Corporations are Vicious Sociopaths, made out of paper. "Regulations" are what protect us.

[ProfessorPlum]

Corporations are paper machines designed to maximize profit. That's all they do. They don't care about your rights, or your health, or your quality of life. If corporations could make a buck by picking you up off the street and throwing you into a meat grinder, they would have a fiduciary duty to do so.

Currently, our corporate sociopathic citizenry (corporations are people, my friends) make money by poisoning us (polluting, not creating safe working environments), enslaving us (making people work for peanuts, using slave labor in prisons and places like Saipan), imprisoning us (for-profit jails and schools), cheating us (the tricks and traps of the banking industry, as one small example), and generally making our lives miserable. Sometimes, they also provide a product or service that we enjoy as well.

Regulations are the only reason corporations don't do even more evil to us. They aren't allowed to sell crack, for example, in Michael Moore's famous question (why don't corporations sell crack?), because as a society we've decided that THEY CAN'T DO THAT. And in cases of them poisoning us, cheating us, killing us, imprisoning us, and enslaving us, they must be regulated.

That's why whenever you hear a politician talking about the evils of regulation - you must remember that what they are talking about is taking the leashes off these horrible, inhuman, corporate beasts, and letting them run absolutely ragged over us.

Deregulation = death and horror, poison, enslavement

Not surprisingly, the GOP is all for deregulation. Can we get some Democratic politicians to talk, just once, about how great regulation is for making our lives less crappy?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. I think that's a gross over generalization. Not every corporation is sociopathic.

In fact, I would be skeptical of any claim that declared the ratio of sociopathic corporations to be any higher than the ratio of sociopathic individuals.

You also vacillate between declaring corporations are nothing more than paper but then engage in some pretty bold anthropomorphism.

Corporations have a purpose. They are people self-organizing into efficient means for administering the productions of goods and services. However, that entails accumulating power and resources. If you want organizations capable of supporting the demands of populations numbering in the hundreds of millions you're going to have to permit the efficiency that evolves from the corporate structure.

Where the trouble comes in is the human dimension. When power and resources accumulate people of ill intent will gravitate to those sources. It can be corporations, religion or government. It's not the company, the church or the political ideology that draws them -- it's the power.

The best means of countering this tendency will chop up the power into as many small elements as possible. Our government structure is an excellent example of that with the separate branches of government and why church and state are separated. Remember, separating church and state is as much about keep kings out of pulpits as it is about keeping popes off of thrones. We see the corporate version of this in phenomena such as one corporations using laws and regulations to stifle competition or rent-seeking contracts. We should keep government separate from the economy for the same reason --

The scoundrels won't disappear from the corporate boardroom, they will gravitate to the halls of congress.

We no more want government telling the economic engine what and how to produce any more than we want government telling us what can or cannot be preached on Sundays (or Fridays or Saturdays). If a corporation is meeting demands and not harming anyone they should be left in peace to profit. The proper role of government is to serve as a dispassionate arbiter when allegations of wrongdoing arise.

[Orrex]

3. By design, corporations have two purposes and two purposes only:

1. Split risk
2. Maximize profit

All other considerations are incidental and are abandoned when they threaten 1 or 2.

Some corporations are worker-friendly, and some corporations are environment-friendly, and some are community-friendly, but all are corporate-friendly first and foremost.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. Name one thing that doesn't act that way.

[Orrex]

9. Gee, let me think.

Parents,
actual non-profit charities,
community sporting clubs,
hobbyists' clubs,
addiction recovery groups,
neighborhood crime watch organizations,
birder associations,
classic car enthusiast clubs,

along with a great many unincorporated clubs, associations and entities.


What was your question again?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. Parents will sacrifice the collective good for the good of their particular family.

In fact, society is little more than a construct voluntarily instituted by families to further their own survival and if society ever acts counter to their survival the society will be abandoned/reconstituted long before the family is.

Everything else you listed either facilitates individual survival (crime watches, addiction recovery) as part of the social structure or is simply a way to spend surplus time and money (hobbyist clubs, etc.).

[Orrex]

31. No, you're reading from the Libertarian playbook

You asked me for one thing and I named a bunch.

Parents will sacrifice the collective good for the good of their particular family.

Ridiculous answer, and you're equivocating on "profit" in the true Libertarian mold.

Parents will not poison a city nor fire 1,000 other parents nor run other local parents out of business for the sake of profit, for instance.

