A New Approach To Marriage

[Black Dog]

The problem is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts abolutely. As government expands, and comes to have jurisdiction over more and more facets of the nation, so they will become more corrupt. The only way to "overhaul" government to lessen corruption is to downsize it, and that includes booting it out of our social, religious and cultural lives. You cannot have a big and incorrupt government. It defies the nature of bureaucracies and of humans, and this is what is wrong with statism, as with most left-wing theories: it exists in defiance of reality and of all empirical evidence

So, lemme get this straight: large organizations tend to corruption, so we should take the power away from government and give it to large organizations like churches and corporations (y'know, theones that have no public accountability whatsoever)? Okay. Conservatives seem so confused.

[Hugo]

You haven't got it straight. Allow me:

Large organisations are not a problem. Large monolithic organisations and monopolies are a problem. You have actually answered your own question. Let me show you:

we should take the power away from government [singular] and give it to large organizations [plural] like churches and corporations

There's your answer. Where genuine competition for power exists, power does not concentrate. This is why the founding fathers of democratic capitalism modeled their social and political systems on the capitalist system. It produces a fluid power structure, where no one person or group can hold absolute power, and no one person or group can hold power for very long. This is a safeguard against tyranny.

When any one group expands, you have a problem. This can be from the social segment (Papal dictatorships, Inquisition, and so forth), from the economic segment (exploitation by the Hudson Bay Company, and so forth) or the state segment (very numerous examples, including the Nazis and Communists).

Corporations and churches do have public accountability. They have a more direct accountability than politics. Instead of waiting for the next election, if your church upsets you, you can stop attending right now. If a company does something you don't like, you can stop buying their products today. Churches and corporations depend upon public goodwill for survival.

Excessive government interference in social-cultural and economic segments of our civilisation is causing problems. These interferences need to be curtailed. Removing self-appointed government roles from purely cultural institutions such as marriage is one such curtailment.

[Michael Hardner]

There's your answer. Where genuine competition for power exists, power does not concentrate. This is why the founding fathers of democratic capitalism modeled their social and political systems on the capitalist system. It produces a fluid power structure, where no one person or group can hold absolute power, and no one person or group can hold power for very long. This is a safeguard against tyranny.

You are correct, Hugo. However, corporations bear only a passing resemblance to the capitalist ventures of that era. The founding fathers couldn't have anticipated such things as limited liability, multinationals, mass electronic media, lobby groups etc.

These entities DO result in concentrations of power that individuals are almost helpless to resist. As a consumer, you sometimes have other choices but as a citizen you have few options if you are pitted against a multinational corporation.

[August1991]

We're miles from marriage, but what the heck.

These entities DO result in concentrations of power that individuals are almost helpless to resist. As a consumer, you sometimes have other choices but as a citizen you have few options if you are pitted against a multinational corporation.

Hugo has made the error of putting everything in the context of "power" and the "concentration of power". I guess he's making a political philosophy of Acton's phrase "Power corrupts and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." I've understood that phrase to mean that the power to forbid trade is the power to command a bribe.

Rather than power, how about the better question of whether a relationship is voluntary or not. A citizen's relation to the State is involuntary - unless one chooses to vote with one's feet. A customer's relation to a corporation is voluntary. The State can use your credit card at any moment to buy what it wants and you have no say in the matter. No corporation has such "power".

[Michael Hardner]

The State can use your credit card at any moment to buy what it wants and you have no say in the matter. No corporation has such "power".

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but it seems like you're omitting a whole range of relationships between a corporation and people.

Corporations not only sell things, but they employ people, they lobby for legislative changes, they insure people, they buy and use land and natural resources, they produce waste etc. etc.

[Hugo]

Hugo has made the error of putting everything in the context of "power" and the "concentration of power"... Rather than power, how about the better question of whether a relationship is voluntary or not.

That is a context of power, August. In dealing with the relationship between state and citizenry, one must always be looking at the context of power, because even if you're not interested, someone else will be. That is the dynamic. Ignore it at your peril.

