Are Some Multinational Corporations Benevolent?

[Dennis Leahy]

[devils advocate]

large corporations...

• they provide lots of jobs to people in "third world" countries,
• they out-competed the smaller businesses and now provide most of the goods sold,
• the arms industry "defense contractor" corporations make all of the bombs and tanks and fighter jets (and they even found a use for depleted uranium) - to provide the US with exports,
• corporations pay for almost the entire US electoral system,
• corporate top management buy a lot of luxury goods,
• they create most of the GNP of each nation

[/devils advocate]

So, take that, corporate bashers.

Dennis

[SKAWF]

[devils advocate]

large corporations...

[*] they provide lots of jobs to people in "third world" countries,

by removing employment from other countries so they can exploit more people for less money
[*] they out-competed the smaller businesses and now provide most of the goods sold,

they destroyed diversity with hostile practices because they want the whole market for themselves at the cost of small unique business's
[*] the arms industry "defense contractor" corporations make all of the bombs and tanks and fighter jets (and they even found a use for depleted uranium) - to provide the US with exports,

so they can supply the military industrial complex with the tools required to kill millions of people with the aim of eliminating resistance to them
[*] corporations pay for almost the entire US electoral system,

you GET what you pay for
[*] corporate top management buy a lot of luxury goods,

while the rest of us dont have a pot to piss in
[*]they create most of the GNP of each nation

and if they paid taxes, we might all benefit from it, instead of just them.


[/devils advocate]

So, take that, corporate bashers.

Dennis

[The Arthen]

Well I'm certainly 'glad' I brought up the "Even the rich spend money in unique ways" possibility!

Because this is something most would never actually entertain.

[araucaria]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)

In other word: it's become ALIVE!

I understand and am not disagreeing. However I feel we are talking about a counterfeit life form. Corporations can calm physical entity status under whatever amendment it is and behave as if they were such, but ultimately they should never be mistaken for a real natural person.

However the individual psychopath is much more readily confused, which is why the idea of stomping in their face becomes so difficult to handle for so many. Psychopathy is currently described as a human condition that makes you inhuman. Maybe it should be seen on the contrary as a lifeless parasite that simulates life through its host.

[jackovesk]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
[devils advocate]

large corporations...

• they provide lots of jobs to people in "third world" countries,
• they out-competed the smaller businesses and now provide most of the goods sold,
• the arms industry "defense contractor" corporations make all of the bombs and tanks and fighter jets (and they even found a use for depleted uranium) - to provide the US with exports,
• corporations pay for almost the entire US electoral system,
• corporate top management buy a lot of luxury goods,
• they create most of the GNP of each nation

[/devils advocate]

So, take that, corporate bashers.

Dennis

they provide lots of jobs to people in "third world" countries

Oh, you mean 'Slave Labour/Sweat Shops' complete with 'Suicide Nets' in some cases...

they out-competed the smaller businesses and now provide most of the goods sold

Oh, you mean 'Stomping' on the Little-Guy (Small Business) so they can't compete...

the arms industry "defense contractor" corporations make all of the bombs and tanks and fighter jets (and they even found a use for depleted uranium) - to provide the US with exports

Your kidding me right...

corporations pay for almost the entire US electoral system

Geez, I wonder WHY..?

corporate top management buy a lot of luxury goods

So what..???

they create most of the GNP of each nation

- 'Small Business' does...

...and here am I thinking 'Dennis Leahy' used to know his stuff...

Back atya [devils advocate]...

[T Smith]

Posted by Dennis Leahy
they provide lots of jobs to people in "third world" countries,
Dennis

This is kinda like advocating for slavery by saying the plantation provides food and shelter for all the plantation slaves...

Posted by Dennis Leahy
they out-competed the smaller businesses and now provide most of the goods sold,
Dennis

Economies of scale is one thing, but there is much more going on. Employing slave labor (which we will all eventually become at the maturation of this development) receiving corporate welfare and taxpayer subsidies, and legislating/regulating the smaller competition out of business (it helps to be able to afford a lobbyist and a senator or two). The first reason is a good thing for the consumer, to the extent this is primary reason bigger business out-competes smaller business, but I would submit the ladder reasons are the primary reasons bigger business out-competes smaller business and economies of scale are a secondary reason.

