self governance exist? Why are there laws to protect the individual?

Along these same lines, why should corporations be subject to a different set of laws that allow them to benefit more? Because corporations have the power to take does not imply their right to take.

Now, to get to your statement, [quote]“If the world does not please you, then it is because you lack the power to change it.”[/quote] I believe this is a universal truth that does not need explanation; however, how do we reconcile this with the notion of individual and mutual respect?

These two ideas seem to be at odds with each other…

[Nominal_Prospect]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Whenever you make statements about how things ought or ought not to be, you are waving a magic wand and invoking the power of some authority to make things right. So, you seek power to make things your way…and so does everyone else. The state of the world is precisely a reflection of this principle. If the world does not please you, then it is because you lack the power to change it.

According this axiology–Might makes right. If this is true then there is no such thing as democracy. I’m thinking you’ve recently read Nietzsche or Schopenhauer…?[/quote]

Might does make right. More to the point, might simply makes, might creates – all that exists in the world. Practically every person who has ever achieved greatness in any respect has come to this fundamental realization. The entire world and everything in it from atoms on up is one big power hierarchy.

I have read both Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. I’m especially fond of the latter’s views on women, as some who frequent this board may know.

Your second conclusion is ambiguous and basically incorrect. Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, as has been noted by many social critics. And a regulation that is passed democratically still depends on the implicit threat of violence for it’s enforcement.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote
You cannot apply biological axioms to social institution with out addressing the implications of these “laws” on democracy, for example. Specifically, if “might makes right” then why does the notion of self governance exist? Why are there laws to protect the individual?[/quote]

Hell yes I can apply biological axioms to social institutions and social interactions. That’s the very foundation of my philosophy.

What makes you believe that the existence of democracy, self-determination, etc,…somehow nullifies the natural hierarchy of power?

Every democratic privilege bestowed on you is just that - a privilege. And as it was given to you, it can be taken away – in each case, by the same human authority.

Your rights are not granted by God or nature, despite any high-minded notions of “natural law” found in the law books.

It takes a human agent and a human enforcer for law to be put into effect. The fact that most people think otherwise shows how deeply misguided the general population is.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Along these same lines, why should corporations be subject to a different set of laws that allow them to benefit more? Because corporations have the power to take does not imply their right to take.[/quote]

Which set of laws are you referring to?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Now, to get to your statement, “If the world does not please you, then it is because you lack the power to change it.” I believe this is a universal truth that does not need explanation; however, how do we reconcile this with the notion of individual and mutual respect?

These two ideas seem to be at odds with each other…[/quote]

Honestly, I’m not sure how you would go about reconciling the two notions, and I’m not particularly concerned with the task. Respect is earned through power and, once again, the implied threat of violence. Egalitarianism is a pipe dream. People aren’t born equal. Never have been, never will be. It’s completely impossible to eradicate power. The idea of this is one of the biggest idiocies ever concieved by humanity.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Might does make right. More to the point, might simply makes, might creates – all that exists in the world. Practically every person who has ever achieved greatness in any respect has come to this fundamental realization. The entire world and everything in it from atoms on up is one big power hierarchy.

I have read both Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. I’m especially fond of the latter’s views on women, as some who frequent this board may know.

Your second conclusion is ambiguous and basically incorrect. Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, as has been noted by many social critics. And a regulation that is passed democratically still depends on the implicit threat of violence for it’s enforcement.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote
You cannot apply biological axioms to social institution with out addressing the implications of these “laws” on democracy, for example. Specifically, if “might makes right” then why does the notion of self governance exist? Why are there laws to protect the individual?

Hell yes I can apply biological axioms to social institutions and social interactions. That’s the very foundation of my philosophy.

What makes you believe that the existence of democracy, self-determination, etc,…somehow nullifies the natural hierarchy of power?

Every democratic privilege bestowed on you is just that - a privilege. And as it was given to you, it can be taken away – in each case, by the same human authority.

Your rights are not granted by God or nature, despite any high-minded notions of “natural law” found in the law books.

It takes a human agent and a human enforcer for law to be put into effect. The fact that most people think otherwise shows how deeply misguided the general population is.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Along these same lines, why should corporations be subject to a different set of laws that allow them to benefit more? Because corporations have the power to take does not imply their right to take.

Which set of laws are you referring to?

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Now, to get to your statement, “If the world does not please you, then it is because you lack the power to change it.” I believe this is a universal truth that does not need explanation; however, how do we reconcile this with the notion of individual and mutual respect?

