NationStates Jolt Archive

No, I'm not referring simply to corporations buying seats in legislatures or anything, and I don't mean all the corporate money floating around government. I refer to this idea - a government run as a corporation. Corporations have structures, bureaucracy, a chain of command, and manage large sums of money, and may governments have insane amounts of workers.

Right now, the typical democratic government works like this:

--Separation of powers, to avoid one group or individual becoming too powerful; even setups such as the UK have separate houses
--Officials who are elected based on popular vote relating to party affiliation, locality, and past experience
--Many lower-level bureaucrats who are nominally state employees but may not be enthusiastic about the government; they merely work to earn a paycheck
--A group of many important persons who make the bulk of the government's decisions, each of whom has a number of assistants

As for a corporation, it works like this:
--Consolidation of powers for many broad areas and for a face to the corporation, while most administrative and practical issues are handled by departments
--Officials who are elected by shareholders who have a vested interest in the success of the corporation
--Many lower-level employees who are nominally company employees but may not be enthusiastic about the company or its products
--A group of important persons who make the bulk of the decisions, albeit much of this is delegated to committees

The idea is simple - change your government's system to that of a corporation. Note that I do not advocate this concept, but it does make for some interesting ideas.

Some benefits and drawbacks are as follows:

--The government would be discouraged from running a debt simply by a businesslike nature; cleaning up extraneous spending and maximizing profit would make for a debt-free government. However, running a surplus may tend to lead to excessive bonuses for the executives while workers and common people suffer.
--Sentences for crimes would be more likely to be enforced by a private police force, especially one that takes in money for fines and is rewarded for efficient use of the prison system. However, the traffic warning would be a thing of the past, shakedowns would probably be more common, and prisons would likely be even more overcrowded by wardens who seek to squeeze every dollar they can out of the prisons.
--Governments may find no need to collect taxes, instead making profits off of goods, services, and the purchase of stock. However, many of the goods and services would be unchecked by any standard of quality control, and victims of government malpractice would have no recourse. After all, what business would issue a ruling against itself?
--Schools would be private, competitive, and encouraged to be the best, since people could vote with their feet fairly easily. However, they would likely exclude the poor, and forcing people to pay for schools that they cannot afford would not sit well. Many poor folks would likely not enroll their children in school, thus exacerbating the poverty cycle.
--Since only shareholders would be allowed to vote, voter turnout among those who are eligible would skyrocket, since people have a steady financial interest. However, a small minority would control the vote, as most people would not be able to afford to become shareholders, and their votes would be largely insignificant compared to large shareholders.

It's a crazy idea that would only be implemented by the most desperate of nations. Could it work in any way? Could corporations compete for the right to govern? Don't just say, "This is a shitty idea and you're stupid for suggesting it." Why would it fail? Is it doomed if it's tried? Or would a government that tried this take off and become super-powerful?

You should read Jennifer Government (the book that this game is based on, you know :p ) if you havent done so already. It covers the topic pretty well.

But running nations like corporations would be a good idea since corporations really care for the wellbeing of
non-shareholder people *nods* .

... on the other hand nations suck too . We would probably be better off if we just gave up and went back to living in trees.

No, I'm not referring simply to corporations buying seats in legislatures or anything, and I don't mean all the corporate money floating around government. I refer to this idea - a government run as a corporation. Corporations have structures, bureaucracy, a chain of command, and manage large sums of money, and may governments have insane amounts of workers.

Right now, the typical democratic government works like this:

--Separation of powers, to avoid one group or individual becoming too powerful; even setups such as the UK have separate houses
--Officials who are elected based on popular vote relating to party affiliation, locality, and past experience
--Many lower-level bureaucrats who are nominally state employees but may not be enthusiastic about the government; they merely work to earn a paycheck
--A group of many important persons who make the bulk of the government's decisions, each of whom has a number of assistants

As for a corporation, it works like this:
--Consolidation of powers for many broad areas and for a face to the corporation, while most administrative and practical issues are handled by departments
--Officials who are elected by shareholders who have a vested interest in the success of the corporation
--Many lower-level employees who are nominally company employees but may not be enthusiastic about the company or its products
--A group of important persons who make the bulk of the decisions, albeit much of this is delegated to committees

The idea is simple - change your government's system to that of a corporation. Note that I do not advocate this concept, but it does make for some interesting ideas.

Some benefits and drawbacks are as follows:

--The government would be discouraged from running a debt simply by a businesslike nature; cleaning up extraneous spending and maximizing profit would make for a debt-free government. However, running a surplus may tend to lead to excessive bonuses for the executives while workers and common people suffer.
--Sentences for crimes would be more likely to be enforced by a private police force, especially one that takes in money for fines and is rewarded for efficient use of the prison system. However, the traffic warning would be a thing of the past, shakedowns would probably be more common, and prisons would likely be even more overcrowded by wardens who seek to squeeze every dollar they can out of the prisons.
--Governments may find no need to collect taxes, instead making profits off of goods, services, and the purchase of stock. However, many of the goods and services would be unchecked by any standard of quality control, and victims of government malpractice would have no recourse. After all, what business would issue a ruling against itself?
--Schools would be private, competitive, and encouraged to be the best, since people could vote with their feet fairly easily. However, they would likely exclude the poor, and forcing people to pay for schools that they cannot afford would not sit well. Many poor folks would likely not enroll their children in school, thus exacerbating the poverty cycle.
--Since only shareholders would be allowed to vote, voter turnout among those who are eligible would skyrocket, since people have a steady financial interest. However, a small minority would control the vote, as most people would not be able to afford to become shareholders, and their votes would be largely insignificant compared to large shareholders.

It's a crazy idea that would only be implemented by the most desperate of nations. Could it work in any way? Could corporations compete for the right to govern? Don't just say, "This is a shitty idea and you're stupid for suggesting it." Why would it fail? Is it doomed if it's tried? Or would a government that tried this take off and become super-powerful?

It's already been tried. Just look at Soviet Russia. Substitute "Communist Party of the Soviet Union" for corporation, and voila! we have an exact description of Soviet Russia.

They owned and controlled everything, and look what happened. What was different was that at least they didn't let their people starve to death.

You should read Jennifer Government (the book that this game is based on, you know :p ) if you havent done so already. It covers the topic quite neatly.

But running nations like corporations would be a good idea since corporations really care for non-shareholder people *nods* .

... on the other hand nations suck too :( .

I haven't read the book, but if I understand it correctly, the situation is the absence of government or corporations as a substitute for government. The idea of a government run as a corporation (although still working as a government) is sort of a variation on the idea. There are other elements taht could be tied in with it, but yes, I do notice a handful of similarities to Jennifer Government...as well as a couple of differences...

It's already been tried. Just look at Soviet Russia. Substitute "Communist Party of the Soviet Union" for corporation, and voila! we have an exact description of Soviet Russia.

They owned and controlled everything, and look what happened. What was different was that at least they didn't let their people starve to death.

Well, except for in the gulags... but otherwise yes. Power in the hands of a few is rarely a good thing.
Democracy is great for damage control if nothing else.

A corporation taking over the functions of government would not be all that bad.

You simply issue every citizen one share. A board of directors is elected at the annual shareholders meeting; they choose the executives of the company and make certain important decisions. If the chosen executive proves to be incompetent, misrepresented himself to get the job (empty campaign promises), or is simply unsuitable he gets fired.

Cut most of the superfluous functions of government and bring it down to bare bones.
Rather than one overriding company, you could separate it into different market segments. The US has state, federal, county, and municipal governments now, so having different companies for different areas would not be that unusual.

It would be a laissez-faire environment for the most part with a minimalist government.
The legal system would be very libertarian as I cannot see the company being able to justify prohibiting certain sexual acts.

Lets look at some of the issues raised.

--The government would be discouraged from running a debt simply by a businesslike nature; cleaning up extraneous spending and maximizing profit would make for a debt-free government. However, running a surplus may tend to lead to excessive bonuses for the executives while workers and common people suffer.

The government has a lot of assets from which it could generate revenue if it so chose. Everything from renting land to charging royalty fees could bring in money. It would be severely constrained from taking on more debt, and if it actually ran a profit, the excess could be returned in the form of a dividend to the shareholders. Were executive compensation become extreme, you simply change the members of the board. What stops current politicians from giving themselves obscene raises?

Sentences for crimes would be more likely to be enforced by a private police force, especially one that takes in money for fines and is rewarded for efficient use of the prison system. However, the traffic warning would be a thing of the past, shakedowns would probably be more common, and prisons would likely be even more overcrowded by wardens who seek to squeeze every dollar they can out of the prisons.

Do you realize that a lot of the prisons in the US are run by private companies? They have already been outsourced. Speed and red-light cameras in DC are run by a private company as well. Cops are already discouraged from doing actual crime-prevention and pushed to focus on writing tickets (I could tell you a few stories from cops in Anne Arundel County, Maryland) to bring in revenue. I don’t see any big change there.

I actually think warnings and minor infractions getting let go would increase drastically as it simply isn't worth the cost in manpower and paperwork to enforce piddly crap. This would go a long way to getting rid of a lot of worthless laws and regulations.

Governments may find no need to collect taxes, instead making profits off of goods, services, and the purchase of stock. However, many of the goods and services would be unchecked by any standard of quality control, and victims of government malpractice would have no recourse. After all, what business would issue a ruling against itself?

There is very little the government needs to monopolize – therefore the marketplace would offer competition to keep quality reasonable. If you feel taken advantage of, you can seek redress in court for fraud.

These problems you come up with seem to indicate an opinion that government would be a wholly unaccountable totalitarian state. With this viewpoint, how do you explain governments not being this way already?

Schools would be private, competitive, and encouraged to be the best, since people could vote with their feet fairly easily. However, they would likely exclude the poor, and forcing people to pay for schools that they cannot afford would not sit well. Many poor folks would likely not enroll their children in school, thus exacerbating the poverty cycle.

There will be schools to serve every market segment. Even poor people afford the basic necessities of life. Since they don’t eat caviar and quail egg omelets for breakfast, but neither do they starve, obviously some companies sell a product to something other than the highest income market. Schools will be no different.

A combination of charities and scholarships could see to many students.

Worst case (though I am personally opposed to this sort of thing, but it is an option) you levy a small percentage tax on tuition payments to pay for ‘schools of last resort’ which provide the most basic education for the worst students.

Since only shareholders would be allowed to vote, voter turnout among those who are eligible would skyrocket, since people have a steady financial interest. However, a small minority would control the vote, as most people would not be able to afford to become shareholders, and their votes would be largely insignificant compared to large shareholders.

Hence my issue every citizen one share comment. I am mixed as to whether or not to permit the buying of multiple shares. Perhaps a limit of one voting share per person – further shares would no longer convey voting rights. Might also be a good way to control immigration – auction off a certain number of shares per year. Companies wanting to bring in skilled labor from abroad could buy one on behalf of their prospective employee. The most valuable people in the world would be more likely to be able to afford to buy a share while those who are unproductive would not.

The problem is that governments are not corperations (and corperations aren't governments). The two have wildy different goals and needs. Governments (at least in the democratic states) exist to serve the people. Corperations exist to make profit, the two goals don't always match well.

For example, let's take New Orleans right now. Hurricane Katrina comes though, wreaks the city. The government's ability to spend into debt (being that it prints the money) means it had FAR more resources to bring to bear than private enterprise did. The government is also duty bound to stick it out there instead of abandoning ship like many corperations would have.

If you accept the idea of a social contract, a corperation government really would not fulfill that contract.