Posted by Dennis Leahy
the arms industry "defense contractor" corporations make all of the bombs and tanks and fighter jets (and they even found a use for depleted uranium) - to provide the US with exports,
Dennis

This entire industry is a parasite on a "productive, commercial economy" (defined as the production of legitimate goods and services per legitimate demand given free and voluntary association among all participants) and causes a gross misallocation of resources. What you have here is an entire industry that 1) takes from the productive economy via direct taxation and forced debt (which renders future generations to slavery--and strictly from an economic sense, is a very bad development for the productive economy), and 2) then produces unneeded goods and services the natural economy would otherwise not demand. In other words, all the jobs and exports the the military industrial complex creates are sucked out of the jobs and exports that a much more productive economy would otherwise produce, but don't produce, were the resources not forcefully extracted.

Posted by Dennis Leahy
corporations pay for almost the entire US electoral system
Dennis

This is a good thing???

Posted by Dennis Leahy;623857[*
corporate top management buy a lot of luxury goods,
Dennis

If there is a demand for luxury goods, in a productive economy, it will arise as a result of the direct benefits of the consumer rather than at her or his expense, e.g. those who enrich themselves legitimately because they have provided for and delivered the demands of the greater economy (rather than by usurping from and defrauding the greater economy) will themselves create a demand for luxury goods.

Posted by Dennis Leahy
they create most of the GNP of each nation
Dennis

Yes. Because the multinational corporations, i.e., the globalists, have commandeered the global economy itself, for better or worse.

[donk]

Possibly the only thing as bad (or worse) than the concept of "ownership" for a communal type of being would be that of COMPETITION.

These two things being "valued" in our society are such incredibly suicidal lies.

If people were motivated by the idea of living, recognizing that working together for the betterment of you're self and others, rather than competiting to be better than everyone else so you can own more & better and different ****, I think we would be have made better "progress" than the lie of "competition-based innovation" with the dangling carrot of ownership being the reward.

Corporations are simply the institutionalization of these toxic ideas, frankensteins most horrible monster come to life, manifested as entities with more "rights" & power & respect than the mere mortals that created them.

Any benevolence is the nuggets of "truth" necessary to get us to buy in to the lies (or marketing)

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by jackovesk (here)
...and here am I thinking 'Dennis Leahy' used to know his stuff...

And here I was thinking that my snarky humor translated into Australian.

OK, so I was being snarky, but I'm trying to get someone who thinks multinational corporations have redeeming qualities to list them. Someone sincere probably can, but then (just as SKAWF and jackovesk and TSmith did to my list full of attempted humorous reasons), I believe that any benefits someone can list are exponentially overshadowed by negative aspects. At least that is true (to me) at this point in time, not theoretically, but in reality as presented by existing multinational corporations.

I think of megacorporations as nation-states, more than as "persons", and I do think that megacorportaions should have a different status than a mere "person": they should declare their sovereignty as a nation-state, get UN recognition, and should have embassies around the world. Why? Well, then when the people of the world finally rise up and take over their governance (the very idea of what The Reset Button is attempting in the US), and the government is no longer controlled by corporations but by citizens, then the citizens can sanction rogue corporations, and even declare war on them if they refuse to stop malevolent behavior.

But I actually don't think it would ever come to war, because corporations are really like mean toddlers that are given free reign. They are selfish and self-centered. If the parent is wise, they understand that the toddler is going to be self-centered, but the good parent intervenes in tantrums when the toddler hurts others. The major two issue that are the enablers of the malevolence of megacorporations are:
1.) collusion
2.) lack of restrictions

Collusion
The first problem I'd consider an "adult" problem; the second, a "toddler" problem. Slowly but surely, corporations have gone from big businesses that had to deal with governments as outsiders, to entities that infected governments like viruses. Through total control of the electoral process, the loose confederation of megacorporations has succeeded (at least in the US - I assume this is true in most countries) in making sure that the federal government's lawmakers are "corporate-friendly" (to say it nicely.) Then, using "lobbying", (legalized bribery), the megacorporations persuade and even dictate corporate-friendly legislation. The coup (or infection) continues as the bought-and-paid-for politicians appoint representatives of corporations into directorship of federal departments and agencies. Astoundingly, it doesn't stop there, but infects the judicial segment of government. By controlling the executive and legislative branches of government, the bonus is being able to appoint - for life - judges and justices that are "corporate-friendly", and the entire government succumbs to the disease.