Everything else you listed either facilitates individual survival (crime watches, addiction recovery) as part of the social structure or is simply a way to spend surplus time and money (hobbyist clubs, etc.).

So, you're back-pedaling on your request that I name one thing that doesn't behave a sociopathic corporation, and I named a bunch of them. You didn't stipulate conditions; you simply asked me to "name one thing." What did you actually intend to ask?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. You're anthropomorphizing corporations.

A corporation doesn't do any of the things you listed. All of those negatives are perpetrated by people making decisions on behalf of themselves and their families.

And I'm not backpedaling, I'm arguing that you have misidentified institutions that support a thing with the thing itself, much the same way corporations are mistaken for the people who operate within them.

[Orrex]

40. Nonsense.

I'm not anthropomorphizing anything. Corporations are legal persons, so what they do is what legal persons do. Claiming I'm anthropomorphizing them for doing what they're doing is like claiming that I'm anthropomorphizing my neighbor because he's mowing his lawn.

A corporation doesn't do any of the things you listed. All of those negatives are perpetrated by people making decisions on behalf of themselves and their families.

That's simply false. A corporation is a legal entity separate from its shareholders, so what the corporation does (poison a city, fire 1,000 workers) is legally separate from what the shareholders do.

Do you deny that corporations are legal entities separate from their shareholders?

But hey, even if we agree to your equivocation, you're ultimately arguing in favor of much, much tighter regulation of corporation to prevent these sociopathic families from acting so cruelly.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. Corporations may be legal entities but the law itself is nothing but a construct.

A further part of society instituted to further familial success.

A corporation doesn't simply act on its own, people make decisions. How those people and their actions are viewed in the eyes of the law depend on how the larger group of people addresses a given subject within their laws.

The law is not a self existing entity any more than corporations are.

[Orrex]

45. That is why corporations should have no rights

They should have a small number of tightly regulated and expressly granted privileges, specifically to prevent them from poisoning a city or firing 1,000 employees for the sake of profit, for instance.

Certainly they shouldn't be legally entitled to act contrary to the interests of the community that hosts them, and certainly they shouldn't be permitted to engage in political speech.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

46. If you owned a business would you rather lay-off 1,000 or lose so much money that the

entire company goes bankrupt costing the jobs of 10,000 more?

Remember, those 1,000 were originally hired to meet a higher level of demand. If demand drops off then the employees are expending resources to create inventory that will never be purchased. Should a coal-fired power plant expend money and resources to employ people at high wages if a PV field and wind farm can meet consumer demand at a lower price?

[Orrex]

49. I don't accept that either/or formulation

For instance, perhaps the executives can forfeit their bonuses and take an 80% cut to their seven-figure salaries in order to prevent 1,000 employees from losing their jobs. The same motivation would apply, obviously: losing 80% of their hugely over-inflated salary would be preferable to losing 100% of it through bankruptcy, no?

Should a corporation be permitted to "downsize" thousands of employees specifically for reasons of profit? This happens so often that it's positively routine. It's happened at companies where I've worked, and often the executives behind such "downsizing" will reap huge profits and bonuses.


Obviously the demands of the marketplace are manifestly different from the profit-driven whims of the corporate owners. And the expressly granted and tightly regulated privileges that I mentioned could certainly be written to accommodate this.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

50. If there is consumer demand why would a company

cut its ability to meet that demand? That would be ceding profit to competitors.

[Orrex]

52. Why do you keep moving the goalposts?

You asked for one thing that's not as sociopathic as corporations, so you moved the goalposts by demanding others.

I answered your question about legal persons, so you moved the goalposts and you accused me of anthropomorphizing.

I answered your question re: whether a business would be better off firing 1,000 to fend off bankruptcy in the face of reduced demand, so you moved the goalposts and asked why a company should cut its ability to meet that demand.

That last one is most baffling of all, because it directly contradicts my last reply.


Could you perhaps pick a question, ask it, and stick with it?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

56. Teddy bears are also not sociopathic.

They're also not germane to the conversation. Ditto amoebas, giraffes, my uncle's Studebaker, muffin cups, paper weights, cans of compressed air, etc.

I didn't move any goalposts, I corrected an error as to how you categorize and characterize corporations. They are not autonomous entities. They are groups of individual people acting in concert under a slate of laws enacted by the state, which is really just another group of people.

You act as if decisions just happen -- POOF! -- either because a corporation is capable of decisions without human beings making those decisions or that those human beings act without a rationale.

It's not my fault your argument is based on poorly drawn caricatures of how real human beings act and interact.

