You're viewing part of a thread.
Reply to "regardless of government size", part 1 of 2:
Corporations are always incentivized to do so regardless of government size. If you're a corporation and you have the power to get politicians to get a law passed, then the law gets passed even if the fed is tiny.
A couple of problems that make this incorrect:
- A nit-pick that I find distracting: The phrase "the Fed" always (at least in US context) refers to the Federal Reserve, a private bank in cahoots with the federal government. I know that's not what you meant.
- I don't think you realize just how tiny the federal government used to be. There were no taxes to fund anything, aside from nominal excise taxes on imports. There were no agencies, at all — none. That's our natural federal government size. They barely had any power at all, because American government is meant to be bottom-up, with families and townships having the most power, and the federal government the least.
So no, corporations are not incentivized to lobby a tiny government which exists strictly to protect the people's liberty, any more than they're incentivized to lobby you and me personally.
The root problem is lobbying (bribery) being legal. Without it we would be in a far better place.
Except lobbying isn't bribery. It's just speech, similar to advertising. I can tell my senator how great the Fediverse is and how he should make an account here, and that would count as lobbying.
The root problem is that the federal government has amassed far too much power. And to break that down, there are mainly two parts to that root problem:
- The Interstate Commerce Clause
- The Necessary and Proper Clause
Both have been grossly misinterpreted in violation of the Tenth Amendment to give the federal government unrestricted control over the states. The solution is for SCOTUS to apply the doctrine of originalism to restore these two clauses to their intended meaning. If they have the cahoonas to do that, ~2.87 million federal civilian employees will suddenly be out of a job, and many of our lost freedoms will be restored overnight. Oh yeah, and the incentive to lobby will move to the state level, where governors and state legislatures actually have to worry about losing taxpayers over bad policies.
I think the issue of government size is more nuanced than that. There are things that republicans want that would make the government bigger, and there are things that democrats/leftists want that would make it smaller.
Sure, well both DNC and RNC are coalitions, and we don't all agree on the details. But my view that the sole responsibility of the federal government is to protect the people's liberty is a fairly generic Republican view. Border protection and national defense are the only expensive requirements of that.
There is definitely some regulation that needs to be abandoned, certain zoning laws immediately come to mind,
Agreed!
but the largest reason why we have so little freedom here in comparison is because of government surveillance programs,
Agreed!
corporate control
No!
And ranking freedom solely on economic freedom is not a good methodology.
Agreed!
I don't think you realize just how tiny the federal government used to be.
It basically didn't exist in the beginning, I am aware of how drastically things have changed.
That's our natural federal government size.
When you say "natural" here I assume you mean that the country was intended to always have the same size of federal government (which is to say basically a size of nothing). However the founding fathers intended the country to always be changing and adapting, to always become better and better. I agree that the federal government needs to be smaller (for instance I would personally cut the IRS to a 10th it's size, because that's all they would really need if we switched to georgism). However, just because it needs to be smaller doesn't mean it should barely exist. When our country was founded, it was done so with the Articles of Confederation, and it was a chaotic disaster.
So no, corporations are not incentivized to lobby a tiny government which exists strictly to protect the people's liberty, any more than they're incentivized to lobby you and me personally.
If the government is tiny, then corporations are unfettered, and that is just as bad. But even so, even with a small government, lobbying is still power that they would directly benefit from.
Except lobbying isn't bribery. It's just speech, similar to advertising.
If that's all lobbying was, I would be inclined to agree with you, but that's not all lobbying is. Paying for campaign contributions, promising contributions, etc are all also legal and considered lobbying. And it is effectively bribery. It's also legal to offer politicians lucrative job opportunities. These things are corruption and destroy our freedoms.
The solution is for SCOTUS to apply the doctrine of originalism to restore these two clauses to their intended meaning.
I had to go back to keep track of what we agreed(?) was the problem, corporate control. You say it is the two above doctrines, I disagree, believing it is a multifaceted problem of lobbying, monopolies, laizze-faire policy, etc.
I simply don't see how removing the government's ability to regulate commerce would lead to less corporate control of america. Corporations would still control our wages, place of employement, type of employement, hours, how money is distributed, the media (narrative), etc. If anything it would make it harder for the government to prevent these corporations from harming our freedom.
However the founding fathers intended the country to always be changing and adapting, to always become better and better.
That's progressive revisionism. They most certainly did not. If they were still around today, they'd be rallying the militia.
Articles of Confederation, and it was a chaotic disaster.
You say that like it's a bad thing. In retrospect it's clear that our situation then was far preferable to where we are today. The federal government's only problem then was they couldn't get the several states to give them any money, which is a perfectly acceptable problem. What's more, the convention of the states had no authority to discard the Articles, so they remain our rightful federal law. I don't deny the fact that the Constitution is well accepted by almost 100% of American citizens, but the least we can do is restore it to its original intent. If we ever do, though, then you'll find me advocating to restore the Articles.
If the government is tiny, then corporations are unfettered, and that is just as bad. But even so, even with a small government, lobbying is still power that they would directly benefit from.
If government is tiny then businesses are tiny. You can lobby your governor just as you can lobby your next-door neighbor, and there's nothing wrong with that. You can lobby me, just as you're sorta doing now.
Paying for campaign contributions, promising contributions, etc are all also legal and considered lobbying. And it is effectively bribery. It's also legal to offer politicians lucrative job opportunities. These things are corruption and destroy our freedoms.
This is a symptom of big government. When politicians have next to no power, there's no sense in spending money to help them.
I had to go back to keep track of what we agreed(?) was the problem,
I concede I wish I was better at staying on track in this sort of enormous conversation.
I simply don't see how removing the government's ability to regulate commerce would lead to less corporate control of america.
Let's distinguish between state and federal control. I believe it's a sovereign state's role to regulate commerce within their borders as they see fit. So business sizes should vary according to state culture.
Corporations would still control our wages
I've already addressed this. It's false. When you sell your labor, you set the price you want to charge, and seek out one or more customers willing to pay that price. Corporations are nothing more than people who pay other people for their labor, as a voluntary agreement between both parties. Neither party controls the other.
place of employement, type of employement, hours, how money is distributed, the media (narrative), etc. If anything it would make it harder for the government to prevent these corporations from harming our freedom.
This is all radically disconnected from reality. Corporations don't control any of these things. You really should start a business of your own, if for no other reason than just to learn how little power it gives you.
That's progressive revisionism. They most certainly did not [intend for the country to change].
They quite literally built a system in place to add amendments to the constitution and to take them away if needed. Why would they have done so if the intention was to keep the law static until the end of time?
You say that like it's a bad thing.
It was. The economy fell apart, the states were constantly squabbling over petty things, we had Shay's rebellion, the nation's debts weren't being payed. The currency of the time had no value. Britain was screwing the country over with it's blockade (which couldn't be solved due to the lack of any federal power). The articles of confederation was such a disaster that it had such a short lived life that the founders themselves got rid of it.
If government is tiny then businesses are tiny.
You have no evidence for this, let alone causation.
When politicians have next to no power, there's no sense in spending money to help them.
Politicians have power by definition, and corporations have a direct incentive to get as much power as they can. So there will always be motivation to spend money to bribe them regardless of the power they hold. They might spend less, sure, but they will still do it.
I concede I wish I was better at staying on track
Same. It's incredibly difficult.
I believe it's a sovereign state's role to regulate commerce within their borders as they see fit. So business sizes should vary according to state culture.
So states should regulate commerce, but not the federal government, is that what you mean to say? If so, then how would that work out for situations where the regulation/unregualtion in surrounding states impacts a different state? For example, if california legalized weed and had the effect of making weed more available to the surrounding states, how would those surrounding states deal with it?
When you sell your labor, you set the price you want to charge, and seek out one or more customers willing to pay that price.
If everything was small business and there was greater power in the hands of laborers, and if the internet didn't exist then maybe this would be true. But the modern reality is not like that. Corporations set the wage, you apply, and if you tell them you need more money to work there they tell you to get lost*. Job postings receive hundreds, sometimes thousands of applications. Why would they lower their profitability by giving you the wage you set if the next person in the very long line will work just as hard for cheaper?
* I am aware this is less so for higher skill jobs, but most jobs you have very little power in this regard.
Corporations are nothing more than people who pay other people for their labor, as a voluntary agreement between both parties. Neither party controls the other.
Corporations tell their workers what to do and therefore control their workers. Same goes for hours. If I told my boss that I will only work Sundays-Thursdays from now on, I would be fired. That is a form of control.
You really should start a business of your own, if for no other reason than just to learn how little power it gives you.
If I were to start a business it would be a small one and therefore have no control. But again, the problem generally isn't small businesses, it's the big ones.
They do control each of these things, and I can explain how:
place of employement - Corporations quite literally have been forcing people to return to offices or face dismissal. There are other kinds of this action, but that's just one example.
type of employement - Corporations are the one who decide if you're exempt, non-exempt, a contractor, what the job responsibilities are, etc.
hours - If you refuse to work the hours you are told you are fired.
how money is distributed - At no point does your average worker control this. The higher ups decide this and almost universally decide that the majority should go to them. If businesses were truly democratic, then you'd never see a single company giving a CEO the money for a brand new yacht every year.
the media (narrative) - Virtually all media companies are owned by the rich, and they do not allow news articles and the like to be against them. For example, the Washington Post is owned by Bezos, and you'll never see an article from them criticizing Bezos or Amazon.
