Corporate Control vs. Government Control: Which is better?

The amount of hatred displayed by people on this forum against the government would make you think they were responsible for genoc- oh, never mind. The wisdom of the founding fathers is often cited as a reason for keeping the government at bay. The government as it is known today, even more so now than it was back then, with its sheer overwhelming technological advantages, resources and manpower over the ordinary citizen, should be kept at bay. There is no comparison to the government of today and the government then, yet the comparison is still made.

I know that the very real threat of genocide is here, but why is it here? Do people think the democratically-elected officials decided one day that, for the fun of it, they would flip a coin and either go to war with Iraq or Cuba? It obviously wasn't random chance. There was some sort of motivation, and I find it hard to believe that that motive wasn't related to corporations.

The purpose of this thread, first off, is to raise the question of whether government control or corporate control is better. Would the government, as it is supposed to be, make for a better society by using corporations to fulfill its objectives? Obviously, those objectives would range from sustaining society to providing for the general welfare depending on whose definition of the government you're using. For the record, I think the government having control over the corporations would be better than corporations having control over the government.

The other possibility is basically what our current state of affairs is. Should corporations be able to use the government as a vehicle for fulfilling its own objectives? How is that turning out for us on a global scale?

Maybe I'm just crazy, but it appears to me that the balance between those two determines whether it's a capitalist society or a socialist society. In Socialism, the government uses the corporations to fulfill its objectives, while in Capitalism, the corporations use the government to fulfill their own objectives. Is there any alternative to this dichotomy?

Well, I could be way off on this, but I was taught that, in a democratic government, the people are supposed to be in control. In a corporation, the ceo or board of directors is in control. A very small percentage of people. So I would have to say my answer would be government rather than corporation, but the government isn't currently working the way it'ssupposed to because the people have been taught that government is boring and the experts have everything taken care of, so that needs to be fixed, then the government itself needs to be fixed.

Corporation control is way worse IMO. I feel like that is the world we live in today. If laws were made to protect the people more than they protect corporations then it wouldn't suck so bad.

Corporate Control vs. Government Control: Which is better?

IMO.

One in the same as both use many similar tactics.

If "government" controls all corporations the methods of control required are similar to the methods required for corporations to control a "government".

IMO, either way has similar effects on a population.

a reply to: xuenchen

If "government" controls all corporations the methods of control required are similar to the methods required for corporations to control a "government".

What do you think about the differences in motivation? I realize that the proverbial road to hell is paved with good intentions, but surely a government working at the very least to sustain itself and its citizenry would do better than corporations, who have no such intention. Their goals could be anything, really... It's up to the CEOs.

originally posted by: zackli
a reply to: xuenchen

If "government" controls all corporations the methods of control required are similar to the methods required for corporations to control a "government".

What do you think about the differences in motivation? I realize that the proverbial road to hell is paved with good intentions, but surely a government working at the very least to sustain itself and its citizenry would do better than corporations, who have no such intention. Their goals could be anything, really... It's up to the CEOs.

If you are suggesting a limited government like a "Libertarian" type system, then yes that government would be better all around. But they would need to control any existing corporations.

However, that philosophy is vulnerable to power grabs (Human Nature) that could turn leadership into "CEO's" so to speak, thus leading into excessive authoritarianism that could spill onto the population.

But it's possible.

Hard to find long term working examples.

We see many small local governments (like towns and even small counties) working inside larger governments (like States) that work.

It's the bloated national governments that are the problem. And that bloating exists in the large corporations the same way.

Confusing but interesting.

I would perform a citizens arrest on either of them. Government control, ie if it is transparent and responsive to its Employers the Citizens, US, not them. We are the government they are our hired minion. And corporations would be under some much stricter rules and we need firing ability for all politicians and judges. Also, focus on small businesses, cottage business, community off grid power solutions, alternative fuel and end the fossil fuel, and corporations would be exposed so with tons of small businesses the most ethical, compassionate, caring, decent, The Equality would ever get customers.

But government is the people and it needs to be fixed. Corporatations and bankers needs some serious jail time for their murderous rampage on earth.

Well i've had a long day, it's 1:30am here, so i'll be brief and i'll revisit this post tomorrow cause i find it interesting.

Corporations exert their control using the STATE as a channel (not the govt, two different things), meaning that corporations would actually CONTROL the STATE and the state CONTROLS the government,or most of it at least.



Corporations----State----Government----People
the chain always ends in the people,in the millions upon millions of citizens who are
the ones supposed to be controlling their own fate,government and state.


How to get out of Corporatism?

As all extremes, you probably need to go to the other extreme. In the case of corporatism i would say it is more to the left like socialism (in the scandinavian sense of the word, not the russian,latinamerican or even european one).

