What if corporations aren't evil?

[Quantum Windbag]

The title of this thread marks this as a failure. Anytime you use emotionally charged words like evil to push your point you are being intellectually dishonest.

I took the title from the blog post I linked to, which was written by an actual progressive who is faced with the dilemma that, occasionally, corporations do the right thing. The fact that you dismiss it as emotionally charged and intellectually dishonest just makes his point.

And mine.

Companies are not evil or good. They are money making machines. Thats the reason they exist.

I am sure have proof of that.

Wait, you don't have to prove anything, because you are not here to debate, you are here to declare yourself the winner.

 

[Asclepias]

I took the title from the blog post I linked to, which was written by an actual progressive who is faced with the dilemma that, occasionally, corporations do the right thing. The fact that you dismiss it as emotionally charged and intellectually dishonest just makes his point.

And mine.

Companies are not evil or good. They are money making machines. Thats the reason they exist.

I am sure have proof of that.

Wait, you don't have to prove anything, because you are not here to debate, you are here to declare yourself the winner.

Winner of what? I'm not trying to win anything. I am discussing the OP. I dont concern myself with childish things like winning a debate. People that do are insecure.

 

[Bfgrn]

.

Now that I have moment, a comment on Bfgrn's rambling post.

You (or whomever wrote it) appear to be making two points: First, an anti-Citizens United argument, and second, an argument that the Founding Fathers wanted a vice-like regulatory hand on corporations.

Guess what? I agree that corporations are not people, I'm against Citizens United. And second, as partisan ideologues do, you provided one side of the story on the role of corporations (from what I can tell, anyway - since I'm in the finance business I began nodding off at times). I find it ironic that a left winger would want to be so literal and unbending on the Constitution when in every other case you folks claim it's a living and breathing document.

Anyway, I'll get to my point far more quickly and clearly than you did. Uh, if you ever did:

You chose to focus (cut & paste) on just those two isolated points, ignoring/denying a world of obvious leftwing prejudice for government and against private business. Look at the posts on this board that refer to corporations. I would estimate the ratio of negative comments to positive comments are roughly 5,000:1. Look at the comments on this board that refer to the relationship between government and business. I would estimate the ratio of pro-government to pro-business comments are roughly 5,000:1. Look at the comments made by liberal politicians from coast to coast. Look at the hostile environment that has been created by this administration towards business. You far prefer the federal bureaucracy to private business. Just admit it.

But you will not. You will play these silly cut and paste games in some weird attempt to convince someone otherwise. You will not be honest. And this is why I have long since determined that trying to communicate with partisan ideologues is usually an abject waste of time. You're just not a serious person. Maybe you're not trying to be, maybe this is just a game, I don't know.

.

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country."
Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

Liberals have no prejudice against business. They have a prejudice against corporate welfare, dishonesty and especially against injury to human, fish and fowl.

Liberalism is based on pragmatism and equality. Conservatism is steeped in ideology and worship of money and the opulent. Conservatism has ALWAYS tried to create some form of an aristocracy or hierarchy. America has become a corporatocracy over the last 45 years.

Conservatism equates wealth with morality. In the conservative mind, the more money you have, the more moral you become.

If you had a thinking mind, you would understand that honest businessmen welcome regulations because it protects them from the unscrupulous businessman gaming the system.

Our founding fathers did not create a corporation, they created a government. A government where We, the People, the STAKEholders in our society have representation that we elect democratically. Corporations are not democratic, they only answer to STOCKholders.

The embedded paragraphs are from a speech Robert F. Kennedy Jr gave in 2005. If you really want to understand the pragmatism, humanism and innate intelligence of liberalism, read the speech.

Transcript of RFK Jr Speech at Sierra Club Summit 9-10-05

"What we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called fascism. And our job is to walk that narrow trail in between, which is free-market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left."
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

 

[FA_Q2]

Uhhhhh..... where have I ever said anything remotely like that?

Are you taking cues from QW and his fiction? Hell, I've been saying the same thing the whole time I've been here, and way before.

So back this up -- quote where I've demanded "greater and greater government control". Or admit you just brought in a strawman.

We have been around this train before Pogo. Do you not remember the threads that we have debated in like the trans-fat thread? Perhaps the abolish the FCC thread? Or any number of other threads where you and I have been around this subject.