The founding fathers couldn't have anticipated such things as limited liability, multinationals, mass electronic media, lobby groups etc.

No, but things have not actually changed that much, when you think about it. In fact, things have drastically improved since the times of the founding fathers. Labour laws are far better, advertisers cannot lie anymore, we have the 40-hour-week, massive increase in real income and standard of living, etc. Capitalism produces progress. Things will be even better for our grandchildren, as long as the democratic socialist trend is arrested, and it will be, if not by others then by itself.

As a consumer, you sometimes have other choices but as a citizen you have few options if you are pitted against a multinational corporation.

This is where the power of government is supposed to be used as a tool of the citizenry, with institutions such as the Better Business Bureau, consumer ombudsmen, and the law itself, of course. However, the government has seriously overstepped it's bounds when it starts awarding subsidies and preferential treatment to certain corporations (particularly those it has ties to), when it confiscates profits without justification, when it imposes scientifically invalid environmental protocols that harm industry, when it taxes businesses to death and drives them away, and more - all of which we have seen in recent times.

[Black Dog]

Labour laws are far better, advertisers cannot lie anymore, we have the 40-hour-week, massive increase in real income and standard of living, etc. Capitalism produces progress. Things will be even better for our grandchildren, as long as the democratic socialist trend is arrested, and it will be, if not by others then by itself.

In your rush to dole out blowjob sto the capitalist system, you fail to acknowledge that every single thing you mentioned (labour and consuemr portection laws, the 40-hour week, better wages) are a result of social democratic ideals put into action. If you were a true capitalist all of the above would be seen as an impediment to profit which, despite your highly idealized rhetoric to the contrary, is the true (and only) motive of capitalism. That's why the captains of business and industry have been trying des[perately to roll back much of the social progress amde ove rthe past 200 years.

This is where the power of government is supposed to be used as a tool of the citizenry, with institutions such as the Better Business Bureau, consumer ombudsmen, and the law itself, of course. However, the government has seriously overstepped it's bounds when it starts awarding subsidies and preferential treatment to certain corporations (particularly those it has ties to), when it confiscates profits without justification, when it imposes scientifically invalid environmental protocols that harm industry, when it taxes businesses to death and drives them away, and more - all of which we have seen in recent times. 

Go see the recent documentary "The Corporation" and you'll see how the balance of power has shifted from people to corporations (which enjoy the same rights as you and I with none of the accompanying legal responsibilities). If you think taxes on wealth are the biggest problem facing society today you are out of touch with both real people and reality in general.

[Hugo]

In your rush to dole out blowjobs

Just to clarify that I'm debating with a true boor, and a woefully ignorant one at that.

you fail to acknowledge that every single thing you mentioned are a result of social democratic ideals put into action.

I've already explained this. Go back and read this thread again.

Go see the recent documentary "The Corporation" and you'll see how the balance of power has shifted from people to corporations.

Ah, you get your information from TV. That figures. Go to your library (if you know where that is) and check out "The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism" by Michael Novak. Assuming you can understand it, all will be made clear.

I think you have a serious inferiority complex. You hate success and achievement, and people and nations that attain them, you become shrill and vulgar when actually engaged in serious debate rather than allowed to foist your half-baked opinions, based on TV shows and hysterical Michael Moore-esque claptrap, on us, and when forced to concede you just sling insults and end the discussion. I'm sure that isn't far off in this thread.

[Michael Hardner]

Blackdog, get your argument out of the sewer please.

No, but things have not actually changed that much, when you think about it. In fact, things have drastically improved since the times of the founding fathers. Labour laws are far better, advertisers cannot lie anymore, we have the 40-hour-week, massive increase in real income and standard of living, etc. Capitalism produces progress. Things will be even better for our grandchildren, as long as the democratic socialist trend is arrested, and it will be, if not by others then by itself.

Yes, there are many improvements in our society as you pointed out, but this doesn't address my point that the foundations of democracy haven't changed that much and they didn't anticipate these other significant factors.