Reply to "built a system", part 1 of 2:
They quite literally built a system in place to add amendments to the constitution and to take them away if needed. Why would they have done so if the intention was to keep the law static until the end of time?
They also made it remarkably difficult to amend. They wouldn't have done that if they thought it should frequently change.
The economy fell apart, the states were constantly squabbling over petty things, we had Shay's rebellion, the nation's debts weren't being payed. The currency of the time had no value. Britain was screwing the country over with it's blockade (which couldn't be solved due to the lack of any federal power). The articles of confederation was such a disaster that it had such a short lived life that the founders themselves got rid of it.
I understand the frustrations, though those points are a biased history. I don't think the founders would have abandoned the Articles if they could have foreseen the behemoth they created in its place. But indeed they did, and honestly I'd be okay with it if we'd just stick to their original design.
Politicians have power by definition, and corporations have a direct incentive to get as much power as they can.
The singular goal of the American republic is to limit the power of politicians. That's basically what the Constitution's all about.
Corporations do not seek power. They seek sales. And they gain sales by offering goods and services that people want more than their own money. It's not having power over someone to sell them something they love.
So states should regulate commerce, but not the federal government, is that what you mean to say?
Affirmative.
If so, then how would that work out for situations where the regulation/unregualtion in surrounding states impacts a different state? For example, if california legalized weed and had the effect of making weed more available to the surrounding states, how would those surrounding states deal with it?
States make agreements with their neighbors, much like reciprocity for CCW licenses. Indeed the whole Union is meant to pretty much be a coalition, so if South America were to invade Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, for instance, the rest of the states are supposed to send their militias south to help defend the border. If Oregon legalized marijuana and Idaho didn't (to use a real-life example of bordering states), then LEOs in Idaho can look a bit more suspiciously at people with Oregon plates, and possibly pull them over and see what they smell. A more extreme solution would be to erect border checkpoints to conduct "random" searches.
If everything was small business and there was greater power in the hands of laborers, and if the internet didn't exist then maybe this would be true. But the modern reality is not like that.
But reality is like that. Have a look here. I want to copy and paste the whole page.
They wouldn't have done that if they thought it should frequently change.
They definitely didn't intend for it to be frequent, I agree. But they intended it to be able to always change.
I don't think the founders would have abandoned the Articles if they could have foreseen the behemoth they created in its place
The alternative was British control. I very much doubt they would have kept the Articles if they knew.
Corporations do not seek power. They seek sales.
And power equals sales, so by seeking sales they also seek power.
the rest of the states are supposed to send their militias south to help defend the border.
Under the articles, it was like pulling teeth simply for the money to pay back the nation's loans. Getting actual troops is a whole other level.
A more extreme solution would be to erect border checkpoints to conduct "random" searches.
And that would be a huge disservice to the country. Our nation thrives on the ability to quickly and easily cross state borders because they basically don't exist. I can only imagine the damage to our economy if such a thing were to happen.
But reality is like that.
I'm not sure that data is really helpful for determining true business size since so many people have more than one job, and corporations like to own other corporations to hide how big they are. And employee count is only one factor in how big a business is. Market share, net worth, profit, all of which contribute to a business' size. It also doesn't take into account the power/influence a company has, or it's market share. A restaurant/grocery store might only employee about 50 people in total but have a fraction of the market share for the local area or no market share at all on a regional/national level. And on the other hand a landlord might own a company with 10-20 people, and owns a huge chunk of the city's housing.
And because of supply and demand the reality is that the power is not in the hands of labor (for now), and the internet does exist.
Reply to "built a system", part 2 of 2:
Corporations set the wage, you apply, and if you tell them you need more money to work there they tell you to get lost*. Job postings receive hundreds, sometimes thousands of applications. Why would they lower their profitability by giving you the wage you set if the next person in the very long line will work just as hard for cheaper?
Like any market, supply and demand does determine price. If you want to be a forest ranger, you'll be competing against a whole lot of people who like the idea of getting paid to hang out in the forest all day. You'll get much better pay as a garbage man, since fewer people like the thought of taking that job. But as individuals, we can choose whatever kind of job we want to work, balancing our skills and aptitudes with our personal tastes and how much we value monetary remuneration compared to other measures of job satisfaction. And if you're clever, you can figure out how to spend all day in the forest and make well over $100k (start a logging company).
