APP - Does government have too much control? Do Corporations?

[DigitalDave]

I find it quite discerning that many people seem to argue over things that we probably, for the most part, agree on. We always seem to think in the extreme of anyone who disgrees slightly and would rather call them an idiot, rather than deal with figuring out the differences. Anyways, this is a very general, two part, question. I'll give it 24-48 hours before I go deeper into a discussion about this, but I wholeheartedly believe there is some common ground between us all that we can have civil discussions about important topics. I know this is jsut a message board, but hell, I'll try anyways.

Do you believe that the government has too much power over the people? Do you believe corporations have too much power over the people?

 

[Damocles]

Government: Yes. Corporations: No. One I can quit, the other I cannot. One uses threat of imprisonment to ensure I do what they say, the other only the threat of employment. Only one has any true control over me therefore.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

any entity that has the ability to affect your life in a negative way has too much power.

 

[DigitalDave]

Damn damo, that was quick. I just got the poll up after you posted that.

 

[midcan5]

One can leave either but can you really? Most kowtow to the world of business for if they speak too loudly they are shown the door. Government has no control over me for should I choose to I can leave and go elsewhere. Even within our free society and its government, one can live on a farm and have little touch with government or even with corporations. So the answers that most give focuses too narrowly. The choice is not either or, its more or less. More importantly is viewing the question placed in a bigger picture of society and all people, individually we can still be free provided we don't abandon our assumed responsibilities to say family. Today corporations control too much of our government, they do that with money and agitprop. My selection would be corporations control too much of government and government has thus relinquished its constitutional responsibilities as it bows before the altar of the dollar.

"It will be said that great societies cannot exist without government." Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government." Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray

"It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that [a society without government, as among our Indians] is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population." Thomas Jefferson to James Madison


"Perplexed by the apparently unsolvable nature of various economic problems, the citizen turns to the capitalist in search of some explanation. The capitalist inevitably chides him for failing to use his initiative and for not working hard enough. This lecture is followed by the invocation of a personal moral rigour which turns on risk, competitiveness, market forces and individualism. Finally he refers the citizen to his government, as the party responsible for inflation, unemployment, stock market crashes and restrictions on each man's freedom to act. The citizen turns to go as instructed, but as he does his eye is caught by something strange in the capitalist's appearance. This, he suddenly realizes, doesn't look like a man in command, an owner, a risk taker. He does indeed project assurance, but there is no fire in his eyes. He is too sure of himself to be really responsible. And his clothes are too uniform for an individualist. There is no edge of creativity about him, nor the wear and tear of having built an enterprise. His words are too much part of a universal patter on free enterprise and the profit motive. Suddenly, the citizen understands - this is not an owner of the means of production. This is an employee in drag.... He is chairman, president, chief executive officer, chief operating officer - he is anything he wants to call himself, but he doesn't own the place. He has been hired to do this job. He has a contract guaranteeing him employment under set conditions, cars, first-class travel, pension plans, holidays, club memberships. He is an MBA or an engineer who has a stock option for two thousand shares paid for by the company. Even those aren't his. They're just a legal way to save him years of tax on extra income. He'll sell the shares on retirement and walk away with the cash. And if, for some reason, he were fired, his contract would include a settlement provision to make him a reasonably rich man." p363 'Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West' John Ralston Saul

 

[Minister of Truth]

Have you tried just living on a farm, Midcan? Pretty sure you'll run into a flurry of regulations and government presence, as with your current life. Regarding Jefferson, we obviously live in a society that largely believes government should do a LOT more than simply preserve our rights and allow our happiness.

 

[midcan5]

Threedee, no, but I know a few farmers and we often visit the Amish who live pretty free of that government that scares you much you hide under your bed. That's what I hear? In this country one can be as free as they like so long as have worked or inherited enough to live free. I personally am glad someone has built the roads and byways we enjoy so much. As I move closer to complete retirement I am as free as a bird most of the time. Sorry for you guys who anguish over imaginary ghosts.