At the time of the American revolution, newspapers had no pictures. The press printed out long reasoned arguments that were read and mulled over by the electorate, the "public". It should be pointed out that this group didn't include women, non-Christians, other minorities, or (I believe) non-landowners. Town hall meetings were used to enact democracy on the local level.

These methods of forming public policy were revolutionary, and they were perfectly suited to what that young nation needed.

This is where the power of government is supposed to be used as a tool of the citizenry, with institutions such as the Better Business Bureau, consumer ombudsmen, and the law itself, of course. However, the government has seriously overstepped it's bounds when it starts awarding subsidies and preferential treatment to certain corporations (particularly those it has ties to), when it confiscates profits without justification, when it imposes scientifically invalid environmental protocols that harm industry, when it taxes businesses to death and drives them away, and more - all of which we have seen in recent times.

And to speak to my previous point, what happens in government today is far more complex than the founding fathers could have appreciated. The mercantile class was essentially a group of small businesses. The founding fathers couldn't have anticipated the influence and secrecy under which a WAL-MART or McDonalds or whatever would weild today.

[Black Dog]

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. If learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are not likely to admit that the content of what has been learned is not valuable. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned". That's our Hugo. He clings to his ideology like a drowning man to a tree branch, rejecting potential new sources of information that would undermine his world view and dismissing his opposition with hysterical accusations (ie. "You hate success and achievement, and people and nations that attain them...) and pseudointellectual posturing designed to hide the fact he is unaware (or willfully blind) to the new realities of global capitalism, realities which differ dramatically from the books he takes as gospel.

Anyway, I do apologize for the earlier remark. It was indeed bad form.

Good post MH.

[August1991]

and pseudointellectual posturing designed to hide the fact he is unaware (or willfully blind) to the new realities of global capitalism, realities which differ dramatically from the books he takes as gospel.

And what realities would that be?

That WAL-MART did not exist 40 years ago and may well not exist in 40 years. (Think of Eatons')

That Ford once dominated GM in the US car market (in 1920, 55% to 11%), then GM dominated and now Toyota dominates the world market.

That Microsoft didn't exist 20 years ago but now dominates IBM.

That McDonald's is now less profitable and is struggling to change the way it operates.

Corporations face the ugly truth of a bottom line. If customers can do better elsewhere, they'll go - regardless of the advertising. It's a fundamental error of the left to believe that ordinary people are ignorant fools and who can be easily manipulated. (The same ordinary people the left wants paternalistically to protect.)

Governments do not face such an ugly truth. The government has your cheque book and your credit card. At any time it wants, it can spend in your name or borrow in your name. (Incidentally, it makes absolutely no difference which it chooses.) No corporation has such power.

[Michael Hardner]

And what realities would that be?

That WAL-MART did not exist 40 years ago and may well not exist in 40 years. (Think of Eatons')

That Ford once dominated GM in the US car market (in 1920, 55% to 11%), then GM dominated and now Toyota dominates the world market.

That Microsoft didn't exist 20 years ago but now dominates IBM.

That McDonald's is now less profitable and is struggling to change the way it operates.

Corporations face the ugly truth of a bottom line. If customers can do better elsewhere, they'll go - regardless of the advertising. It's a fundamental error of the left to believe that ordinary people are ignorant fools and who can be easily manipulated. (The same ordinary people the left wants paternalistically to protect.)

Governments do not face such an ugly truth. The government has your cheque book and your credit card. At any time it wants, it can spend in your name or borrow in your name. (Incidentally, it makes absolutely no difference which it chooses.) No corporation has such power.

Again, this eliminates a whole range of relationships between the corporation and its society.

WAL-MART is not simply a "bigger store' any more than a tiger is a "bigger kitten". It employs a signifcant percentage of the labour force. ( I've heard 1% as a figure for McDonalds and WAL-MART. This would have been unheard of in 1776) It lobbies governments on every level. It influences trade agreements, labour legislation, and can even impose content changes on the CDs and films it chooses to sell.