Whenever there is increasing governmental regulations or control that I am debating against you are here supporting it. It’s not a straw man and if you are not going to admit the myriad of times that you have backed government expansion and control then there is little likelihood that you are going to own up to it. I don’t think I have seen you on this forum actually call for any regulation or expansion to be rolled back.

I remember the trans fats thread quite well. IIRC you were the last man standing in blind obeisance to the Randbot mantra in spite of all the evidence. In other words taking the same ideological tunnel vision position that would call for abolishing the FAA and letting planes just crash into each other on the basis of evil 'big gummint". The same wacko fringe folderol that would remove institutional water treatment and let us all drink straight out of the river and let cars crash into each other after the evil tyrrany of red lights and stop signs were vanquished by the heroic struggle of the people.

Please. That's basic institutional maintenance, not power for the sake of power. Part and parcel of "establish domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare". Nobody in the world believes Big Bad Gummint is stepping in to make your car stop at the intersection just so it can wield its power trip. This argument is frankly absurd. And if you really want to look silly we can go back and repost the randbot arguments that citizens have a "right to trans fats"

Remember Frances Kelsey? Want to go there again?

And as I pointed out repeatedly back in that thread, institutional regulation of the public commons is a centuries old necessity. You've still never heard me advocate centralized power for its own sake, and absolutely not on civil liberties. If this is your example it's a pretty pathetic stretch.

Interesting that you remember so clearly and yet completely misstate my position in the matter (considering that I did not call for the FCC to be eliminated at all. That is not surprising considering that you feel the need to resort to such statements like 'randbot.'

Then the statement "You've still never heard me advocate centralized power for its own sake" is laughable at best. NO ONE ever advocates for such. Instead, they advocate for centralized power for the good of us all. To 'protect' us from ourselves and of course for the children. That does not change the simple fact that you seem to advocate for an ever increasing government all over this board. That is not to say there is any move to make government bigger and more powerful just because rather it is an observation that whenever a problem presents itself you think that a centralized federal government should deal with it and give us all the answer.

 

[Pogo]

We have been around this train before Pogo. Do you not remember the threads that we have debated in like the trans-fat thread? Perhaps the abolish the FCC thread? Or any number of other threads where you and I have been around this subject.

Whenever there is increasing governmental regulations or control that I am debating against you are here supporting it. It’s not a straw man and if you are not going to admit the myriad of times that you have backed government expansion and control then there is little likelihood that you are going to own up to it. I don’t think I have seen you on this forum actually call for any regulation or expansion to be rolled back.

I remember the trans fats thread quite well. IIRC you were the last man standing in blind obeisance to the Randbot mantra in spite of all the evidence. In other words taking the same ideological tunnel vision position that would call for abolishing the FAA and letting planes just crash into each other on the basis of evil 'big gummint". The same wacko fringe folderol that would remove institutional water treatment and let us all drink straight out of the river and let cars crash into each other after the evil tyrrany of red lights and stop signs were vanquished by the heroic struggle of the people.

Please. That's basic institutional maintenance, not power for the sake of power. Part and parcel of "establish domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare". Nobody in the world believes Big Bad Gummint is stepping in to make your car stop at the intersection just so it can wield its power trip. This argument is frankly absurd. And if you really want to look silly we can go back and repost the randbot arguments that citizens have a "right to trans fats"

Remember Frances Kelsey? Want to go there again?

And as I pointed out repeatedly back in that thread, institutional regulation of the public commons is a centuries old necessity. You've still never heard me advocate centralized power for its own sake, and absolutely not on civil liberties. If this is your example it's a pretty pathetic stretch.

Interesting that you remember so clearly and yet completely misstate my position in the matter (considering that I did not call for the FCC to be eliminated at all. That is not surprising considering that you feel the need to resort to such statements like 'randbot.'

Then the statement "You've still never heard me advocate centralized power for its own sake" is laughable at best. NO ONE ever advocates for such. Instead, they advocate for centralized power for the good of us all. To 'protect' us from ourselves and of course for the children. That does not change the simple fact that you seem to advocate for an ever increasing government all over this board. That is not to say there is any move to make government bigger and more powerful just because rather it is an observation that whenever a problem presents itself you think that a centralized federal government should deal with it and give us all the answer.