The problem is: Who do they compete against? If they have no competitors, you're going to end up with a situation like that of the Soviet Union, with a massive and inefficient bureaucracy controlling the entire economy and decisionmaking limited to a small elite within the company.

That company simply becomes a public corporation, and it becomes no different than any government bureaucracy, with the added problem that reform or change would be next to impossible and inefficiency and corruption would run rampant. It would be nothing more than state capitalism, and that's a pretty bad situation if the history of the USSR has taught us anything.

The problem is that governments are not corperations (and corperations aren't governments). The two have wildy different goals and needs. Governments (at least in the democratic states) exist to serve the people. Corperations exist to make profit, the two goals don't always match well.

Corporations exist to serve their shareholders. Generally speaking, those shareholders demand a profit, though that is not always the case, nor is it always the most important motivation. There are even whole investment portfolios geared to environmental protectionism, sustainable development, or any number of causes which are weighted as being more important than deriving a profit (though incidentally most of these do turn a decent profit, just not always on the best possible return).

Even 501c3 charities are becoming more corporate minded. The best charities are starting to be run like actual for-profit businesses demanding efficiency and the best possible return on investments. They measure success in terms of whatever their cause rather than monetary gain, but otherwise they function like any other company. This model is highly efficient and quite effective. There is no reason why the government should not be held to the same standards of transparency and efficiency.

For example, let's take New Orleans right now. Hurricane Katrina comes though, wreaks the city. The government's ability to spend into debt (being that it prints the money) means it had FAR more resources to bring to bear than private enterprise did. The government is also duty bound to stick it out there instead of abandoning ship like many corperations would have.

First off, the whole idea that the government should be willing to destroy the national economy to bail out one failed city (which has been living on borrowed time for a while) is quite ludicrous.

Of course – I forgot that most people think it a good idea to take billions of dollars from the rest of the nation to rebuild a city below sea-level so that a few stubborn idiots can ‘rebuild’ their neighborhoods instead of relocating to somewhere livable without taking billions which could be better spent elsewhere.

I can’t wait until we get to do it all over again.

If you accept the idea of a social contract, a corperation government really would not fulfill that contract.

I do not see any reason why a corporation would be any less accountable to its shareholders than the current government is to its citizens. It is actually more accountable than the US government system.

Parliamentarians can at least call for a vote of no confidence if their leadership is making disastrous decisions. We are stuck with a president who has absolute 100% job security and continuing authority to run the nation into the ground and destroy the world – so long as he doesn’t commit any felonies while in office, we have no ability to fire him until the next election cycle. The checks-and-balances system can only do so much.

It's not a terrible idea, there's just the problem of essential services.

"Hm. The police on the lower west side aren't performing to expectations. Let's just close that department and cut our losses."

Corporations exist to serve their shareholders. Generally speaking, those shareholders demand a profit, though that is not always the case, nor is it always the most important motivation. There are even whole investment portfolios geared to environmental protectionism, sustainable development, or any number of causes which are weighted as being more important than deriving a profit (though incidentally most of these do turn a decent profit, just not always on the best possible return).
The problem is though you still HAVE to return that profit. It might not be the best of, but that's the buisness of buisness. Now there's nothing wrong with that, except that I can think of a number of times where the government has to react even though it is losing money through the nose. It also means that the government can run rather long term programs that buisness wouldn't dream of, again because of the need for profits.

Even 501c3 charities are becoming more corporate minded. The best charities are starting to be run like actual for-profit businesses demanding efficiency and the best possible return on investments. They measure success in terms of whatever their cause rather than monetary gain, but otherwise they function like any other company. This model is highly efficient and quite effective. There is no reason why the government should not be held to the same standards of transparency and efficiency.
Governments tend to be far more transparent than companies. I've never heard of a corperate Freedom of Information Act, have you? This isn't to say that governments cannot be managed more efficently, but my point that a government ain't a business stands.

First off, the whole idea that the government should be willing to destroy the national economy to bail out one failed city (which has been living on borrowed time for a while) is quite ludicrous.

