NationStates Jolt Archive

Well?

I trust business more. They're straightforward. They're about making money, earning a living. It's something everyone does. People can demonize 'corporations,' and often do, but the fact is there are 25 million businesses in the US and it's impossible to judge every single one based on, say, Enron.

On the other hand, there is only one federal government, 50 state governments. In the case of the federal government, it's highly corrupt and everyone knows it (though people usually think the "other side" (Democrats or Republicans, in the US, depending on which one you are) is more corrupt). People join government not to make a living, but to gain power, to push their ideals (whether good or bad) on the rest of us - including, nowadays, the entire world. Government has the monopoly on the use of lethal force and is it's own arbiter of justice. Throughout history, governments have proven to wage wars, most of them bad and bloody; they've been the instruments with which Stalin, Hitler, Mao and other infamous leaders have committed atrocities, like "purges," ideological-motivated famines, holocausts and executions.

Say what you will about Wal-mart, but they spend their money on making and buying things which people can then buy. Government spends its money on killing people in the name of rhetoric.

I can’t answer you poll. There are some businesses I trust and some I don’t and they're some governments I trust and some I don’t.

Trust them to do what?

Companies are out to make bucks, but it doesn't follow that they will do so in a way that's going to benifit me (usually it doesn't). Companies also tend to be short-sighted. The political arms of governments change with each opinion poll, but governments themselves tend to be slow pondorus beasties that can afford to say, "Well, we don't break even on this bridge for 50 years, but we need one anyway and we'll still be around so it's cool". Companies usually cannot afford that kind of forsight.

Companies also tend to focus in on segments of the population instead of at least trying to serve everyone (even if they do it badly).

I accept your citisims of governments, but like I said, trust them for what now?

What Neo Undulia said. ^

Trust them to do what?

Well, trust them with your money. The money you give them willingly, in the case of business. Or the money which is extracted from you, in the case of government.

Well, I can tell you which I trust the least:

Governments run like businesses.

Business is easy to understand. They want to make the most possible money for the least possible effort/product. Once you get that, you realize that business is predictable and if they're predictable, they can be trusted.

Politicians can, to a lesser extent, be trusted. We all know that politicians want power - that is the be-all and end-all of their existence. So we can trust them to screw us to get it. However, periodically in politics, a fuzzy-brained idealist comes along or a politician develops ethics, in which case all bets are off.

This is really a choice between the lesser of two evils. Businesses want to take my money, Government wants my money and my rights.

neither! i don't trust either one any further then i can throw them.

what i do trust, really the only things i trust emplicitly, are diversity being the nature of reality, and not denying the connection between priorities and probabilities.

there is no safety in any soverignty, and as for either one, well if the profit motive alone could be counted upon to guarantee useful, affordable and environmentaly harmonious infrastructure, that would be just fine. but it can't.

and government which does not is a self serving and otherwise rather meaningless endulgence.

so what is it that i want of the world that surrounds me?
particularly sentient society's part in it?

simply that it make everyone's survival and persuit of gratification easier, instead of more difficult, then nature itself, uninterfered with, would provide.

untill human society does that, i see no redeaming value in it.

=^^=
.../\...

Depends. I trust Thin Man Strings Co. and McGee's bar and grill a lot more than the government, but I trust the government a hell of a lot more than Chevron Texaco or United Health Care.

I trust business more because at least with Business I know what they are after, and that I know that the rules of business and economy guide them.

Business.

I trust business more because at least with Business I know what they are after, and that I know that the rules of business and economy guide them.

if you think "the rules of business and economy" are going to protect the web of life the oxygen in the air you breathe comes from, you're dreaming.

=^^=
.../\...

government.

the primary motivation for the vast majority of businesses is to make profit at the expense of others. i do not trust this motivation.
the primary motivation of government should be to serve its people. some government's don't do this so well, or are inefficient or corrupt, yes, but as an institution i trust this motivation more.

