The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Money and power > Comments

Money and power : Comments

By Josh Fear, published 18/8/2010

It is time to wrest back some of the power that corporations have acquired at our expense.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
There is little or no evidence that the state in fact represents the people.

One of the reasons corporations are so powerful is because it is an effect of the democratic process. People vote for politicians that they think will give them benefits. The ethical dimension is disregarded. The system naturally selects for the most unprincipled politicians, whose only watchword is expedience, the best liars, the least concerned about other's property rights.

The effect of government confiscating 40 to 50 percent of everything the people produce, and spending it on bureaucracies whose sole function is to restrict everyone else's freedom and make forced redistributions, is to add costs onto all productive activity - all for 'the greater good', of course. The effect of these added costs is to drive smaller businesses to the wall, or stop them from getting started in the first place. The result is to favour the larger corporations, whose economies of scale can handle the tax burden which disproportionately suffocates their smaller competition. Many of them also have occupational licenses - privileges handout out by government to their mates.

Then the interventionists, uncomprehending, see the results of their handiwork and declare that the problem is not enough government regulation. Presumably the prospect of a better society lies in a government bigger than the big government we've got now, which everyrone seems in favour of, and totalitarian government, which everyone disowns.

There's only one problem: no-one has ever shown, or can ever show how the economic interventions of government are able to produce a total net benefit for society in the first place.

Since full socialism is impossible, the drive towards it always ends up in fascism: the kind of ugly amalgam of big government and their pet big businesses that we've got now.
Posted by Peter Hume, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 9:24:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Josh,

Occasionally articles as this one of yours appear here and there in journals not reachable by the people to whom a tabloid and a television screen are the only channels of information.

Your diagnosis of the political theatre thrown at us, accurate as it is, remains a diagnosis of a disease deemed to be incurable, at least in the way you formulate it.

However you mention the Constitution and, to me, therein lies the seed of the monstrosity you describe.

The Constitution is one whose roots are in the Athens of five centuries before Christ and cannot serve a society that has given birth to Kurt Gödel.

Elementary, Dr. Watson
Posted by skeptic, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 10:41:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter; social democratic corporatism does not equal fascism.

Less so liberal social democracy.

Fascism involves corporatism; but by most peoples' reading also involves militarism, rascism, supression of democracy and human liberties.

Liberal social democratic corporatism might be the best we can achieve: because attempts at a full social and economic revolution - because challenging power relations at its most fundamental level - creates a 'life and death' struggle. Hence the example of the (Bolshevik) Russian Revolution - and the ultimate descent into civil war and Stalinism.

'Breaking up' economic power, though, also result in a system of counter-balances - so no one interest as total political and economic power.

If one interest did have total economic and political power, I think the risk would be great that it would be abused.

Already the example of the mining industries destruction of Rudd proves the point: but what is frightening is that it could get worse; much worse.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 4:57:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan
Economic and personal liberties are two sides of the same coin, so the fact that social democracy characterises the economic policies of fascism is not much consolation.

Besides, the western social democracies including Australia are all involved in aggressive military adventurism on the other side of the world, against countries that never attacked and never offered to attack us, on the basis of lies proved over seven years ago. These wars have been used as a pretext to expand government power and reduce individual liberties at home. The USA is very militaristic, and Australia follows their policy almost without question.

Australia has a whole raft of race-based laws which are intended to benefit people on the basis of their race.

And what other kind of liberties are there than ‘human liberties’? Social democracy is one big machine for suppressing human liberties, because every rule and regulation forcibly overrides people’s freedom to do what they would have done in the absence of a given rule.

Therefore social democracy involves not just the economic characteristics of fascism, but many others too, including the concentration of arbitrary political power, a large measure of rule by executive decree, compulsory indoctrination of the population, and the belief that state power can create whatever economic reality its devotees wish for.

“Liberal social democratic corporatism might be the best we can achieve: because attempts at a full social and economic revolution - because challenging power relations at its most fundamental level - creates a 'life and death' struggle.”

Who’s “we”?

Before democracy, exiting government usually involved a much greater risk of death. Democracy makes the transition into and out of government safe for the highest officials of state. Democracy makes the machinery of government more efficient at exploiting the population, which is why modern Prime Ministers have far more absolute power than the kings of old ever had – and with far less personal risk.

What evidence is there that the state represents society?
Posted by Peter Hume, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 6:45:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the australian greens are the only political party in this country which does not accept donations from businesses.

they are the only ones in our political sphere with the integrity and courage to stand up to the corporate bullies.
Posted by brennie, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 8:16:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great article.
Wealth distribution has been distorted by corporations in recent years to an alarming degree. Faux-competition combined with obscene marketing means that the public has no chance of a balanced view of things, which sort of makes a mockery of democracy.
Is our government debt a worry or not? How about the levels of private debt? Is it OK for 30% of our GDP to be "financial services" while nurses and teachers slip further behind? Does the value of "financial services" really justify the taxpayers dollars diverted to this sector? Bank marketing could fund the ABC! Is this money well spent?
These questions require impartial analysis based on transparent data, yet practically all economic commentary is paid for and very one-sided.
Not all profits are good profits. Would a year of bumper, say panel beating be a "Good Thing"? GDP goes up due to "economic activity", yet fixing destruction is hardly a positive! Our laws treat all corporate profits as good, despite the real value to the economy. Outsourcing skilled manufacturing was good for short term profits, but was it good for the country?
Wealth distribution and economic flows have changed greatly in the last decade. As with the US, massive profits flowing to incumbent wealth is having/will have accelerating destructive impacts. Productive industry, education, public services (rail, communication) have been treated as cash cows and allowed to degenerate while profits for the few soar. It must end if our country is to progress again, but will it end with disaster and humility like the US, or can we actually get some leadership from politicians? It's not looking good.
Posted by Ozandy, Thursday, 19 August 2010 9:14:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy