CDZ Communism, Capitalism, Fascism

[Street Juice]

It should be communist, fascist, democracy. Capitalism is an economic system not political. Example- China has embraced capitalism but not democracy

Yes, but we could just as easily say the Germans voted for fascism against communism.

 

[Andylusion]

I would disagree with that. Show me one communist system that doesn't involve political power?

Show me one capitalist system that doesn't involve political power. Certainly not the US where corporations are people too (Citizens United).

Corporations are people. Show me a corporation with no people. Name one company that has no people at all. Good luck with that. That is what a company is... it's a group, or even one single person. You have a company of one person. But there is no company of zero people.

I already showed you an example of capitalist without political power. A student in high school, built a massive half billion dollar international company, with a $900 pickup truck, purchased using his income from his part time job.

I could list you millions of examples like that. Take a tribal people in the Congo, where they exchange mud bricks for food, in order to build bigger homes, and of course better arrows and bows to hunt with. That Capitalism.

Now if you are asking show me a capitalist society in which there is no government.... show many any society where there is no government? Even in tribes, you have a the head of the tribe that enforces the rules of their society.

Without some body of enforcing the rules, you have Somalia, with chaos, murder rape and thievery.

Even in communes, you have some body of people in the commune that enforce the rules.

But saying you need government to create Capitalism? No, capitalism is the default standard of all humanity. Go all the way back to the early times in human history, where farmers farmed the land, and exchanged goods for their produce. Capitalism was the defacto standard.

Socialism requires government to create it. Without government, socialism never exists.

Corporations are people. Show me a corporation with no people. Name one company that has no people at all. Good luck with that. That is what a company is... it's a group, or even one single person. You have a company of one person. But there is no company of zero people. ​

​

That's like saying a school's administration is a person because there is no school administration of zero persons.

Corporations aren't persons, and here's why we should care.

A corporation as a corporation exists for the financial benefit of its shareholders. It exists for profit. A corporation is indifferent to whether it makes its profit selling a better mousetrap or it makes its profit grabbing you off the sidewalk and harvesting your organs. Corporations don't have ethics. Certainly the shareholders and directors and officers do, sometimes, and a corporation has to comply with applicable laws, of course, but the corporation itself has only one value: profit. This is why the Citizens United decision was such a flawed decision. A corporation can "vote for" policies that no civic-minded member would support individually, so our political system is perverted by private profit, or, to put it another way, our political system is corrupt. And we see the results all around us.

A schools administration is a group of people, yes. All organizations are people in a group.

All businesses have only one value, profit. All of them. Even non-profit companies, have only one value, profit.

Steven Lipstein on Hospitals - Econlib

Steven Lipstein, President and CEO of BJC HealthCare–a $3 billion hospital system in St. Louis, Missouri–talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the economics of hospitals. They discuss pricing, the advantages and disadvantages of specialization in modern medical care, and culture and...

www.econtalk.org

Interview with a CEO of a non-profit. There is zero difference between for-profit, and non-profit companies.

Zero difference between a small sole proprietorship store at the corner, and an international company. No difference at all.

Everything operates on profit.

A corporation can "vote for" policies that no civic-minded member would support individually, so our political system is perverted by private profit, or, to put it another way, our political system is corrupt. And we see the results all around us.

Give me an example of something that couldn't happen if Corporations were not people? Show me something that a company can do that an individual person has never done. Or a small business has never done.

 

[Street Juice]

Show me something that a company can do that an individual person has never done. Or a small business has never done.

The H-1b visa program.

 

[Andylusion]

Show me something that a company can do that an individual person has never done. Or a small business has never done.

The H-1b visa program.

Obviously an individual alone, wouldn't have the money to import a foreign worker, but then a individual alone wouldn't have the ability to hire American workers either. So it's not really a valid comparison.

That said, the H-1B visa program applies to any employer. It would not matter if a company was considered a person or not. Nor does it require a large company.

I've worked at businesses that used H-1B, and were not large corporations. The law states that any employer can apply for the program.

Regardless, I would even deny that an individual can't do something similarly to an H1-B visa.

What do you think an individual is doing when they hire immigrants to build their house, or doing a construction project, or when an individual goes to Mexico for surgery or something?

They are effectively doing exactly the same thing as a company doing an H1-B visa. And of the same reason.... profit. They want to get the house built, or repaired for a lower price. Or get medical care done for a lower price.

So when you say "this allows corporations to do what no civic minded person would do"... no, they pretty much shop for the best bargain on labor that a company does..... which again... make sense given a company is just a bunch of individuals.

It's always amazing to me when people scream about a company doing the exact same thing that absolutely everyone does.

 

[Street Juice]

Show me something that a company can do that an individual person has never done. Or a small business has never done.

The H-1b visa program.

Obviously an individual alone, wouldn't have the money to import a foreign worker, but then a individual alone wouldn't have the ability to hire American workers either. So it's not really a valid comparison.

That said, the H-1B visa program applies to any employer. It would not matter if a company was considered a person or not. Nor does it require a large company.

