5 ms·

What's the difference between "big corporations and private interests" on the one hand and "state" on the other? They seem in all cases to be organizations of

by Gormo 13y ago

What's the difference between "big corporations and private interests" on the one hand and "state" on the other? They seem in all cases to be organizations of human beings with the capacity to concentrate and assert power over other human beings. The difference seems to be in the scale and scope of that concentration and assertion of power. So, if you're inclined to minimize the capacity of any external institution to shape your life or to exploit you, which option is most optimal? Do you prefer option (a), which admits at most a haphazard and ad hoc system of institutional control - one which can, with some effort, be evaded - or option (b), which establishes a universal and de jure system of institutional control, evading which requires resources inaccessible to most? I've always found it odd that so many think the solution to the concentration of power in the hands of a plurality organized institutions is to concentrate all power in the hands of a single organized institution.

tripzilch 13y ago
The obvious difference is that corporations are not democratically governed by the people whose lives they affect. Or are even required to pay attention to those people. Yes there are exceptions when the reverse is true. (but note that I am calling large corporations) I'm pretty sure there is no large corporation whose management is democratically elected by all the people it employs and whose life they affect, with each vote counting the same, be it a janitor or a CEO. I know the above idealistic view of a democratic government is also not true in the real world, but governments do get a lot closer to that ideal than giant corporations ever have.
- Gormo 13y ago
  The amount of voice possessed by customers and employees of commercial organizations might be theoretically lower than what citizens possess with respect to political organizations (although in practice, I'm not sure there's much difference), but with political institutions, the capacity for exit is essentially nonexistent, whereas with commercial institutions, it's fully available to all participants. In terms of the ability to assert one's freedom, I'd regard exit as being of far greater importance than voice. > but governments do get a lot closer to that ideal Why do you believe that the "ideal" you're positing is the best one to maximize human freedom? Democracy is still a kind of uniform, monopolistic rule. I'll also point out, as an aside, that you're channeling this conversation into a debate opposite sides of a false dichotomy: the existing forms of centralized government and commercial corporation are hardly the only two viable models for social institutions: there's a vast range of alternatives that offer a variety of risk-reward tradeoffs. That false dichotomy is also based on the presumption that people must outsource responsibility for a wide range of elements of their lives to some external institution. But what about people who want to take direct responsibility for their lives, or create their own social institutions in conjunction with like-minded others for that purpose? How are they not hamstrung by attempts to create universal monopolies?
  - tripzilch 13y ago
    > (although in practice, I'm not sure there's much difference) You really ought to qualify that with "where" in practice there isn't much difference. In the US, yes, obviously your government is pretty much entirely bought by corporations to such extent that I'd be hard-pressed to even call it a de facto democracy. There's other parts in the world however, that have multiple political parties, that actually have radically different viewpoints on a wide variety of topics, which are not merely deemed "the lesser evil" by many[0] of their supporters ... some (this depends on the party) even depend on their supporters for input on what policy course to take. Sounds pretty utopian, but such places do exist. [0] you can never please everyone, of course > Why do you believe that the "ideal" you're positing is the best one to maximize human freedom? I don't. Nor do I believe it is right to merely maximize human freedom. You need to maximize both freedom and happiness, didn't you ever take a course on ethics? If you only have one but not the other you get terrible badwrong things. To clarify further, it felt weird to defend democracy in my previous post. I don't usually do that, I think it's a very imperfect solution, but it's still the best option that I know of. > Democracy is still a kind of uniform, monopolistic rule. Sure, it's just that most alternatives that I know or heard of generally fail on the "who's going to take care of the elderly and the disabled?" criterion. In particular the ones that aim at purely maximizing freedom are generally proposed by young and healthy individuals that either don't realize or don't care that part of society will be left rotting in the streets that way. You cannot judge a society by how it treats the average individual, you can only judge it by how it treats those who are worst off. > I'll also point out, as an aside, that