Would a store in 1776 have had enough power to change Thomas Paine's common sense ? Of course not.

There were no corporations in 1776. There was no legislation limiting liability. In 2004, fast food companies are able to get the Senate to consider a bill limiting their industries liabilities against class action lawsuits.

There were no consortiums, that bid on huge defense contracts as well as contributing to political campaigns. There was no corporate agriculture industry experimenting with new life forms, and creating environmental problems with mega-farms just individual farmers. There were no global media empires like Viacom, FOX, Time-Warner etc.

There was no Microsoft - not just a company, but the central nervous system for business and the world at large. If MS went bankrupt, there would be severe reprecussions for the entire economy.

There were no businesses like this when the US constitution was written, nor could they even have been imagined.

The US would do well to completely revamp the constitution to adjust to the new realities of today but it would never fly politically.

[Hugo]

Cognitive dissonance blah blah blah

Whatever. There's no point replying to this, since everybody else knows you have made a fool of yourself (as confirmed by the PMs I have received about our discussions), and you won't listen.

The government has your cheque book and your credit card. At any time it wants, it can spend in your name or borrow in your name.

This is true, and it's why we have democracy. It's also why public accountability is so important. When politicians are held accountable to the public, the theory is that they won't be able to spend against your wishes. Nevertheless, taxation is a necessary evil and should be kept to an absolute minimum. Freedom of choice is important economically as well as politically and state services remove that freedom.

Yes, there are many improvements in our society as you pointed out, but this doesn't address my point that the foundations of democracy haven't changed that much and they didn't anticipate these other significant factors.

There have been many changes in democracy since those days. There have been many amendments to the Constitution, for one thing. The original Constitution allowed for slavery! The structure is much the same, but then so is the structure of the economy - just on a bigger scale. There were still multinationals back in the 18th Century, but they were mostly traders and merchants rather than manufacturers, for instance. Everything has grown since then - government, population, wealth, economy.

In 2004, fast food companies are able to get the Senate to consider a bill limiting their industries liabilities against class action lawsuits.

This is a good example of law being used to protect the economic sector. After all, why should fast food companies be held accountable? They are not forcing anyone to eat there, and there is such a wealth of information about the health ramifications of a junk-food diet that nobody can honestly claim to have had not the slightest inkling that it was bad for them. The class-action lawsuits are purely about money-grubbing and denial of personal responsibility.

The US would do well to completely revamp the constitution to adjust to the new realities of today but it would never fly politically.

Agreed, but only so long as any new Constitution was aware that the economy is just as vital to the well-being of the nation as anything else, and is just as vulnerable to damage. If we are to ask big business to butt out of politics, it's only fair that politics stop interfering in big business, and most of the interference these days is of the latter kind.

Again, this eliminates a whole range of relationships between the corporation and its society.

I think what August is getting at with his examples is the fluid nature of the economic system. Leftists tend to think of "corporations" as a monolithic, power-hungry body, when in fact "corporations" reflects a massive, disjointed horde of organisations competing with each other and pulling in different directions. Even though Microsoft is powerful in the technology sector, it's power is by no means absolute. If IBM, Novell, Cisco, Apple, Sun, the Free Software Foundation, and so forth got together they could probably take Microsoft down. Microsoft can't accrue absolute power even in one field of the economy, let alone the entire economy, let alone the entire country. Ironically, it's socialism that produces the monopolies of economic power.

[Michael Hardner]

There have been many changes in democracy since those days. There have been many amendments to the Constitution, for one thing. The original Constitution allowed for slavery! The structure is much the same, but then so is the structure of the economy - just on a bigger scale. There were still multinationals back in the 18th Century, but they were mostly traders and merchants rather than manufacturers, for instance. Everything has grown since then - government, population, wealth, economy.

Actually, the US constitution didn't really allow for slavery, and this was tested at the Supreme Court level, but that's an aside.