Well, trust them with your money. The money you give them willingly, in the case of business. Or the money which is extracted from you, in the case of government.
Depends on the services I am getting for the money I just gave them. It's no so much a matter of choice like you're trying to make it, it's what do I think each is capable of. I trust McDonald's to make me a hamburger (might not taste good, but I trust that they won't be going out of their way to poison me). I'm not going to trust them with defending the US from outside attacks however.

for that matter, it's the priorities you actually live by, all of us added togather, creates the markets that motivate both of them.

=^^=
.../\...

Neither, but I can deal with business.

This is really a choice between the lesser of two evils. Businesses want to take my money, Government wants my money and my rights.

Go tell that to the RIAA and MPAA, and all their little friends. Not that current governments aren't over-eager to ban things, but companies do it too. Fortunately, here at least, the companies can't legitimately bribe the government in to doing their bidding.

My vote is "none of the above". Neither should be given an inch, lest they take a mile.

My vote is "none of the above". Neither should be given an inch, lest they take a mile.

Seconded.

I've had bad experiences with both...nobody is ever going to convince me that one is more trustworthy than the other.

Here in America, businesses love government so long as no one sees the reports on the environment...nothing like taxes to make sure the little guy doesn't become a threat.

Go tell that to the RIAA and MPAA, and all their little friends. Not that current governments aren't over-eager to ban things, but companies do it too. Fortunately, here at least, the companies can't legitimately bribe the government in to doing their bidding.

My vote is "none of the above". Neither should be given an inch, lest they take a mile.

Thats more a problem with our current government and system of laws than the companies themselves. Since big business is in bed with the government of course companies are going to abuse that power as much as possible. If this wasnt so then it wouldn't be an issue.

Well, I can tell you which I trust the least:

Governments run like businesses.

Hear hear!

I got an article sent to me by Europa Maxima the other day which would be rather appropriate.

http://www.mises.org/story/2445
Bureaucrats: Another Breed of Cat
By D.W. MacKenzie

Those who disparage the ideas of deregulation and limited government claim that we need a large activist government to reign in the excesses of capitalism. Such persons trust government bureaucrats to enforce regulations in a responsible manner. The actual record of big government indicates that such trust in government is unfounded.

One of the latest examples of bureaucratic excess involves the Hemingway Home and Museum in Key West, Florida. The Hemingway Home is famous for its six-toed cats, about fifty of them. These cats are descended from Ernest Hemingway's own six-toed cat. These cats have been a tourist attraction at the Hemingway Home and Museum for decades. Visitors to the Hemingway Home obviously have no objection to these cats, and the caretakers of the Hemingway Home do control the size of their cat population. Yet the Federal Government has recently moved to regulate these cats.

According to the USDA, the Hemingway Home is an exhibitor of cats, and must hold a USDA animal welfare license. Ordinarily, such licenses apply to circuses or zoos, which hold animals as exhibits. Yet this is not the case with the Hemingway cats. These cats live in this place. While visitors to the Hemingway Home are clearly interested in these cats, this is incidental. These cats are in the home where they and their ancestors have lived since 1935, not on display.

The USDA has repeatedly denied the Hemingway Home applications for such a license. USDA inspectors have conducted an intensive investigation of the Hemingway cats (since October 2003), and have never claimed that there is any problem with the health, safety, or welfare of these cats. Why then have they denied all license applications in this case?

The USDA insists that these cats be confined, restricted from roaming. A six foot stone wall surrounds the grounds of the Hemingway Home. Yet USDA inspectors have deemed this wall insufficient. They want to throw these cats into cages. The USDA has also suggested the installation of an electric fence around the Hemingway Home premises.

How is it that a law intended to promote animal welfare could lead to cats being caged or shocked with electricity? Government regulations often have unintended consequences. The Animal Welfare Act passed in 1966, and has been amended several times. The proponents of this law probably had good intentions. Yet the empowerment of bureaucrats often leads to abuse by overzealous officials, even though they may intend to promote welfare (human or feline).