If you claim a corporation is going to fire 1,000 people to somehow profit while consumer demand remains unchanged then you should be prepared to explain why the corporation is going to cede those sales that would have come from that productivity to their competitor.

I have seen corporations accused of much but ceding market share to competitors because EVIL! is not one of them.

[Orrex]

65. Obviously you're mischaracterizing my argument

That's not surprising, of course. What is surprising is this:

I have seen corporations accused of much but ceding market share to competitors because EVIL! is not one of them.

That's about as desperate and childish as anything I've seen you post, and I would have thought such a preposterous straw man was beneath you. Live and learn, I guess.

Further, you're simply naive if you think that companies don't "downsize" in order to cut back on labor costs, thereafter demanding increased productivity from the surviving workforce and, when more workers are needed, refilling those positions with cheaper temp workers and/or overseas labor. This happens all the time--I've had employers do it--and either you're blind to it or you're pretending that it doesn't happen. If the former, then there's no hope for you; if the latter, then you're not worth my time.

Further, in legal terms, corporations absolutely are autonomous entities. They are legally separate from their shareholders, so whether or not the shareholders make decisions as human beings, when the corporation acts, it acts as an autonomous entity in service of profit.

Do you now deny that corporations currently have the right to own property or to engage in political speech, as you have previously argued them to do? Do you believe that such property is owned by the shareholders individually, or by the incorporated entity?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

67. You claim I'm engaging in a straw man argument but then go on to write 3 paragraphs

making the exact claim I characterized.

Workers do not get hired in the first place unless there is a need for increased productivity. That is their sole purpose within a company or any other undertaking: To produce. If there is nothing for the worker to produce there is no reason for them to be on the books.

If consumer demand increases beyond the production capacity of the current work force the company will hire more workers. If consumer demand drops the company will shed workers. If the consumer demand remains the same a company will only shed workers if it can maintain productivity through other means, i.e. technology. To lose production capacity during times of higher consumer demand is to leave customer orders unfulfilled. If customers are standing on the sidewalk waving money to give away to whomever will satisfy their demand someone will step up to collect that money via their own production -- and likely have to hire additional workers to do it.

The fact that some companies may be poorly run and gutted for sell-off profit does not negate these facts any more than a drunk driver impugns all drivers or drinkers who don't drive drunk.

Further, in legal terms, corporations absolutely are autonomous entities.

My dad belongs to a union. That union has a retirement fund. That retirement fund invests in many different companies.

How much financial and personal liability should my dad assume for each of those companies as he participates in his union retirement fund?

democraticunderground.com is an LLC. Its members engage in political discourse (from time to time).

How much financial and personal liability should Skinner and EarlG accept for facilitating what others say and do on the forum?


And your point does nothing to change the fact that human beings make all decisions within a corporation.

[Orrex]

69. You don't know what you're talking about

So let's cut right to it:

1. Do you believe that corporations should have rights? Yes or no?

2. From the following, how would you characterize current regulation of corporate activity?
[font color="white"]XXXX[/font]a. Too strong
[font color="white"]XXXX[/font]b. Too weak
[font color="white"]XXXX[/font]c. Just about right

Before you grasp desperately at some kind of "false choice" accusation," I'm not saying that these are the only possible choices; I'm asking you to choose between the choices offered.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

71. 1. People should have the right to form corporations

Corporations being nothing more than legal constructs of a social construct don't have rights.

Claiming corporations have legal rights is akin to claiming gay marriage rights isn't about people but the social construct of marriage being able to be gay.

2. It depends on the individual law in question. That's like asking if I have too much ice cream. If the flavor is pistachio then the answer is, "yes." If the flavor is Bear Tracks then the answer is, "NEVER!"

The financial sector is one example of an area with massive regulations but those regulations are either impotent or counter to their stated intent, i.e. we have a problem with Too-Big-To-Fail banks yet since Dodd-Frank passed the number of smaller banks has dropped dramatically -- being absorbed by the larger already TBTF banks.

That only makes sense to politicians.

[clarice]

97. Question.... not trying to be nosy.. but...

Was there an event in your life that caused you to feel this way about corporations?
Would you condone tighter /stifling regulations even though it put thousands of hard working people
out of a job? Would you sacrifice their well being to satisfy your particular agenda?

[clarice]

96. What if "The executive" in question risked everything to start his corporation?... oh wait..

I forgot, nobody starts a business "by themselves"

[clarice]

95. "tightly regulated and expressly granted privileges????" I think that that has been tried before...