Yes, everything has grown since then but more significantly things have changed structurally.

This is a good example of law being used to protect the economic sector. After all, why should fast food companies be held accountable? They are not forcing anyone to eat there, and there is such a wealth of information about the health ramifications of a junk-food diet that nobody can honestly claim to have had not the slightest inkling that it was bad for them. The class-action lawsuits are purely about money-grubbing and denial of personal responsibility.

I'm not arguing that point. I'm just saying that the fast food companies have enough lobbying clout to put a law like that on the books. Can you imagine such a thing happening in 1776 or even 1956 ?

Agreed, but only so long as any new Constitution was aware that the economy is just as vital to the well-being of the nation as anything else, and is just as vulnerable to damage. If we are to ask big business to butt out of politics, it's only fair that politics stop interfering in big business, and most of the interference these days is of the latter kind.

But big business has so much of a role in our lives now compared to then. It controls our entertainment, the food we eat and even the air we breathe. Such was not the case in 1776.

And the economy exists to better the lives of the people, not the other way around. Economic gain is not just measured on the bottom lines of the biggest corporations, but in the wealth and well-being of every citizen.

The auto companies lobbied against air bags in the 1970s and were able to convince President Nixon that the cost of these devices would increase car costs to the detriment of the industry. Undoubtedly, lives were lost. How many ? And what would have been the economic damage of implementing air bags at that time ?

We can only guess at these things, but the point is that these policies affect all of us and an informed and involved electorate would result in better decisions being made.

I think what August is getting at with his examples is the fluid nature of the economic system. Leftists tend to think of "corporations" as a monolithic, power-hungry body, when in fact "corporations" reflects a massive, disjointed horde of organisations competing with each other and pulling in different directions. Even though Microsoft is powerful in the technology sector, it's power is by no means absolute. If IBM, Novell, Cisco, Apple, Sun, the Free Software Foundation, and so forth got together they could probably take Microsoft down. Microsoft can't accrue absolute power even in one field of the economy, let alone the entire economy, let alone the entire country. Ironically, it's socialism that produces the monopolies of economic power.

I see what you're getting at, but I don't agree that socialism produces monopolies of economic power. It produces heavier regulation and greater wealth distribution. But, again, that's another argument...

What we have in our society today is an evolution of socialism and pure capitalism. It's useless for us to argue the benefits of one system over the other because neither of these options is viable for today.

My issue with Aug91 is that people shouldn't use the same arguments for mom-and-pop small businesses as for large corporations. They're different animals.

[Hugo]

Actually, the US constitution didn't really allow for slavery, and this was tested at the Supreme Court level, but that's an aside.

Granted, but in the same way that the Canadian Criminal Code does not really allow for abortion-on-demand.

Yes, everything has grown since then but more significantly things have changed structurally.

I can see your point here. I think that it is the government that has failed to move with the times, quite honestly. It seems that a lot of governmental policy is rooted in old thinking, with trade protectionism, heavy taxation and so forth.

I'm just saying that the fast food companies have enough lobbying clout to put a law like that on the books. Can you imagine such a thing happening in 1776 or even 1956 ?

No, but then, can you imagine the government of 1776 exacting a $100bn windfall profit tax from a group of companies, or the administration spending more on pursuing a business tycoon than on a known terrorist who had already claimed scores of American lives?

Furthermore, lobbying is not a guarantee of success. There is a long list of congressmen who received money from technology firms but voted against the Trade Promotion Authority which they were lobbying for. I just don't think it's the case that big business runs government, if anything, it is a case of government bullying big business.

big business... controls our entertainment, the food we eat and even the air we breathe. Such was not the case in 1776.

I don't think "controls" is the right word, at all. How can a company without absolute control over it's market control consumers? I think this kind of talk is symptomatic of the tendency to view economic organisations as a united, monolithic entity, when in fact such an interpretation is very wrong.

And the economy exists to better the lives of the people, not the other way around. Economic gain is not just measured on the bottom lines of the biggest corporations, but in the wealth and well-being of every citizen.