Corporations tell their workers what to do and therefore control their workers. Same goes for hours. If I told my boss that I will only work Sundays-Thursdays from now on, I would be fired. That is a form of control.
Depends on the type of work. Personally I don't care when people work, as long as they show up for meetings and get their jobs done well. But sure, if you're a gas station attendant then you'd better show up before the start of your shift.
place of employement - Corporations quite literally have been forcing people to return to offices or face dismissal. There are other kinds of this action, but that's just one example.
If you like remote work, and your manager doesn't understand that you're productive working from home, then the job's a bad match for you and you should find a better match. That's not anyone having control over the other party; it's just conflicting values.
type of employement - Corporations are the one who decide if you're exempt, non-exempt, a contractor, what the job responsibilities are, etc.
I've known people to negotiate their status when getting hired. Everything's on the table in a negotiation. You just need to recognize it as a negotiation, and learn to negotiate well.
hours - If you refuse to work the hours you are told you are fired.
Again, this is very much dependent on the kind of job. Many jobs just require you to get a certain amount of work done.
how money is distributed - At no point does your average worker control this. The higher ups decide this and almost universally decide that the majority should go to them. If businesses were truly democratic, then you'd never see a single company giving a CEO the money for a brand new yacht every year.
You lost me here. First off, we wouldn't want a business to be democratic any more than we'd want our country to be. A democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for supper. It's a tragically terrible idea, under almost all circumstances. So no, of course businesses aren't democratic.
If you've ever tried to hire a CEO (and it's obvious you haven't), you'd know it's extremely hard to find someone qualified to do the job well. Again, their compensation is a function of supply and demand. There's almost zero supply. And if you want to be cheap and hire an inexperienced or second-rate CEO, you're taking a big risk with the life-blood of the company.
With both of those points established, I'm lost as to your overall point about how money is distributed. You get a paycheck or direct deposit. Some businesses pay cash. A few will pay in bitcoin or other cryptocurrency. You don't seem to be discussing any of these things, but they're how money is distributed.
the media (narrative) - Virtually all media companies are owned by the rich, and they do not allow news articles and the like to be against them. For example, the Washington Post is owned by Bezos, and you'll never see an article from them criticizing Bezos or Amazon.
Yes, well that's true if we're only discussing the mass media. Most of the conservative media outlets are tiny operations.
But that's not evidence that companies seek power over people. It's just evidence that the personality type of journalists tends to be leftist, and while that's not true of all journalists, they've banded together with like-minded people.
Even in the worst case examples, big tech silencing conservatives, which is a very real problem with examples far too numerous to count (Why do my mailings from Team DeSantis keep going to spam, no matter how many times I click "not spam"?), that's not corporations trying to control people. It's just employees with personal political preferences who work alongside like-minded people, and who believe they're making the world a better place.
Like any market, supply and demand does determine price.
Agreed. And with today's huge population, the supply is so huge that it depresses everybody's wages. The internet only makes it worse with how easy it is to apply to hundreds of jobs.
The end result is that the average person has no control over wages.
Personally I don't care when people work
And that's you, which is great. But most places aren't like that and instead control it under threat of termination.
That's not anyone having control over the other party
I think we have a difference of opinion over what constitutes control.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/control
I'm more or less using definition 1a
Everything's on the table in a negotiation. You just need to recognize it as a negotiation, and learn to negotiate well.
You can't have negotiation without leverage, and you can't have leverage when the market is oversupplied.
Many jobs just require you to get a certain amount of work done.
This is pretty much the same issue as above. So I'll move on.
we wouldn't want a business to be democratic any more than we'd want our country to be.
You might not want our country to be democratic, but the vast majority of people do.
A democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for supper.
A democracy is the way in which the social contract is maintained. The alternative is the wolves just slaughtering the lambs. In reality, there are 10 lambs for every one wolf.
it's extremely hard to find someone qualified to do the job well
That's because today's corporations are bloated. If everything was small to medium business it wouldn't be a problem.
I'm lost as to your overall point about how money is distributed.
I'm talking about the percentage cut of what each person gets, and how CEOs get overpaid.
https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2020/
But that's not evidence that companies seek power over people.
It absolutely is. If you control what media people consume, you control what they think, and that is power.
Here is an example of the Sinclair stations using that power:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE
Even in the worst case examples, big tech silencing conservatives
I'll leave you with this:
Why do my mailings from Team DeSantis keep going to spam, no matter how many times I click "not spam"?)
As somebody who works in tech, I can tell you the answer is likely just that they send our so many emails that it trigger's your email host's spam filters. It's often a case of quantity instead of content. Either that or a really stupid bug. The whole field of tech is littered with them.