4 ms·

But power is power. There's no difference except that the government is given by default certain powers most corporations don't have. However, corporations can

But power is power. There's no difference except that the government is given by default certain powers most corporations don't have. However, corporations can still do assassinations, espionage, or even spying on customers. As long as the corporation is capable of doing it, and has ways of hiding it, then it can also be done.

aric 13y ago
There's a clear difference in power between power that controls police and military systems vs. power that's limited by the controls of natural, voluntary actions. I can't blame you for equating corporations with government and suggesting they both have unbridled power, given the current systems most of us live in. But it's absolutely wrong to infer that actions that would otherwise be illegal/violent by organizations are the equivalent of violent actions set into government policy. Again, the largest corporations many fear have disproportionate influence and market share specifically because of the backing of government law. For instance: When a group or psychopath commits mass murder, yes, it is a form of power. Yet, it's relatively contained. Society is more able to fight it and reject it. However, when a government that relies on involuntary funding commits mass murder - under the auspices of formal policy and fancy language - it becomes a form of power that society is less able to reject.
- chrischen 13y ago
  Power by definition, is something you can't reject. Otherwise you technically don't have the power... I'd say the Mexican drug cartels are de-facto examples of private corporations when they don't or can't rely on government to give them their power.
  - aric 13y ago
    The goal of a humane government structure should be to defend people and itself from abusive forms of power. Those cartels are analogous to (inhumane) government. They, as a result of US policy, have gained the ability to supersede previous governmental structures by using sheer force. They became dictatorial regimes. Conversely, private businesses acting as "corporations," as far as the US is concerned, are only powerful because of the system of government. The system inherently lends itself to corporatism through an architecture that allows for overreach at the very foundation of its design. I don't mean to mince words again but I have to, for the sake of liberty activists who try, fail, and sometimes succeed. Power is something we can reject. We can do it individually and collectively. (I realize we're using different interpretations of the word "reject" but it's still a point.) Knowledge and civil disobedience are often options. If physically freeing oneself is unwise or nearly impossible, one may try to stay mentally free. Rejection begins with mentality. If we don't perpetuate the philosophy and beauty of liberation, of rejection over defeatism, then I worry that this 'eternal flame,' which sparks the struggle for freedom and pervades a yearning for individuality and truth, may grow too dim. No, I know, the practicality of your words about power ring true. There are forms of power so hard to reject, physically and mentally, that they effectively render a person, or millions of people: powerless.
argumentum 13y ago
However, corporations can still do assassinations, espionage, or even spying on customers Haha, funny that you find "spying on customers" to be more worthy of an "even" than assassinations or espionage :) I remember an argument I had with a friend years ago .. would I rather have Google owning my information or the Government. I argued, Google of course, the worst they would use my info for was serving me better ads. I was wrong because I never realized that the government could force Google to hand my information over to them.
- chrischen 13y ago
  It just so happens that the government is more powerful than Google. Also public companies are less at risk to abuse power because there is a separation of powers. Lots of diverse stock holders usually.

aric 13y ago

There's a clear difference in power between power that controls police and military systems vs. power that's limited by the controls of natural, voluntary actions. I can't blame you for equating corporations with government and suggesting they both have unbridled power, given the current systems most of us live in. But it's absolutely wrong to infer that actions that would otherwise be illegal/violent by organizations are the equivalent of violent actions set into government policy. Again, the largest corporations many fear have disproportionate influence and market share specifically because of the backing of government law. For instance: When a group or psychopath commits mass murder, yes, it is a form of power. Yet, it's relatively contained. Society is more able to fight it and reject it. However, when a government that relies on involuntary funding commits mass murder - under the auspices of formal policy and fancy language - it becomes a form of power that society is less able to reject.

chrischen 13y ago
Power by definition, is something you can't reject. Otherwise you technically don't have the power... I'd say the Mexican drug cartels are de-facto examples of private corporations when they don't or can't rely on government to give them their power.
- aric 13y ago
  The goal of a humane government structure should be to defend people and itself from abusive forms of power. Those cartels are analogous to (inhumane) government. They, as a result of US policy, have gained the ability to supersede previous governmental structures by using sheer force. They became dictatorial regimes. Conversely, private businesses acting as "corporations," as far as the US is concerned, are only powerful because of the system of government. The system inherently lends itself to corporatism through an architecture that allows for overreach at the very foundation of its design. I don't mean to mince words again but I have to, for the sake of liberty activists who try, fail, and sometimes succeed. Power is something we can reject. We can do it individually and collectively. (I realize we're using different interpretations of the word "reject" but it's still a point.) Knowledge and civil disobedience are often options. If physically freeing oneself is unwise or nearly impossible, one may try to stay mentally free. Rejection begins with mentality. If we don't perpetuate the philosophy and beauty of liberation, of rejection over defeatism, then I worry that this 'eternal flame,' which sparks the struggle for freedom and pervades a yearning for individuality and truth, may grow too dim. No, I know, the practicality of your words about power ring true. There are forms of power so hard to reject, physically and mentally, that they effectively render a person, or millions of people: powerless.

argumentum 13y ago

However, corporations can still do assassinations, espionage, or even spying on customers Haha, funny that you find "spying on customers" to be more worthy of an "even" than assassinations or espionage :) I remember an argument I had with a friend years ago .. would I rather have Google owning my information or the Government. I argued, Google of course, the worst they would use my info for was serving me better ads. I was wrong because I never realized that the government could force Google to hand my information over to them.

chrischen 13y ago
It just so happens that the government is more powerful than Google. Also public companies are less at risk to abuse power because there is a separation of powers. Lots of diverse stock holders usually.