NationStates Jolt Archive

CAPITALISM OVER DEMOCRACY?

The structure of a democratic government is nearly identical to that of a corporation. The stockholders choose the board of directors, who in turn elect a president, who chooses underlings, and so on in a corporation. The voters elect a president, who chooses a Cabinet, who choose underlings in a democratic government.

Considering this corrolation, wouldn't it be immensely profitable for governments to sell stock? Financial issues would nearly disappear as they would get tons of resources from their own people. Stockholders and voters would feel like they actually own a bit of their country and thus be more enthusiastic about politics and their government. Economies everywhere would boom.

This also presents problems. Obviously a very financially inclined organization or person could easily overthrow a government. Therefore, certain restrictions would need to be placed. No single organization or person would be allowed to control a majority of the government stock.



How should I form this into a UN-acceptable proposition? I submitted it in a similar form only to have it deleted as "rambling."

Many nations accept your viewpoint that capitalism and democracy, united together, makes a great combititon. However, there are lots of other nations, like left-wing utopias, anarchist states, commie states, and many others. Chances are, this idea should be taken up by the states, not by the UN.

As it would leave only one form of government I believe that this may count as an ideological ban and would, therefore, be illegal.

That aside I feel that it is wrong to force a system of government on all nations. The Black New World has been looking to return to democracy for some time but the transition would not be wise at this point in time. Please don't rush us. Our welfare and healthcare systems are matters of national pride.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

The premise is flawed.

Corporations eliminate non-profitable sectors of their enterprise. The government can't eliminate the police in crime-riddled areas for "failing to turn profit". Furthermore, corporations and governments have different duties charged to them. Corporations exist to make money, and only money. Governments exist (in theory) to provided a set of services to the people. While there may be disagreement on what, specifically, those services should be, that is still the primary purpose of the government (at the very least, the government should provide protection for its citizens from external threats).

Corporate stock, while a method for income generation, are also what gives a particular citizen the right to direct the course of the corporation. Since citizens already have the power of voting in a democracy, and since most democracies already sell bonds, there is little point in offering shares in the government.

However, there's nothing currently preventing governments from selling stock if they wished.

Now, as for the "Proposal" in question:

Currently, this is just an essay. You have listed something that strikes you as a "good idea", but don't flesh it out. You haven't written law. Your Proposal ends with hypotheticals, but doesn't list out what those restrictions should be. You have a proposal for a Proposal. Look at some of the more recently passed Resolutions, for an idea of how Proposals should be written.

"I think we should..." is pretty much a kiss-of-death; as are questions.

Were this to be re-written as a true Proposal, you still would be walking a very fine line. Since Resolutions must actually do something, you would probably have to force governments to issue stock. Since socialist and communist governments would likely balk at such a concept, and since both of those types of governence are perfectly allowed, you run the risk of creating a de facto ideological ban. A nation that has no currency would be forced to create a currency to comply; that would be, in effect, banning currency-less economies and planned economies.

Now, if someone can come up with a way to turn this into a Proposal that doesn't violate the ideological ban rule (and avoids violating the optionality rule), I'd be willing to reconsider. As is, this is looking pretty hopeless.