3 ms·

Should one person make life changing decisions for millions? Why do I even need to ask this?

cecja 7y ago
So whats the difference to our so called democracy espcially if you look at the US you have one insane leader which runs basically rampage without real responsiblity. That's not isolated to america look at poland, russia even at some degree italy. The whole system is showing cracks at the moment and to be honest as tim cook said a dictatorship with the right person looks better to me than the mess we are in right now.
cameronbrown 7y ago
Very few companies have millions of employees. Plenty of nations do.
AmericanChopper 7y ago
The answer to that question is obviously yes, but I don’t think that’s why you thought the question didn’t need to be asked. For starters there are both elected and non-elected offices in government where one person will be given the power to make life changing decisions for millions. This is a perfectly ordinary feature of organised society. Regarding companies, if you don’t want people who own companies (or their agents) to be able to decide how the companies are run, then you need to prohibit either private property, or employment all together. An employment agreement is simply one party offering labour, and another offering payment for it, and a company is simply people pooling their resources together to achieve more than they could alone (companies server other purposes to, but this is the relevant purpose for this discussion). An employer is always going to be able to make decisions that are life changing for their employees, by deciding they no longer require their labor for instance, by ceasing operations, or relocating, or withdrawing a product/service from the market. If you don’t want employers to have the ability to make decisions that impact the lives of their employees, then you either need to abolish private property (the ability to offer payment for labor now becomes impossible), or outlaw employment agreements. Whether an employer has one employee or one million is really besides the point.

So whats the difference to our so called democracy espcially if you look at the US you have one insane leader which runs basically rampage without real responsiblity. That's not isolated to america look at poland, russia even at some degree italy. The whole system is showing cracks at the moment and to be honest as tim cook said a dictatorship with the right person looks better to me than the mess we are in right now.

cameronbrown 7y ago

Very few companies have millions of employees. Plenty of nations do.

AmericanChopper 7y ago

The answer to that question is obviously yes, but I don’t think that’s why you thought the question didn’t need to be asked. For starters there are both elected and non-elected offices in government where one person will be given the power to make life changing decisions for millions. This is a perfectly ordinary feature of organised society. Regarding companies, if you don’t want people who own companies (or their agents) to be able to decide how the companies are run, then you need to prohibit either private property, or employment all together. An employment agreement is simply one party offering labour, and another offering payment for it, and a company is simply people pooling their resources together to achieve more than they could alone (companies server other purposes to, but this is the relevant purpose for this discussion). An employer is always going to be able to make decisions that are life changing for their employees, by deciding they no longer require their labor for instance, by ceasing operations, or relocating, or withdrawing a product/service from the market. If you don’t want employers to have the ability to make decisions that impact the lives of their employees, then you either need to abolish private property (the ability to offer payment for labor now becomes impossible), or outlaw employment agreements. Whether an employer has one employee or one million is really besides the point.