See Stalin.

[annabanana]

51. The Supreme Court did THAT... n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

55. Assuming your interpretation of what transpired is correct

(I have reservations but that is another debate)

then what you're saying is the government granted this power. Yet, when asked how to remediate the perceived injustice the government will be proposed as an answer.

The cause of the problem is the proposed cure?



It's not as if the USSC is beholden to lobbyists for re-election but we're going to ask Congress -- which is influenced by lobbyists -- to tell us how to contend with corporations.

Get corporate lobbyists out of government?

And who is going to write that law?

Just for clarity -- I am NOT advocating for laissez faire or hyper-deregulation. I'm just pointing out that the taxes, regulations etc. are not written for the common person. They're written for corporations that can afford teams of lobbyists, lawyers, and accountants. I want to see that broken so the little guys can provide serious competition.

[ronnie624]

4. Providing goods and services is incidental.

The primary goal is to enrich shareholders and executives. The capitalist structure proceeds from an unjust premice. This fact is demonstrated by the inequitable distribution of resources and the well-known concentration of wealth. Even in the wealthier countries, millions of people have inadequate access to basic services, like education and healthcare.

And that's on top of the fact, that the notion of creating 'wealth', stands directly at odds with the Laws of Thermodynamics. Economic activity (in fact, every occurrence in the universe), is a direct result of the conversion and dispersion of energy, which means you will never extract a surplus of energy or matter (wealth) from your Thermodynamic system.

The preposterous ideology that rationalizes capitalism, is not concerned in the least with issues of ethics, morality and justice. It is very clearly sociopathic in nature.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. Economics isn't thermodynamics. Good grief.

[ronnie624]

7. Yes it is.

Good FUCKING grief!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. Please explain which economic system can overcome the laws of thermodynamics.

[ronnie624]

10. What a ridiculous post.

The conversion and dispersion of the stored energy of resources, and the available energy of human labor, is most certainly a thermodynamic system. The process is very clearly subject to the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Since my claim is that nothing can circumvent the Laws of Thermodynamics, your query makes no sense at all.

[mopinko]

14. your theory makes no sense at all.

really, this is a stupid analogy at best.

[ronnie624]

15. The finality of the Laws of Thermodynamics

has been demonstrated conclusively, by the entire history of scientific inquiry into the matter. They apply to EVERY physical occurrence in the universe (in practical terms). If you have discovered a means to apply the concept of perpetual motion, you should share.

[mopinko]

16. oh i understand the law.

i just dont think that you understand that things like money, or human actions, are not subject to it.

[ronnie624]

19. The concept of money,

which is an element of a morally and logically flawed 'theory', plays no role whatsoever in the physical conversion of stored and available energy into usable energy. That is strictly a matter of physics. The predominating monetary system, is designed to concentrate wealth.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. Money is a marker used by parties to express value in an exhange of goods and services.

It's easier to carry than cows.

[ronnie624]

42. But is has to have an accurate reflection of the absolute value

established by the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. If it does not, it is utterly bogus and useless. One can clearly discern this by the economic inequality.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. That's one theory.

But it depends on knowing the absolute amount of energy available. I doubt it can be quantified in human terms, let alone in terms that would facilitate any economy worth living in.

Another theory says 2 or more people engaged in a voluntary exchange of goods and services determine the value of their own production relative to the production of those with whom they are engaging.

How many eggs will you give me for this pair of shoes?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. Are you claiming that since energy cannot be created then any economic system

that allows/requires expansion is at odds with thermodynamics?

[ronnie624]

20. Expansion beyond the needs of the population is nonsense.

There is only just so much usable energy (goods and services) available, strictly limited by human labor. If the vast majority of the human population isn't getting enough, while a tiny minority has millions of times more than they need, then the system of distribution has some serious logical problems.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. "There is only just so much usable energy...available, strictly limited by human labor."

How much energy is ultimately available?

If the vast majority of the human population isn't getting enough, while a tiny minority has millions of times more than they need, then the system of distribution has some serious logical problems.

That's a mighty big "if."

Is an impoverished population lacking food because of a natural calamity such as a drought or politically-motivated incompetence such as Venezuela?

I'll wager you're consuming far more energy than both the drought-stricken and the average Venezuelan. How do you plan on redistributing you excess?