Ludwig von Mises (1944) analyzed such problems with bureaucracy. The Hemingway Home was established as a private Museum by Key West Businesswoman Bernice Dickson. As such, it operates through revenue as a museum and banquet hall. The operations of the Hemingway Home are subject to the test of profit and loss. The USDA is part of our massive federal bureaucracy. As a taxpayer-funded institution, the USDA is not subject to profit and loss. The USDA is attempting to regulate the operations of the Hemingway House without any reference to profits. Profits are important because they represent the usefulness of an organization.

The Hemingway House provides services to consumers, who pay enough for these services to keep this organization in operation. In economic terms, the Hemingway House meets the opportunity costs of its own operation. The Animal Welfare Act may have been well intended, however, the judgments of USDA inspectors are personal value judgments only. The ability of the Hemingway to succeed as a private organization indicates that it improves the welfare of the consuming public. People value the use of particular scarce resources (e.g., caretaker labor, cat food) in operating the Hemingway Home more than in any alternative uses. Consequently, there is no quantifiable reason to believe that these cats harm the consuming public.

The cats themselves are not being harmed by the Hemingway Home caretakers. Rather it is the USDA that wants to confine and mistreat these animals. Furthermore, the USDA does not claim that the cats themselves are being harmed or endangered. The only basis for believing that there is a problem with the Hemingway Home derives from the arbitrary and personal value judgments of some USDA inspectors. Whose judgment should we trust, the multitudes in the consuming public or some petty bureaucrats?

The USDA has made one judgment of monetary value. The penalty for violating the Animal Welfare and Act is $200 per day per cat — ten thousand dollars per day. As a small enterprise, the Hemingway will likely be bankrupted by such fines. The caretakers of the Hemingway House sued to stop USDA harassment of the Hemingway Home and its cats. Unfortunately, District Court Judge K. Michael Moore dismissed the museum's suit. According to this judge, the Hemingway Home caretakers should first pursue remedies in administrative hearings and appeals.

It is fairly obvious that the caretakers of the Hemingway Home are more interested in the welfare of these cats, and that the consuming public supports this enterprise. USDA harassment of the Hemingway Cats is an example of bureaucratic excess.

Federal authority extends to all of us. We all live under the threat of bureaucratic excess, and all too often this threat is realized. Furthermore, bureaucratization works to override the preferences of the consuming public. Capitalism is superior to state control because it places the interests of the consuming public above all else, while an activist regulatory state subjects consumers to bureaucratic whims.

So I suppose Vittos has the right answer: You can't always trust either, but you can deal with business. You can't deal with "government" because government can't recognise you as a singular, specific, individual person.

Ick. I trust neither, but government is less untrustworthy than business. Government officials require the favor of the majority of voters in order to stay in office. Businesses do not require the majority of consumers in order to stay in business.

Can I pick none of the above?

It's impossible to say. I don't think in absolutes. There are bad businesses aswell as bad goverments and there are good ones on both sides. It's really a question impossible to answer. And why do you have to choose one over the other? Business is as important as goverment in a country. If it wasn't for business the country would have a shitty economy but without a goverment it would fall into anarchy and collapse.

Business that stays away from government. However, that does not mean blind trust - Mises wisely said that the price of freedom was eternal vigilance, and that applies to business as much as it does to government. Rest assured though, when I'm running my own Megacorp Unlimited you can all trust in my benevolence. :D (those of you who haven't pissed me off anyway - I have to make rational choices somehow) :)

Business that stays away from government. However, that does not mean blind trust - Mises said that the price of freedom was eternal vigilance, and that applies to business as much as it does to government. Rest assured when I'm running my own Megacorp Unlimited you can all trust in my benevolence. :D (those of you who haven't pissed me off anyway - I have to make rational choices somehow) :)So then does this mean that businesses are an affront to freedom? <giggle>

Oh, and why LemonChiffon? Been posting in Spam a lot?

Ick. I trust neither, but government is less untrustworthy than business. Government officials require the favor of the majority of voters in order to stay in office. Businesses do not require the majority of consumers in order to stay in business.

Um...they may not require a majority of consumers, but they still have to have enough people paying for their product(s) and/or service(s) in order to remain in business.