These two ideas seem to be at odds with each other…

Honestly, I’m not sure how you would go about reconciling the two notions, and I’m not particularly concerned with the task. Respect is earned through power and, once again, the implied threat of violence. Egalitarianism is a pipe dream. People aren’t born equal. Never have been, never will be. It’s completely impossible to eradicate power. The idea of this is one of the biggest idiocies ever concieved by humanity.
[/quote]
Nice to have a good philosphical debate for a change.

I am not saying you cannot apply biology to sociology–I am saying if you do you need to address the implications of one on the other and how the two seem to contradict each other.

I agree completely with the ideas of master and slave morality; however, they are not practical in a society with many diverse populations. However, I don’t believe it is right to use the power I may or may not have to benfit only my own needs. I am an egalitarian in that respect.

I understand that power is required to make things happen. I also believe that there must be some “greater” good that makes the strong want to help the weak. I am not a spiritual person so it is not a question of god or religion for me. What is it?

If I was born with a greater capacity for empathy would that be considered a weakness or a strength? I don’t think this concept has been suffuciently addressed by any philosopher. The traits of empathy are responsible for the development of humanity as we know it.

I guess the question I am asking is what is power–where does it come from–if we can define power can we define the opposite of power?

[paul_bunyan]

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
paul bunyan wrote:
Does anyone else think the power and wealth currently held by corporations has become rather extreme? I mean 51 of the world’s largest economies are corporations. These are institutions who are accountable to rich stockholders instead of to the world’s populations and the enviroment.

Politicians voted in through elections influence our lives less than the ceo’s of multinational corporations whose responsibility is to raise profits rather than contribute good to the world. It is illegal for a ceo to change a corporation’s habits in favour of the enviroment or it’s employees if profits are affected and shareholders experience a loss.

This fact guarantees that corporations will continue to destroy nature and act discordant to humanity. When the natural resources which sustain our economy are diminished and we realize how fucked we all are, we only have to turn to the greed-maggot corporations to see who is at fault for destroying the planet and with it any hope of a utopian society.

As bizzare as this sounds, it is true. A corp. is required by law to place the interests of it’s owners above all competing interests. It is legally bound to put it’s bottom line over everything else. Even the public good!

They rarely buck-up to their own externalities - unless forced to - and then leave the public to bare the cost.

A corporation is an externalizing machine! Since a corporation is protected under the 14th amendment and has rights like a person, what type of person would a corporation be? If you analized it like a person you’d likely find someone resembling a pyschopath.

Corporations routinely exhibit callous concern for individuals.

They exploit workers with poor working conditions.

They use sweatshops.

Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships.

Reckless disregard for the safety of others.

Harm to human health(toxic waste, pollution, synthetic chemicals…etc.)

They obey the law IF it is cost-effective.

They know about the effects of what they are doing but they repeatedly lie and con others for profit![/quote]

I couldn’t agree more.

[paul_bunyan]

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
paul bunyan wrote:
So anarchy is the solution?

No, tree-hugger. The solution is property rights in the free market.

Quick quiz:
Why do companies shit on the environment?

Answer:
Because they have no incentive to take care of it.

And why not? Because most “natural resources” are publically-owned. In other words, they’re maintained by the government, rather than private individuals or companies.

The solution to pollution is obvious: Privatize public lands. If you want to save the forests, then shut down the government conservation agencies and sell the land. The corporation that pays for it will protect it’s investment.

Ding ding ding, statist, the free market strikes again.
I really wish we had more genuine lefties on this board. I have tried to pull a few from TheForum.com, but, like most people, they are highly reluctant to leave their comfort zones.

LBRTRN wrote:
I truely wonder how different the face of corporate America would look if corporations were forced to operate under true market conditions, without the aid of governemnt afforded them by excessive political influence. And why do corporations strive for such influence in the world of politics?–because government has such an influence in the world of economics.

p.s. I take it the Austrian School is still alive and well in Austria?

Although you are not new to the site, I don’t believe I have seen you before. As another person who has some conception of how the world works, I would like to extend to you my greetings.[/quote]

If all public lands were privatized their would be a mass raping of nature. Companies don’t conserve resources on land they own or operate. They are like locusts who devour everything and then move on. Surrounding me is a biodiverse temperate rainforest that is being exploited by logging companies. The salmon runs are fucked because they just don’t care. They clearcut because it is easier than selective logging.

If you actually believe that the enviroment would be well cared for by corporations then I respectfully question your intelligence.