Again, this is our disagreement. I don't think that limiting government allows ANY power by corporations over government.

Far less than OUR minimum wage. It's a noble goal to bring all economies out of 3rd world status, but that takes time and providing jobs to those people is a start. If you don't like the conditions that Nike, et al. operate in, don't buy their product. Join a group that lobbies them to improve conditions faster. They're sending jobs overseas because it's cheaper labor. If someone's rights are being violated it's a different story all together. That's not a government / corporation issue, it's a human rights issue. And if the employment is voluntary, it's harder to show exploitation. But this is getting into foreign policy.

Why does it even matter if the workers can buy the products they make? I'm sure there are plenty of workers in the US that can't afford to buy the products they produce while making a perfectly decent living.

Umm, actually that is THE definition of a free market.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/free+market
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
I now see that what you've been talking about is a market wherein all private interests are forced to be equal, or at least prevented from becoming too unbalanced. THAT's not a free market at all. In a free market the government is simply not involved. Whether this would result in mass corporate collusion and conspiracy against consumers or enhanced competition and improved consumer conditions is debatable and impossible to prove either way (it's never existed; the US is a mixed market with government intervention). I think it would end up the latter.

Oil isn't running out in any form. Energy research is shifting toward alternate forms, but that's more due to environmental concerns than it is any shortage. I'd argue that consumer demands driven by environmental concerns fit perfectly as a market force. Pickens has the foresight to go where the money WILL be, not just where it is now.
Electric vehicle research has also been going on far longer than Pickens has been involved. In fact he's more interested in Natural Gas than electric cars. His most recent endeavor was the failed California Prop 10 which would have sent tax dollars to his own company. If the government couldn't fund private corporations, they'd have to find their own funding solely from investors and consumers and produce results or die off to be replaced by those that can succeed.

I've never said anything remotely like that. Markets are "controlled" by people as best they can by developing, buying, and selling goods. You're the one who has said that governments cannot be, nor are companies, capable of understanding and controlling markets. Whether that's true or not, companies would be far more successful focusing on their product instead of artificially influencing the market.

I don't even have the faintest idea what you're getting at with that last bit. If people manipulate markets with or without government, why is government even involved? You've said that governments and companies can't understand or control markets. That markets will be manipulated with or without government intervention. That governments need to control companies because their only goal is to, essentially, gain profit and harm consumers. They apparently aren't helping any if manipulation is going to occur regardless. Why not get out of the way and stop wasting tax payer dollars on a useless endeavor?


Again, my main argument is that companies can only have power over government if government is allowed to make legislation regarding companies. Remove that ability and companies will have no reason to lobby government; no laws that could be favorable to them would be allowed.
Beyond that I believe that a genuine free market is ultimately better for the consumer than a mixed market. Any government control is bound to be biased towards some group or another and, as you've said, can't possibly effectively control the market.

Sure, guys building nuclear subs can't afford them, but we're talking about sneakers! There's something very wrong with a system where any worker can't afford sneakers.
Here's the New Oxford American Dictionary definition:
That's unrestricted competition, not unrestricted rights. Corporations have far too many rights, and they use and abuse their power to avoid living up to their responsibilities. Then they claim that they're just responding to the market. It's a ridiculous smoke screen to claim that they're over regulated and that regulation of any kind is anti free market.

The government isn't involved in how companies go to market. It needs tot be involved in policing corporate crime, which is at least as large as street crime. Things like insider trading and polluting are not affected by market forces, and that's the kind of regulation that corporations are really resisting.
Estimated reserves are supposedly around 1.2 trillion barrels. worldwide, and we use about 81 million barrels per day. At that rate, which is still increasing, we have approximately 41 years left. Of course, that number will turn out to be smaller because China and India are accelerating their consumption even faster than we are. Maybe you know some new math, but that looks like running out to me.
Like Enron? They found great success manipulating the markets. It wasn't until regulators caught on to what they were doing that the house of cards collapsed. Maybe you think the regulators should have ignored what they found?
That's because you choose to misinterpret my talking about the people manipulating the markets as if they were average people and not heads of large corporations.
And my main point is that you've never pointed to one single regulation that unfairly inhibits corporations from marketing their products and services, while I've pointed out cases where lack of regulation has caused great harm to the public.

