Kim O'Hara wrote:Part of the reason is that their sole legitimate motivation is to make money for their shareholders. Nothing else. No social responsibility, no ethics, just make money
reddust wrote:I refuse to debate the positive aspects of corporations and our culture, there is no positive and any debate will be useless with me.
No one today can afford to be innocent, or indulge himself in ignorance of the nature of contemporary governments, politics and social orders. The national polities of the modern world maintain their existence by deliberately fostered craving and fear: monstrous protection rackets. The “free world” has become economically dependent on a fantastic system of stimulation of greed which cannot be fulfilled, sexual desire which cannot be satiated and hatred which has no outlet except against oneself, the persons one is supposed to love, or the revolutionary aspirations of pitiful, poverty-stricken marginal societies like Cuba or Vietnam. The conditions of the Cold War have turned all modern societies — Communist included — into vicious distorters of man’s true potential. They create populations of “preta” — hungry ghosts, with giant appetites and throats no bigger than needles. The soil, the forests and all animal life are being consumed by these cancerous collectivities; the air and water of the planet is being fouled by them.
This last aspect means, for me, supporting any cultural and economic revolution that moves clearly toward a free, international, classless world. It means using such means as civil disobedience, outspoken criticism, protest, pacifism, voluntary poverty and even gentle violence if it comes to a matter of restraining some impetuous redneck. It means affirming the widest possible spectrum of non-harmful individual behavior — defending the right of individuals to smoke hemp, eat peyote, be polygynous, polyandrous or homosexual. Worlds of behavior and custom long banned by the Judaeo-Capitalist-Christian-Marxist West. It means respecting intelligence and learning, but not as greed or means to personal power. Working on one’s own responsibility, but willing to work with a group. “Forming the new society within the shell of the old” — the IWW slogan of fifty years ago.
futerko wrote:Basically Zhen Li, it sounds what you are saying is that the people should be the shareholders, which is a kind of communist utopia.
Zhen Li wrote:My solution is to make the king financially responsible to the beneficiaries of the national fisc. If he doesn't do well, the stockholders will just dump him. Even an average CEO of a minor business which no one has heard of will manage Massachusetts better than it is being managed now.
futerko wrote:Which in theory works great, but how to implement such a model?
futerko wrote:the possibility of abuse for one, and also the incentives of those subjects to work for the benefit of others. Surely at some level, the subjects need to have some kind of investment in their own product?
Kim O'Hara wrote:Thanks for your last few posts. Now at last I know what kind of government you believe in, instead of only suspecting it.
Kim O'Hara wrote:IIRC, Plato proposed the benevolent dictatorship as the ideal form of government about 2000 years ago. You've got a new twist on it but the crucial faults of the model remain: how to create such a state without enormous bloodshed, and how to ensure that the dictatorship remains benevolent. Can you solve them?
Zhen LI wrote:I propose that the optimal arrangement is one with complete freedom (duty) of exit. This means that each sovereign would be obliged to make its territory the most suitable and favourable to its residents. This means that the preferences which drives the OP to desire anarchy would actually be better met by my proposal, because you could also have the enforcement of those preferences in the form of the freedom of exit. The most preferable state will arise in a situation in which the king holds in good faith all agreements between the subjects and himself, enforces agreements between the subjects, doesn't restrict the subjects as evaluated per pareto efficiency, and doesn't tax the subjects except for restricted durations in the case of security. Alternately, the government can tax according to the laffer curve and reduce fees through a rebate to its operations - the recipients of which can treat it as a share, the shareholders can choose a King who has the authority a CEO has in a business corporation. This may turn out to be a better option because then the government has objectives, and also has an incentive to enforce the above rules: to not drive down its own stock prices. My belief is that governments 'would' look like this, but they instead have opted for government by Christian-derived religious faith.
Zhen Li wrote:futerko wrote:the possibility of abuse for one, and also the incentives of those subjects to work for the benefit of others. Surely at some level, the subjects need to have some kind of investment in their own product?
There is less incentive for abuse in my model than in the democratic one, where a fear of losing power can cause governments to repeal old freedoms and rights.
As for the idea of incentives for subjects to work for the benefit of others, I don't quite understand the catch 22 on this one. Unless they're volunteers or altruists, people usually work for their own benefit. What would change? That taxes go to a system which is efficient and coherent, instead of one which is corrupt, inefficient, and incoherent.
As for investing in your own product, you can invest with your money how you wish, I'm not sure why that's a necessity.
futerko wrote:What I mean is that if the subjects had a stake in their own future and their own "corporation" then fine, but if the shareholders were "foreign" then what incentive would they actually have to allow others to skim their surplus labour time?
I'm not talking about them investing their "own" money here, I'm talking about them actually working for themselves rather then working for other people.
Disposable spending money is irrelevant to this situation.
Kim O'Hara wrote:You are dreaming. There is no conceivable route from what we have now to what you propose, even in a "kingdom" (state) as small as a single provincial city.
Kim O'Hara wrote:And even if such a kingdom could be created from new (Pilgrim Fathers 2.0?), there is no protection for the powerless except leaving - which means there is no protection at all, because even if the whole world changed to your model (which it never will), you have a scenario in which the powerless or oppressed leave kingdom 1 but face the same problems in kingdom 2, 3, .... 150. And that's even if kingdoms 2, 3, etc, accept everyone who wants to enter.
Zhen Li wrote:holds in good faith all agreements between the subjects and himself, enforces agreements between the subjects, doesn't restrict the subjects as evaluated per pareto efficiency, and doesn't tax the subjects except for restricted durations in the case of security.
Kim O'Hara wrote:Frankly, I think your undoubted enthusiasm for political improvement should be directed towards making incremental improvements in the real world rather than elaborating your dream world.
Kim O'Hara wrote:That is precisely why your system could never be implemented in the real world.
Zhen Li wrote:Kim O'Hara wrote:That is precisely why your system could never be implemented in the real world.
Not at all ...
Sir Henry Maine, Popular Government, p. 53. wrote:In a pure democracy, the ruling men will be the Wire-pullers and their friends, but they will be no more on an equality with the people than soldiers or Ministers of State are on an equality with the subjects of a Monarchy.
A Study in Scarlet, Part 1 Chapter 2. wrote:"There are no crimes and no criminals in these days," he said, querulously. "What is the use of having brains in our profession? I know well that I have it in me to make my name famous. No man lives or has ever lived who has brought the same amount of study and of natural talent to the detection of crime which I have done. And what is the result? There is no crime to detect, or at, most some bungling villany with a motive so transparent that even a Scotland Yard official can see through it."
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Simon E. and 7 guests