• 0 Posts
  • 5 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2025

help-circle


  • Ok, good. Seems like we agree on a lot of things. However, there are some misconceptions I want to clear up about my position and my reasoning behind it.

    First, we seem to be running on different definitions for both corporations/businesses and governments. I’ll just include the definitions I’m using under the spoiler tag.

    definitions

    Corporation/busiess: Legal entity/system providing a service or product for profit Government: A legal entity/system organizing and governing a collection of people by creating laws, collecting taxes, and providing public services

    First of all, both corporations and governments are just “made-up human ideas” so that’s a meaningless phrase. They are simply 2 examples of how humans choose to organize themselves to accomplish goals that a single person cannot, something you’ve already admitted is necessary “I and some of my goodly companions”. They are, I would argue (but I’m not a social scientist so my knowledge is limited), the 2 most powerful entities/systems humans have. The power they wield comes from collective societal agreement which has been enshrined in some legal code (including money in this as it’s only worth what society agrees it’s worth).

    • If a government in your society doesn’t exist what is the agreed upon legal code? (side note, I don’t even want to imagine what a code of law would look like if it were devised by a for profit company)
    • can you guarantee everyone in your society, which you’ve argued can be over 250 people, will agree on a singular legal code without some kind of government with a legislative branch?
    • How do they even go about figuring out the legal code without some organization?
    • If they do agree on a legal code, who are the people spending time on maintaining and updating the code and how are they paid?

    For the sake of argument lets say your society does have a legal code and has found some way to fund, without taxes, people to maintain that code. Let’s also say that you have caught a business trying to adulterate their product using unsafe materials but the spokesperson for the corporation says you have no proof and uses their marketing department to spin the story in their favor.

    • How do you adjudicate this issue in your society? There’s no judicial branch of government.

    My point being that any large group of people would need some kind of system to handle each of these aspects of society; law, taxes (funding), public services. It doesn’t have to look like our current governments but you need a set of systems to organize and pay for things. That’s not even getting into the whole issue of providing services to impoverished areas of the society, something a for profit company would not do except for positive PR and that would be woefully insufficient.

    So, establishing that we do need some kind of entity/system to organize large groups of people that leaves us with 2 options; corporations or governments. I am of the belief that individual potential corruption is shaped like a normal distribution (bell curve) where the majority of people can be corrupted by greed and power but there are a small portion who are incorruptible.

    If that is true and human corruption follows a bell curve we have to assume that whatever systems we have organizing society will eventually have people in the top positions who can be corrupted. That means that they will do everything they can to gain as much power and money as possible. The only way I know how to defend against this is through checks and balances on power.

    In a corporate governed system this is supposed to be the “free market” where people only support companies they agree with. There are several problems with this view. Namely, there’s no way to stop monopolies or cartels from forming as there’s no further checks than consumer spending and people must spend money on necessities in order to live.

    In a more traditional government system, let’s say a democracy, this is supposed to be the separation of powers into different branches. This still has weaknesses, namely demagogues, but I’d argue it’s far more robust than a purely free market system.


  • I am only going to respond to you once and I will only address the food issue because there’s other stuff I want to do with my evening than debate with someone so clearly firm in a position.

    Are you familiar with the founding if the FDA in America? Its a very interesting story and if you’re open minded enough I’d highly suggest you read The Poison Squad. Before the FDA was created businesses were adulterating their food products with dangerous substances (something that has happened throughout history) in order to make more money. One example is they were adding formaldehyde to milk so it could sit on the shelf longer without smelling spoiled.

    Businesses don’t care about producing a good product, they care about making more money and they will do that in every way they possibly can regardless of how many people it hurts or kills. You may say that “then those businesses will go out of business” but what if every possible option is doing it? What if you can’t tell just from using it? (Good example is asbestos in talc powder). Regulations save lives.

    I’m not trying to say governments are perfect but at least we, as citizens, get more of a say in what it does than we do with any company. That goes 10x for mega corporations who own entire supply lines or industries. I understand you have a problem with government corruption, as everyone should, but to pretend that corporate corruption isn’t just as bad if not worse is fooling yourself.