And in several countries you can legally buy Windows for anywhere from $36 to $2.50. Products are priced differently in different markets. You pay a heck of a lot more for shoes in the US than you would in the 3rd world. I bet in many of those countries they don't even sell those shoes, it's not the target market. The same is true for any number of other products (cars, televisions, clothing, etc.).

Even by the definition you posted, regulation of any kind is anti-free market.
How can you possibly have "too many rights"? Name one that goes too far. Keep in mind that your rights, and those of a company, end when they infringe on the rights of others, without their permission. And vice-versa.

Bottom line, I'm arguing for a free market.

Perhaps, but we've been actively using oil for around a hundred years and have around 40 left? Seems like we're investigating new energy forms with plenty of time to spare. There certainly isn't an availability crisis.

No, I just don't follow your treatment of corporations and their execs as different than "average" people. If there really is a difference in the view of the law, it would seem to indicate current laws which favor business. I'm pretty sure we both agree that those are bad.

I did actually point out Microsoft. Then you dismissed it saying you wanted something else. Your lack of regulation cases all seem to be instances where government has failed to hold a company accountable. They are after-all the current authority in the present mixed market.


But, let's bring this back to the original issue. Way back at the beginning of the thread, you said:
I agree that corporations manipulating government destroys capitalism. But, how can this be true, if government were to be restricted from making any laws respecting corporations? I still contend that this would make corporate manipulation of government impossible.

Sigh. You can't seriously think that I meant they couldn't afford to fly to this country, buy a pair of sneakers and fly back, could you? Of course I meant that they couldn't afford to buy them in their country!!! And yes, they're sold in those countries.
A couple of rights that go too far:
Right to murder (This is essentially what large scale polluters have done for decades. Murder for profit is still murder, even if it's indiscriminate.)
Right to not pay taxes.
No, you're arguing for feudalism, in which large corporations are the Lords and everyone else are serfs.

LOL! You think that we're just going to go for 40 years and then the spigot turns off!!! :eek: It doesn't work that way. We're already using extremely high technology to get what's left out of the ground. Every year it gets harder to retrieve. Yes, there's forty years worth of total supply (really probably more like 30 if you factor in the rate of increase in consumption) but by the time we get to twenty we're likely to find that getting the rest out uses more energy that we get from it. In the mean time, oil prices will rise dramatically. If you think $4/gallon was high, think again, then think of the economic problems $4/gallon gas caused.

Yes, and there's no way that limiting government power will remove laws that favor Big Business. They just won't let it happen.


Right, and holding a company accountable requires:

• The existence of regulation, without which there is no justification for any action.
• The government must have more power than the company, which naturally doesn't want to be held accountable.

Both of which you want to do away with.

As for Microsoft:

The entire point of free markets is that consumers have choices! That's what drives the market. Your own example is one of a large corporation destroying free markets! :eek: Sure, Microsoft is less relevant today, but it still dominates the market despite the fact that its products are inferior. IE in particular still has more than 60% market share and it's the least standards compliant browser on the market, causing problems for developers and users alike. The only way they can maintain that market share is by manipulating the market!

Well, let's use your example again:

With no government interference, or even the threat of it, Microsoft could have continued to force OEMs to pay per computer sold, making it prohibitively expensive to put Linux on any of their systems. There would be far fewer Linux systems today and IE would have an even higher market share. Manufacturers lose and consumers lose. Microsoft wins. One large Lord, lots of serfs. Welcome to Feudalism.

Yup.

I would make a case that there is no great distinction between "feudalism" and other alleged forms of society, inasmuch as all human life is organised around the patron-client nexus, which attracts different labels in different periods. The devil is in the details: given that Tom and Dick are always in some kind of relationship of personal dependence on Harry, what is of interest to Tom and Dick are the precise terms of that dependence: where he is on a spectrum involving slavery (of which there have been innumerable varieties, some more unpleasant than others), serfdom (ditto), modern employment (ditto again), plus all the various forms of clientage and retinue membership (the Romans would have understood Boss Tweed and Mayor Daley very well).