Um...they may not require a majority of consumers, but they still have to have enough people paying for their product(s) and/or service(s) in order to remain in business.Which could mean a hundred rich people.

Bidnith, 'cause it ain't pointin' a gun at my head all the time.

Which could mean a hundred rich people.

Okay, obviously no sense continuing this discussion. Those evil rich people... :rolleyes:

Okay, obviously no sense continuing this discussion. Those evil rich people... :rolleyes:I didn't say that they were evil (this time). I said that being accountable to 100 people is worse than being accountable to more than 100 people (could be millions depending on the office we're talking about).

So then does this mean that businesses are an affront to freedom? <giggle>
No, but there's no point in being naive either. Be it government, businesses or simply other people in general one must watch them all the time.

Oh, and why LemonChiffon? Been posting in Spam a lot?
Not really. :) What's it got to do with that though?

It's a poorly worded question. Both by their very nature are utterly untrustworthy. So my vote was cast on the basis of which is the biggest danger to my personal wellbeing.

The reasoning is simple enough: government wants me. Business wants whatever'll increase profits. In essence, it's like comparing a psychopath with megalimania (government), to a plain psychopath (business). Barring weird circumstances, the vanilla psycho is obviously easier to live with, as it's motivation can be understood.

No, but there's no point in being naive either. Be it government, businesses or simply other people in general one must watch them all the time. Yes, I know, I was being facetious.

Not really. :) What's it got to do with that though?LemonChiffon is the color the spammers use to (almost) hide their text in the spam forum. In this forum we use white, because the backgrounds are different.

Yes, I know, I was being facetious.
Sorry, I'm just used to Soheran and his more severe style. :p

LemonChiffon is the color the spammers use to (almost) hide their text in the spam forum. In this forum we use white, because the backgrounds are different.
When you're in a rush it looks surprisingly similar to white. :)

Well, trust them with your money. The money you give them willingly, in the case of business. Or the money which is extracted from you, in the case of government.

.....


Depends on the commodity...

The invisible hand of the marked is most efficient when there are a lot of suppliers: profits will go to zero

Government is less efficient. However, there are however collective goods from which you cannot exclude people, because of the nature of the commodity or because of moral reasons. They can best be provided by the government: firefighting, for example.
Furthermore, monopolies are even less efficient than governments; therefore a government monopoly is to be chosen above a corporate monopoly.

Then there are those commodities that have costs which are not included in the price. Some commodities place costs on the community because of pollution or noise; however the market can not make this part of the price. In this case the government can tax the commodity in order to transfer these costs of the entire community to those that purchase this commodity.

government.

the primary motivation for the vast majority of businesses is to make profit at the expense of others. i do not trust this motivation.
the primary motivation of government should be to serve its people. some government's don't do this so well, or are inefficient or corrupt, yes, but as an institution i trust this motivation more.

I quite agree. I also think you malign the people who do the actual work of the government by calling them corrupt. You average government worker is no better off than you are, and he or she is certainly not accepting cash donations by the fistful as you implied, or trying to build up private little empires on the tax-payer's dime.

Bidnith, 'cause it ain't pointin' a gun at my head all the time.

It's just putting shit in the air and water and food and not telling you about it and denying it when you accuse them of doing it and then telling you to go fuck yourself when you catch them lying about it.

Bidnith, 'cause it ain't pointin' a gun at my head all the time.

Man, if the government's pointing a gun at your head all the time you might want to reconsider some choices, y'know?

Screw em both. Both of them lie to gain power.

Goverment, barely. At least I get to elect them.

My vote is "none of the above". Neither should be given an inch, lest they take a mile.Yeah, thats my thought, although as I said the fact that thosein goverment are elected makes me able to tolerate them a bet more, at least that way its our own fault for electing them when they screw us over.

It's just putting shit in the air and water and food and not telling you about it and denying it when you accuse them of doing it and then telling you to go fuck yourself when you catch them lying about it.

To be fair the goverment, or at least this goverment, does pretty much the samething.