I absolutely agree with this, and this is why I am a staunch capitalist. It is capitalism that has produced by far the most wealth, well-being and liberty for the average citizen out of all the economic systems thus envisaged.

an informed and involved electorate would result in better decisions being made.

Undoubtedly, but it is very difficult to get to that without endangering democracy. The empirical evidence is strong that it is far better to trust to the judgement of the average citizen than to trust vaunted experts, not just in politics, but upon juries, public discourse and so forth. It is this line of thinking that gives us advertising, additionally. Advertising succeeds because the average citizen is not an expert in every field in which he must conduct business. But what are we to do - have "experts" make his choices for him? That takes away a vast part of his liberty and undermines our democracy and our libertarian society.

I see what you're getting at, but I don't agree that socialism produces monopolies of economic power.

I disagree. Socialism means state industry ownership in whole or part, and state monopoly in economics deprives consumers of economic liberty just as surely as one-party monopoly over politics deprives citizens of political liberty.

[August1991]

I'm just saying that the fast food companies have enough lobbying clout to put a law like that on the books. Can you imagine such a thing happening in 1776 or even 1956 ?

The history of the 19th century is one of industries lobbying for protectionist legislation. Governments were bought and sold. (Think of John A., Tammmany Hall, Robber Barons) Where do you think the idea of mercantilism came from? If anything it was worse then than now. (Think of the Hudson's Bay Co. and how it was formed.)

The auto companies lobbied against air bags in the 1970s and were able to convince President Nixon that the cost of these devices would increase car costs to the detriment of the industry. Undoubtedly, lives were lost. How many ? And what would have been the economic damage of implementing air bags at that time ?

Do you mean to say that the auto companies were unsuccessful when air bag regulations were implemented in the 1990s? Despite Nader, I have tendency to believe that corporations lobby better than consumers. I suspect that air bag legislation was a protectionist measure, useful in the 1990s, but not in the 1970s. I have little or no belief that such regulations are beneficial to consumers. If air bags provide added value, firms would jump at the chance to offer them - like radial tires. (No need for regulation.)

My issue with Aug91 is that people shouldn't use the same arguments for mom-and-pop small businesses as for large corporations. They're different animals.

This one gives me pause. Is there really a difference? Both mom-and-pop and Microsoft face a bottom line which keeps them focussed. Can big firms stray further for longer? (Well, Brittany Spears can too - that is, sometimes it's a chance offering.)

The significance to me of large firms is their existence and their internal operations. They amount to mini-Soviet Unions, or US Armies. But they cannot pursue arbitrary goals for long. They are benign to the State.

Look, consider this: Bush's re-election budget is $100 million and if he wins, he will command a budget 10,000 times larger. This seems an extremely good investment - if we talk lobbying efforts. But in fact, one doesn't buy control of the US budget through lobbying or campaign contributions. Politicians sell themselves the way Martin has just done. He's buying the cattleman vote for $1 billion and the young family vote with the bursary tax credit.

[Michael Hardner]

The history of the 19th century is one of industries lobbying for protectionist legislation. Governments were bought and sold. (Think of John A., Tammmany Hall, Robber Barons) Where do you think the idea of mercantilism came from? If anything it was worse then than now. (Think of the Hudson's Bay Co. and how it was formed.)

These are good counter examples, but they came after the industrial revolution, 100+ years after independence.

Do you mean to say that the auto companies were unsuccessful when air bag regulations were implemented in the 1990s? Despite Nader, I have tendency to believe that corporations lobby better than consumers. I suspect that air bag legislation was a protectionist measure, useful in the 1990s, but not in the 1970s. I have little or no belief that such regulations are beneficial to consumers. If air bags provide added value, firms would jump at the chance to offer them - like radial tires. (No need for regulation.)

I don't agree. Corporations ultimately have only the profit motive. If they can circumvent safety without the public finding out about it, then they may take that chance.

