3 ms·
>Try telling people who have only Comcast to not get off the Internet, or people with only one nearby grocery store to boycott it. Regardless of the personal c
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>Try telling people who have only Comcast to not get off the Internet, or people with only one nearby grocery store to boycott it.
Regardless of the personal cost to not doing business with them, they won't send an armed force after you that will kidnap you. But with the government, if you want to grow a plant on your own property that they don't agree with, they will. That makes a massive difference.
- toss1 8y agoFair point. But, with copyright and other corporate pet issues, is it the Govt that really cares about sending the armed people to arrest and charge you, or the corporations that effectively own the govt? The further that excess corporate power is allowed to spread, the more tyrannical it will become.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y agoWhen the government begins acting on behalf of the corporations, or they give the power of violence to the corporation (such as happens in private prisons), it does become a major problem. In those cases the corporations should be considered an extension of the government and treat as such.
- toss1 8y agoYes, and at this point, it seems that the more useful model is to look at the govt as an extension of the corporations. My generalization is that for a society to function, while some concentrations of power are necessary (at a minimum to allow specialization, e.g., infrastructure, policing, military, legislation, executive functions, etc.), the key is to minimize and actively avoid concentrations of power. The largest and most dangerous concentration of power in modern times is the corporations, as we are seeing with Cicizen's United, decision, regulatory capture (FCC, Copyright law extensions, current dismantling of EPA, other regulatory agencies, etc.).