On this day, take a lesson from this guy. "The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts." http://www.quotedb.com/speeches/washington-farewell-address

 

[Teflon Don]

Agree with Damo but would add that corporations do try to influence gobblement to have control. But in the end it comes down to gobblement. Thus is why the founders believed our country could only survive if we were a moral people. Sadly that ship has sailed. Now it is every man for himself.

 

[DigitalDave]

...I know a few farmers and we often visit the Amish who live pretty free of that government that scares you much you hide under your bed. That's what I hear?

I just wanted to amend this statement. The Amish tend to avoid the government as much as possible and have had squabbles in the past with state laws and such that prevented them from living as they desire. Though, they very often are considered 'exempt' from the laws being implemented. Just off the top of my head, I remember a few years back, here in Ohio, when they were implementing the required Photo on our ID's, Amish were given an exemption status on those, since they don't believe in having their picture's taken. So, I guess if you are a farmer, and you don't like how Monsanto has monopolized the industry, you could become Amish. But even then, you can get raided by the FDA for selling Raw Milk: http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2011/06/07/food-safety-chief-defends-raw-milk-raids/

 

[Minister of Truth]

Threedee, no, but I know a few farmers and we often visit the Amish who live pretty free of that government that scares you much you hide under your bed. That's what I hear? In this country one can be as free as they like so long as have worked or inherited enough to live free. I personally am glad someone has built the roads and byways we enjoy so much. As I move closer to complete retirement I am as free as a bird most of the time. Sorry for you guys who anguish over imaginary ghosts.

On this day, take a lesson from this guy. "The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts." http://www.quotedb.com/speeches/washington-farewell-address

I think a wonderful thing about America is that you can live a life of leisure if you work hard enough and save money. Most people will point out that the presence of leisure does not necessarily mean the presence of greater freedom (although perhaps a higher degree of economic freedom). I voted neutral on the poll, because I am not someone who currently frets about the present state of freedom in America. You won't see me whining about how all of my rights are being abridged as some people do around here.

However, I think we can all agree that it's a good idea to look toward the future, and anticipate where bad decisions and poor compromises might lead us down the road. I think the recovery of the stock market during 2013 was great (whatever may be said of real employment numbers, etc), but it always seems that short-term economic gains are bought with massive amounts of future public debt. One need not be shouting from a rooftop like some deranged psychopath to have a legitimate fear about the direction freedom is heading in the US. I think both the left and the right are very much in agreement that liberty is constantly threatened, because that has always been a core American impulse.

 

[DigitalDave]

I think both the left and the right are very much in agreement that liberty is constantly threatened, because that has always been a core American impulse.

This is what I was hoping to get out of this thread. Even though you voted 'No' on both, you still see the threat. We all tend to agree, one way or another, that our liberties are in jeopardy.

I wholeheartedly believe that both entities have too much control. Call me crazy, the sky's falling!

Dem's, typically, believe that corporations have too much power, and view government as a means to try and prevent that power from infringing our our liberties.
Republicans, typically, believe that government has too much power, and view private enterprise as a means to try and prevent the government from growing too large.

What happens when a corporation shapes government policy though? Who's to blame in a situation like that? Just look at Monsanto as a perfect example of this. Monsanto is a large corporation who's been lobbying government for quite a while now, shaping our political landscape with campaign contributions, and also now have people employed and directing policies in the FDA. We could all agree that something like that would be bad for ALL of us.

What I see, is Republicans saying 'lessen the restrictions from the government and Monsanto wouldn't be so powerful'. Democrats saying 'lessen the power of Monsanto, and they wouldn't have as much power to shape policy'. Ok, maybe not exactly, but you get my point I think. Each side of the aisle has an opposing view that actually agrees, they just disagree on who to blame, or go after to fix it. I believe we need both powers reduced in order to prevent anyone from trampling on our liberties. When we gave the FDA the power to seize property, we also gave Monsanto a tool to annhilate competition. We basically are allowing our government to be controlled by corporations, without much of a fight at all! We the people should be running it, but we are slowly but surely handing over our power. Feel free to point fingers, but we are ALL to blame. That includes me as well. We let the government, or corporations, tell us what's good for us... but we are just a collection of individuals who can't seem to come to consensus.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

This is what I was hoping to get out of this thread. Even though you voted 'No' on both, you still see the threat. We all tend to agree, one way or another, that our liberties are in jeopardy.