This one gives me pause. Is there really a difference? Both mom-and-pop and Microsoft face a bottom line which keeps them focussed. Can big firms stray further for longer? (Well, Brittany Spears can too - that is, sometimes it's a chance offering.)

The significance to me of large firms is their existence and their internal operations. They amount to mini-Soviet Unions, or US Armies. But they cannot pursue arbitrary goals for long. They are benign to the State.

Look, consider this: Bush's re-election budget is $100 million and if he wins, he will command a budget 10,000 times larger. This seems an extremely good investment - if we talk lobbying efforts. But in fact, one doesn't buy control of the US budget through lobbying or campaign contributions. Politicians sell themselves the way Martin has just done. He's buying the cattleman vote for $1 billion and the young family vote with the bursary tax credit.

I don't agree. Television ads are persuasive, and can convince people to vote against their own interests. They cost a lot of money to buy, and the politician is beholden to the company that donated that money.

These big companies constantly lobby for loopholes to environmental laws etc. How is that benign ?

[Michael Hardner]

I only have one comment on this Hugo:

I don't think "controls" is the right word, at all. How can a company without absolute control over it's market control consumers? I think this kind of talk is symptomatic of the tendency to view economic organisations as a united, monolithic entity, when in fact such an interpretation is very wrong.

WAL-MART and BLOCKBUSTER dictate the content of movies and CDs that they sell. Here in Canada, if I rent from BLOCKBUSTER, I'm getting the version that was "approved" by WAL-MART and BLOCKBUSTER not the original version of the film.

Yes, there is more than one media conglomorate to choose from. I believe there are 6. That's oligopoly.

[August1991]

These are good counter examples, but they came after the industrial revolution, 100+ years after independence.

No, mercantilism, and the Bay came well before the industrial revolution. With reason. There was autocracy to buy.

I don't agree. Corporations ultimately have only the profit motive. If they can circumvent safety without the public finding out about it, then they may take that chance.

Precisely. If corporations can add greater value to their product at lower cost (meaning customers will pay more to get the benefit), then corporations will do it. Radial tires are a good example. There is no conflict between profit maximization and consumer satisfaction. On the contrary, the co-incidence of interests (consumers, owners) makes for the delight of the market system.

I don't agree. Television ads are persuasive, and can convince people to vote against their own interests. They cost a lot of money to buy, and the politician is beholden to the company that donated that money.

If that were the case, you would see billions - not millions - spent on TV advertising. The winner of the White House could easily pay off "investors" several times fold by tariffs, regulations or Justice investigation. None would require getting difficulty legislation through Congress.

The Left thinks ordinary people are stupid, Madison Avenue is smart, and the world needs more teachers, social workers and journalists. The Left is wrong.

[Michael Hardner]

No, mercantilism, and the Bay came well before the industrial revolution. With reason. There was autocracy to buy.

Hmmm. You're right. But I still think things were different. Let's see... there must have been fewer huge enterprises back then. Certainly there seems to have been more small business as large scale production wasn't yet conceived of.

But I must concur that there did exist large entities, probably with even more influence with the powers that be than any single entity today.

If that were the case, you would see billions - not millions - spent on TV advertising. The winner of the White House could easily pay off "investors" several times fold by tariffs, regulations or Justice investigation. None would require getting difficulty legislation through Congress.

Well, there are limits to these things. I wouldn't say that the democratic process has completely collapsed or that corporations are free to trounce anyone in their path. Quite the opposite - corporations are very finely attuned to the public's perception of them.

But with that kind of power, they can and somes do hold influence to the detriment of society as a whole.

The Left thinks ordinary people are stupid, Madison Avenue is smart, and the world needs more teachers, social workers and journalists. The Left is wrong.

There certainly are shortages of good people in those professions. I don't think people are stupid, but I don't expect the average person to be able to sift through the details of trade legislation and determine the plusses and minuses of it.

I don't think I'M stupid and I couldn't do it, even if I had the time.

[August1991]

Hmmm. You're right. But I still think things were different.