What would corporations be like, if they were not also controlling the governments? We have no idea. Maybe some of them could stand on their own as big businesses and produce and distribute a product. Some of them could not exist without the host organism.

What would the nation or the world be like if corporations did not run the governments? We have no idea. Well, some of us have a vision, and I have dedicated quite a bit of my efforts to finding the specific entry point for the disease and figuring out how to close it. I want - with every cell of my body - to find out what my nation and our world will be like when the US government is healed of the disease of collusion, the disease that presents as fascism.

Lack of Restrictions
Onto the second item in my list, the "toddler" issue of lack of restrictions. (This one has confused and confounded some of my Libertarian friends.) So, the people in my nation, and each nation, succeed in removing the disease of collusion. There is (finally) a separation between corporations and state. The people in every branch of government are vetted to make sure they do not have corporate ties (collusion prevention), and are not even allowed to become absorbed into corporate management or buy any corporate stock for 5 years after leaving office (preventing "feathering the nest" acts in office that would benefit the elected official after leaving office.) Is this enough? Can we now "live and let live" and allow corporations to thrive?

I say "no." Corporations, just like toddlers, need a clear set of rules about what is acceptable behavior and what is not acceptable behavior. Will putting restrictions on corporations reduce their profits? Absolutely. Will it even crush some corporations? Yes, the most parasitic, the most egregious, the worst human rights violators, the most environmentally unsound, the thugs and manipulators and blackmailers. But if one-person companies, small businesses, medium businesses, and even large businesses can make products and provide services without violating human rights and creating massive pollution, then the best of the megacorporations should be able to adapt to regulations as well.

If you see holes in my logic, point them out. If there are some megacorporations in existence right now that you think the accusations of collusion or parasitic behavior with governments is not correct, point them out. If you believe that corporations should be able to operate with no restrictions, please explain your logic. And, if you have examples of megacorporations that are acting in what they believe are altruistic motives, for the benefit of humankind, please list them.

Dennis

[donk]

Corporations don't "act", that idea is an illusion to hide individual decisions.

[T Smith]

Posted by donk (here)

If people were motivated by the idea of living, recognizing that working together for the betterment of you're self and others, rather than competiting to be better than everyone else so you can own more & better and different ****, I think we would be have made better "progress" than the lie of "competition-based innovation" with the dangling carrot of ownership being the reward.

This is basically the "Star-Trek" economic model. The betterment of self and others as the driving force behind the economy. And while I love the Star Trek series and its vision for humanity, what's unclear to me is how this kind of economy would actually work. Who organizes all that energy into a system of productive opportunity? After contemplating these questions, among other mundane logistics of such an economy, I am left with the uneasy conclusion that only way for this type of economy to function is via the auspices of a benevolent authoritarian dictate, or initiative, directing and controlling, presumably by force. In addition, such as system would require many, many levels of authority directing and exerting power and force (which one could argue would also be driven by an internal drive for the betterment of self and others). But my nagging concern is the actuality of even one benevolent dictator (not to mention the scores of benevolent dictators at various levels needed to organize this type of economy--essentially, a "benevolent power structure") is more rare a materialization in our universe than a flying unicorn.

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by donk (here)
Corporations don't "act", that idea is an illusion to hide individual decisions.

True, it's a euphemism, but the effect on the world is the same regardless of the phrase or word used.

I do get your point, though. There are individuals in these corporations that are making the decisions. Thinking of the megacorporation conceptually as a nation-state, we see possibly a dictator and subordinate cronies, possibly a board that is democratic... but the vast majority of the workers in the corporation ("citizens of the corporate nation state", in my analogy) do not make the decisions, beneficent or malevolent. You're right, it really comes down to one or a handful of (probably sociopathic) directors when decisions are made.