Business, naturally. The free market doesn't forgive mistakes and cuts out corruption or incompetence through competition, whereas government can get away with a lot of those same things and hide them within the system itself.

Business, naturally. The free market doesn't forgive mistakes and cuts out corruption or incompetence through competition, whereas government can get away with a lot of those same things and hide them within the system itself.

Now if only business would only allow a free market to actually exist.

Now if only business would only allow a free market to actually exist.

That's where government comes in. ;)

Business, naturally. The free market doesn't forgive mistakes and cuts out corruption or incompetence through competition, whereas government can get away with a lot of those same things and hide them within the system itself.

Then how on earth did Dubya keep getting companies to run before he was president? You overestimate the power of the free market, or how free it really is.

That's where government comes in. ;)

Meaning it needs to make sure that buisness allow for a free market or that it needs to stop regulating and allow for a free market. Because with both I doubt the buisnesses that benifit from the status quo are going to stop the brib...I mean campaign donations they use to keep things the way they want.

Then how on earth did Dubya keep getting companies to run before he was president? You overestimate the power of the free market, or how free it really is.

I thought he did to all the companies he ran what he's done to the country.

Meaning it needs to make sure that buisness allow for a free market or that it needs to stop regulating and allow for a free market. Because with both I doubt the buisnesses that benifit from the status quo are going to stop the brib...I mean campaign donations they use to keep things the way they want.

True, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. We've done it before, and we can do it again if people start demanding change. Corporations are powerful, but ultimately they are entirely dependent on the consumer for their very existence.

True, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. We've done it before, and we can do it again if people start demanding change. Corporations are powerful, but ultimately they are entirely dependent on the consumer for their very existence.

Maybe, but as you said we've done it before and they eventually got around it anyway.

Normally, which I trust more would be determined by which had objectives that were known to me.

Business strives to earn profit.

Government strives to grow.


Since I deem the goal of business to be less destructive, I trust them more.

It really depends. But then both contain people... meaning there's very little difference overall.

Both can operate in a clandestine manner.

Both can be dangerously abused to obtain power.

That's it really...

Normally, which I trust more would be determined by which had objectives that were known to me.

Business strives to earn profit.

Government strives to grow.


Since I deem the goal of business to be less destructive, I trust them more.

Umm...government doesn't strive to grow, or at least that's not its primary objective. Ultimately government itself has no objective in itself. Its just a tool. I mean if libertarian/minarchist gets elected then they're a part of government and they do not want the government to grow. If a libertarian party controls the government then growing the government makes about as much sense as a business whose express goal is to lose money. Various and sometimes mutually exclusive objectives are the ends of people who want to use government for their purposes. This makes government schizophrenic

Umm...government doesn't strive to grow, or at least that's not its primary objective. Ultimately government itself has no objective in itself. Its just a tool. I mean if libertarian/minarchist gets elected then they're a part of government and they do not want the government to grow. If a libertarian party controls the government then growing the government makes about as much sense as a business whose express goal is to lose money. Various and sometimes mutually exclusive objectives are the ends of people who want to use government for their purposes. This makes government schizophrenic
Politicians strive only to be re-elected, but the bureaucracy's objective is to grow.

If, however, I accept your assertion, then I have even less reason to tust government.

Politicians strive only to be re-elected, but the bureaucracy's objective is to grow.

If, however, I accept your assertion, then I have even less reason to tust government.

Even bureaucracies has no objective in themselves. Bureaucracies are put into place for specific objectives. And even if their job is to grow then they've done a shitty job as the number of bureaucrats has gone down in absolute terms and as a percentage of the labor force since the 70's in many countries. Those left have less job seurity than they did before.

Ehh, do as you will.

Neither, especially when they're in bed together making something out of a John Carpenter film.

Both of them are a system of higher-ups commanding rank-and-file with as much power as they can reasonably wield. People understand that governments are perfectly capable of taking away your rights - well, guess what, people? So is your employer. Perhaps a government can help with that, but let's be honest here - you need money to survive. You need the business to give you the job to make the money. You need to follow the rules to continue drawing that money. If an employer decides that it can get away with banning its employees from having sex, then it will do that. If it can get away with it, then it will; if it can't, there will be an outrage and the business will probably have a labor shortage.