I've worked at businesses that used H-1B, and were not large corporations. The law states that any employer can apply for the program.

Regardless, I would even deny that an individual can't do something similarly to an H1-B visa.

What do you think an individual is doing when they hire immigrants to build their house, or doing a construction project, or when an individual goes to Mexico for surgery or something?

They are effectively doing exactly the same thing as a company doing an H1-B visa. And of the same reason.... profit. They want to get the house built, or repaired for a lower price. Or get medical care done for a lower price.

So when you say "this allows corporations to do what no civic minded person would do"... no, they pretty much shop for the best bargain on labor that a company does..... which again... make sense given a company is just a bunch of individuals.

It's always amazing to me when people scream about a company doing the exact same thing that absolutely everyone does.

You are missing my point. You asked for "an example of something that couldn't happen if Corporations were not people?" (I would change the "couldn't" to "wouldn't") and I replied "The H-1b visa program". I didn't reply "hire foreigners" or "hire immigrants".

 

[Andylusion]

Show me something that a company can do that an individual person has never done. Or a small business has never done.

The H-1b visa program.

Obviously an individual alone, wouldn't have the money to import a foreign worker, but then a individual alone wouldn't have the ability to hire American workers either. So it's not really a valid comparison.

That said, the H-1B visa program applies to any employer. It would not matter if a company was considered a person or not. Nor does it require a large company.

I've worked at businesses that used H-1B, and were not large corporations. The law states that any employer can apply for the program.

Regardless, I would even deny that an individual can't do something similarly to an H1-B visa.

What do you think an individual is doing when they hire immigrants to build their house, or doing a construction project, or when an individual goes to Mexico for surgery or something?

They are effectively doing exactly the same thing as a company doing an H1-B visa. And of the same reason.... profit. They want to get the house built, or repaired for a lower price. Or get medical care done for a lower price.

So when you say "this allows corporations to do what no civic minded person would do"... no, they pretty much shop for the best bargain on labor that a company does..... which again... make sense given a company is just a bunch of individuals.

It's always amazing to me when people scream about a company doing the exact same thing that absolutely everyone does.

You are missing my point. You asked for "an example of something that couldn't happen if Corporations were not people?" (I would change the "couldn't" to "wouldn't") and I replied "The H-1b visa program". I didn't reply "hire foreigners" or "hire immigrants".

And you missed my point. Yes they would. That was my main point in my prior post, was yes they would.

 

[sartre play]

We are completely out of balance, are we at a tipping point again? was the seizing of the capital not enough?

 

[Mac-7]

No nation has ever destroyed itself, for the benefit of the international community

America under a one-party democrat dictatorship will be the first

 

[alang1216]

I would disagree with that. Show me one communist system that doesn't involve political power?

Show me one capitalist system that doesn't involve political power. Certainly not the US where corporations are people too (Citizens United).

Corporations are people. Show me a corporation with no people. Name one company that has no people at all. Good luck with that. That is what a company is... it's a group, or even one single person. You have a company of one person. But there is no company of zero people.

I already showed you an example of capitalist without political power. A student in high school, built a massive half billion dollar international company, with a $900 pickup truck, purchased using his income from his part time job.

I could list you millions of examples like that. Take a tribal people in the Congo, where they exchange mud bricks for food, in order to build bigger homes, and of course better arrows and bows to hunt with. That Capitalism.

Now if you are asking show me a capitalist society in which there is no government.... show many any society where there is no government? Even in tribes, you have a the head of the tribe that enforces the rules of their society.

Without some body of enforcing the rules, you have Somalia, with chaos, murder rape and thievery.

Even in communes, you have some body of people in the commune that enforce the rules.

But saying you need government to create Capitalism? No, capitalism is the default standard of all humanity. Go all the way back to the early times in human history, where farmers farmed the land, and exchanged goods for their produce. Capitalism was the defacto standard.

Socialism requires government to create it. Without government, socialism never exists.

Every one of those corporation employees already has the ability to give $ and their vote to a politician so they are already well represented. Corporations don't have to live with the effects of pollution but their workers do.

There are millions of small businesses in this country but I wonder if they exercise more political power than Amazon?

 

[alang1216]

Neither communism nor capitalism are political systems. I

Hitler campaigned as a fascist against communism. Same with Mussolini. If they weren't campaigning against communism, what were they campaigning against? And when communists seize power, they seize political power. You are correct about capitalism.

Hitler cared little for economics, he wanted power. In Germany there was a very powerful Communist militia that fought against Hitler's own militia, the SA. Once the SA beat the Communists Hitler had it's leader, a socialist, assassinated to appease the Army and the industrialists.

 

[ClaireH]

A most interesting thread- thanks for the poll but I took a hard pass. Admittedly, I need to study up on the intricacies and the differences between protected capitalism versus global. As you see, even there I used the word protected capitalism instead of nationalistic, so I have preconceived notion‘s about the differences but I need to learn the defining criteria. I’ll get back with you in a day or two

For now, I will enjoy the back-and-forth from what appears to be very informed people on the subject who happen to have different opinions.

 

[Street Juice]

Show me something that a company can do that an individual person has never done. Or a small business has never done.

The H-1b visa program.

Obviously an individual alone, wouldn't have the money to import a foreign worker, but then a individual alone wouldn't have the ability to hire American workers either. So it's not really a valid comparison.

That said, the H-1B visa program applies to any employer. It would not matter if a company was considered a person or not. Nor does it require a large company.

I've worked at businesses that used H-1B, and were not large corporations. The law states that any employer can apply for the program.

Regardless, I would even deny that an individual can't do something similarly to an H1-B visa.

What do you think an individual is doing when they hire immigrants to build their house, or doing a construction project, or when an individual goes to Mexico for surgery or something?

They are effectively doing exactly the same thing as a company doing an H1-B visa. And of the same reason.... profit. They want to get the house built, or repaired for a lower price. Or get medical care done for a lower price.

So when you say "this allows corporations to do what no civic minded person would do"... no, they pretty much shop for the best bargain on labor that a company does..... which again... make sense given a company is just a bunch of individuals.

It's always amazing to me when people scream about a company doing the exact same thing that absolutely everyone does.

You are missing my point. You asked for "an example of something that couldn't happen if Corporations were not people?" (I would change the "couldn't" to "wouldn't") and I replied "The H-1b visa program". I didn't reply "hire foreigners" or "hire immigrants".

And you missed my point. Yes they would. That was my main point in my prior post, was yes they would.

Again, I'm not talking about hiring foreigners. I'm talking about the h-1b program. If corporations had the same political rights as school administrations, which is to say, none, then it is unlikely Congress would have passed a law that allows American corporations to cut Americans off at the knees--lowering their wages by importing cheaper humans from abroad, while simultaneously forcing Americans to pay to educate the kids of the cheaper humans, pay their medical needs, fire, police, etc. Individual voters aren't going to demand an h-1b visa program. But you can bet corporate "citizens" will. And have. And who cares how immoral and destructive it is to your neighbors. It's profitable, and they are going to use some of that profit to hire more influence in Washington to increase the cap next year--fuck your neighbors.

It is unbelievable we let multinational corporations have any political influence at all.

 

[Andylusion]

I would disagree with that. Show me one communist system that doesn't involve political power?

Show me one capitalist system that doesn't involve political power. Certainly not the US where corporations are people too (Citizens United).

Corporations are people. Show me a corporation with no people. Name one company that has no people at all. Good luck with that. That is what a company is... it's a group, or even one single person. You have a company of one person. But there is no company of zero people.

I already showed you an example of capitalist without political power. A student in high school, built a massive half billion dollar international company, with a $900 pickup truck, purchased using his income from his part time job.

I could list you millions of examples like that. Take a tribal people in the Congo, where they exchange mud bricks for food, in order to build bigger homes, and of course better arrows and bows to hunt with. That Capitalism.

Now if you are asking show me a capitalist society in which there is no government.... show many any society where there is no government? Even in tribes, you have a the head of the tribe that enforces the rules of their society.

Without some body of enforcing the rules, you have Somalia, with chaos, murder rape and thievery.

Even in communes, you have some body of people in the commune that enforce the rules.

But saying you need government to create Capitalism? No, capitalism is the default standard of all humanity. Go all the way back to the early times in human history, where farmers farmed the land, and exchanged goods for their produce. Capitalism was the defacto standard.

Socialism requires government to create it. Without government, socialism never exists.

Every one of those corporation employees already has the ability to give $ and their vote to a politician so they are already well represented. Corporations don't have to live with the effects of pollution but their workers do.

There are millions of small businesses in this country but I wonder if they exercise more political power than Amazon?

Corporations don't have to live with the effects of pollution but their workers do.

When you read that statement, how do you not see how illogical that is? Corporations are the employees. There isn't a single person in a company that doesn't have to live in the same world as everyone else. So company employee, from the CEO down to the Janitor has to live with pollution, thus yes the corporation does have to live with the effects of pollution. In fact even the shareholders have to live with the effects of pollution.

Again, a corporation is nothing more than a group of people. Which person, walks out with their own private supply of air and water, that no one else in the company has access too? None. We all live on the same planet.

So no that makes no sense.

Further, you seem to be implying that employees wouldn't pollute. Employees pollute all the time. I remember working at a parts store, having guys come in to drop off oil, only to find out our tank was full. They would say "well I'll just pour it down the drain". Now I don't know for certain if they did or not, but I would absolutely be willing to put money on it.

The idea that somehow the corporation is doing anything that people don't do, is ridiculous. The only difference is, corporations make money, and you hate that. For some reason all the pollution that individuals do, you ignore, and pretend that only companies do it.

Further, when a company does illegal dumping, the government eventually finds out, and they are fined, or forced to clean it up, or both.

Regardless, what does this have to do with the prior claim about political power and corporations being people? Are you suggesting that if corporations were not supposedly people, that magically they would have no representation in Washington? That they magically would not ever cause any pollution?