I won't completely exonerate corporate shareholders, however. The concept of "voting with your wallet" is valid and though shareholders may not have any decision making power over the board (in fact, are not even privy to decision-making, but rather hear about decisions as corporate decrees/policy), shareholders may vote by holding or divesting shares of any particular stock.

Dennis

[donk]

The concept of "voting with your wallet" implies those with bigger wallets are more important

You wanna go down the real corporate rabbit hole, look up Patrick byrne's (overstock.com's founder) deepcapture blog, then tell me about shareholders...you used the word counterfeit, you can see how many fake votes there are out there on yahoo! Finance's profile of a corp...byrne's crew wi show you how

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)

Posted by donk (here)
Corporations don't "act", that idea is an illusion to hide individual decisions.

True, it's a euphemism, but ...

Gosh dang, I get all mystical (Post #25) explaining this, and Dennis even acknowledges reading my post ...

I think that Corporations do take on a life of their own. Or as Amzer Zo says it in Post #33, they become ALIVE.

It's not just a euphemism to say they act . Corporations are more than the sum of the individuals in them.

[donk]

I think that Corporations do take on a life of their own.

Yes, in the same way any faith-based created entity does.

I feel that you are falling into the trap that gives them their power.

Because we LET people say that Monsanto did this or Pfizer did that or the US (govt is another form of these entities that take a "life of their own") sued abc Co. Monsanto or Pfizer or abc co are "summoned demons" of sorts of energy vampires.

We buy into the religion called "capitalism" that is essentially self-imposed enslavement by "corporations". What does and inc./corp./LLC/etc need with your energy?

It's a front, illusion, the big lie, and giving it mystical powers only makes it worse. The "few bad apples" perpetuate and benefit from it...I was just reminded of something I need to dig up...

[T Smith]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)

Collusion
The first problem I'd consider an "adult" problem; the second, a "toddler" problem. Slowly but surely, corporations have gone from big businesses that had to deal with governments as outsiders, to entities that infected governments like viruses. Through total control of the electoral process, the loose confederation of megacorporations has succeeded (at least in the US - I assume this is true in most countries) in making sure that the federal government's lawmakers are "corporate-friendly" (to say it nicely.) Then, using "lobbying", (legalized bribery), the megacorporations persuade and even dictate corporate-friendly legislation. The coup (or infection) continues as the bought-and-paid-for politicians appoint representatives of corporations into directorship of federal departments and agencies. Astoundingly, it doesn't stop there, but infects the judicial segment of government. By controlling the executive and legislative branches of government, the bonus is being able to appoint - for life - judges and justices that are "corporate-friendly", and the entire government succumbs to the disease.

What would corporations be like, if they were not also controlling the governments? We have no idea. Maybe some of them could stand on their own as big businesses and produce and distribute a product. Some of them could not exist without the host organism.

What would the nation or the world be like if corporations did not run the governments? We have no idea. Well, some of us have a vision, and I have dedicated quite a bit of my efforts to finding the specific entry point for the disease and figuring out how to close it. I want - with every cell of my body - to find out what my nation and our world will be like when the US government is healed of the disease of collusion, the disease that presents as fascism.

Lack of Restrictions
Onto the second item in my list, the "toddler" issue of lack of restrictions. (This one has confused and confounded some of my Libertarian friends.) So, the people in my nation, and each nation, succeed in removing the disease of collusion. There is (finally) a separation between corporations and state. The people in every branch of government are vetted to make sure they do not have corporate ties (collusion prevention), and are not even allowed to become absorbed into corporate management or buy any corporate stock for 5 years after leaving office (preventing "feathering the nest" acts in office that would benefit the elected official after leaving office.) Is this enough? Can we now "live and let live" and allow corporations to thrive?

I say "no." Corporations, just like toddlers, need a clear set of rules about what is acceptable behavior and what is not acceptable behavior. Will putting restrictions on corporations reduce their profits? Absolutely. Will it even crush some corporations? Yes, the most parasitic, the most egregious, the worst human rights violators, the most environmentally unsound, the thugs and manipulators and blackmailers. But if one-person companies, small businesses, medium businesses, and even large businesses can make products and provide services without violating human rights and creating massive pollution, then the best of the megacorporations should be able to adapt to regulations as well.