[ronnie624]

23. I use as little as possible.

But that is not going to solve the looming problems for our civilization. A logical and just distribution of the earth's resources, along with a reduction in human population is what is really needed. Our problems are systemic, therefore the system has to change, but first, attitudes have to change. Greed is a powerful motivator.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. Again: How much usuable energy is available?

For all we know the amount of usable energy is being underutilized.

[The2ndWheel]

26. Logical and just distribution

Civilization is a resource concentration mechanism. Humanity has progressed to this point because we're not just with the distribution of resources for life on the planet. Also, because we have more people alive than the year before.

Greed is also medicine and agriculture, not only the bad stuff we don't like.

[ronnie624]

29. So it's a given that a minority has more than they need,

while a majority doesn't have enough for comfortable secure existence?

I reject that claim, out of hand.

[The2ndWheel]

34. If it's a finite planet, choices get difficult

With the thermodynamics and all. We're not good at making those choices, because we can't agree on who makes them, when they make them, how they make them, why they make them, etc.

Our resource concentration mechanism makes humans that minority that has more than it needs, and more and more of the other forms of life on the planet don't have enough. And of course there is a minority within the minority, within the minority, etc.

I wouldn't say it's a given, but it is the foundation of what we know of as society. Satisfying more of the needs of more humans will cause more of the rest of life to not have enough, and not satisfying more needs of more humans will eventually not work at all for we humans. Finite planet, tough choices.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. Your imputing moral guilt where none may exist.

Much of allowed western society to advance was progressing into the iron age. Yet, Australia has some of the largest iron reserves in the world but the native populations never developed those resources. That is no one's fault and there is nothing wrong with that, it just is. However, there is still a disparity between the 2 societies.

[LanternWaste]

35. Is not the primary goal of any and all paid work to provide money

Is not the primary goal of any and all paid work to provide money to the worker and the widget he or she creates, distributes or sells merely incidental to that as well?

[ronnie624]

41. No one needs money.

All organism, including humans, need the resources for a comfortable, secure existence.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. You wouldn't have a electricity, computer, and internet without money.

[ronnie624]

58. All of that stuff could theoretically exsist without money.

It is governed by the laws of physics.

Money is an element of an extremely flawed organizational theory for economic activity. It plays no role in the conversion and dispersion of energy.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

59. "It plays no role in the conversion and dispersion of energy."

Nobody said it did.

What it does is allow people to organize into groups for specialized labor, without which none of those things could exist.

[ronnie624]

61. Money is not essential to organization.

That is one of many false underlying assumptions about economic activity. The impediment to creating an equitable system of organization and distribution, is purely psychological in nature. The prospect of personal wealth is very alluring. It's just that simple. If there was a will, there would be a way.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

62. Seeing as you have yet to quantify the amount of usable energy on Earth

you haven't left us with any alternative except to use money.

You should get busy. You're holding up Progress.

By the way: When you do get around to releasing your Thermodynamic-based economic structure how do you intend to allow people to swap thermodynamic units?

[ronnie624]

63. It's the lack of collective will

that prevents the developement of a system of equitable distribution of resources.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

64. If you're so certain value is based on thermodynamic cost why can't you

quantify how much thermodynamic energy exists on Earth or what would be the medium of exchange?

You don't need other people to accept your thesis in order for you to defend your thesis. These are basic questions you will be asked even if everyone did possess the will and desire to abandon the current system and adopt one to your liking.

Please, explain for us how this works.

[ronnie624]

68. I don't need to answer your questions

in order to know or assert, that the claim to create wealth violates the the Laws of Thermodynamics. Everyone should have learned this in middle school.The validity of this truth does not rest on quantifying the earth's "thermodynamic energy" (?).I don't think you even understand what you're attempting to ask.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

72. "Everyone should have learned this in middle school."

And yet no one has ever heard of this novel theory of yours and no one else espouses it.

[ronnie624]

73. Everyone has heard that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to all energy conversions.

Many have forgotten about them however, or are simply in denial as a result of exposure to capitalist ideology, about the fact that economic activity--the act of converting and dispersing the energy of human labor and resources into goods and services--is also subject to the laws of physics.

There is a widespread movement to apply the Laws of Thermodynamics to economic theory.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Laws+of+Thermodynamics+and+economics&btnG=&gbv=1

This essay is one of my favorites:

https://markbc.net/doomer-economic-commentary/thermodynamics-for-economists/

[Nuclear Unicorn]

78. Okay, that last essay has no plan for converting to a thermodynamics based economy it's

just an indictment of currency markets (which I'm sympathetic to) with frequent errors in fact and bad assumptions.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

60. re: "Providing goods and services is incidental."