Again, ridiculous. First, there are dozens, literally dozens of examples of policies that were passed by government in the past 10 to 15 years, that companies all opposed.

However, I am not saying that corporations do not have influence. Of course they have influence. Just like all businesses did, back in 1776. Just like they had in England before that, and throughout all human history.

To suggest that companies today have more influence in government, than in the past 2000 years, or more, of human history, is a ridiculous and unsupportable claim.

For starters, and I could list dozens on dozens of examples.... if corporations have such unlimited 'power' in government, why did Amazon get kicked out of New York City, but a pathetic air head know-nothing bimbo girl, who actually said publicly that she was going to "spend a tax deduction" on schools and health care?

How was one of the most powerful, and most wealthy, and largest companies in America today, completely smacked around, by a ridiculous bartender in her 20s? Seriously? Corporations have oh so much power and influence, that an air head, that can't even figure out that you can't spend money NOT COLLECTED.... a tax deduction.... on a school..... an air head that stupid, knocked around one of the largest most wealthy companies in the country?

No. Sorry. The facts don't support such an over exaggeration of corporate power. Influence, yes. They most certainly do have influence. But they don't have the power you claim. Not even close.

 

[Moonglow]

In a fascist system, the State is supreme and exists for the benefit of the nation and its citizens. It is explicitly nationalist.

In a communist system, the State is supreme and exists for the benefit of the party and the international proletariat. It is explicitly globalist.

In a capitalist system, the State is supreme and exists for the benefit of the market and the rich. It is implicitly globalist, but, through state intervention, can have nationalist characteristics imposed.

It is clear that an important political dividing line is globalist vs nationalist.

Humans have been doing globalist trade for many hundreds of years this is not something that just occurred after WWII.

 

[Andylusion]

Show me something that a company can do that an individual person has never done. Or a small business has never done.

The H-1b visa program.

Obviously an individual alone, wouldn't have the money to import a foreign worker, but then a individual alone wouldn't have the ability to hire American workers either. So it's not really a valid comparison.

That said, the H-1B visa program applies to any employer. It would not matter if a company was considered a person or not. Nor does it require a large company.

I've worked at businesses that used H-1B, and were not large corporations. The law states that any employer can apply for the program.

Regardless, I would even deny that an individual can't do something similarly to an H1-B visa.

What do you think an individual is doing when they hire immigrants to build their house, or doing a construction project, or when an individual goes to Mexico for surgery or something?

They are effectively doing exactly the same thing as a company doing an H1-B visa. And of the same reason.... profit. They want to get the house built, or repaired for a lower price. Or get medical care done for a lower price.

So when you say "this allows corporations to do what no civic minded person would do"... no, they pretty much shop for the best bargain on labor that a company does..... which again... make sense given a company is just a bunch of individuals.

It's always amazing to me when people scream about a company doing the exact same thing that absolutely everyone does.

You are missing my point. You asked for "an example of something that couldn't happen if Corporations were not people?" (I would change the "couldn't" to "wouldn't") and I replied "The H-1b visa program". I didn't reply "hire foreigners" or "hire immigrants".

And you missed my point. Yes they would. That was my main point in my prior post, was yes they would.

Again, I'm not talking about hiring foreigners. I'm talking about the h-1b program. If corporations had the same political rights as school administrations, which is to say, none, then it is unlikely Congress would have passed a law that allows American corporations to cut Americans off at the knees--lowering their wages by importing cheaper humans from abroad, while simultaneously forcing Americans to pay to educate the kids of the cheaper humans, pay their medical needs, fire, police, etc. Individual voters aren't going to demand an h-1b visa program. But you can bet corporate "citizens" will. And have. And who cares how immoral and destructive it is to your neighbors. It's profitable, and they are going to use some of that profit to hire more influence in Washington to increase the cap next year--fuck your neighbors.

It is unbelievable we let multinational corporations have any political influence at all.

If corporations had the same political rights as school administrations, which is to say, none, then it is unlikely Congress would have passed a law that allows American corporations to cut Americans off at the knees

And that's the key problem with your argument.

You are assuming that the reason the H-1B visas exist is because of companies, and that government would not have created them otherwise.

Both are wrong theories.

Let's look at the specific facts surrounding why H-1B visas exist. Back all the way to 1952, the Congress did an override of Truman's veto, to pass the Immigration and Nationality Act, which codified into law, numerous things including... specifically the H-1 Visa. This program promoted the immigration of those skilled labor.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (The McCarran-Walter Act)

The Immigration Act of 1952 (The McCarran-Walter Act)

2001-2009.state.gov

Remarkably, economic factors were relatively unimportant in the debate over the new immigration provisions. Although past arguments in favor of restrictionism focused on the needs of the American economy and labor force, in 1952, the Cold War seemed to take precedent in the discussion. Notably, the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations took opposite sides in the debate, demonstrating that there was not one, clear pro-labor position.​

The debate in congress, had nothing to do with the economic factors, or the concerns of corporations. Nor did the labor unions, and workers unions have any clear position on the legislation.