However,all countries are different. In the case of America you would need to cut military spending if you want something to change,if you want to implement something at all, new or not. Following a canadian model is wouldn't be far fetched. Programs like Obamacare are a lame attempt at socialism wich ends up being a failure,utter failure.
The problem with socialist policies (redistribution of wealth, subsidies,etc) is that the system needs to be adapted and a massive and very thorough analysis needs to be made of the current status of the economy and actual programs that are still "working". Socialism is not applying the same model to everything,that has proven to be a failure over,and over and over again, creating massive corruption everywhere. And corruption is not as easy to get rid of, it would be easier to travel in time.

not so brief and i'm out of fuel.

a reply to: zackli

Well my friend, if you believe in the idea of a representative democracy you should believe in the idea that society is ultimately controlled by the people, for the people. In my most honest judgement that means to have a government that work in advancement of the people, in pursuit of an agenda that is beneficial to society. The benefit of this concept is that "We The People" are able to control the goings on and enact our will through local, state and federal channels. We are able to vote people in and out of office and shape society accordingly. This is the true idea that we should be living with today, but as you know we are not.

The problem is that the concept of corporate control is also a manifestation of big government.That is, people who say that do not like big government, support politicians who use the government to give corporations more corporate control. They feed you lines about "deregulation and free enterprise", but their policies are bent to screw the everyday American over.

A fine example of this con game can be seen in a recent political battle over student loan rates. In this battle, the "No Big Government" crowd engineered and fought for much higher rates on behalf of the banks. They won and the rate went up considerably. It seems that everytime the two sides come together you will see that one side favors the corporations and the other favors the people/government.

The point is, this question should be looked at by examining the policies of the ideology you want to examine. You will see that the people who dislike the government never do anything to shrink government. They usual remove control from the hands of the people/government and give that control and often times larges amounts of money to private hands. This is the pattern you will see, the behavior of this ideology.

Both ideologies are big government, the real question is an economic one. Do you engineer a society by helping the rich and powerful? Or do you do it by advocating for everyone?

Neither ...

Both are vile .. corrupt .. evil .. that oppress people ..

a reply to: Expat888

I understand, but the idea of "no-government" sounds chaotic and utopic as well.

I personally believe a well-built State,along with responsible and educated citizens are key factors on getting rid of the opportunistic and corrupt governments,making politics a regular job where real ideas and resolution of problems (sheer talent and intelligence) are the only prequisites, not promises and speeches.

I seriously need to go to sleep hehe

originally posted by: Expat888
Neither ...

Both are vile .. corrupt .. evil .. that oppress people ..

Yep.

Who here ever asked to be 'controlled' by anyone or any thing?

I personally ascribe to self-control.

Is it better if I put my left boot on your throat or the right boot?

Control is not good no matter where it comes from.

Neither controls me except in very minor ways, I do as I wish 99% of the time and AM annoyed sometimes by the insane laws I have to work around but in the end I do as I wish.

You can really only be controlled if you let them.

a reply to: mwood

I do as I wish 99% of the time and AM annoyed sometimes by the insane laws I have to work around but in the end I do as I wish.

Do you really KNOW what you want to do? How much of your actual desires stems from "you" and how much stems from society? What percentage of what you want has been shaped by the society in which you were raised?

The fact that you don't want to do most things that are against the law - is that because you were shaped by society making you feel a certain way in regards to that act because of the force of punishment, or is it because there is anything inherently "wrong" about that act?

These types of questions may not make any meaningful difference, but they make a very meaningful difference.

Government exists to provide a continued need for the product the government produces.
(primarily services)

Corporations exist to provide a continued need for the product the corporation produces.
(primarily goods)

Many have already posted what needed to be said, left boot or right boot on throat, does it matter?

Though I do find it ironic that many here who criticize corporations are the same ones who applaud government which is the biggest corporation we have.

a reply to: zackli

The problem is that both governments (small groups of individuals who got where they are by being the best at backstabbing, notionally selected by the people, who are forced to chose between the best of two or more turds, AT BEST, in most cases) and corporations (small groups of people who got where they are by being the best at backstabbing, who have no notional responsibility toward anything but collecting currency), operate to the detriment of the whole of the people.

Both do so by exerting CONTROL. Governments are not supposed to control their citizens. Citizens are supposed to control their governments. It is not for governments to dictate to their people, but for them to grovel before their people and obey their every command and whim, or suffer unpleasant consequences when they fail to do so. This is something which is not in evidence in this modern age, but it none the less true.

Corporations however, do not even have to keep up the pretense of being publicly responsible, since they have no connection with people, other than the fact that people are their revenue stream. Big business feels no responsibility toward the individual consumer, only toward ensuring that they continue to to business, and furthermore, they do not in the main, consider their staff of any great worth either, deeming them a drain on resources, rather than an asset to be cherished.

So boiled down to its bare essentials, there is very little to pick between the two, aside from this, crucial point...