Essential to an understanding of business is an understanding of supply and demand. In the most basic transaction each of 2 parties will give up a commodity in return for receiving an alternate commodity. The motivation behind the transaction is that each party values higher what is received than what is given up. This is the basis for capitalism. In an anarchy everyone proceeds in their day to day transactions to best benefit themselves. In a society where government has taken a hands off approach to economics (like the US) capitalism will dominate. Time, talent and resources will fuel your ability to amass wealth.

The problems with capitalism arise when injustice is fostered by the inequalities consequent to wealth. Ordinarily 2 families may differ in their talent for growing, the quality of the soil they own and number of family members available to work the land. Ordinarily these may manifest in the one having tastier turnips that other. Injustice occurs when differences between the wealthy and impoverished are highlighted by the latter being systematically denied some basic rights.

As an example, today to survive and enjoy one's life and liberty, a certain amount of healthcare is required for the average person. Individual physician training and specialization along with government investment and sponsorship have discovered cures, treatments and aides that prolong and improve our lives. Folks come to see these things as necessary.

My conclusion is that it is fundamentally wrong to exact a profit in the providing of a life sustaining service or something considered a basic right.

The Founders acknowledged that everyone accused deserves a fair trial and the service of an attorney. If you can't afford an attorney, the court provides one. But you don't get a doctor and if it's an emergency and you do get a doctor, it's not free.

In thermodynamics, energy may be expended to do work to derive a state of order to the benefit of the worker. One difference between thermo and economics is the concept of a discharged bankruptcy.

[ProfessorPlum]

12. "We no more want government telling the economic engine what and how to produce"

But we do that all the time, and in fact it is necessary for us to do so.

Manufacturing and selling crack cocaine would be a fantastic business model. You could sell at high profits, you are guaranteed a huge and recurring client base. From a business point of view, it's perfect. The fact that you are destroying lives in the process mean little to less than nothing.

The only reason we don't have CrackCo ruining millions of people's lives right now is that we have, as a society, allowed the government to regulate the manufacture and sale of cocaine. That is an example of us (the government) telling the economic engine what and how to produce.

All other regulations can flow from the same idea - that WE get to dictate what economic activity we deem appropriate, and beneficial - not the corporations. And if a corporation is doing something that makes us miserable - for example, incarcerating people for profit - then it is our duty and right to stop them.

[ronnie624]

13. Libertarianism in a nutshell. n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. That is a really bad example (for you) considering the misery the War on Drugs produces.

Even when there are no for-profit prisons we still get militarized police and devastated communities but the PTB don't want to relinquish their power because -- it's their power.

[ProfessorPlum]

79. There is a third alternative besides prohibition and letting capital act as

unfettered dealers of addicting drugs.

And that is government-regulated decriminalization and control. It's working like a charm in Portugal.

[saidsimplesimon]

30. I disagree, respectfully.

When I hear nuclear, the cringe is both mental and physical. Just so you know, even former President Jimmy Carter has not responded to my evironmental concerns about the cost/benefit analysis of nuclear power.

Where will you get the water and what will you do with the waste? Most, if not all orporations are now controlled by greedy, free market idiots, imo. I support "fair trade", not unregulated "free trade". I have lived the nightmare of deregualtion.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. I made no statement in favor of deregulation.

[The Wielding Truth]

39. "not harming anyone" That's why we must have regulations, or who will stop them when they do harm?

They exist to make profits without being taxed as much as a company. They have no soul they are not people. The corporation is there to help profit makers pay less in taxes.

The proper role of government is to serve as a dispassionate arbiter when allegations of wrongdoing arise."

Yes and they use regulations and laws to make those decisions.

You can have empathy for those people who work for or own shares of a corporation but not the corporation.

It does not run it's self and could not exist without people. It is a plan of operating businesses under a name.

It must have a charter from the community to exist and must be regulated to ensure its management will not over step the law.

If it is helpful to the community in any way, that is because it is being well run better or in accordance with its civic charter responsibilities and should be lauded as a well run business plan.

You should not love or hate a corporation. You should know who makes the decisions and operates that corporation and give them their due.Good or bad.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. "They exist to make profits without being taxed as much as a company."

And I clip coupons and add up my tax deductions as much as I can. I jealously guard Lover Boy's every receipt while he's away on business.

