5 ms·

It's interesting too that democracy is lauded in the west but companies are never run that way.

mcny 8y ago
Democracy isn't democratic either. Why else would concepts like seniority exist in the US Senate? Or sub committees... How is the US Senate in line with the concept of one person one vote? If we want our vote to count more, we should move to Wyoming (which gets two senators the same as California)? If we have each employee one share each, I'm sure many would simply turn around and see if they can sell it. How can we retain one person one vote in a company? Make shares non transferable? Do we allow proxy voting?
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  I'd do it just the opposite - folks don't all want to be involved, but want somebody who they respect to do it for them. Freely allow proxies to be assigned, to anybody, not just to 'elected officials'. Those with proxies could reassign the whole wad to another person, and so on.
  - mcny 8y ago
    Is it ok to be reimbursed for giving someone proxy?
    - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
      In a free society, yes.
  - dllthomas 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_democracy
- sanderjd 8y ago
  That's because the US government is not organized as a democracy, but rather as a republic. The Senate is not intended to be democratic, it is intended to be a deliberative body of representatives who come to consensus on legislative questions. It's quite a large deliberative body, so its method of consensus is superficially akin to democracy in that many questions are answered through voting, but it isn't, and was never intended, to be democratic in the pure sense. Along the same lines, it is only recently that we began democratically electing Senators. None of this is by accident, and was done this way for similar reasons as companies have for running themselves un-democratically.
  - mcny 8y ago
    > That's because the US government is not organized as a democracy, but rather as a republic. The Senate is not intended to be democratic, it is intended to be a deliberative body of representatives who come to consensus on legislative questions. It's quite a large deliberative body, so its method of consensus is superficially akin to democracy in that many questions are answered through voting, but it isn't, and was never intended, to be democratic in the pure sense. Along the same lines, it is only recently that we began democratically electing Senators. How often is there a consensus in the Senate? It seems like almost everything happens along party lines. Who are senators supposed to represent? I've heard this "a republic, not a democracy" so many times. Don't get me wrong. I am very grateful for a nation of laws. However, it doesn't seem that being a republic, not a democracy is what is protecting the rights of the minority or the rule of the law. It just feels like the purpose was to prevent wild swings but I'm afraid what is supposed to protect us from abrupt, wild swings will make it near impossible to correct a slow swing.
    - slededit 8y ago
      Party line votes were historically more rare (under 50%). That has changed dramatically over the last few years and is a belleweather of the deep divisions in the country. There were always divisive issues but there are also a lot of boring and mundane work. 90% party line votes are evidence the parties feel it's not politically safe to be seen agreeing with others on any issue regardless of how mundane. That isn't something you'll fix short of changing the electorate or getting rid of elections.
alexandros 8y ago
Try to start a democratic company (or run a thought experiment about doing so) and you will probably find the reasons why democracy works better as a way to manage a society than a single company.
- dsego 8y ago
  It's not like it's unheard of, but it doesn't fill the pockets of the selected elite. There are worker cooperatives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative Workers' self management: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management And serious economists who advocate for such a system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branko_Horvat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branko_Horvat
- ryandvm 8y ago
  We did. And though I am not sure it would work for every line of work, so far it has been extremely successful for us. https://www.fountstudio.com/blog/yes-we-have-a-pirate-code-1aa1b2e02bf6 https://www.fountstudio.com/blog/yes-we-have-a-pirate-code-1...
- sievebrain 8y ago
  It does happen. Both the largest supermarket chains in Switzerland are cooperatives. However, small competing firms in a market where people vote with their wallets is already pretty democratic. The voting takes place at a different level - people choose companies rather than leaders or direct policies, but it works well enough.
obastani 8y ago
But... aren't they? It's one share one vote, not one employee one vote, but I think that still qualifies as democratic. Then, there are elected board members (the representatives) who hire the CEO (the prime minister?), etc.
- hobofan 8y ago
  That wouldn't fit most definitions of democracy (which would be variations of "every person gets a single equal vote"). Most companies are more of an oligarchy.
  - mrep 8y ago
    Neither is the US. The US is a democratic republic: we vote in congress, the senate, and the president who then make decisions for us on our behalf. Public companies are similar: shareholders vote in board members, who then elect a CEO for the company on our behalf.
- M2Ys4U 8y ago
  That is assuming that there's only one share class. Companies often have different classes of membership/shareholder which have different voting powers (or none).
mrfusion 8y ago
Also capitalism ends once you’re in a company. It becomes a miniature command economy with all the same inefficiencies.
georgeecollins 8y ago
Companies in the west are democratic, but the voting rights are held by the owners of the company. If you are a citizen, it is your country and you get a vote. If you are an employee, it is not your company.
- scarface74 8y ago
  Not necessarily true. Many companies including Google have different classes of shares where they have more voting rights than thier share of ownership.
  - sievebrain 8y ago
    That's not many companies actually but rather a tiny minority of firms that are exploiting their ability to make unusually huge profits to get investors despite poor and risky terms.
  - georgeecollins 8y ago
    Not many public companies are structured like this, and for a while it was a requirement of some exchanges that one share be one vote. I know that people on Hacker News (high concentration of founders) like the idea of a public listing without one share one vote, but I think it is better for companies in the long run to have their board seats elected by the shareholders. It may seem good now to have Mark Zuckerberg to have total control of FB, but will it seem like a good idea for his children to have more control than the actual owners? This is the kind of trouble companies like Viacom have gotten into by giving their founders too much control.
scarejunba 8y ago
If you're curious to hear postulated explanations then a good search keyphrase is "The theory of the Firm"

mcny 8y ago

Democracy isn't democratic either. Why else would concepts like seniority exist in the US Senate? Or sub committees... How is the US Senate in line with the concept of one person one vote? If we want our vote to count more, we should move to Wyoming (which gets two senators the same as California)? If we have each employee one share each, I'm sure many would simply turn around and see if they can sell it. How can we retain one person one vote in a company? Make shares non transferable? Do we allow proxy voting?

