«12. . .3,5523,5533,5543,5553,5563,5573,558. . .3,6073,608»
It is true another business could come up and take their business by giving a better balance of wages and prices, but another issue with small corporations going against larger ones is that chances are, these small businesses won't show up everywhere. There will still be areas where large companies have total control of production, and if the population either didn't have the means to create their own business or the means to leave, they'd be stuck suffering and forced to wait for someone else to come by, if that ever happens at all. With government corporations, they can go wherever they're needed, thus quickening the process overall. You could say the government could subsidize small businesses so that a government corporation isn't needed, but that is still the government putting some form of regulation on the economy.
Also, there comes the problem with patents and creating monopolies through them. I'm sure you've heard of Monsanto and them suing small farmers because their pollen that they claim to have patented got in their plant, which is impossible to prevent if you live within a mile of one of their farms. Because the term 'patent' is used so liberally, this gives large corporations an opportunity to attack smaller corporations to maintain a monopoly. Similar tactics could be used with other products, making any form of opposition to the large corporation nearly impossible, so unless the government were able to intervene and say that the patent they have on products was illegitimate, they could essentially say they have a legal right to everything they have a piece of paper for that says they own it.
America should end all military activity that does not relate to it's own defense.
Hahaha what?
Government does not raise wages. It reduces them. Competition and demand for labor raises wages.
Government is not fast in adjusting its priorities or spending. It does not watch out for the people, or even pretend to do a good job. It's slow, inefficient and unnecessary.
Government causes monopolies. Government reduces competition by creating barriers to entry.
Governments create patents. You do not need government to reduce their numbers.
Deborah, another former resident, offered her explanation for the flats’ fall from grace – heroin. In the 1980s, when the drug arrived on Clydeside, it spread rapidly across Sighthill and the rest of Glasgow. This was at a time when Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government was tearing apart the city’s old industries, leaving thousands without jobs and hope. Heroin was seen as a cheap and easy escape.
“It became intolerable,” Deborah said. “We had people shooting up everywhere, in the lifts, no one was working and a lot people were getting wasted. There used to be a morning rush-hour commute in the flats – a rush to get the lift, to get to the car park and then to get to work, but that all stopped when no one had jobs. I knew my son and I had to get out of there. High-rise living was no longer conducive to family living.”
spoilers: it was thatcher again
As to your first point, there may, I admit, be some temporary disruptions as the markets stabilize; but in the long run, if there is a business opportunity there will be someone who will fill it (presupposing a lack of government intervention to prevent, either directly of indirectly, such filling).
As to your second point, I have not researched these cases but I wonder how Monsanto's legal team got over the mens rea argument, that there was no criminal action on the part of the defendant and therefore no charges should have been sustained. It is the job of the Patent Office to determine if a patent is appropriate, and having assisted in the process on occasion it is no easy task.
The government would only reduce wages if it had a monopoly (unless it implemented workplace Socialism, but that's for another argument). What I'm arguing is that for every service, there should always be a government alternative so that corporations are kept in check. I also don't believe the government corporations we have in today's countries are slow and inefficient by nature, I just think governments are being too reliant on their bureaucracy to do everything for them instead of reaching out to the people to help them run their business. The issue with patents however brings up another important issue though; corporations having too much say in government. If the whole ordeal with Monsanto had been more transparent, there's no way it could have come to pass. But now that it's in, Monsanto has been paying off politicians to protect their right to keep it, but once again I suppose that is an entirely different argument.
True, but this process, as you say, may take a long time, but it doesn't take a long time to plunge a city into poverty or have people who can't afford basic necessities to starve. Unfortunately, I've grown up in areas where that is very much a reality, and a corporate monopoly could be deadly for those who can't afford any higher costs of living. But, through either subsidies to small businesses, welfare, or a government corporation to protect basic needs, this could be prevented.
And for the second point, no kidding. As I said above, there should have been more transparency in the whole case, because now Monsanto can sue just about anyone who is unlucky enough to be near their farms, which is difficult as they are expanding every day. I'd highly recommend looking into it, it pretty much outlines my whole problem with big corporations.
Corporations are created by the government. So we need to have the government keep it's creations in check.
This is like a never ending regress no?
I've finally gotten rid of income tax!
viewtopic.php?p=24323509#p24323509
Warned for not supporting police.
Post self-deleted by Minarchist states.
We appreciate their thankless service, like shooting dogs by raiding homes, beating down and killing young teenagers struggling to get by, breaking into houses with swat teams and killing people after a prank call gone awry, using hoses on people like it's the freaking civil rights era. It's a no knock raid, don't be afraid, it's a paramilitary fvcking police state on parade.
Wow, I actually managed to become a benevolent dictatorship... Those are pretty damn rare.
The government reduces wages in a variety of ways. Taxes, regulations, licensing, barriers to entry, and on and on and on.
Corporations are kept in check by the market.
Government corporations are inefficient by design. They do not have the profit motive, or the risk of bankruptcy. Amtrak has been losing money for 44 years and is still in business.
So in order to reduce corporate power you want more government. Which is controlled by corporations. You don't see a problem with that?
Of course it would pass. The PATRIOT Act passes. The NDAA passes. The farm bills pass. Monsanto is nothing.