I wholeheartedly believe that both entities have too much control. Call me crazy, the sky's falling!

Dem's, typically, believe that corporations have too much power, and view government as a means to try and prevent that power from infringing our our liberties.
Republicans, typically, believe that government has too much power, and view private enterprise as a means to try and prevent the government from growing too large.

What happens when a corporation shapes government policy though? Who's to blame in a situation like that? Just look at Monsanto as a perfect example of this. Monsanto is a large corporation who's been lobbying government for quite a while now, shaping our political landscape with campaign contributions, and also now have people employed and directing policies in the FDA. We could all agree that something like that would be bad for ALL of us.

What I see, is Republicans saying 'lessen the restrictions from the government and Monsanto wouldn't be so powerful'. Democrats saying 'lessen the power of Monsanto, and they wouldn't have as much power to shape policy'. Ok, maybe not exactly, but you get my point I think. Each side of the aisle has an opposing view that actually agrees, they just disagree on who to blame, or go after to fix it. I believe we need both powers reduced in order to prevent anyone from trampling on our liberties. When we gave the FDA the power to seize property, we also gave Monsanto a tool to annhilate competition. We basically are allowing our government to be controlled by corporations, without much of a fight at all! We the people should be running it, but we are slowly but surely handing over our power. Feel free to point fingers, but we are ALL to blame. That includes me as well. We let the government, or corporations, tell us what's good for us... but we are just a collection of individuals who can't seem to come to consensus.

I guess this comes down to the chicken or the egg argument. Is a business always going to try to give itself a competitive advantage? Yes. It can do so by offering a better service at a better price or it can become a rent seeker and get the government to create barriers to entry for it. People like to complain about companies bribing politicians, but in the end the politician has to take the bribe.

So while I am ambivalent about corporations and don't believe they are choir boys, the fault still lies in government and the politicians. They hold the ultimate power.

To me it is like parents who complain about McDonalds trying to fill their kids with fast food. Well, duh. That is McDonald's job; to sell more fast foo. But, the parent is the ultimate arbiter. No different with business and government.

 

[DigitalDave]

Chicken or the egg is the exact argument I thought of when pondering this issue. If we take power from the government, will corporations back off because that investment now seems unwise? I don't know, I would think they still would want to keep lobbying to change the policies back in their favor. If you lessen the power corporations have to lobby government, they would still fight to get back in. We could always boycott corporations that shape policy in their favor, but there will still be costumers until government changes some of it's policies, because its just cheaper. Or should we target politicians that continue to be bought? Doesn't seem like that's really going to work because so much money goes into their campaigns. Though, it is our jobs, as citizens to monitor those we vote for. Can you really blame one party over another for what's been done already? It seems like policies have been shaped by both parties politicians over time to allow this to go on.

 

[Truth Detector]

I guess this comes down to the chicken or the egg argument. Is a business always going to try to give itself a competitive advantage? Yes. It can do so by offering a better service at a better price or it can become a rent seeker and get the government to create barriers to entry for it. People like to complain about companies bribing politicians, but in the end the politician has to take the bribe.

So while I am ambivalent about corporations and don't believe they are choir boys, the fault still lies in government and the politicians. They hold the ultimate power.

To me it is like parents who complain about McDonalds trying to fill their kids with fast food. Well, duh. That is McDonald's job; to sell more fast foo. But, the parent is the ultimate arbiter. No different with business and government.