So the idea that somehow corporations pushed for support skilled labor being promoted in the country, is simply not true.

Now if you fast forward to 1990, which was the specific creation of a H-1B visa. First, as I just pointed out, the US has for more than 40 years before 1990, promoted the immigration of skilled labor into the US. Before the Immigration Act of 1990, this was the law of the land, that people with high skills were fast tracked into the immigration system.

That is key in understanding that almost none of the lobbying efforts during the years leading up to the immigration reform bill of 1990, involved business. Business had nothing to do with it. Because either way, skilled labor was already prioritized by existing law.

Instead, the primary groups involved were not business, but unions and immigration groups. Even to this very day, most of the largest companies are not deeply involved in the H-1B fight, because they don't need to be. Microsoft has offices around the world. If H-1B visas were eliminated, it would be eliminated for their competitors too. And Microsoft, just like Apple and others, all have offices around the world to recruit cheaper workers.

The big fighters in the H-1B visas even now, are immigration supporters, like Global Immigration, ImmigrationWorks, The National Immigration Forum and so on, and of course the Unions on the opposite side.

That corporations will be fine either way. If US labor gets too expensive, they can just hire more Engineers in Ireland or Asia. Microsoft specifically has four very large software engineering facilities in Asia alone.

If you made it impossible for them to hire affordable people here in the US, they are not going to start paying coders $200,000 a year, they will just hire more coders in Japan, China, India, and Hong Kong.

But regardless of that... the bottom line is, corporations have nothing to do with the existence of H-1B visas. That's just a fact. You can even look up the people who supported the 1990 Immigration bill that created them.

S. 358 (101st): Immigration Act of 1990 -- House Vote #530 -- Oct 27, 1990

The Immigration Act of 1990 (Pub.L. 101–649, 104 Stat. 4978, enacted November 29, 1990) was signed into law by George H. W. Bush on November 29, 1990. It was first …

www.govtrack.us

The Republicans, traditionally the supporters of business views, voted largely against the bill. It was the Democrats, who are generally pro-immigration to begin with, that supported the bill. Ted Kennedy was the one who sponsored the Bill, and brought it to debate.

And the primary arguments, were diversity, and "fairness". Had nothing to do with corporations.

Again, look at the facts. You can look up the voting right there. It was pro-immigration groups, supported by the US public, that pushed the 1990 immigration reform.

 

[Andylusion]

Show me something that a company can do that an individual person has never done. Or a small business has never done.

The H-1b visa program.

Obviously an individual alone, wouldn't have the money to import a foreign worker, but then a individual alone wouldn't have the ability to hire American workers either. So it's not really a valid comparison.

That said, the H-1B visa program applies to any employer. It would not matter if a company was considered a person or not. Nor does it require a large company.

I've worked at businesses that used H-1B, and were not large corporations. The law states that any employer can apply for the program.

Regardless, I would even deny that an individual can't do something similarly to an H1-B visa.

What do you think an individual is doing when they hire immigrants to build their house, or doing a construction project, or when an individual goes to Mexico for surgery or something?

They are effectively doing exactly the same thing as a company doing an H1-B visa. And of the same reason.... profit. They want to get the house built, or repaired for a lower price. Or get medical care done for a lower price.

So when you say "this allows corporations to do what no civic minded person would do"... no, they pretty much shop for the best bargain on labor that a company does..... which again... make sense given a company is just a bunch of individuals.

It's always amazing to me when people scream about a company doing the exact same thing that absolutely everyone does.

You are missing my point. You asked for "an example of something that couldn't happen if Corporations were not people?" (I would change the "couldn't" to "wouldn't") and I replied "The H-1b visa program". I didn't reply "hire foreigners" or "hire immigrants".

And you missed my point. Yes they would. That was my main point in my prior post, was yes they would.

Again, I'm not talking about hiring foreigners. I'm talking about the h-1b program. If corporations had the same political rights as school administrations, which is to say, none, then it is unlikely Congress would have passed a law that allows American corporations to cut Americans off at the knees--lowering their wages by importing cheaper humans from abroad, while simultaneously forcing Americans to pay to educate the kids of the cheaper humans, pay their medical needs, fire, police, etc. Individual voters aren't going to demand an h-1b visa program. But you can bet corporate "citizens" will. And have. And who cares how immoral and destructive it is to your neighbors. It's profitable, and they are going to use some of that profit to hire more influence in Washington to increase the cap next year--fuck your neighbors.

It is unbelievable we let multinational corporations have any political influence at all.

It is unbelievable we let multinational corporations have any political influence at all.

So.... should you specifically, have any voice in politics? Should you be allowed to say your opinion publicly?

What if you were the employee of a small business? Should you have a voice in politics then?

What if you were the employee of a large business? Should you have a voice in politics then?

What if you were the employee of an international business? Should you have a voice in politics then?

At what point exactly, does your right to have any political influence, become repealed?

