Net Neutrality: Almost Gone
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Friday, August 25, 2023 18:29
VIEWED: 4216
PAGE 5 of 8
You make an excellent point on the incestuous relationship between governments and corporations. Save for one aspect. In the end of the day, it's the Gov't which can shut down and do away with a corporation far easier than can be done the other way around.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that one or the other entity is truly virtuous.
Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor
Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ooooh, a battle royale between Blue Sun and the Alliance. Who would win? A government only has the power you want to give it, and the guns you might have given it to back that power up. Given enough of those guns, they might still come up on top.
On the other hand, weapons manufacturers are often happy dealing to anyone under the radar. A corporation that produces weapons (like Blue Sun secretly does) has an advantage against a government that another corporation doesn't, but it may not necessarily be a huge factor.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well Rappy, thankfully you've gotten off the mantra that the Founding Fathers were rabid corporatists. Let us not speak of it again.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well Rappy, thankfully you've gotten off the mantra that the Founding Fathers were rabid corporatists. Let us not speak of it again.
That was your interpretation of my view, not what I was saying. But showing the Founders were wary of big corporate entities doesn't then conclude that they weren't just as wary, or more so, of an over- reaching federal government.
Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor
Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not necessarily. I suspect that if the government every truly threatened business interests... let's say, a major change in the laws governing business, such that most businesses forms and activities were to become illegal (for example returning to the form of "corporation" known in the early days of US independence) .... banks would collapse the economy and businesses would resort to assassination.
You make an excellent point on the incestuous relationship between governments and corporations. Save for one aspect. In the end of the day, it's the Gov't which can shut down and do away with a corporation far easier than can be done the other way around.
The difference to me is: Which entity can most likely be influenced by the people?
Well, look at their respective inputs: Business is a top-down tyranny with no direct input as to how it is run. (Even shareholders don't get much say.) The only influences (outside of government) that one MIGHT have are in the form of boycotts, strikes, and focused action by major investors (like pension funds).
Government takes input in the form of a vote.
---------------------
ETA: I see we cross-posted. Dang, you're up early!
Quote:They were wary of BOTH.
That was your interpretation of my view, not what I was saying. But showing the Founders were wary of big corporate entities doesn't then conclude that they weren't just as wary, or more so, of an over- reaching federal government.
But you have to think about the milieu they lived in. Then, most people were small farmers and small businesses. MOST people worked for themselves. Income distribution was MUCH flatter than today. Corporations, such as they were, were firmly under the heel of the state. The biggest concentration of power and wealth, and therefore the biggest problem of the day, was was an intrusive, at times brutal, tax-happy monarchy. The battle cry of the day was "No taxation without representation ... and therefore when they formed a government they were forced to create a system of representation (a goal several FF weren't happy with!) They spent more time talking about government because that was the problem of the time. The fact that some of them them talked about corporations and banks AT ALL tells me that they were looking ahead to the NEXT concentration of power... one that might not occur for centuries. In fact, I read quotes from a book The Founding Fathers (The latest edition is called The Founding Fathers Reconsidered www.amazon.com/Founding-Fathers-Reconsidered-R-B-Bernstein/dp/01953383
24) that several FF said, in so many words: This all works as long as people have free land to move to, and each person can have authority over their own livelihood. They seemed to understand that political democracy only works in the context of economic equality.
So anyway, here we are in 2010, and the question is: What would the FF think now? Well, considering they were a disparate group... some were lawyers, some were slaveholders, some were businessmen and others independent farmers... they would probably have a lot of different thoughts on the topic. But I think the first thing they would think is This isn't what we intended. They would likely pick out five or six things where they felt we'd gone seriously wrong:
Foreign adventurism. They'd look at our military presence around the world and likely think- WTF are you doing??? You've turned into King George!
Banks. They'd look at how the USA issues its currency and most likely think- You can't POSSIBLY think that the government can follow an independent line of policy if its balls are held by another entity!
Corporations. They'd look at our current business forms and prolly have another "WTF??" moment. They'd likely be thinking... Hey, we threw out the East India Company! Now you're ruled by its progeny!
Debt. I suspect they would look at our debt and say: You've gotten yourselves into a shitload of trouble. W
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Government takes input in the form of a vote.
Oh, it takes input, but at the end of the day, it's even more likely to do what ever the hell it wants.
Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor
Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And business is better???
Oh, it takes input, but at the end of the day, it's even more likely to do what ever the hell it wants.
An active public WILL have its way in government, Rappy. I know you're unhappy about the HCR vote (so am I, but for a different reason) but your view is a MINORITY view. SO don't feel that your views weren't listened to. They were. They just didn't carry the day.
And don't forget that, as far as business is concerned, it is even MORE guilty of imposing itself on people. Not only does it not have ANY mechanism for peaceful evolution, it's entire mandate is to GET RICH... perforce, impoverishing most people.
Anyway, as you can see we cross-posted more than once, so if you scroll up you'll find a lot more in my previous post.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm unhappy at the Gov't ignoring the will of the people on HCR.
My view is NOT the minority view. Sorry. This is not a mob rule democracy. Nor should it be.
I'm unhappy at Bush ignoring the will of the people when it came to immigration.
I'm unhappy at the Gov't for a lot of reasons, Dem or Repub, seems to make no difference.
But with business, I have a choice. Not so w/ my Gov't.
Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor
Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Me too. The will of the people was for a PUBLIC OPTION.
I'm unhappy at the Gov't ignoring the will of the people on HCR.
Poll after poll after poll showed that it had far greater support than the weasely, private-insurance-based Senate plan! Your views were in the MINORITY. Sorry Rappy, but that is a fact. You can mentally run and you can mentally hide, but it doesn't change reality.
But if you will notice a pattern, where the government deviates from "the will of the people" it is to the benefit of BIG BUSINESS. Since big business seems to be your patron saint... what's your problem?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Me too. The will of the people was for a PUBLIC OPTION.
I'm unhappy at the Gov't ignoring the will of the people on HCR.
No, it wasn't. That was just the will of the extreme, very far Left. Thankfully, we're not that country.
Quote:
Poll after poll after poll showed that it had far greater support than the weasely, private-insurance-based Senate plan!
No such polls exists. Couched questions and misleading comparisons aren't really relevant to the issue anyways. When fully explained, on what SHOULD be done and what ObamaCare does, most Americans would opt out of the latter.
Quote:
Your views were in the MINORITY. Sorry Rappy, but that is a fact. You can mentally run and you can mentally hide, but it doesn't change reality.
But if you will notice a pattern, where the government deviates from "the will of the people" it is to the benefit of BIG BUSINESS. Since big business seems to be your patron saint... what's your problem?
My PROBLEM is that, unlike with big business, I can't opt out of the Gov't intruding into my life. I can choose another company to do business with, or not do business with any , if I so choose, but where do I go when the Gov't is forcing me, under threat of imprisonment and w/ the force of a gun, to do what it says.
You're quite happy being meddled with, being told what to do, what to think, as long as it's by YOUR brand of master.
Me? Not so much. Don't reckon that's likely to change any time soon, either.
Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor
Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME