Watiaminnit

Post #68,587 by drewk 12/13/02 9:14:46 AM Reply	Watiaminnit Don't you guys always jabber on about how the Shareholder and His Prophet, the CEO, are the Highest Authority, unlike God only in that probably more people believe in them than in him nowadays? At least that's what I get from DrooK and BeeP and Idunnowhoall, when sometimes I dare suggest that maybe American society has got the power structure tilted a bit too far in favour of the Holy Corporation... Slow down a second. I'll let Bill defend himself, but I can't imagine how anyone would think I don't believe the power structure is tilted too far. Where you and I seem to differ is that you seem to think the government can and should fix this. (Is this an accurate description of your views?) Whereas I think that it's primarily the government that has caused the power to become so concentrated. === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #68,745 by Ashton 12/13/02 4:20:12 PM Reply	Chicken / egg? So then.. as CIEIO salaries have lately become modelled on the obv. Success of a Billy + barbarians (or any criminal group, for that matter) - we have seen the corruption which occurs when most any person is 'paid' hundreds of times more per hour than.. most everyone else who is making an honest living. Was there ever a better historical illustration of the adage, 'power corrupts' ? Now if you imagine that the 'government' (of the people, by the yada yada) today matches the CIEIO in sociopathic self-interest? - such that you'd prefer to let the same Pharaohs continue to stack the government with paid lackeys in preference to 'our Bad-Government'? What does that say about (your view of) any hope for restoring the Republic we still love to imagine we have? [notwithstanding PATRIOT and other recent Acts of disassembly]. stack - I'd suppose that, directly paying the costs of reelection of Corp-copacetic representatives (formerly "peoples' representatives") could be called "stacking" or worse - subornation. And if neither government nor corrupt bizness Paharaohs are your preference - what is your replacement for the Constitutional Model? [already in process of dismemberment via daily 'modification' for er Our Security and Comfort] If your plan is good enough, maybe I'll join ya on the barricades - should there actually be a few people left, who liked the Republic and want it back (via All New People under that Congressional Dome, perhaps. But that would require actual informed Citizens who are Interested\ufffd, no?) Ashton who sees mostly indifference to the Corporate running of All Things - and especially indifference to the rilly bogus Language employed to rationalize the fact of this change of 'ownership': we so love our euphemisms.
Post #68,765 by drewk 12/13/02 5:06:50 PM Reply	That doesn't follow Now if you imagine that the 'government' (of the people, by the yada yada) today matches the CIEIO in sociopathic self-interest? - such that you'd prefer to let the same Pharaohs continue to stack the government with paid lackeys in preference to 'our Bad-Government'? Yes, I think the incidence of rampant self-interest is just as high in government as in business. How does it then follow that I want businesses to continue* the current problem? Without going into a long explanation of how much I do or don't agree with the Libertarian Party, consider this: Corporations derive much of their power[1] from the fact that they are considered a legal "person" under the law. Officers of the company are essentially shielded from the consequences of their actions by the fact that everything the company does is considered to be an act of the company. All liability falls to the corporation. But how do you put a corporation in jail when it is found to have caused a death? Or thousands as in Bhopal? Basically, the whole concept that a corporation gets the same legal protections as a person with (effectively) minimal liability is out of whack. And now corporations are allowed to petition the government to consider their wishes, and make contributions to political campaigns. But can foreigners (real people) contribute to U.S. political campaigns? Not legally. So why can multinational corporations? They move their headquarters to the location with the most favorable tax environment, then contribute to whatever campaign they wish. Ok, I'm definitely starting to ramble here. Obviously I don't have a simple solution for this. Like you said, it's now a chicken-and-egg problem. But to suggest that I like the status quo, just because I think the government is an equal partner in the problem, is way off base. [1] IMO etc etc etc === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #68,782 by Ashton 12/13/02 7:01:43 PM Reply	Bingo, I think too. I believe you've hit that nail squarely. Perhaps this revisiting of the basic rules for Corporations - is about as likely next as any meaningful campaign reform: short of the aforementioned Mobs with Torches. (That was a rhetorical question; I didn't imagine that you were unaware of, or liked the present con games of the 13,000 who own 3% of the GDP AND the Congress ;-) Campaign finance reform and redefinition of Corporate responsibility are #s 1 and 2 on my list too. I don't think we have the guts; the jingoistic distractions du jour IMhO further delay ever finding out if we do. Can we use propane torches, for less pollution? Ashton
Post #68,909 by CRConrad 12/14/02 7:15:12 PM Reply	Yeah, OK, so I may have mischaracterised the problem. Mr Kime Drewls: [Quoting me:] Don't you guys always jabber on about how the Shareholder and His Prophet, the CEO, are the Highest Authority, unlike God only in that probably more people believe in them than in him nowadays? At least that's what I get from DrooK and BeeP and Idunnowhoall, when sometimes I dare suggest that maybe American society has got the power structure tilted a bit too far in favour of the Holy Corporation... Slow down a second. I'll let Bill defend himself, but I can't imagine how anyone would think I don't believe the power structure is tilted too far. Oh, all right, so you might not be all that wild about the Holy Corporation, per se... But wasn't it you who lectured me, a while back, about how the Godly Shareholder is the basic fundament of any civilized society? Hey, no, hang on -- now that I think about it, that may have been Critter Rathman! Sorry, I just got the two of you confused for a while there. Anyway, my point (to him, then, and to you only if you hadn't considered this already) was this: If you want to cut the Holy Corporation down to size, you'll have to touch the privileges of the Godly Shareholder too; the two are inexorably intertwined. Where you and I seem to differ is that you seem to think the government can and should fix this. (Is this an accurate description of your views?) In a sense, yes: Namely, in the wider sense of "government", as "system of governance". I mean, WTF would you call the fundamental way of "how to run a country", if not "government"? And in that sense, a change in "how you run the country" -- specifically, adjusting the Holy Corporations' share of the power, of how much of the country's affairs they actually get to run -- is obviously a change in government. OK, that may have been a bit too facile... (albeit correct in and of itself). You obviously meant "government" in the narrower, classical, sense of "political machinery of representative democracy". And in that sense, you're at least half right: I'm far from sure that government in this sense can fix the problem (though I certainly hope so!), but I sure am convinced that it should. I mean, the problem is that the Fat Cats are riding roug-shod over the Little Guy, right? So, what's needed is precisely "democracy", or some kind of better representation for the Little Guy -- a seat at the table where the real decisions that affect his life are made. And where the heck ELSE would he -- or you -- have even the faintest chance of finding (or creating) representative democracy, than in the "political machinery"?!? Whereas I think that it's primarily the government that has caused the power to become so concentrated. In the wider sense (cf above), that's of course a truism: The problem IS "government", in that sense. In the narrower sense (also as per the above)... Yeah, that may be (not that I think it necessarily is, but it may be) -- but so what? There is NO OTHER alternative, that I can see, for where to transfer the bit "too much" of power over society that the "Godly Shareholder / Holy Corporation / Prophet CEO" triumvirate holds at present, than to the "political" sector. I mean, where would you transfer it to -- the judiciary? Religious institutions? The Meeja? I don't know which of those alternatives makes one's laugh feel the most sickly... Christian R. Conrad Mechanisation As our souls are slowly stolen The wheels of progress keep steamrolling Mechanisation melts our minds To drive the furnace that drives us blind. -- [link\|http://www.vergenet.net/~conrad/poetry/mechanisation.html\|© Conrad Parker, 1993]

Welcome to IWETHEY!