Of course – I forgot that most people think it a good idea to take billions of dollars from the rest of the nation to rebuild a city below sea-level so that a few stubborn idiots can ‘rebuild’ their neighborhoods instead of relocating to somewhere livable without taking billions which could be better spent elsewhere.

I can’t wait until we get to do it all over again.
Probably because the Port of New Orleans is important for a number of reasons. It was just one case, but I can think of others, like needing to go to war, or a health disaster, or a forest fire (Those things cost a lot to fight after all), or any other natural disasters that strike all over the US. Shall we try to pull back to the few areas that don't have any issues and hope like hell?

I do not see any reason why a corporation would be any less accountable to its shareholders than the current government is to its citizens. It is actually more accountable than the US government system.

Parliamentarians can at least call for a vote of no confidence if their leadership is making disastrous decisions. We are stuck with a president who has absolute 100% job security and continuing authority to run the nation into the ground and destroy the world – so long as he doesn’t commit any felonies while in office, we have no ability to fire him until the next election cycle. The checks-and-balances system can only do so much.
True, but it also allows the government to be stable. Look at it this way, if everyone votes everytime they dislike the actions of the CEO, we'll be holding elections every month. The CEO will spend all of his or her time providing bread and circuses for the shareholders in the hopes to remain CEO. In other words, a perminate election year.

You simply issue every citizen one share. A board of directors is elected at the annual shareholders meeting; they choose the executives of the company and make certain important decisions. If the chosen executive proves to be incompetent, misrepresented himself to get the job (empty campaign promises), or is simply unsuitable he gets fired.
But the citizens have no recourse if the government isn't transparent, and corporations don't really have an incentive for transparency. If the government keeps some things secret, and there isn't a guarantee of basic rights, freedoms, and things the government MUST share with the citizens, they can do almost anything and not get noticed/held accountable.

It would be severely constrained from taking on more debt, and if it actually ran a profit, the excess could be returned in the form of a dividend to the shareholders. Were executive compensation become extreme, you simply change the members of the board. What stops current politicians from giving themselves obscene raises?
Again with the accountability issue.

There will be schools to serve every market segment. Even poor people afford the basic necessities of life. Since they don’t eat caviar and quail egg omelets for breakfast, but neither do they starve, obviously some companies sell a product to something other than the highest income market. Schools will be no different.
Actually, a lot of poor people can't afford the basic necessities of life. A lot of kids go to bed hungry in this country (US) even if both parents work. Without government assistance, a lot of people would be very bad off...some would probably die of malnutrition and lack of healthcare. (hell, we already lose 18,000 people a year due to uninsurance or underinsurance here in the States, according to some USA Today-reported study a couple years ago)

A combination of charities and scholarships could see to many students.

Worst case (though I am personally opposed to this sort of thing, but it is an option) you levy a small percentage tax on tuition payments to pay for ‘schools of last resort’ which provide the most basic education for the worst students.

And herein lies a very serious problem that applies not only to schools but also more generally to public services that don't generate money. Poor people get screwed very very hard. The schools of last resort would end up full of the poorest people in the country, and since the education there would be shitty, they would never get out of poverty. You end up with a permanent underclass, which, while perhaps pretty cost-effective, is an atrocious way to run a country and frankly a terrible thing to do to people.

But the citizens have no recourse if the government isn't transparent, and corporations don't really have an incentive for transparency. If the government keeps some things secret, and there isn't a guarantee of basic rights, freedoms, and things the government MUST share with the citizens, they can do almost anything and not get noticed/held accountable.

Again with the accountability issue.


