6 ms·

Alternate take: More concerning is the power of government. "They distort our market but also our speech and politics and all that."

idle_zealot 2y ago
Powerful entities influence the world. The difference is that the government (in the EU) is ostensibly democratic and private companies are unaccountable optimization engines.
- VirusNewbie 2y ago
  No, the difference is companies have competition, and are not allowed to use violence to exert their will.
  - hungie 2y ago
    Ha. Companies collude to eliminate competition all the time. Or use tactics that make competition impossible. And don't use violence? Give me a break. Even small scale companies like Wizards of the Coast sent the fucking Pinkertons after someone for possessing a magic card. You think Amazon is out here existing violence free? You think Nestle's suppliers are making chocolate without any violence. Take off the rose colored glasses.
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      Violence is also too high a bar. A lot of bad things aren’t violent but still damaging. It is more about the use of power.
  - nicce 2y ago
    The high competition is usually also the root of the evil, since they need to do things that other would not to get an advantage. Like using child labor somewhere. Create a solution for non-existent problem but then lobby some laws which will create this problem. There is no moral in public companies.
  - renjimen 2y ago
    Ever heard of the East India Company? Or a modern day example: https://ccrjustice.org/bowoto-v-chevron-murder-and-torture-nigerians-protesting-oil-company https://ccrjustice.org/bowoto-v-chevron-murder-and-torture-n...
    - VirusNewbie 2y ago
      uhhh, in your example, a subsidiary of chevron paid the government to attack protestors. I'm sure there are small examples of companies actually conducting violence, but you should feel bad about yourself in that you couldn't even muster the effort to find something that disproved my point.
      - hnbad 2y ago
        If you're suggesting the government should not be able to exert violence because corporations aren't, I'm listening but I suspect you haven't thought this through.
  - Rinzler89 2y ago
    >No, the difference is companies have competition How did that competition between private companies work out for US hath system? Are Americans getting better bang for the buck? Are they getting faster internet at home due to competition between ISPs? Are Americans getting more paid vacation days due to the private market competition between employers? Why didn't competition between auto makers result in more efficient and less polluting engines until the EPA and EU forced them in the 80's? Did competition between food manufactures got them to eliminate lead and arsenic from food or was it government regulation that did it? Competition existing doesn't automagically prevent or fix monopolies, duopolies, price fixing and other anti-competitive behavior from private entities who have the power to shape the market in their favor. Do you know why all those things are illegal even in the US? Because they work. If it wouldn't work it wouldn't have been made illegal. Private entities can much more easily collide to screw over consumers than consumers can collectively unite to do anything about it themselves. That's why governments and regulations exist.
  - rurp 2y ago
    Elected politicians compete intensely with each other. Polling, focus groups, and pandering are common in democratic countries because people running for office want to do things that make voters like them. The system is far from perfect but you seem to be arguing that the government is free to use violence however it wants without consequence which is not at all realistic.
  - ProxCoques 2y ago
    Reminder: the term "free markets" originally referred to markets free of the distorting effects of monopoly. To ensure markets remain free, fair and available to all, legislators need to intervene. Otherwise they go to sh*t. As aside, it's a common misconception that the EU acts to protect EU companies from outside competition. They don't. It's a side-effect of their mission to keep the EU a free market.
  - salawat 2y ago
    >and are not allowed to use violence to exert their will. Define violence. You may look at this and think "What are you, stupid?" But stick with me for a bit. Let's grab a few examples of free market atrocities. Asbestos; thalidomide; hexavalent chromium; fossil fuels (and hiding research since the 60's about climate change); the sugar industry (also famous for it's scientific gaslighting); Purdue pharmaceuticals, Oxycontin, and it's coincidental treatment for opiate addiction which was in the pipeline... Now lets grab a few definitions of violence and see if we can bucket some of these into them without too much trouble. https://www.wordnik.com/words/violence https://www.wordnik.com/words/violence Definitions numbered top of page to bottom. Are there any acts