"Randbot" is my own creation; I like it It's meant for the ideology of the blind Randian/Libertarian thought taken to the extreme that would eliminate everything associated with government, including the necessaries like coordinating air traffic ---which is FAA, not FCC, but the same thing would happen on the air without the latter, and in fact DID happen when radio developed, necessitating the creation of the Federal Radio Commission, the precursor of the FCC. That is, it was chaos. Some regulatory body was necessary to coordinate and keep it order. Because without that, you have what we had in the 1920s: a radio dial full of cacophony where only they with the most powerful transmitter has a voice. So that's a case of government preventing oligarchy... to an extent, which has since been eroded, but that's another story.

That, like keeping the air lanes clear or keeping the water drinkable or requiring foods and drugs to be safe, is simply an imperative that somebody has to do. How would you do it without government?

So pretending this basic stuff amounts to "calling for big government" is more than a little disingenuous. And quite a stretch.

 

[Abishai100]

An alternative method of approaching this question/problem is to brand the particular market or industry a given corporation is tied to.

For example, for our modern age of eco-paranoia, corporations are seen as evil titans of pollution spewage.

However, what about firms invested in the pearl industry?

As we know, pearls are minerals extracted from molluscs (creatures from the sea). Japan boasts some big time pearl extraction and marketing firms. Is extracting a luscious pearl (used mostly for jewelry) from sealife equivalent to man's unnatural tampering with Earth?

Since Japan is such a giant pearl seller, if American pearl outfits compete in this industry, is such competition seen as usual corporate greed fodder?

It depends on what you think of the pearl industry.

It's much easier to assess good/evil categories for corporate activity with firms invested in power plants, tobacco, petroleum, etc.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think corporations increase our productivity in order for us to feed the world and increase our living standards. No family owned business could do what they can in research and development, etc. Should they pay better, yes.

 

[Mount Brocken]

I agree with this statement with the proviso that corporations, being large, business conglomerates, have two issues to address. The first is being a business, whose purpose is nothing more than profit. Secondly, that it is large. Both of these conditions are possibly inevitable on some level, but are not in and of themselves good things. Therefore, just as we cage the wild beast that can do harm to the innocent, we should cage these two features of corporations.

 

[Mathbud1]

Government, by design, is interested in power. That is why it keeps growing, and expanding its regulatory oversight, and then fining companies. The fact that you trust a power hungry bureaucracy to self regulate just proves that you really have no concept of the problem.

You keep missing the point that the government can be voted out. Inherently its more trustworthy than an entity you have no control over. The fact that the government can be voted out should tell you the point is you trust no entity you lack any control over.

The interesting point that YOU miss is the fact that you have COMPLETE control over a corporation where you have far less power over the government. you seem to think that the ability to vote again 4 years after the last election somehow confers this awesome oversight of the government but that the simple fact that you can stop purchasing a product right now and the corporation ceases to exist confers no power to you at all.

That is completely asinine.

We have ultimate control over companies at all times. not only can we obliterate them by simply not purchasing their products but we may also get that exact same service or product from their competitor. What about the government? Just try and stop paying them and see what happens.

This idea that companies have some major power over us all is the most convoluted and confusing sentiment that people hold these days. YOU have the money and that means YOU have the power.

Sorry FQ but those things in bold are laughably insane. Corporations exist at the pleasure of the people in theory only. In practice, you go organize a boycott because you don't like Coca-Cola. Rotsa ruck. Corporatia controls the government and will use it as its tool to thrive up to and including its military. Unless we somehow gain mind control over millions of consumers we have zero power over it. We have created an oligarchy instead of a royalty but the effect is the same. And that oligarchy has plenty of loyalists, which are as impenetrable as that boycott.

Government? A puppet show. We can play with the voting machine toy and pretend we're electing a puppet who, this time for sure, is gonna go clean the place up -- but it's still a puppet, and to believe that its wearing of a red or blue costume is going to make a damn bit of difference is as illusory as the illusion that we have "control" over Corporatia.

Sorry but your bold above strikes me as acutely naïve.

So we can't police government. That's what you are saying here right?