BINGO on the above; I would add the following: (1) Corporations do not have the power to tax you or force you to buy something you do not want; only Government has that kind of power; (2) Corporations can only succeed by providing a good or service people need, like or want, and can go out of business as easily as it got into business; Government goes on regardless of how bad it legislates or how poorly it operates; (3) if we, the sheeple, want to reign in the influence of special interests of ALL kinds, then we must demand the abolition of the current tax code and supplant it with a Fair Tax or Flat Tax, end all Government subsidies and demand term limits for politicians.

Anything less is just window dressing. Corporations only attempt to influence Congress because Congress and professional politicians ensure their terms by wielding undo influence through the tax code and subsidizing. This system is corrupting and goes against good Governance and what this nations founders intended.

 

[Lao Tse]

Government: Yes. Corporations: No. One I can quit, the other I cannot. One uses threat of imprisonment to ensure I do what they say, the other only the threat of employment. Only one has any true control over me therefore.

But you, in your neocon spook derangement, are simply glossing over the fact that rich individuals and large corporations control government. In reality, they are a monolithic entity, the left/right, government/corporate paradigm, is a false choice, a classic logical fallacy, foisted into our minds by fascist propagandists.

 

[Jarod]

Government: Yes. Corporations: No. One I can quit, the other I cannot. One uses threat of imprisonment to ensure I do what they say, the other only the threat of employment. Only one has any true control over me therefore.

You can quit, but they are actively working to make that as difficult on you as possible. That is one of the major forces against the doing away with pre-existing condition clauses, it makes it much easier to leave a corporation. Additionally, its not just about working for Corporations, its about how they manipulate and control elements of society.

One small example. A woman I know invented a type of hair brush. She began, on a small scale to produce and sell the brush. After a few years of being in local small stores, she got into some more regional stores. This hair brush had a special design that made it, for some people, vastly superior to other brushes on the market. She tried and tried to get it into larger stores like Wall-Mart and Target. She was rejected over and over again. Privately she was told by someone in the Wall-Mart purchasing department to stop trying, it was nothing she had control over because the large beauty supply companies did not want her brush in and they had more power because of the ability to supply a bigger variety of product at lower prices. They were actively keeping her out of the larger sellers.

She was making real money selling these brushes online and at local and regional stores. She was contacted by a large cosmetics corporation about purchasing her company and they entered into negotiations. When she wanted more than they were going to pay the large corporation let it be known that they would spend money putting her out of business if she did not sell. They were going to flood the market locally and make it impossible for her to make a profit. She sold. They don't sell her superior product and the brush is dead. All they really wanted from her was not the structure of her company or even her product, they wanted her out, they wanted her legal agreement to not compete with them anymore.

This is one example of how Corporations have too much power. The public suffers because we do not have access to the superior product, and my friend was really not free to continue her business of providing that product. Sure she could have sued them based on Anti-Trust laws, but while she is well off... she would have been broken by funding such a suit against a huge corporation.

Corporations have made it so we are not on a legal level but on a practical level prevented from becoming a player in the market place on any mid-size or large level. Corporations have huge "merger and accusations" departments, some of it is legitimate, but a huge part of what they do is actively seek to terminate any real level of competition. If you threaten them at any real level, they will buy you or put you out of business.

 

[/MSG/]

Both, but the government has FAR more control (and the ability to kill anyone who would speak out against them).

 

[Jarod]

Both, but the government has FAR more control (and the ability to kill anyone who would speak out against them).

The government has more overt control, but the government, at least currently, is more directly limited by the voter.

 

[Jarod]

Quote from Raymond Tusk character on House of Cards.

Talking about the Vice President Frank Underwood....

He has one more restraint than I do, he has to be liked by the voter, I don't have such a limitation, my shareholders don't have to like me as long as the bottom line is good.

That's not an exact quote as I was going from memory but it illustrates my point well.

 

[Lao Tse]

The government has more overt control, but the government, at least currently, is more directly limited by the voter.

Not really. The two party system and it's private funding guarantees that all candidates will do the same thing when it comes to the issues corporations care about. Newsflash, gay rights isn't one.

Plus, Obama has a pen, and he's proud of it.