I think it indubitable that the trend of the last twenty years has been a deterioration in the terms of Tom's and Dick's service to Harry. In addition, we have seen elements of classic feudalism, which may be summarised as the "privatisation and outsourcing of government services", so that public law is replaced by a web of private-law contracts. The proliferation of "security contractors", for instance, is a red flag to anyone who knows his history. One might usefully ask to whom Blackwater owes loyalty and for whom they would fight in the event of civil disorder.

I have also been expecting the return of the good old tax-farmer: you know, where instead of collecting its taxes from Tom and Dick, the government outsources the collection to Harry, in such a way that Harry contracts for a certain sum in taxes, and is then free to squeeze Tom and Dick until the pips squeak, pocketing the difference. It's only the next logical step in neoliberalism. :(

I think you're right when we're talking about large scales, because the devil is in the details, and it's easy for the unscrupulous to take advantage when they're in positions of power in large organizations. (The cream may always rise to the top, but so does pond scum!) On small scales, Capitalism works very well because power isn't centralized enough to be a threat in anyone's hands. That's why it's so important to break up monoliths like Exxon, Microsoft, AIG, etc.

I absolutely love how you think murder is a right of anyone. I was hoping you might actually come up with some real rights that go too far. Instead you've made something up, which no one actually has the right to. Or can you actually point me to someone or some group which actually has the RIGHT to murder without retribution. The logic of including pollution here seems to justify including accidental deaths due to surgical complications as well. If pollution causes a death, wouldn't the affected be able to hold the company responsible for wrongful death? Thus clearly showing murder is not a right? Unless the government is protecting the company from such actions.
And to not pay taxes? Who has that right? I'd like to meet them and subscribe to their newsletter. What does that even mean? The only groups that I can think of that are exempt from taxation are non-profits. Ya know, if that's what you're getting at, I agree. As for companies, governments may pass laws which reduce the taxes paid by corporations, but that isn't an inherent right that anyone has these days.

No, I'm arguing for free markets. Classic feudalism can only be an outcome of that if corporations are handed power over their consumers and workers. In a free market it is up to the consumers and workers to set the terms of their purchases and labor. They have the power to reject any terms they don't agree to and find a more habitable employer or retailer.

I don't know what gave you the idea that the spigot would just shut off after 40 years. All I said is that it seems to me like we're investigating alternate forms of energy with plenty of time to spare. It sounds like you don't think we'll have improved on alternate energy forms at all in even 10 years.
See also: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4100

But the setup of my basic premise is that limiting government removes such laws. If you're really going to reduce the argument to stating that my hypothetical situation simply cannot occur, there's really no point in debating at all. You're not arguing about whether such a system would be effective, you're simply stating that my posited restriction can't exist. You still haven't provided any avenue for which corporations would influence government if government is specifically restricted from making laws regarding corporations.

Actually, no. Replace regulation with basic property law, contract enforcement, etc. And companies are bound by the contracts they enter into and responsible for any violation of others' rights. I suppose you can look at it as the courts having power over the company, but really it's just an enforcement of contracts and property law.

As even you have posted with your own supplied definition, a free market is one without external regulation. Buying and selling drives the market. Competition arises as a result of that, and choice with it.

And consumers are allowing them to do so. If the average user actually cared about standards IE would be a very different product.
Regardless, as you stated "Manufacturers lose and consumers lose. Microsoft wins." I'd counter with Microsoft wins, Manufactures win, consumers don't care and don't notice. Clearly Microsoft wins. The manufacturers also win because they want to profit by selling Microsoft products; Microsoft is what the consumers wants. You could argue that the consumer looses, but there have always been other options. It may have been more expensive at the time, but no body ever put a gun to anyone's head and said, "Buy Windows".

Hmmm, thanks for not addressing my point at all. I asked about how corporations would influence government if government was restricted from making laws regarding corporations and you addressed a situation where a corporation wasn't restricted by government and went on to not influence government.

I'm asking about a hypothetical situation. Not about how it works in the world today. How WOULD it be possible if government was constitutionally prohibited from passing laws regarding a corporation.