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
I'd do it just the opposite - folks don't all want to be involved, but want somebody who they respect to do it for them. Freely allow proxies to be assigned, to anybody, not just to 'elected officials'. Those with proxies could reassign the whole wad to another person, and so on.
- mcny 8y ago
  Is it ok to be reimbursed for giving someone proxy?
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    In a free society, yes.
- dllthomas 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_democracy
sanderjd 8y ago
That's because the US government is not organized as a democracy, but rather as a republic. The Senate is not intended to be democratic, it is intended to be a deliberative body of representatives who come to consensus on legislative questions. It's quite a large deliberative body, so its method of consensus is superficially akin to democracy in that many questions are answered through voting, but it isn't, and was never intended, to be democratic in the pure sense. Along the same lines, it is only recently that we began democratically electing Senators. None of this is by accident, and was done this way for similar reasons as companies have for running themselves un-democratically.
- mcny 8y ago
  > That's because the US government is not organized as a democracy, but rather as a republic. The Senate is not intended to be democratic, it is intended to be a deliberative body of representatives who come to consensus on legislative questions. It's quite a large deliberative body, so its method of consensus is superficially akin to democracy in that many questions are answered through voting, but it isn't, and was never intended, to be democratic in the pure sense. Along the same lines, it is only recently that we began democratically electing Senators. How often is there a consensus in the Senate? It seems like almost everything happens along party lines. Who are senators supposed to represent? I've heard this "a republic, not a democracy" so many times. Don't get me wrong. I am very grateful for a nation of laws. However, it doesn't seem that being a republic, not a democracy is what is protecting the rights of the minority or the rule of the law. It just feels like the purpose was to prevent wild swings but I'm afraid what is supposed to protect us from abrupt, wild swings will make it near impossible to correct a slow swing.
  - slededit 8y ago
    Party line votes were historically more rare (under 50%). That has changed dramatically over the last few years and is a belleweather of the deep divisions in the country. There were always divisive issues but there are also a lot of boring and mundane work. 90% party line votes are evidence the parties feel it's not politically safe to be seen agreeing with others on any issue regardless of how mundane. That isn't something you'll fix short of changing the electorate or getting rid of elections.

alexandros 8y ago

Try to start a democratic company (or run a thought experiment about doing so) and you will probably find the reasons why democracy works better as a way to manage a society than a single company.

dsego 8y ago
It's not like it's unheard of, but it doesn't fill the pockets of the selected elite. There are worker cooperatives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative Workers' self management: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management And serious economists who advocate for such a system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branko_Horvat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branko_Horvat
ryandvm 8y ago
We did. And though I am not sure it would work for every line of work, so far it has been extremely successful for us. https://www.fountstudio.com/blog/yes-we-have-a-pirate-code-1aa1b2e02bf6 https://www.fountstudio.com/blog/yes-we-have-a-pirate-code-1...
sievebrain 8y ago
It does happen. Both the largest supermarket chains in Switzerland are cooperatives. However, small competing firms in a market where people vote with their wallets is already pretty democratic. The voting takes place at a different level - people choose companies rather than leaders or direct policies, but it works well enough.

obastani 8y ago

But... aren't they? It's one share one vote, not one employee one vote, but I think that still qualifies as democratic. Then, there are elected board members (the representatives) who hire the CEO (the prime minister?), etc.

hobofan 8y ago
That wouldn't fit most definitions of democracy (which would be variations of "every person gets a single equal vote"). Most companies are more of an oligarchy.
- mrep 8y ago
  Neither is the US. The US is a democratic republic: we vote in congress, the senate, and the president who then make decisions for us on our behalf. Public companies are similar: shareholders vote in board members, who then elect a CEO for the company on our behalf.
M2Ys4U 8y ago
That is assuming that there's only one share class. Companies often have different classes of membership/shareholder which have different voting powers (or none).

mrfusion 8y ago

Also capitalism ends once you’re in a company. It becomes a miniature command economy with all the same inefficiencies.

georgeecollins 8y ago

Companies in the west are democratic, but the voting rights are held by the owners of the company. If you are a citizen, it is your country and you get a vote. If you are an employee, it is not your company.

scarface74 8y ago
Not necessarily true. Many companies including Google have different classes of shares where they have more voting rights than thier share of ownership.
- sievebrain 8y ago
  That's not many companies actually but rather a tiny minority of firms that are exploiting their ability to make unusually huge profits to get investors despite poor and risky terms.
- georgeecollins 8y ago
  Not many public companies are structured like this, and for a while it was a requirement of some exchanges that one share be one vote. I know that people on Hacker News (high concentration of founders) like the idea of a public listing without one share one vote, but I think it is better for companies in the long run to have their board seats elected by the shareholders. It may seem good now to have Mark Zuckerberg to have total control of FB, but will it seem like a good idea for his children to have more control than the actual owners? This is the kind of trouble companies like Viacom have gotten into by giving their founders too much control.

scarejunba 8y ago

If you're curious to hear postulated explanations then a good search keyphrase is "The theory of the Firm"