that fit the word violence that companies regularly do? Take a look at # 7, quoted here: 7) Injury done to anything which is entitled to respect, reverence, or observance; profanation; infringement; violation. Companies do that all the effing time. In point of fact, it's practically their reason to exist at all. The corporation was initially formulated as a risk-impact distribution tool. That there is risk associated with it, implies an understanding that the vehicle can do harm. And before you go saying "but that's not the legal definition..." I'm going to head that off with a single word, "Yet", and further seal off the wiggle room by referring you to the practical outcomes of all these allegedly non-violent exercises of corporate power; the scarring for life if not termination of of life by the thousands to million. You don't get kill counts that high through acts of human artifice, and still get to hide behind the bulwark of "but it wasn't violence" a kill via indirection is still a kill. a life ends or is irrepairably harmed. While their is a practical lenience extended based on the matter of human imperfections and inability to know everything, be everywhere at once; with technology, nowadays the old platitudes tend to ring a bit hollow. Where executives can literally sit on event streams created by their corporate systems; where reports that unequivocally say "bad shit'll happen", and it gets buried instead of escalated for the consideration of all; and to what end? To what benefit are these atrocities committed at the expense of the common good? The self enrichment of the few, and consolidation of wealth and power. That my friend, is inarguably violence. That doesn't even require the 4th sense of violence either. noun. Distortion of meaning or intent.
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  Not everything is democratic about the EU, since the top representatives are not elected by the people. Just like the United Nations is not a democratic organization. The EU president is not elected by popular vote, for example. She is appointed by the parliament, similar to how kings in the past were appointed by a council of lords. Edit: Corrected my error.
  - awiesenhofer 2y ago
    > She is appointed by the parliament, similar to how kings in the past were appointed by a council of lords. Do you ... not know what a parliament is?
    - carlosjobim 2y ago
      Yes. But there is a difference between a president being elected by popular vote and a president being elected by a parliament. One of them is democratically elected. The other is not. EU citizens are not allowed to vote for the EU president. And a parliament is not necessarily a democratically elected body, historically they weren't. The EU parliament is though.
      - ProxCoques 2y ago
        I think this may be a misunderstanding of the word "president". The role you're talking about is more like that of the Speaker of the House in the US or the UK. Both are elected by members of the chamber, not a popular vote. https://the-president.europarl.europa.eu/en/the-presidency/functions https://the-president.europarl.europa.eu/en/the-presidency/f... There is no "President" of the EU in the US sense of the word. BTW parliaments were not democratically elected historically, that's true (eg women didn't get the vote until recently) but not relevant today.
        carlosjobim 2y ago
        No, I'm not referring to the speaker of the EU parliament, I am referring to the president of the European Commission, which is right now Ursula von der Leyen. She was appointed by the EU parliament and not democratically elected. The EU leaders makes things as confusing as they are able to, in order to be able to do what they please without the population understanding much, but she (von der Leyen) is very much promoted as being a "real president", acts like a "real president" in foreign affairs. It is only when pointed out that they are not democratically elected that people start making excuses that the EU president is not a "real president". Which way is it? I think the rulers of Europe want to have it both ways, so that they can smoothly direct their subjects as they please.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
I guess I agree with both being a problem. Maybe the way I would put it is that once a company becomes large enough it is a lot like a government. For example, if a a few tech companies ban your speech, you effectively don’t have a useful freedom of expression. Being able to yell on a street corner is not a good substitute if you are censored online.
- jsbg 2y ago
  A government is by definition a monopoly. No company can become large enough to be like a government unless it has government backing. E.g. Walmart was feared to be becoming a monopoly by running smaller shops out of business and yet Amazon was still able to compete. Eventually someone else will outcompete both, as long as the government doesn't step in to protect them.

