4 ms·

If no one governs your rights/freedoms, you don't have any. There is no difference between an unchecked corporation and a corrupt state. The answer doesn't lie

by croon 9y ago

If no one governs your rights/freedoms, you don't have any. There is no difference between an unchecked corporation and a corrupt state. The answer doesn't lie at either end, but in a balance.

golergka 9y ago
There is a difference between a state and a corporation: one of those is a monopoly by definition.
- croon 9y ago
  > There is a difference between a state and a corporation: one of those is a monopoly by definition. There is another difference: one of those grants voting (and other) rights to all its members.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    One of those may grant voting and/or other rights to some or all of its members.
    - croon 9y ago
      > One of those may grant voting and/or other rights to some or all of its members. That's an implementation issue. In its purest form a government is set up by the people, to serve the people. In its purest form, a corporation is set up by one or some people, to make money, usually paying people to be a part of it, and there ends the loyalty. A government needs to be perverted to stop serving (all) its people. A corporation needs to be perverted to start serving its members, as the goal is simply profits and survival until further profits. This isn't a moral distinction, it's the function of those concepts. Without any restraints, one beast will always end up the strongest, and rule all other beasts. The only other possibility is for smaller creatures to cooperate to overcome it/keep it in check. This is what a society is.
IanDrake 9y ago
That doesn’t make sense, unless you meant... If one governs your rights, you don’t have any. Freedom isn’t government granting you rights, it’s government protecting you from coercion. If government is the source of your rights, then government can take those rights away. If government is the source of protection for your rights, they can only take that protection away. Leaving you your rights and now full burden of protecting them. Corporations don’t have any power without government, which is why a limited government limits corporate power.
- optimuspaul 9y ago
  > Corporations don’t have any power without government, which is why a limited government limits corporate power. That's a fairly naive view. Corporations have lots of power, potentially unlimited power, without government. A limited government has a limited ability to protect the people and limit corporate power. We need a strong democratic government, because in the end people are what matters.
  - IanDrake 9y ago
    No they don’t. Seriously, you watch too many movies. Corporations have no power over you. You can voluntarily do business with them, but they don’t have the power of coercion. Please name one instance where a corporation had the power to forcibly coerce someone without the government’s backing. To be clear, don’t cite voluntarily-entered contractual obligations.
    - optimuspaul 9y ago
      You missed the part about no government apparently. If there is no external force to prevent corporations, any person or organization for that matter, from forcibly coercing people. to be clear... my comment was only when there isn't a government involved at all, which was the context of the conversation. Thanks!
- croon 9y ago
  > Corporations don’t have any power without government, which is why a limited government limits corporate power. They have as much power as they have resources to enforce, which is a lot more than you have, meaning they have a lot more - and in practice all - power. > If government is the source of protection for your rights, they can only take that protection away. Leaving you your rights and now full burden of protecting them. A governing body is a collective agreement over what rights and freedoms its members deem fit. If you have none, as you said, you have the full burden of protecting them. Someone else (in the case of n-1 of all people) will always have more resources to protect (or impose on others) their freedoms/rights. You either end up losing your rights/freedoms, or you establish a coalition with other nearby people, but you won't call it a government, because for some reason that word is bad.
Helmet 9y ago
The opposite actually. Start with John Locke and work your way up to Nozick. Individual have rights and: "So strong and far-reaching are these rights that they raise the question of what, if anything, the state and its officials may do."
- jbooth 9y ago
  How's that work in practice? "Am I being detained?!" "You can't mug me, I have a right not to be mugged!" It's not a law of nature. The laws of nature are things like "the strongest take what they want" and "cannibalism not only feeds you, it removes competitors from the food chain!". Inalienable rights must be enforced in order to exist.

by croon 9y ago

If no one governs your rights/freedoms, you don't have any. There is no difference between an unchecked corporation and a corrupt state. The answer doesn't lie at either end, but in a balance.

golergka 9y ago

There is a difference between a state and a corporation: one of those is a monopoly by definition.

croon 9y ago
> There is a difference between a state and a corporation: one of those is a monopoly by definition. There is another difference: one of those grants voting (and other) rights to all its members.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  One of those may grant voting and/or other rights to some or all of its members.
  - croon 9y ago
    > One of those may grant voting and/or other rights to some or all of its members. That's an implementation issue. In its purest form a government is set up by the people, to serve the people. In its purest form, a corporation is set up by one or some people, to make money, usually paying people to be a part of it, and there ends the loyalty. A government needs to be perverted to stop serving (all) its people. A corporation needs to be perverted to start serving its members, as the goal is simply profits and survival until further profits. This isn't a moral distinction, it's the function of those concepts. Without any restraints, one beast will always end up the strongest, and rule all other beasts. The only other possibility is for smaller creatures to cooperate to overcome it/keep it in check. This is what a society is.

IanDrake 9y ago

That doesn’t make sense, unless you meant... If one governs your rights, you don’t have any. Freedom isn’t government granting you rights, it’s government protecting you from coercion. If government is the source of your rights, then government can take those rights away. If government is the source of protection for your rights, they can only take that protection away. Leaving you your rights and now full burden of protecting them. Corporations don’t have any power without government, which is why a limited government limits corporate power.

optimuspaul 9y ago
> Corporations don’t have any power without government, which is why a limited government limits corporate power. That's a fairly naive view. Corporations have lots of power, potentially unlimited power, without government. A limited government has a limited ability to protect the people and limit corporate power. We need a strong democratic government, because in the end people are what matters.
- IanDrake 9y ago
  No they don’t. Seriously, you watch too many movies. Corporations have no power over you. You can voluntarily do business with them, but they don’t have the power of coercion. Please name one instance where a corporation had the power to forcibly coerce someone without the government’s backing. To be clear, don’t cite voluntarily-entered contractual obligations.
  - optimuspaul 9y ago
    You missed the part about no government apparently. If there is no external force to prevent corporations, any person or organization for that matter, from forcibly coercing people. to be clear... my comment was only when there isn't a government involved at all, which was the context of the conversation. Thanks!
croon 9y ago
> Corporations don’t have any power without government, which is why a limited government limits corporate power. They have as much power as they have resources to enforce, which is a lot more than you have, meaning they have a lot more - and in practice all - power. > If government is the source of protection for your rights, they can only take that protection away. Leaving you your rights and now full burden of protecting them. A governing body is a collective agreement over what rights and freedoms its members deem fit. If you have none, as you said, you have the full burden of protecting them. Someone else (in the case of n-1 of all people) will always have more resources to protect (or impose on others) their freedoms/rights. You either end up losing your rights/freedoms, or you establish a coalition with other nearby people, but you won't call it a government, because for some reason that word is bad.

Helmet 9y ago

The opposite actually. Start with John Locke and work your way up to Nozick. Individual have rights and: "So strong and far-reaching are these rights that they raise the question of what, if anything, the state and its officials may do."

jbooth 9y ago
How's that work in practice? "Am I being detained?!" "You can't mug me, I have a right not to be mugged!" It's not a law of nature. The laws of nature are things like "the strongest take what they want" and "cannibalism not only feeds you, it removes competitors from the food chain!". Inalienable rights must be enforced in order to exist.