Hmmm. I think you're right. I'm still thinking about the Mom-and-Pop business and Microsoft and government and lobbying. You're right: Wal-Mart is not the same as my local depanneur. But what? And how does this change modern government?

[Michael Hardner]

Hmmm. I think you're right. I'm still thinking about the Mom-and-Pop business and Microsoft and government and lobbying. You're right: Wal-Mart is not the same as my local depanneur. But what? And how does this change modern government?

Well, for one thing things should somehow be simplified or made more transparent.

I abhorred the Harris government, but in retrospect the omnibus bill enabled the legislature to do things quickly for better or for worse.

Or as one leftist told me in Toronto City Hall: "They talk and talk and talk about these things, but in the end you know how they're all going to vote."

What's the title of this thread again ? Oh yeah...

[August1991]

What's the title of this thread again ? Oh yeah...

Marriage. And that's all about co-operation.

[Hugo]

WAL-MART and BLOCKBUSTER dictate the content of movies and CDs that they sell. Here in Canada, if I rent from BLOCKBUSTER, I'm getting the version that was "approved" by WAL-MART and BLOCKBUSTER not the original version of the film.

I don't think that's a valid complaint at all. There are 22 independent video stores and 11 independent music stores listed in my Yellow Pages and I don't live in a big town! Wal-Mart and Blockbuster only control the media as long as you buy from them, and thanks to the capitalist system there are plenty of options for you if you don't want to.

Consider the problem with state-owned industry. Up until very recently, electricity here in Ontario was state-run (now it's about 70% state-owned). The service was terrible. There were frequent brown-outs due to poor maintenance of equipment and the age of the generation hardware, and sometimes total black-outs. This service was also expensive. I pay about 3 times per month what my mother, in the UK, pays her privately-owned power company. What are my choices? None! I can take what they want to give me for whatever price they want to charge or I can start looking at very expensive and inefficient methods of generating my own power.

Remember Winston Smith's Victory Cigarettes in 1984? Don't turn it filter-side-up, all the tobacco will fall out. That's what state-run industry gives you: a poor product, expensive prices and no consumer choice.

Yes, there is more than one media conglomorate to choose from. I believe there are 6. That's oligopoly.

Once again, there are still plenty of independent papers, magazines, films, books, record labels and so forth. What's the alternative, one state-owned publishing company? You might dedicate such a company to producing good content but pretty soon it would descend to becoming another Pravda. The CBC is almost there already.

[Michael Hardner]

don't think that's a valid complaint at all. There are 22 independent video stores and 11 independent music stores listed in my Yellow Pages and I don't live in a big town! Wal-Mart and Blockbuster only control the media as long as you buy from them, and thanks to the capitalist system there are plenty of options for you if you don't want to.

I don't think they make a separate version of CDs and videos just for Blockbuster.

Consider the problem with state-owned industry. Up until very recently, electricity here in Ontario was state-run (now it's about 70% state-owned). The service was terrible. There were frequent brown-outs due to poor maintenance of equipment and the age of the generation hardware, and sometimes total black-outs. This service was also expensive. I pay about 3 times per month what my mother, in the UK, pays her privately-owned power company. What are my choices? None! I can take what they want to give me for whatever price they want to charge or I can start looking at very expensive and inefficient methods of generating my own power.

Well, there's some good points here, but that would probably require a whole other thread.

There is a wide, wide gulf between state-owned business and corporate oligopoly.

Remember Winston Smith's Victory Cigarettes in 1984? Don't turn it filter-side-up, all the tobacco will fall out. That's what state-run industry gives you: a poor product, expensive prices and no consumer choice.

Once again, there are still plenty of independent papers, magazines, films, books, record labels and so forth. What's the alternative, one state-owned publishing company? You might dedicate such a company to producing good content but pretty soon it would descend to becoming another Pravda. The CBC is almost there already.

With WAL-MART, there is no alternative. That's the only store that serves some cities and towns. That seems a lot like a state-run monopoly to me.