Posted by Dennis Leahy
(here)
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
Re: Are Some Multinational Corporations Benevolent?
. Blufire, we are all waiting.....
.
Bookmarks