Walmart, Apple, Nike, BestBuy, Sony, LG, Motorola, Honda, Ford, GM... What do you want to be left with? Corner stores, Mom & Pops, and garage hackers? Companies get big because they are successful. They can be more effective and productive as larger companies. If you break them up as soon as they get big, what's the incentive to be successful?


Wow, I can't believe I actually had to argue that murder is not a right.

Oh, I'm not saying they'd ever actually call it murder, but that's what they do when they make the calculation that it's cheaper to fight the survivors in court than clean up their mess. And they do have the right to make that calculation, because we don't call it murder. That can't be because they haven't influenced government.

Laws establish rights. That's what they're for.

Yeah, right. When's the last time you negotiated what you pay for gas with anyone? Your food? How about your clothing? And you think that the worker has a chance at negotiating labor rates? :rolleyes:

Oh we'll have improved on it, but only enough to keep world wide oil consumption from rising much higher than it is now. Not enough to get it to drop, or even stay where it is now.

Have you not seen any of the corporate corruption that's been going on since the beginning of corporations? And you think they'd need a legal avenue to influence government??? Geez, just google corporate fraud!!
Yeah, that'd work. Individuals can then square off against entities that never get old or sick, have enormous resources and can drive up court costs to make it nearly impossible to fight them at all. Good thinking. :rolleyes:

Unbelievable. :rolleyes:
Not influence government??? You think that the anti trust suit just went away on its own??? :eek:

Oh, in that case, we'd all live happily ever after! Everything would smell like roses, and we could eat anything we wanted and never get fat! Oh, and Big Business would be ethical and never break the law, so they wouldn't interfere with government. :rolleyes:
Nobody wants to cut them into a thousand pieces, but many need to be cut into thirds or maybe tenths. I'd make that judgement at least partially by how heavily they've been lobbying.
Rights are granted or established by precedent. Large companies have established that they can get away with letting people die because of their actions without ever having to admit wrongdoing. I'll call that murder. You can call it business.

Rights are inherent, laws take away or limit them.

Are you serious? Every job I've had I've negotiated my pay, and continued to while employed. As for food, gas, etc. You "negotiate" by choosing the price that is acceptable to you at the stores around. If you're being ripped off, don't buy at that location, get it on your own, or do without.

So make it illegal to make laws regarding business, and business will break the law and force government to make laws regarding business. They can do this because they are more powerful than government and don't have to answer to anyone. Right, why bother with the pretense of making the laws?

Your arguments boil down to:
Government must control businesses, to keep them from growing too powerful.
Corporations will always influence government, even if government is specifically restricted from making any sort of law that would be beneficial or detrimental to business. They'll find a way because they're too powerful.
Corporations dominate government, influence government and markets to get their way, and aren't accountable to anyone, including government.
Government must control business, because now they're too powerful and exerting influence over government.
Repeat.

You're not taking this seriously and I've put in as much as I care to.

Umm, without the Constitution, the law which is the basis for all of our laws, the only rights you have are those you can physically defend yourself.

I specifically did not ask about your job because I assume that because you're on this site you've had the benefit of some form of higher education, which puts you in a position to negotiate your pay. Most people don't get that benefit, but they deserve to make a living too.

So you think that choosing the price that's acceptable is enough to keep poison out of milk, lead out of paint, put seat belts in cars, keep financial institutions from lying about their balance sheets, etc.?? :eek:
You're right. Let's apply this same logic to street crime: People will commit murders, rapes, burglaries, arson, etc., anyway, so why bother with the pretense of making laws against these things? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

No you're argument boils down to:
Big Business is responsible, honest, and true, but people in government are evil sobs who want to restrict their freedoms. There's never been any corporate crime. Pay no attention to Mr. Madoff, Enron, Tyco, Countrywide, the shell game being played with people's pensions, etc.

Of course I'm not taking this seriously. Not as a debate anyway. We live in a society based on checks and balances, where laws are made because we find people doing wrong, not to please some bureaucrat's whims. You want to do away with those checks and balances at a time in our history when we've seen more corporate fraud and on a larger scale than ever! And your solution? Let the people try to take on corporate wrongdoers in court!

