NationStates Jolt Archive

or in other words very contraversal, I beleive,
seeing that manny countrys target to be as democratic as possible meaning that the people as a hole decide on the law's, or pretend to.
what is the worth of voting for your governor if you can't vote for your boss.
I mean companys controle the majority of recources in most country's which is quite fair, in most peoples eyes except that these are not democratic institutions, meaning that in essence the majority of the power is in a medium number of comercial entitys,that have far more power economically then the state, and can sell without concent of the employess.
making the capitalist system actually undemocractic, bassed on this argument, should it be manditory for big companys to hold elections?
[of course going by the philoisoiphy, capital[in terms of commondities and barter[money,economical trading good's] ],

How have you not been run over by an ice cream truck yet?

Because private enterprise is a business that you can leave if you don't like.

No business comes close to rivaling the power of the state. There are always sound reasons for the appointment of people rather than an election. When it comes to the state, we don't consider these reasons to be strong enough; but when it comes to business, there is no reason why they shouldn't be.

to clarify, which i didn't want to do,
I mean people who are ellegible and qualified,
ellegeible people means for example people who took out stock options, pout part of their income into the company, or worked for a certain ammount of time at the company.
and qualifications means to have the diplomas and the CV's and the permanent record to prove one is able and compitent for the job.
only people who fufill certain requirements, in education should have certain ranks withint government the minsiter of health should be a qualified doctor with years of experience, over a broad area.
the minister of defence, should probably havbe both a civilian and a military life in the country be proven to be reliable and be decent in the humanities with evidence their of.
the minister of education should be someone who has had experience and knows the education system inside out, and is good at reading papper work and setting a good example.
the same shou8ld apply for companys, by this idea as they controle resources they have power over those who depend on them.

a senario,

If the people in alaska own all the oil rigs, that can go to the united states and canada,
which are actually run by the alaskan oil company,
now depending on who owns the alaskan oil company, the state or government the local council,
a private individual not from a alsaka or a group of alskan natives the people in charge of the oil price in canda and the
united states would actually be, the people owning the elaskan oil company.

of course one can say it's a big if, but you don't have to force a senario away from yourself if everyone else would jump of a clif does that mean you jump of a clif? the statement but everyone else wouldn't jump of a clif is non-sensicle, because it was never intended to ask if everyone else would jump of a clif and you do not know everyone else, the question was more precicely states if everyone else you say jumped of a clif jumped of a clif would you jump of the clif and die or would you just live life without all the people you fifteen seconds ago learned can be complete idiot's.
the question here is, if the people running your pipe line if you happened to be in the states turned of your gas suply in mid winter and you don't have good insulation, and it's a cold winter, would you be forced to pay what ever price they charge and obide by what ever policy they make if you don't have an alternative?

If the people in alaska own all the oil rigs, that can go to the united states and canada,
which are actually run by the alaskan oil company,
now depending on who owns the alaskan oil company, the state or government the local council,
a private individual not from a alsaka or a group of alskan natives the people in charge of the oil price in canda and the
united states would actually be, the people owning the elaskan oil company.

of course one can say it's a big if, but you don't have to force a senario away from yourself if everyone else would jump of a clif does that mean you jump of a clif? the statement but everyone else wouldn't jump of a clif is non-sensicle, because it was never intended to ask if everyone else would jump of a clif and you do not know everyone else, the question was more precicely states if everyone else you say jumped of a clif jumped of a clif would you jump of the clif and die or would you just live life without all the people you fifteen seconds ago learned can be complete idiot's.
the question here is, if the people running your pipe line if you happened to be in the states turned of your gas suply in mid winter and you don't have good insulation, and it's a cold winter, would you be forced to pay what ever price they charge and obide by what ever policy they make if you don't have an alternative?

I am not someone who could be reasonably be referred to as a grammar nazi, yet I feel I have suffered from reading that. Please, for the sake of all literate people, proofread your posts. Write them in a word processor then do a cut and paste. Perhaps you should use Firefox as your browser so you can have a built-in spelling check (though that still will not help you with your grammar).


What I believe you are trying to get at can be easily addressed by pointing out that it is not a one off situation. Since transactions are not done in isolation, such bald extortion will result in the offending company losing all business. Customers will not contract with a company that behaves in such a manner - at best it will be able to collect some money after delivery on one off transactions as no one will trust non-immediate transaction agreements. Additionally, in any part of the world with a functioning legal system, that company would be sued for breach of contract and have to pay whatever additional profits were gained (and likely a stiff penalty as well) to the customers harmed.

a senario,

If the people in alaska own all the oil rigs, that can go to the united states and canada,
which are actually run by the alaskan oil company,
now depending on who owns the alaskan oil company, the state or government the local council,
a private individual not from a alsaka or a group of alskan natives the people in charge of the oil price in canda and the
united states would actually be, the people owning the elaskan oil company.

What else do you think about Alaska?

What else do you think about Alaska?

Wat elsse is theyre two no?

How have you not been run over by an ice cream truck yet?

lol, I approve of this post.

Wat elsse is theyre two no?:D
Hot governor, cold state ... uhm, oil $ ... igloos ... Soviet sleeper cells ... well, not much else, really.

No business comes close to rivaling the power of the state.

even if true (and it isn't granted that it is, given the right business and the right state), so what?

There are always sound reasons for the appointment of people rather than an election.

always?

always?

Yes, there are also always sound reasons for holding election rahter than appointments.

The difference is that they both serve different purposes, and have different advantages depending on the given situation.

The political 'democracy' the bourgeois allows is nominal at best, they will never allow any substantive democratic features into the state, let alone into the workplace.