If you see holes in my logic, point them out. If there are some megacorporations in existence right now that you think the accusations of collusion or parasitic behavior with governments is not correct, point them out. If you believe that corporations should be able to operate with no restrictions, please explain your logic. And, if you have examples of megacorporations that are acting in what they believe are altruistic motives, for the benefit of humankind, please list them.

Dennis

Hi Dennis,

I'm with you all the way up to your idea of the implementation of restrictions on the "acceptable" behavior (presumably separate from "legal" behavior)... I'm interested to learn more about what kinds of acceptable restrictions you have in mind, who or what implements, creates, and enforces them, how and what restrictions and corporate behavior are determined desirable or undesirable for society, and by whom and by what mechanisms, etc., etc. As far as separating State and Corp. power, there are probably many solutions to accomplish this without infringing on the natural rights and civil liberties of the social order, e.g., implementing some mechanism that 1) effectively removes the concerted association of interests from the electoral process without violating individual and even the collective rights of democratic representation, 2) rebooting a system of honest elections, and 3) implementing term limits in all three branches of government, not just executive. Even the vetting restrictions you propose on who and who does not qualify for public office does not offend my libertarian sensibilities, but once you propose to go further into regulating specific behaviors it gets a little murky for me. Obviously I concur corporations should operate within some agreed-upon set of legal boundaries, but the only part I potentially take issue with is the one on which you've expounded the least. If you provide specific examples of what you are proposing I would be happy to comment further.

[donk]

Haven't we seen throughout history that these "mystical" corporations that find the best way around regulations (or better yet, capture gov't and legalize their energy theft) are the ones that "succeed"?

As the warlock Sheen would say "DUH...WINNING"

Few bad apples, one Sith Lord, turns into a vampire squid, by convincing us we need corporations, that it is the best way of life.

And we believe, and get defensive when anyone tried to reveal out shackles to us...

[donk]

Last time I read this (years ago) it was not nearly as wrong. I can't open the movie to view it on my phone, but I recommend it.

http://www.deepcapture.com/wp-conten...e-story-v1.pdf

This guy started dropping truth bombs in a conference call that made him the lunatic asshole of the corporate world. He was pissed that his stock was counterfeited (see: naked short selling) and instead of just accepting the created power structure, the corporate paradigm, he looked into and broke and it down a bit.

He still seems trapped in the paradigm, as we all are whether we like it or not. The "star trek" mentality as it was dubbed had no place for these mystical created faith-based eternal entities that only have "hive consciousness" given to them by their marketing departments or PR firms.

[CdnSirian]

Hard to keep up with all these excellent posts, am losing my thoughts. So just quickly, not organized...

NAFTA GATT WTO, Codus Alimentaris - who benefits?

Corporate prison labor - who benefits? (All prisoners are assigned a value which can be traded on the stock market).

My wallet is very small - yet I can still "vote" with it by choosing where to purchase. Walmart low cost produce picked by prisoners? Or local farmers' market.

If I buy stocks am I "voting" for Wall Street/corporate control of the government?

Corporate management (not mismanagement, this was planned), has wiped out many retirement pensions, hijacked Medicare etc etc. But that money or value is not "gone". It has simply left the building.

Many of the wealthy form foundations which support the arts. I'm not sure how these structures differ from corporations. I personally am happy to see arts organizations getting money rather than it going to taxes. Corporations can also donate, avoiding taxes. I think that's good. Though it's sad if the corporate products are killing machines.

Dennis you've started a great conversation that is both productive and "dead end". Corporations being what they are, even if there are some good ones that I haven't been able to find. The fruits of their labor should be easier to determine than reading their "mission statements". The word "mission" implies a lofty or noble ideal, whereas "business proposal" would suffice.

Board members are invited or elected depending on how the selectors/voters expect them to vote, no? For the shareholders, ignorant investors who have employed a broker to invest their money, and have no idea where said money is. Mostly, not always.

O.K., probably there have been a series of highly detailed posts posted here while I've been typing, but wanted to squeeze in these general and uncomplicated ideas in.

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by T Smith (here)

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
...

Lack of Restrictions
Onto the second item in my list, the "toddler" issue of lack of restrictions.

... Can we now "live and let live" and allow corporations to thrive?