It's beyond absurd! Nine or ten years ago, I'd have just laughed it off as ignorant foolhardiness that couldn't gain traction. Then it did, and we're suffering the results. Not again.

Re: The forgotten Social Contract...
 

.
IMHO, greed needs to be tempered by what we might call "the social contract".

Unfortunately, no one speaks about that anymore -- and certainly not the bankers that have been bailed out.


Edit: Ooops! I appear to have interrupted a duel. ;)
Methinks someone has overdosed on Ayn Rand...

.

IMHO, government and big business are the 2 sides from the same coin, and have the same masters, the so called "owners" of everything. Today, the richest 10 percent of adults account for 85 percent of the world's total wealth.

I now predict that society as we know it, will come soon to an end. By next december or January the US$ dollar will collapse. Followed by the collapse of all systems. Government, economy, trade, industry, education, all will stop functioning very soon. Why? Because the system we live today is based on lies, power, fear and greed. The leaders of the world show disregard for the sanctity of human life, disregard for the unity among nations, disregard for growth in the spirit towards realization of universal consciousness, and propagate slavery by keeping the population ignorant in order to fulfill their dreams of power.

Everybody knows this. Inequality among nations is the norm, children dying of malnutrition while the granaries of the rich are full (meantime the world produces enough food to feed each person 3 times over. It would cost only 19 billion dollars to end world hunger, roughly the amount the world spends on ice cream every year), with a world economy guided by leaders of nations that are unwilling to change despite destroying our ecosystem, while at the same time the Banks of the rich are overflowing with cash. Greed and the egoistical entities who control this system, will disappear, vanish forever from our planet, as in the coming years, there will be no place for such a destructive force on the way to higher human evolution.

Unless you're using "evolution" as a metaphor, this doesn't fly. Evolution isn't about becoming nicer. Put it this way: the only way in which evolution can arrange for us to become less greedy is if (a) greed is genetically determined, and either (b) greedy children died before reproducing, (c) greedy adults reproduced less than altruistic ones, or both. Assuming for the sake of argument (a), how do you propose to arrange for (b) and/or (c)?

.
This doesn’t fly, for the simple reason that the terms evolution and evolve are not restricted to genetics. We are also talking about social systems -- and I think this could well be what Sao is referring to when he says "higher human evolution". It’s not only (or even primarily) a question of DNA.

I confess I have no idea what people mean by "higher human evolution". The first adjective makes no sense if we're talking about the DNA kind, so it probably is some other kind -- which is why I said "metaphor". I challenge you to demonstrate any kind of cultural mechanism that inevitably leads humanity "onwards and upwards". All such schemes, whether Teilhardian, Marxist, Hegelian and so forth are ultimately Christian eschatology. Which in my book, together with two euros will get you a cup of coffee. All cultural advances are reversible. Social capital is built up by hard work, it doesn't "evolve".

Sorry, you're right. I should have been more clear. "Higher human evolution" sounds not so good, and it's almost impossible to understand with a rational, logical mind. It's not just Christian eschatology, but all mystics since beginning of time have discovered something that lead humans "onwards and upwards". Like this poem by Rumi:

I died from minerality and became vegetable;
And from vegetativeness I died and became animal.
I died from animality and became man.
Then why fear disappearance through death?
Next time I shall die
Bringing forth wings and feathers like angels;
After that, soaring higher than angels -
What you cannot imagine,
I shall be that.

Let me put "higher human evolution" in another words, maybe it's easier for you to understand:

consciousness, self-realization, unification, reality, universal mind.

If none of this words make sense for you, well, then it's not for me to show the way. I would add though, that's not through mind. It can never be understood with such a primitive tool. Mind is like a curtain that doesn't allow you to see. In order to graduate and climb to a higher level, one must let go of the mind.

"Indoor work with no heavy lifting", as Saint Terry says. :-)

I won't take this discussion any further, as our positions are irreconcilable and I doubt any purpose will be served by it. Have a good <whatever time of day it is in Singapore>!

Pity! Good luck and have a good day too! :)

In Lak’ech...