Take for example David Hogg. He has political influence. At the same age that David Hogg was spouting off, Brian Scudamore had purchased a $900 pickup truck, and started hauling junk to the junk yard.

Why is David Hogg allowed to have a political voice, and Brain Scudamore not? Because Scudamore built his business, and now operates in multiple countries.

So what should the guy who worked his butt of, and built his business, have his freedom of speech denied, and David Hogg should not?

 

[ClaireH]

“Multinational political rights” justifies why many well-read Americans are against the goals of a One World Order. It will be interesting to read the transcript from the World Economic Forum next month regarding their global assessment.

It’s bad enough that mega corporations, such as Microsoft as you’ve mentioned, are acting like monopolies. Mega corps are being called out for their actions and rightfully so. Microsoft is abusing its power and court records contain the case details. Once a mega-corp inhales all other competitors, there are obvious reasons to review our laws with a fine toothed comb and decide what laws address the digital age and what constitutes fair doctrine for our country. One major problem with our anti-trust laws on the books is that they were written about 100 years ago, and that was of course way before these types of digital companies were in existence. It’s time for an upgrade!

To support the idea that these mega corps need equal political say would be a fair assessment and outcome, if that’s truly what you mean, but that’s not what you’ve implied. Btw- I can list examples if you’d like of Microsoft’s abuses of power.

You asked -when is the cut off for political rights, as far as a person who’s worked hard, becomes CEO of mega corp, and why should they not have political rights? Equal yes, as in equal to one voter. Just going off the cuff here, I’d say Microsoft‘s political clout is likely about 100 million times compared to the average citizen’s, does that sound about right? Surely you aren’t going to stick with that 1-1 equal status in political power nonsense? Okay, remove the word nonsense as honestly you are well-versed here and I will be reading more about this topic later to catch up.

 

[alang1216]

I would disagree with that. Show me one communist system that doesn't involve political power?

Show me one capitalist system that doesn't involve political power. Certainly not the US where corporations are people too (Citizens United).

Corporations are people. Show me a corporation with no people. Name one company that has no people at all. Good luck with that. That is what a company is... it's a group, or even one single person. You have a company of one person. But there is no company of zero people.

I already showed you an example of capitalist without political power. A student in high school, built a massive half billion dollar international company, with a $900 pickup truck, purchased using his income from his part time job.

I could list you millions of examples like that. Take a tribal people in the Congo, where they exchange mud bricks for food, in order to build bigger homes, and of course better arrows and bows to hunt with. That Capitalism.

Now if you are asking show me a capitalist society in which there is no government.... show many any society where there is no government? Even in tribes, you have a the head of the tribe that enforces the rules of their society.

Without some body of enforcing the rules, you have Somalia, with chaos, murder rape and thievery.

Even in communes, you have some body of people in the commune that enforce the rules.

But saying you need government to create Capitalism? No, capitalism is the default standard of all humanity. Go all the way back to the early times in human history, where farmers farmed the land, and exchanged goods for their produce. Capitalism was the defacto standard.

Socialism requires government to create it. Without government, socialism never exists.

Every one of those corporation employees already has the ability to give $ and their vote to a politician so they are already well represented. Corporations don't have to live with the effects of pollution but their workers do.

There are millions of small businesses in this country but I wonder if they exercise more political power than Amazon?

Corporations don't have to live with the effects of pollution but their workers do.

When you read that statement, how do you not see how illogical that is? Corporations are the employees. There isn't a single person in a company that doesn't have to live in the same world as everyone else. So company employee, from the CEO down to the Janitor has to live with pollution, thus yes the corporation does have to live with the effects of pollution. In fact even the shareholders have to live with the effects of pollution.

Again, a corporation is nothing more than a group of people. Which person, walks out with their own private supply of air and water, that no one else in the company has access too? None. We all live on the same planet.

So no that makes no sense.

Further, you seem to be implying that employees wouldn't pollute. Employees pollute all the time. I remember working at a parts store, having guys come in to drop off oil, only to find out our tank was full. They would say "well I'll just pour it down the drain". Now I don't know for certain if they did or not, but I would absolutely be willing to put money on it.

The idea that somehow the corporation is doing anything that people don't do, is ridiculous. The only difference is, corporations make money, and you hate that. For some reason all the pollution that individuals do, you ignore, and pretend that only companies do it.

Further, when a company does illegal dumping, the government eventually finds out, and they are fined, or forced to clean it up, or both.

Regardless, what does this have to do with the prior claim about political power and corporations being people? Are you suggesting that if corporations were not supposedly people, that magically they would have no representation in Washington? That they magically would not ever cause any pollution?

Again, ridiculous. First, there are dozens, literally dozens of examples of policies that were passed by government in the past 10 to 15 years, that companies all opposed.

However, I am not saying that corporations do not have influence. Of course they have influence. Just like all businesses did, back in 1776. Just like they had in England before that, and throughout all human history.

To suggest that companies today have more influence in government, than in the past 2000 years, or more, of human history, is a ridiculous and unsupportable claim.

