Quote:
Originally Posted by mookiemookie
(Post 1480350)
I'm with you, and for as much doodie as I give you about it, I actually do respect and agree with a lot of libertarian ideals. But libertarianism can be as idealistic as anything else.
|
Can it? Libertarian ethics and ideals stop at the end of your nose. All rights are neutral and negative. Maybe it's just me, but that sounds a lot less idealistic than some ideologies.
My disdain for corporations is not because of their self-interest. Indeed, if a corporation wasn't sociopathically self interested, it wouldn't make much money for its shareholders. My disdain comes from allowing them the power to direct and influence our government and laws as much as they do. Government and laws are made for the people. Not to protect and enhance a corporate bottom line. The founding fathers sought to limit corporate power and influence. Originally, their charters could be cancelled by the states if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm, they were banned from making any kind of political contribution or influencing the lawmaking process. It wasn't until the days of the big industrialists like Carnegie and Rockefeller that corporations started to truly exert their influence.
Quote:
I find it offensive and the biggest threat to our personal liberties in this country that corporations can buy and sell laws and lawmakers at will.
|
Essentially, then, we are agreed. Heck, you half make my argument for me. Unfortunately, laws can and will be used to protect the bottom line so long as you allow such legislative power to exist. Even if we completely banned corporations from ever having anything to do with politics, they'd still be there as long as the power is there. They would mobilize through their employees and their customers, only moreso than they already do. Keeping a representative govenrmnent away from the interests of large groups of people, including corporations, is just plain impossible. Even if we somehow managed to completely eradicate corporations from the equation, we'd still be left with large numbers of people bound together in very distinct and self-interested groups seeking legislative power for the benefit of themselves, especially where their employment is concerned. And that's in a world where representatives can't be bought off by money, or votes, or publicity. Do you see what I'm getting at, here? Democracy is a paradox, or, to put it in more familiar terms, it is the tyranny of the majority.
You can't put corporations in a box and then seperate the box from society or democratic or representative governance. You're stuck with them so long as you believe in anything resembling equality of opportunity or human rights, because corporations are made of people.
The simplest and therefore most elegant solution is to just remove the power that like-mided interests seek to control. Without power, said interests must compete, and competition places power in the hands of the consumer and the common worker.