Actually, a lot of poor people can't afford the basic necessities of life. A lot of kids go to bed hungry in this country (US) even if both parents work. Without government assistance, a lot of people would be very bad off...some would probably die of malnutrition and lack of healthcare. (hell, we already lose 18,000 people a year due to uninsurance or underinsurance here in the States, according to some USA Today-reported study a couple years ago)

And herein lies a very serious problem that applies not only to schools but also more generally to public services that don't generate money. Poor people get screwed very very hard. The schools of last resort would end up full of the poorest people in the country, and since the education there would be shitty, they would never get out of poverty. You end up with a permanent underclass, which, while perhaps pretty cost-effective, is an atrocious way to run a country and frankly a terrible thing to do to people.

Creating this kind of vicious cycle isn't even cost-effective. Poverty inevitably leads to crime, decaying infrastructure, urban blight, and a series of escalating burdens upon the government to remedy. The problems created by this neglect will tend to expand and draw others into them, ultimately resulting in the bottom literally dropping out of society, which is obviously not good for business.

The "corporate government" idea sucks. Utterly.

A corporation's goal should be: produce income for the shareholders.
A state's goal should be: produce welfare for the citizens.

Producing welfare (in the broader meaning of it, that is including safety, security, justice, health, education, transportation, environment, research etc) can be quite expensive. As a matter of fact, it can lead to the production of NO income. This is the big difference between business (corporation) and service (state).

The "corporate government" idea sucks. Utterly.

A corporation's goal should be: produce income for the shareholders.
A state's goal should be: produce welfare for the citizens.

Producing welfare (in the broader meaning of it, that is including safety, security, justice, health, education, transportation, environment, research etc) can be quite expensive. As a matter of fact, it can lead to the production of NO income. This is the big difference between business (corporation) and service (state).

Governments are, ideally, designed to create a system that does what it needs to for its people and does not make a profit. It takes what it needs from the citizens in the form of taxes and returns it in the form of public services. We all know it doesn't really work quite like that; bridges to nowhere and legislation that's so watered-down by compromise and politically-motivated change are an everyday occurance, but services are wht government is all about.

Anywho, providing justice can be financially rewarding. Fines come to mind, as long as there is a way to enforce them. If a government fines a person $500 for violating the law, how can they ensure that the person being fined can't simply say, "Up yours, fascist pigs; I ain't paying shit!" and walk off scot-free? I suppose they COULD garnish a person's wages. With that in mind, a corporate government would have to have similar means of collecting fines.

Transportation would be funded by the collection of fares and likely designed to make a profit, just as any other business would. Frankly, most services could be provided by a private company. However, the terms of those services may not be very friendly. No more low-interest government loans, for one thing. Also, what recourse would people have if they are unjustly fired from a job? Does a corporate government have any interest in protecting individual rights? No, not really. Lawsuits may become a thing of the past, as a matter of fact. That would make some people immensely happy.

Anywho, providing justice can be financially rewarding. Fines come to mind, as long as there is a way to enforce them. If a government fines a person $500 for violating the law, how can they ensure that the person being fined can't simply say, "Up yours, fascist pigs; I ain't paying shit!" and walk off scot-free? I suppose they COULD garnish a person's wages. With that in mind, a corporate government would have to have similar means of collecting fines.
.

That's going to lead to massive corruption and a huge number of ridiculous laws as the government and its officers try to extract as much money as possible through the justice system. It would lead to all kinds of bribery and corruption as wealthy people evade justice by simply paying a large fine to the government...there would be no incentive to meter justice, rather the incentive would be to make money off of it.

On the other hand, if the United States had been a corporate government, anyone with a brain would have seen Il Douche's track record of running 3 businesses given to him by Daddy into the ground and we would have had a different world back from 2000.

On the other hand, if the United States had been a corporate government, anyone with a brain would have seen Il Douche's track record of running 3 businesses given to him by Daddy into the ground and we would have had a different world back from 2000.

So...we wouldn't have a government?

It's not a terrible idea, there's just the problem of essential services.

"Hm. The police on the lower west side aren't performing to expectations. Let's just close that department and cut our losses."

The police? Plenty of neighborhoods manage just fine without them. I think maybe a Fire & Rescue department would be a better example of an essential service that would stand privatization very badly.