It's difficult to trust either. Both need to be kept in check.

Government, because it's accountable to everyone.

Government, because it's accountable to everyone.

Hahahahahahahahhahaaaaaaaa.

Yeah, like Stalin. He was accountable to everyone.

As long as I'm lucky and doing well, I'll trust business to give me what I need. But when I make mistakes or something goes wrong, then I'll have to trust government. Government has the far more difficult job of looking after the unlucky and unwanted, which is why it does its job so much worse.

Government has the far more difficult job of looking after the unlucky and unwanted, which is why it does its job so much worse.
If they're unwanted, why does it bother?

Most of the time, I'd trust government, for the simple reason that Government (should, and most often does) exist for the betterment of the nation. Business, on the other hand, solely exists for making profit.

Hahahahahahahahhahaaaaaaaa.

Yeah, like Stalin. He was accountable to everyone.
In the USSR Stalin was also the business sector.

I actually considered writing "Democractic government, because it's accountable to everyone." But then I thought no need to specify 'democratic states', nobody will be so stupid as to mistake what I mean. But as usual you prove me wrong!

In the USSR Stalin was also the business sector.

I actually considered writing "Democractic government, because it's accountable to everyone." But then I thought no need to specify 'democratic states', nobody will be so stupid as to mistake what I mean. But as usual you prove me wrong!
It's accountable to the pressure group of the day, if that even, which may be the majority, but is definitely never everyone.

Most of the time, I'd trust government, for the simple reason that Government (should, and most often does) exist for the betterment of the nation. Business, on the other hand, solely exists for making profit.
A nation is by no means a monolithic entity. It consists of many individuals pursuing different ends (including pressure groups or groups of individuals seeking to gain benefits for themselves via government). What is the betterment for one is the complete opposite for another (firms compete for profits, voter pressure groups for use of government powers). And let's not forget either that there are government officials who work solely for their own benefit, just as much as any other individual would.

I trust the government more, because it's socially acceptable to kill them messily if they screw us over.

Granted, I still don't trust it at all, but it generally has more strings you can pull.

Yes it does. Tax collection. ;)

:p

Yes it does. Tax collection. ;)

So those governments that didn't collect taxes are...?

Oh, right. Long gone.

Ultimately government itself has no objective in itself.
Yes it does. Tax collection. ;)

I suppose there are a few (very few) cases in which the government had access to alternative sources of income.

Nah, there are a few governments that haven't taxed. They all fell apart very quickly. Articles of Confederation anyone?

So those governments that didn't collect taxes are...?
I suppose there are a few (very few) cases in which the government had access to alternative sources of income.

But the fact that the first written account of the concept of "freedom" was found on a document about taxation from ancient Sumeria tells me that taxes were around even before humans had any clear idea of what "freedom" actually is.

Taxation, in one form or another, is as old as any hierarchical structure.

I really don't understand this.

Ick. I trust neither, but government is less untrustworthy than business. Government officials require the favor of the majority of voters in order to stay in office.

But they are only responsible to that majority, all else is left to struggle, just ask blacks, gays, non-christians, or any other plain-bellied sneetch.

Businesses do not require the majority of consumers in order to stay in business.

But there exist other businesses that will seek to gain the favor of the minority.

In my own country, Government. Although I disagree with Stephen Harper, I trust the democratic process of our nation. We've got enough safe guards in place to avoid any real corruption. And I can't trust businesses, knowing that corporations like Halliburton exist.

Hahahahahahahahhahaaaaaaaa.

Yeah, like Stalin. He was accountable to everyone.


Oh so you are lumping all Governments under the same label?

So should we consider all businesses to be like Worldcom, Enron? How about all businessmen like Michel Milken?