you're channeling this conversation into a debate opposite sides of a false dichotomy: the existing forms of centralized government and commercial corporation are hardly the only two viable models for social institutions: there's a vast range of alternatives that offer a variety of risk-reward tradeoffs. I didn't mean to do that, I'm not even sure that I did. > That false dichotomy is also based on the presumption that people must outsource responsibility for a wide range of elements of their lives to some external institution. But what about people who want to take direct responsibility for their lives Yeah usually that means these people want to be free of the burden to also take responsibility for the lives of those who cannot (or not to a useful extent). There are exceptions of course, but people that do this by their own motivations, are pretty rare, definitely not enough to take care of the problem. Even if you take into account that most (but definitely not all) will take care of their own families (but not everybody has that luxury either). > or create their own social institutions in conjunction with like-minded others for that purpose? How are they not hamstrung by attempts to create universal monopolies? It is my experience that, unless such social institutions are in fact governments (or something very similar, religion, giant computer, etc), these communities will fail after about 30+ years when generation-churn sets in and the amount of "like-minded others" in the community starts to dwindle. It's perfectly possible to start some beautiful communal living project where everybody knows what's what because they all believe the same thing, and it can go very well for a while, make a beautiful space to live, etc. However, as soon as the original founders start to disappear (or can't do their part anymore), and if there is no "construct" that is somehow bigger than the individuals that makes sure the values of the society are kept as they were intended, it'll fall apart. Such a construct is called a government (or something very similar). For a real-life example of this happening, see Christiania in Kopenhagen, Denmark. Beautiful idea, really fallen apart. If you ever visit Kopenhagen, check it out, not for what's left of the hippie art and community ideals, but for the broken roads, windows and alcoholics. It's very educational. Fortunately there's an actual state just a few blocks away.
coldtea 13y ago
>What's the difference between "big corporations and private interests" on the one hand and "state" on the other? They seem in all cases to be organizations of human beings with the capacity to concentrate and assert power over other human beings. The difference is in the use, origin and organization of such "capacity". Which makes all the difference in the world. For one, state power comes from elections and laws passed by elected representatives of the majority. Corporate and private interest power on the other hand is arbitrary. Second, the democratic state (however imperfect) was founded to serve the people. And in most cases it was founded BY the people, through bloody struggles against opressors (feudalism, colonial powers, the King, etc). Corporate and private interest power on the other hand is self serving. To put it in another way, "private interests" amount to a dictatorial state (or, to be more presice, to a constellation of dictatorial regions of control). Something people fight to get rid of, and establish democratic states. >The difference seems to be in the scale and scope of that concentration and assertion of power. Private interests, if left unguarded, can drawf states in scale and scope (and have done so, in tons of historical examples, especially for less powerful countries. The term "Banana Republic" is an example of that). So, nope, the difference is in the origin and check of that power, as well as the purpose of it. >So, if you're inclined to minimize the capacity of any external institution to shape your life or to exploit you, which option is most optimal? No question about it: stump private interests at every opportunity.
- sp332 13y ago
  There can be a marketplace for private companies. There is competition for hiring workers as well as for selling goods. But the state is a monopoly. While the state might start out as well-meaning, it will quickly attract corruption which imposes itself on every citizen, leaving them without recourse. If you leave a bad company and join or found a better one, that's business as usual. If you revoke a government, that's revolution.
  - polymatter 13y ago
    "If you revoke a government, that's revolution" In a democracy, its called an election. They happen regularly and you have a direct say on them. The directors of large companies however you have absolutely no say on. Also, its not always possible to just "join or found a better" company for many, many reasons. Perhaps my comparative advantage isn't in building up companies against entrenched competition. Perhaps there isn't capital available to start a company in a particularly capital intensive or regulated industry. Perhaps the company tactics are awful enough to destroy me even if I tried (eg. mafia visits, suppliers refuse to deal, FUD campaigns).