idle_zealot 2y ago

Powerful entities influence the world. The difference is that the government (in the EU) is ostensibly democratic and private companies are unaccountable optimization engines.

VirusNewbie 2y ago
No, the difference is companies have competition, and are not allowed to use violence to exert their will.
- hungie 2y ago
  Ha. Companies collude to eliminate competition all the time. Or use tactics that make competition impossible. And don't use violence? Give me a break. Even small scale companies like Wizards of the Coast sent the fucking Pinkertons after someone for possessing a magic card. You think Amazon is out here existing violence free? You think Nestle's suppliers are making chocolate without any violence. Take off the rose colored glasses.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    Violence is also too high a bar. A lot of bad things aren’t violent but still damaging. It is more about the use of power.
- nicce 2y ago
  The high competition is usually also the root of the evil, since they need to do things that other would not to get an advantage. Like using child labor somewhere. Create a solution for non-existent problem but then lobby some laws which will create this problem. There is no moral in public companies.
- renjimen 2y ago
  Ever heard of the East India Company? Or a modern day example: https://ccrjustice.org/bowoto-v-chevron-murder-and-torture-nigerians-protesting-oil-company https://ccrjustice.org/bowoto-v-chevron-murder-and-torture-n...
  - VirusNewbie 2y ago
    uhhh, in your example, a subsidiary of chevron paid the government to attack protestors. I'm sure there are small examples of companies actually conducting violence, but you should feel bad about yourself in that you couldn't even muster the effort to find something that disproved my point.
    - hnbad 2y ago
      If you're suggesting the government should not be able to exert violence because corporations aren't, I'm listening but I suspect you haven't thought this through.
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  >No, the difference is companies have competition How did that competition between private companies work out for US hath system? Are Americans getting better bang for the buck? Are they getting faster internet at home due to competition between ISPs? Are Americans getting more paid vacation days due to the private market competition between employers? Why didn't competition between auto makers result in more efficient and less polluting engines until the EPA and EU forced them in the 80's? Did competition between food manufactures got them to eliminate lead and arsenic from food or was it government regulation that did it? Competition existing doesn't automagically prevent or fix monopolies, duopolies, price fixing and other anti-competitive behavior from private entities who have the power to shape the market in their favor. Do you know why all those things are illegal even in the US? Because they work. If it wouldn't work it wouldn't have been made illegal. Private entities can much more easily collide to screw over consumers than consumers can collectively unite to do anything about it themselves. That's why governments and regulations exist.
- rurp 2y ago
  Elected politicians compete intensely with each other. Polling, focus groups, and pandering are common in democratic countries because people running for office want to do things that make voters like them. The system is far from perfect but you seem to be arguing that the government is free to use violence however it wants without consequence which is not at all realistic.
- ProxCoques 2y ago
  Reminder: the term "free markets" originally referred to markets free of the distorting effects of monopoly. To ensure markets remain free, fair and available to all, legislators need to intervene. Otherwise they go to sh*t. As aside, it's a common misconception that the EU acts to protect EU companies from outside competition. They don't. It's a side-effect of their mission to keep the EU a free market.
- salawat 2y ago
  >and are not allowed to use violence to exert their will. Define violence. You may look at this and think "What are you, stupid?" But stick with me for a bit. Let's grab a few examples of free market atrocities. Asbestos; thalidomide; hexavalent chromium; fossil fuels (and hiding research since the 60's about climate change); the sugar industry (also famous for it's scientific gaslighting); Purdue pharmaceuticals, Oxycontin, and it's coincidental treatment for opiate addiction which was in the pipeline... Now lets grab a few definitions of violence and see if we can bucket some of these into them without too much trouble. https://www.wordnik.com/words/violence https://www.wordnik.com/words/violence Definitions numbered top of page to bottom. Are there any acts that fit the word violence that companies regularly do? Take a look at # 7, quoted here: 7) Injury done to anything which is entitled to respect, reverence, or observance; profanation; infringement; violation. Companies do that all the effing time. In point of fact, it's practically their reason to exist at all. The corporation was initially formulated as a risk-impact distribution tool. That there is risk associated with it, implies an understanding that the vehicle can do harm. And before you go saying "but that's not the legal definition..." I'm going to head that off with a single word, "Yet", and further seal off the wiggle room by referring you to the practical outcomes of all these allegedly non-violent exercises of corporate power; the scarring for life if not termination of of life by the thousands to million. You don't get kill counts that high through acts of human artifice, and still get to hide behind the bulwark of "but it wasn't violence" a kill via indirection is still a kill. a life ends or is irrepairably harmed. While their is a practical lenience extended based on the matter of human imperfections and inability to know everything, be everywhere at once; with technology, nowadays the old platitudes tend to ring a bit hollow. Where executives can literally sit on event streams created by their corporate systems; where reports that unequivocally say "bad shit'll happen", and it gets buried instead of escalated for the consideration of all; and to what end? To what benefit are these atrocities committed at the expense of the common good? The self enrichment of the few, and consolidation of wealth and power. That my friend, is inarguably violence. That doesn't even require the 4th sense of violence either. noun. Distortion of meaning or intent.
carlosjobim 2y ago
Not everything is democratic about the EU, since the top representatives are not elected by the people. Just like the United Nations is not a democratic organization. The EU president is not elected by popular vote, for example. She is appointed by the parliament, similar to how kings in the past were appointed by a council of lords. Edit: Corrected my error.
- awiesenhofer 2y ago
  > She is appointed by the parliament, similar to how kings in the past were appointed by a council of lords. Do you ... not know what a parliament is?
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    Yes. But there is a difference between a president being elected by popular vote and a president being elected by a parliament. One of them is democratically elected. The other is not. EU citizens are not allowed to vote for the EU president. And a parliament is not necessarily a democratically elected body, historically they weren't. The EU parliament is though.
    - ProxCoques 2y ago
      I think this may be a misunderstanding of the word "president". The role you're talking about is more like that of the Speaker of the House in the US or the UK. Both are elected by members of the chamber, not a popular vote. https://the-president.europarl.europa.eu/en/the-presidency/functions https://the-president.europarl.europa.eu/en/the-presidency/f... There is no "President" of the EU in the US sense of the word. BTW parliaments were not democratically elected historically, that's true (eg women didn't get the vote until recently) but not relevant today.
      - carlosjobim 2y ago
        No, I'm not referring to the speaker of the EU parliament, I am referring to the president of the European Commission, which is right now Ursula von der Leyen. She was appointed by the EU parliament and not democratically elected. The EU leaders makes things as confusing as they are able to, in order to be able to do what they please without the population understanding much, but she (von der Leyen) is very much promoted as being a "real president", acts like a "real president" in foreign affairs. It is only when pointed out that they are not democratically elected that people start making excuses that the EU president is not a "real president". Which way is it? I think the rulers of Europe want to have it both ways, so that they can smoothly direct their subjects as they please.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

I guess I agree with both being a problem. Maybe the way I would put it is that once a company becomes large enough it is a lot like a government. For example, if a a few tech companies ban your speech, you effectively don’t have a useful freedom of expression. Being able to yell on a street corner is not a good substitute if you are censored online.

jsbg 2y ago
A government is by definition a monopoly. No company can become large enough to be like a government unless it has government backing. E.g. Walmart was feared to be becoming a monopoly by running smaller shops out of business and yet Amazon was still able to compete. Eventually someone else will outcompete both, as long as the government doesn't step in to protect them.