Justify why the ex-CEO deserved 120 million when the companies stock was loosing value for 7 years. Justify why he deserved an exit package of 250 million when the reason giving for his departure was failure to meet all objectives.

If business was the perfect model, then why do we need environmental laws? Worker safety laws? Child labor laws?

Things would really be screwed up bad if we turned everything over to a business model.

Oh so you are lumping all Governments under the same label?

Ok justify why the ex-CEO deserved 120 million when the companies stock was loosing value for 7 years. Justify why he deserved an exit package of 250 million when the reason giving for his departure was failure to meet all objectives.

Because the company paid it.

If business was the perfect model, then why do we need environmental laws? Worker safety laws? Child labor laws?

Things would really be screwed up bad if we turned everything over to a business model.

*gets prepared for the guilded age example*

Because the company paid it.

And that makes it right?


*gets prepared for the guilded age example*

Eh?

And that makes it right?

Its their money.

Eh?

He says we don't need those laws .... you point to the guilded age ... he says that required government sponsorship ... you say it only required evil business ... blah blah blah ... stalemate.

I don't trust either of them as far as I can throw them, which is to say not at all.

However, I can always depend on a business to be trying to maximize profits while I can never depend on the government to be out for any specific thing. I think business is much more consistent.

Its their money.

I thought it was the shareholders money. Shareholders are always mentioned when they have to cut something from the employees.....

He says we don't need those laws .... you point to the guilded age ... he says that required government sponsorship ... you say it only required evil business ... blah blah blah ... stalemate.

Oh ok. :confused:

ah, how bout neither? They're both connected as long as they share the same "interest".

I thought it was the shareholders money. Shareholders are always mentioned when they have to cut something from the employees.....

It is, but when those who actually make the decisions on how to use said money can are in cahoots and can thus write golden parachutes for themselve things get interesting.

Oh and for the op. I trust neither. I work with both but that doesn't mean I trust them.

I thought it was the shareholders money. Shareholders are always mentioned when they have to cut something from the employees.....

It is the shareholder's money.

It is, but when those who actually make the decisions on how to use said money can are in cahoots and can thus write golden parachutes for themselve things get interesting.

Last time I checked shareholder's are not obligated to purchase or hold shares.

If they're unwanted, why does it bother?
So business doesn't have to. Unwanted people are still humans.

Its their money.

This is like saying that Stalin was justified in what he did because "he had the guns" and the USSR was "his country". You'll have to do better than that to justify retarded business policy.

Last time I checked shareholder's are not obligated to purchase or hold shares.

Did I say they were?

Last time I checked shareholder's are not obligated to purchase or hold shares.

Er, they kind of are, because they can't be shareholders unless they do so.

Er, they kind of are, because they can't be shareholders unless they do so.

:D

Er, they kind of are, because they can't be shareholders unless they do so.
So, who forces them to buy shares?

So, who forces them to buy shares?

The fact that if one wants to be called a shareholder one has to hold shares.:D

So, who forces them to buy shares?
The necessity of being a shareholder. Because I imagine that in a government-less anarchapitalist land non-shareholder = nonperson.

The fact that if one wants to be called a shareholder one has to hold shares.:D
But of course. One has not lived life until they've had the joy of holding shares. :)

Bidnith, 'cause it ain't pointin' a gun at my head all the time.
How is it not? "Work or starve". No individual business may be saying that, but taking businesses as a group, that's what it's like.

How is it not? "Work or starve". No individual business may be saying that, but taking businesses as a group, that's what it's like.
How is that anything like the government actively and explicitly threatening you with physical violence if you don't do what they want?

How is that anything like the government actively and explicitly threatening you with physical violence if you don't do what they want?

In both death is a possibility.;)

How is it not? "Work or starve". No individual business may be saying that, but taking businesses as a group, that's what it's like.

Poor baby. Guess what: "work or starve" is the motto of all motile animals. Unless you happen to be CORAL, you can't just sit around and get food for no expenditure of energy. It's the way of the world, even in your communit utopia - although there, you're likely to work AND starve, which I suppose you hold to be superior.