For starters, and I could list dozens on dozens of examples.... if corporations have such unlimited 'power' in government, why did Amazon get kicked out of New York City, but a pathetic air head know-nothing bimbo girl, who actually said publicly that she was going to "spend a tax deduction" on schools and health care?

How was one of the most powerful, and most wealthy, and largest companies in America today, completely smacked around, by a ridiculous bartender in her 20s? Seriously? Corporations have oh so much power and influence, that an air head, that can't even figure out that you can't spend money NOT COLLECTED.... a tax deduction.... on a school..... an air head that stupid, knocked around one of the largest most wealthy companies in the country?

No. Sorry. The facts don't support such an over exaggeration of corporate power. Influence, yes. They most certainly do have influence. But they don't have the power you claim. Not even close.

Corporations are not altruistic, nor should they be. Their obligation is to the owners/shareholders of the corporation. I wonder how many of the owners/shareholders of the corporations that frac in Pennsylvania live in PA or are more concerned with the water quality there than their personal bottom line.

I don't think corporations are all-powerful but they do have money and money + politics = corruption. Always has, always will. Therefore, I think limiting corporate donations to ALL politicians is a good thing and not an affront to their rights.

 

[sartre play]

Just words, labels, used to demean people who don't think the way you do.

 

[Andylusion]

I would disagree with that. Show me one communist system that doesn't involve political power?

Show me one capitalist system that doesn't involve political power. Certainly not the US where corporations are people too (Citizens United).

Corporations are people. Show me a corporation with no people. Name one company that has no people at all. Good luck with that. That is what a company is... it's a group, or even one single person. You have a company of one person. But there is no company of zero people.

I already showed you an example of capitalist without political power. A student in high school, built a massive half billion dollar international company, with a $900 pickup truck, purchased using his income from his part time job.

I could list you millions of examples like that. Take a tribal people in the Congo, where they exchange mud bricks for food, in order to build bigger homes, and of course better arrows and bows to hunt with. That Capitalism.

Now if you are asking show me a capitalist society in which there is no government.... show many any society where there is no government? Even in tribes, you have a the head of the tribe that enforces the rules of their society.

Without some body of enforcing the rules, you have Somalia, with chaos, murder rape and thievery.

Even in communes, you have some body of people in the commune that enforce the rules.

But saying you need government to create Capitalism? No, capitalism is the default standard of all humanity. Go all the way back to the early times in human history, where farmers farmed the land, and exchanged goods for their produce. Capitalism was the defacto standard.

Socialism requires government to create it. Without government, socialism never exists.

Every one of those corporation employees already has the ability to give $ and their vote to a politician so they are already well represented. Corporations don't have to live with the effects of pollution but their workers do.

There are millions of small businesses in this country but I wonder if they exercise more political power than Amazon?

Corporations don't have to live with the effects of pollution but their workers do.

When you read that statement, how do you not see how illogical that is? Corporations are the employees. There isn't a single person in a company that doesn't have to live in the same world as everyone else. So company employee, from the CEO down to the Janitor has to live with pollution, thus yes the corporation does have to live with the effects of pollution. In fact even the shareholders have to live with the effects of pollution.

Again, a corporation is nothing more than a group of people. Which person, walks out with their own private supply of air and water, that no one else in the company has access too? None. We all live on the same planet.

So no that makes no sense.

Further, you seem to be implying that employees wouldn't pollute. Employees pollute all the time. I remember working at a parts store, having guys come in to drop off oil, only to find out our tank was full. They would say "well I'll just pour it down the drain". Now I don't know for certain if they did or not, but I would absolutely be willing to put money on it.

The idea that somehow the corporation is doing anything that people don't do, is ridiculous. The only difference is, corporations make money, and you hate that. For some reason all the pollution that individuals do, you ignore, and pretend that only companies do it.

Further, when a company does illegal dumping, the government eventually finds out, and they are fined, or forced to clean it up, or both.

Regardless, what does this have to do with the prior claim about political power and corporations being people? Are you suggesting that if corporations were not supposedly people, that magically they would have no representation in Washington? That they magically would not ever cause any pollution?

Again, ridiculous. First, there are dozens, literally dozens of examples of policies that were passed by government in the past 10 to 15 years, that companies all opposed.

However, I am not saying that corporations do not have influence. Of course they have influence. Just like all businesses did, back in 1776. Just like they had in England before that, and throughout all human history.

To suggest that companies today have more influence in government, than in the past 2000 years, or more, of human history, is a ridiculous and unsupportable claim.

For starters, and I could list dozens on dozens of examples.... if corporations have such unlimited 'power' in government, why did Amazon get kicked out of New York City, but a pathetic air head know-nothing bimbo girl, who actually said publicly that she was going to "spend a tax deduction" on schools and health care?

How was one of the most powerful, and most wealthy, and largest companies in America today, completely smacked around, by a ridiculous bartender in her 20s? Seriously? Corporations have oh so much power and influence, that an air head, that can't even figure out that you can't spend money NOT COLLECTED.... a tax deduction.... on a school..... an air head that stupid, knocked around one of the largest most wealthy companies in the country?