You don't have to preach to me about the unfairness of corporate tax law but that reinforces my point of separating government from the economy. That is NOT the same a deregulating any more than keeping government separate from religion is an endorsement for polygamous cults. It's that separation that keeps the tax law from being perverted by corporations who hire teams of accountants and lawyers to navigate laws that bury their smaller competitors.

[clarice]

94. ^ This. Well said NC. nt

[dembotoz]

2. interesting is on the news this very moment...how to complain about a bank

and the regulators here to help

no not every corporation is an evil sociopathic monster

but just as not every teenage boy is a thug, we need police for those who are

[Avalux]

11. I've worked for a big corporation for the past 7 years.

They don't care about ANYTHING else other than their profits; even though they send out emails all the time telling how much they care. We all know they don't.

It's a horrid environment in which to work. I'm sure there may be some exceptions to my experience, but I think this is probably the norm.

I'm cutting the cord next Friday and I can't tell you how excited I am to walk out the door and never come back.

[closeupready]

27. Some regulations are stupid though. Blue laws, for example.

[ProfessorPlum]

77. Of course

And it is up to all of us to decide which regulations are the best for our society and when and how they should be changed. But Republicans are so often arguing against the concept of regulations, period.

[closeupready]

80. Yes that is completely true.

Cheers.

[pampango]

28. Which is why progressive countries function well with capitalist economies. They REGULATE them

to make them function for everyone. Left alone corporations will tend to pursue profit to the exclusion of social good.

Regulation is grossly inadequate in the US with the result that we have a grossly unfair distribution of income. Trump will make that worse with his policy of further deregulation.

[elleng]

32. UNregulated capitalism cannot succeed.

[Rex]

38. Careful, you will get an earful from the libertarians.

They've never seen a company they couldn't blindly follow over a cliff.

[Orrex]

70. Well, you called that one right.

You'd think I'd learn that there's nothing to be gained from arguing with a Libertarian, but no.

[Rex]

93. Don't feel too bad, I did the same thing for over 10 years.

And now I want those 10 years back!

[Dreamer Tatum]

53. No, they're just moneymaking enterprises. Nt

[deathrind]

54. The documentary

"The Corporation" clearly demonstrates this.

[former9thward]

57. What a bizarre world you live in.

[Nye Bevan]

66. Take that sociopathic, profit-making entity DemocraticUnderground LLC, for example.

Bombarding users who don't hand money over with ads. Employing workers at sub-minimum (actually zero) wages, and calling them "jurors" and "hosts" to try to get away with it. Adopting "LLC" status to get legal protection against lawsuits. What an evil world we live in.

[ProfessorPlum]

75. Are you saying that regulations don't exist and that the world is rainbows anyway?

Otherwise, I don't understand what the hell you are trying to say.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

81. He's saying your complaint about corporations, if consistently held, could be used to dismantle DU

Because DU is a LLC that engages in the practices Nye described, albeit with hyperbole to match the OP.

[ProfessorPlum]

82. that's stupid

there is a world of difference between LLCs, which are often the way that a person organizes a personal or small business like DU, and with corporations that are publicly traded, have a board of directors, shareholders, etc. I was using "corporations" in this second sense, and both you and the other poster know it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

83. So, like MSNBC, then.

[ProfessorPlum]

84. ?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

85. MSNBC is publicly traded, has a board of directors, and seeks to maximize profit.

By your definition the network Maddow, O'Donnell, Hall, and the rest work for is a sociopathic entity.

[ProfessorPlum]

86. Yes. That is what I'm saying.

you've got it.

I'll point out that it is owned by Microsoft, a sociopathic entity, and GE, a warmongering, weapons-selling, sociopathic entity.

[ProfessorPlum]

87. You seem to be deliberately missing my point

It isn't that corporations never do any good. To the contrary, with the right oversight and regulation, their organizational power and harnessing of greed can create definite societal good. But like any sociopaths, they need to be carefully watched, regulated, guarded against, and constrained against their worst instincts.

Just like real flesh-and-blood sociopaths, it is often in a corporation's best interests to appear to be friendly, and helpful. We just need to keep cops on the beat and eyes on them to make sure they aren't poisoning someone, or enslaving someone, or otherwise creating miserable social costs that the rest of us have to pay while they privatize the profits.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

89. If you speak in over-broad generalizations and declare corporations sociopathic without

establishing any delineations between good and bad behavior the fault is not ours.

We just need to keep cops on the beat and eyes on them to make sure they aren't poisoning someone, or enslaving someone, or otherwise creating miserable social costs that the rest of us have to pay while they privatize the profits.