Governments are SUPPOSED to be controlled by the people, and corporations are controlled by shareholders and CEOs. At least with a government, one has the understanding that whether or not one has any actual control over ones government or not, one knows that if the government is controlling the people, something is wrong, and at least has the notional ability to act to change it. However, people have no control, notional or otherwise, over corporations

Therefore, for all that is wrong with them, governments are better than corporations because they are meant to be controlled by the people over whom they seek to watch, and protect. Their mandate comes from the people, not from shareholders, and therefore is legitimately democratic in purpose. However, in government, one ought to be beholden to the will of the whole of the people alone. No other factor should ever be allowed to enter the decision making process on the part of the politicians who act on the behalf of the people.

And yet this is obviously not the case, in any way, shape, or form. Governments spy on innocent citizens, allow corporations to buy their co-operation, allow shady companies to swindle the taxpaying citizen, spend taxpayer money unwisely, and against the will of the people, make law which harms the people, make policy internal and external, which can only have a negative effect for the people as a whole...

The fact of the matter is, that government and corporations both, are toxic by their nature, because whether done blatantly as in the case of corporations, or by the backdoor subtlety we have come to expect from powerful governments, they take power away from the majority, and place it solely in the hands of a disconnected, amoral, self interested minority. While the rights and needs of every individual in a nation must be weighed and respected, the whole of the people must be the ones who provide, enact, enforce, and create law. Government is supposed to be self control on a nationwide scale, not dictatorship in all but name.

And yet, every time power is collected in a place, it is misused, and that is what a government is. It is a collection of power. The only system which can ever work fairly, is one where no central power exists, where all power is distributed, where there is no head, only many hands making light work, and the only control exerted, being exerted by the whole of the people, over those who threaten the whole of the people.

Governments and corporations are both forms of organization. Without some form of organization, things can get disorganization and the overall social productivity decreases. How long would it take you to get to the city without a car or public transport?

Due to the funding and voting arrangements, governments are better at broad scale general public issues. Roles where conflicts of money can produce undesirable results like in law and order and social planning, governments have a clear purpose, mandate and role to work for the benefit of the electorate.

Corporations are better at the finer social details like making cars, bread and electricity. The competitive nature of money is also a benefit to the work undertaken as it does push for improvement, refinement and meeting our potential.

They do both have their purpose and place. If corporations and government where rubbish then I doubt they would of lasted or gotten as strong as they have. There are a lot of problems and blurring of roles, but like it or not this is the environment.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Corporate Control vs. Government Control: Which is better?

IMO.

One in the same as both use many similar tactics.

If "government" controls all corporations the methods of control required are similar to the methods required for corporations to control a "government".

IMO, either way has similar effects on a population.

representative government is the only institution that gives modern man a say in self-determination. it's the only rule that separates the human living condition, from dictators and kings of the past. the corporation is mostly a fascist organization. for any person NOT of wealth, representative government is the only power they have.

Well, it used to be that I only interacted with those corporations I chose to give my money to for a good or service. However, corporations learned how to play the politicians in the government to put their competition out of business so that I am limited in my choice of whom to engage in business with and worse, government has seen fit to not only start taking ownership stake in corporations but to compel me to do business with some of them, too.

So, neither is good IMO.

I do find it endlessly laughable that the same people who tell me that no corporation is good because the people in it are evil can seem to see that our government which is just as big and bureaucratic and, even worse, operates with the full force of law to compel us at its leisure is also comprised of people who can be and often are just as evil.

It's the power. And the government and corporation in question are only as evil as the power over us they are allowed to have. So when you ask yourself the question ... ask yourself which actually has more direct power over you in your day-to-day life and you will have the answer.

And, full-disclosure, my husband works for a large multi-national corporation. He's certainly not evil nor are the people he works with at any level and he works high enough that he interacts with the people at corporate HQ regularly. HIs corp takes pride in putting out a quality product and doing right by their customer, but maybe that's why they've been in business so long, and it may also be the difference between a publically traded corp (which they aren't) and a family owned one. The family takes pride and direct care.

Corporations may not be people, but the people who work for them at every level are. People with families and relatives. I have an uncle who's a higher up at Apple and my aunt works for a French tech firm. Neither of them have horns or Snidely Whiplash mustaches, either.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: xuenchen
Corporate Control vs. Government Control: Which is better?

IMO.

One in the same as both use many similar tactics.

If "government" controls all corporations the methods of control required are similar to the methods required for corporations to control a "government".

IMO, either way has similar effects on a population.

representative government is the only institution that gives modern man a say in self-determination. it's the only rule that separates the human living condition, from dictators and kings of the past. the corporation is mostly a fascist organization. for any person NOT of wealth, representative government is the only power they have.

I agree.

But how do "we" get to the point of true "representative" government without "Fascist" and "ultra-Progressive" methods ?

One method usually requires the methods of the other.