Poor baby. Guess what: "work or starve" is the motto of all motile animals.
That, and "evolve or die". :)

In both death is a possibility.;)
Hey, someone's gotta keep the noble gravedigger industry afloat. :p

I wonder if that means laziness offers an evolutionary advantage.:p

That, and "evolve or die". :)

Only taken as a species. I personally am not going to evolve, but hey maybe my children will have a mutation that allows them to be immune to anticapitalist fallacies or something....

I wonder if that means laziness offers an evolutionary advantage.:p
I suppose you could say parasites are the highest form of life - in terms of efficiency anyway ; they put in next to zero effort for maximal gains. Although I don't see myself bowing down to a leech any time soon. :)

Only taken as a species. I personally am not going to evolve, but hey maybe my children will have a mutation that allows them to be immune to anticapitalist fallacies or something....
Maybe we should have kids together! It'd increase the chances. Just don't expect me to care for them. :p You can have the brats.

This is like saying that Stalin was justified in what he did because "he had the guns" and the USSR was "his country". You'll have to do better than that to justify retarded business policy.

Money is bartering made simple. A gun is killing made simple.


There is a HUGE difference.

In both death is a possibility.;)

Disobey the government and disobey your boss, see who makes your life more miserable.

This is a tough question. I'll have to sleep on it.

How is it not? "Work or starve". No individual business may be saying that, but taking businesses as a group, that's what it's like.
It's more like "work or we won't give you food". It's a big difference.

But they are only responsible to that majority, all else is left to struggle, just ask blacks, gays, non-christians, or any other plain-bellied sneetch.In many cases, appeasing the majority requires policies that appease at least some of the minorities.

But there exist other businesses that will seek to gain the favor of the minority.Who are also only accountable to a small(er) percentage of people.

In many cases, appeasing the majority requires policies that appease at least some of the minorities.

Indeed. Blacks, gays, and non-Christians all have political support because other groups need their support for their own political programs.

This is in the nature of democratic politics; minority factions band together to achieve majorities. It works - not perfectly, but pretty well. That is the major reason that the "tyranny of the majority" problem is much less of a problem in the real world than it seems it should be at first glance.

It's more like "work or we won't give you food".

Of course, most people need to work for them to get food, or anything else... so that's beside the point.

I guess, technically, I trust business more. I never trust government, at all. How much I trust the business depends on whether it's political entrepeneurship (i.e. using the government to get their way) or economic entrepeneurship (actually providing useful things.)

i trust both to be guilty of whatever i would accuse them of. past that, i trust neither.

i hate polls i can't vote on. needs a 'joke' option.

In many cases, appeasing the majority requires policies that appease at least some of the minorities.

I understand this, but for every issue there is a minority whose views are not reflected by policy, even if that minority is not congrous.

Who are also only accountable to a small(er) percentage of people.

That is inherent with serving the minority, but at least the minority is being served.

I understand this, but for every issue there is a minority whose views are not reflected by policy, even if that minority is not congrous.I don't think people should expect to have their views represented 100% of the time. Furthermore, not all views should be reflected; I certainly wouldn't want a policy that reflects the KKK's view.

That is inherent with serving the minority, but at least the minority is being served.And in many cases with businesses, only the minority is being served.

government.

the primary motivation for the vast majority of businesses is to make profit at the expense of others. i do not trust this motivation.
the primary motivation of government should be to serve its people. some government's don't do this so well, or are inefficient or corrupt, yes, but as an institution i trust this motivation more.

Took the words out of my mouth. Governments are also easier to hold accountable for their actions. Especially when corporations are "legal persons".:headbang:

Depends on the services I am getting for the money I just gave them. It's no so much a matter of choice like you're trying to make it, it's what do I think each is capable of. I trust McDonald's to make me a hamburger (might not taste good, but I trust that they won't be going out of their way to poison me). I'm not going to trust them with defending the US from outside attacks however.

Same. I trust business to provide my food, wage, and services. I trust government to take portions of wages away to provide me with infrastructure, and crap which I don't use on a daily basis.