Who watches the watchman?

[ProfessorPlum]

90. Right now, the corporations are policing themselves

by controlling the government, through money.

To the extent that we can wrest some of that decision making control away from them, we may be able to regulate again in a way that benefits more people and prevents the worst kinds of abuse.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

91. "To the extent that we can wrest some of that decision making control away from them"

I'm guessing you think the already captured government is the cure to the sickness of a captured government.

[ProfessorPlum]

92. The government is, essentially, us

And yes, I think that the people who are interested in removing as much influence of money in government as they can may make some inroads in restoring control to less corporate parties.

Let us hope that they can. Otherwise, it is the long, dark slide into fascism that Mr. Trump so effectively signals.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

98. "The government is, essentially, us"

Oh, that's so adorbz!

Is it essentially us killing unarmed black men? Is it essentially us keeping 8 alternatives to the Epi-Pen out of US markets? Is it essentially us plowing native burial grounds to make way for a pipeline? Is it essentially us pumping money into insurance corporation coffers for healthcare policies no one can afford to use?

If Trump wants to impose government-corporate fascism he'd better hurry the hell up before all the good opportunities are taken up.

And before anyone accuses me of changing my tune please re-read my original post (#1) wherein are argue for separating government from the economy so the government can more effectively resume its role as dispassionate arbiter.

[ProfessorPlum]

99. Take it easy, or you'll burst something

We need less decision making by corporations and more concern for civil rights in the government. These two things are intertwined. Can you see how?

And if there is any hope for that, it comes from regular citizens leveraging what power they have against the machine of corporate-bought government. More and better regulations, please.

[CanSocDem]

100. So that's what's missing...

...from your participation in this thread.


"Is it essentially us killing unarmed black men? Is it essentially us keeping 8 alternatives to the Epi-Pen out of US markets? Is it essentially us plowing native burial grounds to make way for a pipeline? Is it essentially us pumping money into insurance corporation coffers for healthcare policies no one can afford to use?"

You don't know THE PURPOSE of government. Here it is in simple terms: You can vote for/against government policy but you CANNOT vote for/against corporate policy.

I can understand your confusion about 'voting'- Only In America can citizens vote for corporate policy because of the money paid to lawmakers who reciprocate by governing for the benefit of the corporation and not the public interest.

You also seem unsure as to the nature of the Public Interest. That will be our next lesson.




.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

101. You can lecture about theory all you want but at the end of the day

it's people doing what people have always done.

If people always acted as they were supposed to -- we wouldn't need government.

[CanSocDem]

102. That's too short-sighted...

...for civilized society. It's like saying 'We don't need a collective effort...I can do this by myself.' You know...crazy talk.

I don't know how you think 'people are supposed to act'. Maybe you're coming from a religious environment where behaviour is strictly governed.

Corporations know that it is more efficient to serve many over an individual and more profitable. Plus they get to determine the level of service and shape the public perception.

Governments also know this but they are charged with serving the needs of all those citizens who voted for them. If they don't they're gone.

Your analysis is anti-democratic.


.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

103. Accounting for human nature is "crazy talk"?

Human nature is the reason the talk has to happen at all.

I don't know how you think 'people are supposed to act'.

But you presume to be entitled to lecture about what constitutes "crazy talk."

Corporations know that it is more efficient to serve many over an individual and more profitable. Plus they get to determine the level of service and shape the public perception.

Governments also know this but they are charged with serving the needs of all those citizens who voted for them. If they don't they're gone.

And yet, malefactors abound throughout all of history regardless of where we look.

I'm not opposed to corporations or governments (as much as an anarchist can be). I understand people organize to do together what they cannot accomplish singularly. Great! Cool! I like block parties too! But I also know how to read a history book and I know that among the things organized people can do that singular persons cannot is: oppress minorities, institute and enforce slavery, war, collapse the world economy chasing derivatives, etc., etc., etc.

[BYJ439]

74. Excellent post

Without those regulations, we'd all still be working in sweatshops for 50 cents per day. Although if Trump wins, we may be headed back to those dark days. Ugh.

[HerrKarlMarx]

76. Classic capitalism

Exploit your workers and your customers, then justify your exploitation as compensating your for your capital investment.

[Respectful Debate]

88. Your language is perhaps a bit over the top, but in principal you've nailed it.

The demonisation of 'regulation' is one of the GOP's greatest achievements. We need to hear the other side of the argument more often.