If a government corporation always paid higher than the cost of living, then taxes and other such things would have minimal impact on people because they'd always have enough to live comfortably. Corporations meanwhile very rarely pay above the cost of living, thus why poverty is such a prevalent problem in supposedly developed nations such as the United States. Government corporations, if the system is implemented correctly, would be controlled by the workers, who would ensure their pay stayed above the cost of living. Workers can act as just as powerful a balancing force as the market if given the power to do so through protesting unfair wages or unsafe conditions.
It is a government corporation's ability to stay alive regardless of conditions that makes them so powerful a force on the market. Even if their service of sub par, it ensures that corporations have to stay above that bar to survive. Other corporations are susceptible to falling apart due to conditions, thus not acting as as powerful a restricting factor as a government one would.
And yes, there isn't any doubt that government corruption has had a larger impact on people than any corporation has. This, however, wouldn't be a problem if government transparency were increased and democratic (the ideology, not the party) principles were expanded to allow greater individual interaction with the government. This is why I'm an advocate for direct democracy and more referendums on laws so that people can be more in control of what happens to them. This way, we wouldn't have to be so reliant on congress to protect us from bad laws.
Post by Sereny suppressed by a moderator.
I found this on the web.
Lysander Spooner's letter to Grover Cleveland. Years before the existence of libertarianism, we see the cross pollination begin to happen. Anarchist influences liberal.
http://lysanderspooner.org/LetterToGroverCleveland.htm
The cost of living is irrelevant. Wages are not set based on the cost of living.
Corporations compete in the market for labor. And they pay what the labor is worth, or they are unable to hire.
Employers do not want unsafe conditions, and conditions have been improving for centuries, without any need for OSHA.
Government corporations eliminate competition, are a drain on resources, economically damaging, and inefficient.
Direct democracy is not the answer. Just like it is no business of the state what I do in the privacy of my home, it is no business of my neighbors. People have voted against gay marriage, against medicinal and recreational marijuana, and so on.
You're not grasping basic economic concepts.
The Black Riders has been raided following the demise of their leader ((script violations)). Anyone who is able should send a WA delegate to The Black Riders and endorse the current delegate Unitedgermanregions before TBR can mount a counter-attack!
Government "alternatives" always cheat - by using tax money to subsidise their operations and regulations to cripple their competitors. People who believe in statism (i.e. force and fear) should be paid in their own coin - force.
And, as Sibersky notes, it is interesting that people who obsess over "corporations" (I suppose they mean business enterprises - not churches, unions, clubs, colleges and other "bodies corporate") controlling the government, want the government to be even bigger.
They must love these "corporations" - after all if we are to believe the B.S. that most government spending and regulations are for the benefit of "big business" and "the rich" then an even bigger government will benefit the "corporations" who "control" it.
As a practical example - the British Education Act of 1870 was supposed to fill in "gaps" where there were not enough voluntary free (or inexpensive) schools for the poor.
What the Act in fact led to was a de facto government monopoly on education for the poor.
In 1911 the "National Insurance" Act was supposed to fill in gaps where the "Friendly Societies" (the mutual aid fraternities) were not covering some industrial workers - instead it led to the decline and fall of the Friendly Societies.
And on and on.
Evil never sleeps - and it keeps coming with new justifications for the old demands for collectivism.
I've never seen a specific case where if corporate leadership were to cut their own pay and increase the pay of their workers, the company would fall apart. On the contrary, a company which gives better wages tends to attract more workers, who with higher moral, tend to work harder and thereby increase the productive output of the company. Perhaps, true, leading a company is strenuous work, but it hardly makes sense that they should take in as much money as they do while their own workers aren't making enough money for basic needs.
In the past, such as in the early industrial period, safety restrictions were ignored in favor of more productivity. At the very least, government corporations have to set a ground level of safety restrictions to legally exist. Without restrictions, child labor would also be allowed, and in the majority of cases where a child under the age of twelve is working, safety restricts are ignored. Most managers would ignore children's complaints, and as seen in the past, this can often lead to their deaths.
Freedom to do what you want is a two way street. Say for example there was a very disruptive neighbour, who played loud music or otherwise disturbed the peace. If he has the freedom to do whatever he wants in his house, the people around him are forced to suffer because of this one man's not caring about the people around him. Meanwhile, if the people had the opportunity to vote to, say, create a law preventing him from his disruptiveness, the majority benefit at the expense of a single man.
A corporation can and are doing just that. They can use their profits to attack small, growing businesses and replace them with their own. Corporations are continuing to centralize and expand because they absorb smaller businesses and take their profits, and will stop without some level of regulation.
I would be 'obsessing' over churches, unions, clubs, colleges, and other bodies corporate if they were attacking the welfare of the average worker, but they're not. And while perhaps it is true that many people (mainly Liberals) think that growing the government will help them reduce the power of corporations. I'm not one of them, if that's what you think. As I've said before, I'm for the expansion of democratic principals to help the majority worker. If workers under a corporation feel they are unjustly paid, they should have the power to change that, even if some businessmen lose a little profit in the process. The government, particularly the U.S. government, has proven itself inept to make real changes for workers happen.
I should add; when I say government corporations, I mean corporations run through regulation set by workers. The government should be set by the majority anyway, so in my vision of a society, a government corporation would be just that.
«12. . .3,5523,5533,5543,5553,5563,5573,558. . .3,6073,608»
Advertisement