No. Sorry. The facts don't support such an over exaggeration of corporate power. Influence, yes. They most certainly do have influence. But they don't have the power you claim. Not even close.

Corporations are not altruistic, nor should they be. Their obligation is to the owners/shareholders of the corporation. I wonder how many of the owners/shareholders of the corporations that frac in Pennsylvania live in PA or are more concerned with the water quality there than their personal bottom line.

I don't think corporations are all-powerful but they do have money and money + politics = corruption. Always has, always will. Therefore, I think limiting corporate donations to ALL politicians is a good thing and not an affront to their rights.

So a couple of things there.

First, as someone who has been around CEOs his whole life, I can tell you that nearly every single executive at a corporation is very much concerned with water quality and pollution. You can deny that, but you are ignorant. How many CEOs have you talked with in your life? I have talked with dozens.

Your own 'evidence' of that claim, is that different people came up with different opinions than you, therefore according to your logic, they must not care about pollution. Well.. that is a very arrogant and ignorant argument to make.

Second, you ask the question you wonder how many people who are in the fracking industry, live in PA. That same question could be directed at you. How many people opposing fracking, live in PA? Do you live in PA?

So what's it to you, if the state of PA allows or prohibits fracking? Why is it your concern, to destroy an estimate 50,000 job PA, and who knows how many supporting jobs, created by the Fracking industry in PA?

Do you know someone who died of Fracking pollution in PA? Do you have relatives with cancer in PA, that you can state conclusively is because of fracking pollution? And if not, what business is it of yours?

And by the way, I am fully in support of States governing themselves. If you DO live in PA, then by all means vote. You have a state government that governs the state of PA. VOTE. But understand that your fellow citizens can vote against you, and support Fracking. That's how Democracy works.

I don't think corporations are all-powerful but they do have money and money + politics = corruption. Always has, always will. Therefore, I think limiting corporate donations to ALL politicians is a good thing and not an affront to their rights.

Kind of reminds me of the Nazis in Germany, who slowly rolled back rights, one by one, inch by inch, until there was no one left to oppose them.

You start denying Americans, rights in the constitution, such as the right to vote, because you don't like how they vote... I will guarantee you 100%, that this power will be eventually used against you.

After all, there are tons of people in this country, whose voting I disagree with, and have equally valid concerns about. Take for example, the vote of Unions that get government contracts. Unions would bankrupt the entire country, for the benefit of themselves.

Should we eliminate the Union voting rights as well? How about public school teachers?



Just watch that, and you can see it is obvious that Unions happily damage the country, for their own benefit.

Can we revoke the freedom of speech of teachers? Of Unions? How many other examples would you like?

Lastly, I would like to disagree with your claim that money + politics = corruption.

No. That is false. Evil voters + evil politicians = corruption.

Money is not evil, nor causes evil. Money is simply a mode of exchange. It has no moral leanings either way.

Money in the hand of a righteous person, will allow him to be more righteous.

Money in the hands of a corrupt person, will allow him to be more corrupt.

Money does not cause anything.

You vote in corrupt politicians, you end up with corruption. If you think stopping one source of money into government, is going to stop corruption, you are crazy. Corruption, by the definition of the word, mean that they will find illegal ways of conducting themselves, for personal benefit.

No amount of laws, is going to stop this. Why? Because they are not following the law now. Why would you think that you can regulate away corruption, when they are not following the regulations right now, as they exist?

This is like people saying we need a new gun law, after a crime where a dozen existing Federal laws were violated. If they break 11 laws, why would a 12th law stop them?

Similarly, there are dozens of people in government today, who have broken the law, sometimes for decades, and nothing happened.

Al Gore was caught openly, and unambiguously, calling donors from the very office of the Vice-President, and shaking them down for money. It was not up for debate, not up for argument, we had the audio tapes of Al Gore on the phone, with people, "asking" for money, like he was in a Mafia crime family, asking for protection money.

The public of this country, almost made that guy president. And you think you can stop corruption, with another regulation that no one will follow? Al Gore broke a dozen campaign finance laws, and the public voted for him. Why would any corrupt politician anywhere, feel the need to follow a fiance law, when you voted for someone who violated dozens of laws?

How many examples do you need? Hillary? Kennedy? Barnie Frank? Maxine Waters?

Rep. Maxine Waters’ family continues to profit directly from her position in Congress - Washington Examiner

In 2005, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., was added to a liberal watchdog’s running list of the most corrupt members of Congress. Waters was added again in 2006 to the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington’s annual report on D.C. corruption. They added her again in 2009 and one more...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Maxine Waters specifically, has been chronicled for almost 15 years, documenting endless corruption. Clearly defined, overt corruption, for over a decade. The public still votes for her routinely.

The problem is the public. It's not corporations. It's not money. It's not lobbying. The public openly supports corruption, and that's why it's a problem.