I say "no." Corporations, just like toddlers, need a clear set of rules about what is acceptable behavior and what is not acceptable behavior. Will putting restrictions on corporations reduce their profits? Absolutely. Will it even crush some corporations? Yes, the most parasitic, the most egregious, the worst human rights violators, the most environmentally unsound, the thugs and manipulators and blackmailers. But if one-person companies, small businesses, medium businesses, and even large businesses can make products and provide services without violating human rights and creating massive pollution, then the best of the megacorporations should be able to adapt to regulations as well.

Hi Dennis,

I'm with you all the way up to your idea of the implementation of restrictions on the "acceptable" behavior (presumably separate from "legal" behavior)... I'm interested to learn more about what kinds of acceptable restrictions you have in mind, who or what implements, creates, and enforces them, how and what restrictions and corporate behavior are determined desirable or undesirable for society, and by whom and by what mechanisms, etc., etc. As far as separating State and Corp. power, there are probably many solutions to accomplish this without infringing on the natural rights and civil liberties of the social order, e.g., implementing some mechanism that 1) effectively removes the concerted association of interests from the electoral process without violating individual and even the collective rights of democratic representation, 2) rebooting a system of honest elections, and 3) implementing term limits in all three branches of government, not just executive. Even the vetting restrictions you propose on who and who does not qualify for public office does not offend my libertarian sensibilities, but once you propose to go further into regulating specific behaviors it gets a little murky for me. Obviously I concur corporations should operate within some agreed-upon set of legal boundaries, but the only part I potentially take issue with is the one on which you've expounded the least. If you provide specific examples of what you are proposing I would be happy to comment further.

Hi T,

Well, in so doing, I would first say that any the vision I have is clearly divided into
1.) the surgical procedure to remove the parasitic (or even if they were beneficial) entanglements, the collusion
and
2.) the interrelation between corporations and Earth/nations/governments/individuals

My vision on the first is clear: no collusion is acceptable.

My vision on the second sort of devolved from something pretty clear (read the second half of The Reset Button document), to the recognition that this needs to be organic, developed by thousands of people with expertise and insight, working together to develop guidelines, rules, regulations, and yes, enforcement (which is a sticking point for a number of Libertarians I have conversed with.)

To me, if you recognize that corporate influence or corporate collusion with governments, resulting in corporatism or fascism is not the model of governance that you want (or think is healthy), then a concerted and united effort among the "non-corporate", that I like to call "ordinary citizens" to do away with the mechanisms of corporatism is essential. Where it goes after that is fuzzy, organic, maybe best described the same way that a multi-stranded rope is used to represent timelines. My particular vision is unimportant, or rather, no more important than anyone else's. I think a lot of people get lost right at this junction, believing that whatever their vision is, whether pure democratic socialism, pure Libertarian capitalism, some sort of tribal anti-statism, or a resource-based economy like the Zeitgeist/Venus Project envisions, or whatever... their ultimate vision must be THEE vision, and all effort must be toward that vision. I say, get rid of collusion and corporatism (the diseases) and then whichever way citizens want to steer the course will be better (healthier for citizens/society and the environment) than corporatism/fascism (which will end in totalitarian fascism.)

I haven't answered your real question (which is tangential to the thread and really would make a good thread on its own), but want to make sure I have underscored that what you are asking is secondary to removing the disease. If we can agree that removal of the disease is the critical first step, then we can work together to make people aware that unless this first step is completed, only the corporatocracy's vision will be realized.

Now to briefly try to answer your question: I don't know. I don't know how many parts per million of any specific toxin is an acceptable amount of that toxin to allow corporations to release into the environment. I do know that corporations want the number to be "unlimited", and that if corporations are allowed to do whatever they want, that is, if left unrestricted, they will destroy (and are destroying) the biosphere for short-term gains, to enhance the little empires of a handful of individuals. They have proven this time and time again, and how anyone can believe that corporations will police themselves is beyond my understanding. I know that I have heard the argument that citizens, buying or rejecting goods and services, is a powerful enough force to make the corporations self-regulate. I say that is astoundingly naive, and wrong. Take an industry like agriculture. The already are pretty much self-regulating, and see how well they have done: sterile soil full of toxins, loss of most of our topsoil, toxic food devoid of micronutrients, genetically modified organisms as the norm, myriad toxins sprayed onto plants that are then ingested, leach into groundwater, and/or become airborne toxins.

