From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Sat Sep 02 2000 - 03:30:37 MDT
Paul Hughes wrote:
>
> "Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
>
> > because as far as I see it, the primary
> > problem with such system (socialism) is that the threat of force causes underlings
> > to lie when feeding information up the line, and the pressure of propaganda needs
> > mandate that the leadership lie about both the acheivements of the last five
> > years, and the goals of the next five years...
>
> I agree with you on this.
>
> > There is also the problem of perceptions of value. The market works because it
> > allows parties to negotiate a common sense of value. Any system that allows
> > parties to freely negotiate common perceptions of value is, by definition, a
> > free market system.
>
> Also true as long as *individuals* remain the focus of such transactions. But what
> I see happening are large numbers of individuals being controlled by small numbers
> through the traditional hierarchy of corporations. If this is not the case, then
> why is it that less than 5% of any company dictates and controls policy while the
> other 95% have to *obey* or get fired.
>
> i.e. Corporation = Dictatorship. I challenge anyone to say otherwise. Sure I know
> there are a *few* exceptions.
A corporate CEO, chairman, or president is held accountable by the board of
directors (i.e. congress) who themselves are held accountable by the
stockholders (the body of voters).
If a corporation is a dictatorship, then so is every 'democratic' society that
ever existed, and there is no such thing as democracy.
An employee has the choice whether or not to be a voter, by buying stock, just
as every citizen of a democratic country is free to choose whether or not to
vote. Is the elected president of a country a dictator simply because some part
of the population decides not to vote?
>
> > Is this in fact the optimum system? As far as the individuals are concerned,
> > based on their self interest, yes (except for those individuals who think that
> > negotiation = getting screwed). As far as the long term best interest of those
> > individuals, this is debatable.
>
> Again I disagree with this. I want to use Napster and so does another 25 million
> people. Sorry, but those running the corporations and in this case we are talking
> about less than 1000 people have decided that we can not. The way I see it, if law
> is imposed on a majority by a minority as in the case of Napster, then you have
> nothing less than a Corporate Dictatorship using the government as its strong-arm.
> Where is the individual transaction in this case? From where I'm sitting, they
> could give a damn about the individual, only profits matter now.
No. What you seem to want is a mobocracy, where total democracy reigns, and the
rights of no individual is beyond elimination by a simple vote of the majority
(or even a vote of x number of people who want to do something, which would be a
lynchocracy). Sorry, we are not that sort of society. The majority is
constrained by the rights of the individual that are protected by supermajority
limitations. Don't like it? Go elsewhere if you want to steal other people's
work.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:42 MST