by Gormo 13y ago

tripzilch 13y ago

The obvious difference is that corporations are not democratically governed by the people whose lives they affect. Or are even required to pay attention to those people. Yes there are exceptions when the reverse is true. (but note that I am calling large corporations) I'm pretty sure there is no large corporation whose management is democratically elected by all the people it employs and whose life they affect, with each vote counting the same, be it a janitor or a CEO. I know the above idealistic view of a democratic government is also not true in the real world, but governments do get a lot closer to that ideal than giant corporations ever have.

Gormo 13y ago
The amount of voice possessed by customers and employees of commercial organizations might be theoretically lower than what citizens possess with respect to political organizations (although in practice, I'm not sure there's much difference), but with political institutions, the capacity for exit is essentially nonexistent, whereas with commercial institutions, it's fully available to all participants. In terms of the ability to assert one's freedom, I'd regard exit as being of far greater importance than voice. > but governments do get a lot closer to that ideal Why do you believe that the "ideal" you're positing is the best one to maximize human freedom? Democracy is still a kind of uniform, monopolistic rule. I'll also point out, as an aside, that you're channeling this conversation into a debate opposite sides of a false dichotomy: the existing forms of centralized government and commercial corporation are hardly the only two viable models for social institutions: there's a vast range of alternatives that offer a variety of risk-reward tradeoffs. That false dichotomy is also based on the presumption that people must outsource responsibility for a wide range of elements of their lives to some external institution. But what about people who want to take direct responsibility for their lives, or create their own social institutions in conjunction with like-minded others for that purpose? How are they not hamstrung by attempts to create universal monopolies?
- tripzilch 13y ago
  > (although in practice, I'm not sure there's much difference) You really ought to qualify that with "where" in practice there isn't much difference. In the US, yes, obviously your government is pretty much entirely bought by corporations to such extent that I'd be hard-pressed to even call it a de facto democracy. There's other parts in the world however, that have multiple political parties, that actually have radically different viewpoints on a wide variety of topics, which are not merely deemed "the lesser evil" by many[0] of their supporters ... some (this depends on the party) even depend on their supporters for input on what policy course to take. Sounds pretty utopian, but such places do exist. [0] you can never please everyone, of course > Why do you believe that the "ideal" you're positing is the best one to maximize human freedom? I don't. Nor do I believe it is right to merely maximize human freedom. You need to maximize both freedom and happiness, didn't you ever take a course on ethics? If you only have one but not the other you get terrible badwrong things. To clarify further, it felt weird to defend democracy in my previous post. I don't usually do that, I think it's a very imperfect solution, but it's still the best option that I know of. > Democracy is still a kind of uniform, monopolistic rule. Sure, it's just that most alternatives that I know or heard of generally fail on the "who's going to take care of the elderly and the disabled?" criterion. In particular the ones that aim at purely maximizing freedom are generally proposed by young and healthy individuals that either don't realize or don't care that part of society will be left rotting in the streets that way. You cannot judge a society by how it treats the average individual, you can only judge it by how it treats those who are worst off. > I'll also point out, as an aside, that you're channeling this conversation into a debate opposite sides of a false dichotomy: the existing forms of centralized government and commercial corporation are hardly the only two viable models for social institutions: there's a vast range of alternatives that offer a variety of risk-reward tradeoffs. I didn't mean to do that, I'm not even sure that I did. > That false dichotomy is also based on the presumption that people must outsource responsibility for a wide range of elements of their lives to some external institution. But what about people who want to take direct responsibility for their lives Yeah usually that means these people want to be free of the burden to also take responsibility for the lives of those who cannot (or not to a useful extent). There are exceptions of course, but people that do this by their own motivations, are pretty rare, definitely not enough to take care of the problem. Even if you take into account that most (but definitely not all) will take care of their own families (but not everybody has that luxury either). > or create their own social institutions in conjunction with like-minded others for that purpose? How are they not hamstrung by attempts to create universal monopolies? It is my experience that, unless such social institutions are in fact governments (or something very similar, religion, giant computer, etc), these communities will fail after about 30+ years when generation-churn sets in and the amount of "like-minded others" in the community starts to dwindle. It's perfectly possible to start some beautiful communal living project where everybody knows what's what because they all believe the same thing, and it can go very well for a while, make a beautiful space to live, etc. However, as soon as the original founders start to disappear (or can't do their part anymore), and if there is no "construct" that is somehow bigger than the individuals that makes sure the values of the society are kept as they were intended, it'll fall apart. Such a construct is called a government (or something very similar). For a real-life example of this happening, see Christiania in Kopenhagen, Denmark. Beautiful idea, really fallen apart. If you ever visit Kopenhagen, check it out, not for what's left of the hippie art and community ideals, but for the broken roads, windows and alcoholics. It's very educational. Fortunately there's an actual state just a few blocks away.

coldtea 13y ago

>What's the difference between "big corporations and private interests" on the one hand and "state" on the other? They seem in all cases to be organizations of human beings with the capacity to concentrate and assert power over other human beings. The difference is in the use, origin and organization of such "capacity". Which makes all the difference in the world. For one, state power comes from elections and laws passed by elected representatives of the majority. Corporate and private interest power on the other hand is arbitrary. Second, the democratic state (however imperfect) was founded to serve the people. And in most cases it was founded BY the people, through bloody struggles against opressors (feudalism, colonial powers, the King, etc). Corporate and private interest power on the other hand is self serving. To put it in another way, "private interests" amount to a dictatorial state (or, to be more presice, to a constellation of dictatorial regions of control). Something people fight to get rid of, and establish democratic states. >The difference seems to be in the scale and scope of that concentration and assertion of power. Private interests, if left unguarded, can drawf states in scale and scope (and have done so, in tons of historical examples, especially for less powerful countries. The term "Banana Republic" is an example of that). So, nope, the difference is in the origin and check of that power, as well as the purpose of it. >So, if you're inclined to minimize the capacity of any external institution to shape your life or to exploit you, which option is most optimal? No question about it: stump private interests at every opportunity.

sp332 13y ago
There can be a marketplace for private companies. There is competition for hiring workers as well as for selling goods. But the state is a monopoly. While the state might start out as well-meaning, it will quickly attract corruption which imposes itself on every citizen, leaving them without recourse. If you leave a bad company and join or found a better one, that's business as usual. If you revoke a government, that's revolution.
- polymatter 13y ago
  "If you revoke a government, that's revolution" In a democracy, its called an election. They happen regularly and you have a direct say on them. The directors of large companies however you have absolutely no say on. Also, its not always possible to just "join or found a better" company for many, many reasons. Perhaps my comparative advantage isn't in building up companies against entrenched competition. Perhaps there isn't capital available to start a company in a particularly capital intensive or regulated industry. Perhaps the company tactics are awful enough to destroy me even if I tried (eg. mafia visits, suppliers refuse to deal, FUD campaigns).