(A small percentage of food grown organically will not solve these issues, nor will consumers ever be able to 'buy" an organic paradigm into existence: there are too many institutionalized, incarcerated, and school kids that will be forced to eat whatever Big Ag produces, and as long as the collusion exists between Big Ag and the FDA and USDA, and Big Media, lies are foisted as truths and the general public is lulled into buying toxins they trust are minimal and safe.)

My personal vision for this industry (that only organic farming be allowed) would certainly be considered as harsh and heretical to those that now control that industry (which in itself is the blend of the petrochemical industry and agricultural industries, not just agriculture.)

We see corporations moving manufacturing facilities to areas on the planet with the least amount of restrictions - resulting in paying the absolute least amount of money possible to workers, forcing outrageously long hours, subjecting workers to dangerous, toxic conditions, and making no effort whatsoever to filter any toxins out of their effluent. This is not theoretical. This is the very real outcome of no restrictions, and non-enforcement of existing restrictions.

[my opinion] I'd love for the simplistic examples by folks like Stephen Molineux to be real working models for commerce, and the idea that no one would need enforcement. Unfortunately, it is complete fantasy in real-world commerce - unless we are talking about one person with a bag of carrots and one person with a basket of eggs. [/my opinion]

Still trying to "briefly" answer your question. hahahahhaha
Example: the US used to have a steel industry, now we don't, but China does. I believe this industry would have been saved (in the US) by intelligent regulations, not destroyed (in the US), and that these regulations would also be making the entire world cleaner rather than more polluted. Again, I can't tell you exactly how many parts per million of different toxins should be the regulated standards, but imagine if they were tough but achievable. The price of steel would go up. Other countries with lax or no regulations could produce the steel cheaper, and would have an incentive to do so. But if a (citizen-run) US government applied trade restrictions (for example, a tariff on "dirty" steel, collected at import, and paid to the affected industry), then the advantage of making dirty steel in foreign countries and exporting to the US would disappear. If the US is a big enough market to have influence (and we are), and if the Chinese steel companies wanted to sell steel into the US market, they would have an incentive to clean-up their manufacturing process.

I know that's a somewhat simplistic example, but I hope it illustrates a concept. Restrictions and regulations that protect workers and the environment do make the cost of goods go up, and that in itself is OK. It would not mean the end of an industry as long as regulations were also in place to protect against the "dumping" or undercutting of domestic "clean" goods by foreign "dirty" goods. (Clean and dirty in both humanitarian and ecological ways.)

Donk (and others), I don't believe that we can move from a corporatocracy to a system of trade that does not include corporations - at least not in a lifetime or the next century. It is valid and a good exercise to envision a much more benevolent and harmonious future, and I encourage the process of envisioning that future both taking shape and coming to fruition. But for me, right here and right now, I know that the corporate paradigm is not going to simply go away, and I am working to achieve a paradigm where we can each decide to opt-in or opt-out of being influenced by the corporate paradigm where corporations do not control us and the environment. Plus, restrictions placed on corporations to prevent them from polluting the environment (the only way for citizens to actually be able to opt-out of being affected by corporations. I believe it is achievable within my lifetime. And I'm willing to trust that this goal (removing the diseases of collusion and corporatocracy) creates a much more beneficent paradigm that will further evolve.

Dennis

[donk]

Donk (and others), I don't believe that we can move from a corporatocracy to a system of trade that does not include corporations - at least not in a lifetime or the next century.

To quote yoda: THAT is why you fail.

And I agree wholeheartedly, 100%!!

It seems insurmountable, BUT:

Unless (I'd love to say UNTIL) more people buy into the fact the current ownership/competition/individualism paradigm (which "successful" (gigantic/global) corporations are the extreme manifestation of) is the problem, which can be replaced by individual decisions with intent for a different, sustainable pro-life/species mentality rather than accepting "it is what it is", we are stuck in this bull****...our only hope is to bring light to the darkness, finding ways to open more eyes to it