Arjay, I'm a great respecter of the potential power of capitalism, but the attempts by various corporations with considerable vested interest in the status quo to fund efforts that muddy the debate with exaggerated claims about the level of doubt among scientists regarding the CO2-warming link has suggested very strongly that allowing corporations unlimited power is in many ways quite incompatible with a liberal democracy. A company such as Exxon-Mobil has more wealth, power and influence than most democratically-elected national governments, yet it effectively acts as a totalitarian entity, answerable only to the select group that own the bulk of its shares. While there will always be a need for large corporations capable of coordinating global efforts, the "socialist" position would be that such corporations be based on democratic ideals, where the people have at least some say over its operation. This could even mean laws to ensure that publicly-listed corporations over a certain size hold elections to determine the leadership - which is a logical enough extension of current laws that require all shareholders be able to vote on certain major decisions. With such an arrangement in place, we could imagine that a new leadership team pledging to take Exxon-Mobil in a new direction by significantly funding R&D of new fuels would attract the vote of a majority of shareholders.

What's totalitarian about that?

Wizofaus re corporations “yet it effectively acts as a totalitarian entity, answerable only to the select group that own the bulk of its shares.”

Corporations, be they local or international, are required to operate within the laws of the country in which they were operating, regardless of their domicile.

I do not recall any corporation ever receiving an “exemption” to the laws of Australia.

I do know some corporations who exercise sufficient influence (of any type or nature, just like any other lobbyist) that the merits of their goals might occasionally effect a change to laws.

I also know of many government owned companies whose very existence is a matter of statute.

I recall the illegal actions of the CEO of HIH resulted in his imprisonment, the illegal actions of Visiboard saw the issue of massive fines and similar fines and parties named at Qantas in USA and the imprisonment of Enron and Arthur Andersen Executives for their criminal conduct.

None of these things suggests that corporations are considered “above the law”.

The nature of all joint stock companies is, people and other institutions (ultimately owned by people) own all the shares in all the companies and they are all subject to the law. All those people who own the shares are subject to “law”.

A corporation is, reasonably, not required to consider the feelings or needs of non-share holders as prominently as share holders, despite the wealth of legislation which forces companies to comply with health and safety and public liability issues.

Every company is regulated more strictly than any private individual. Your hypothesis is a myth.

you want a say, buy some shares.

The article

I will support moves away from this “libertarian” society if, under some form of tyranny

the tyrants name is “Col Rouge”.

Now, that might not suit anyone else but I figure you agree that you yourselves would not tolerate "totalitarianism" unless you, personally, were the pinnacle of dictatorial authority.

First, I would see David Shearman sent to a seriously nasty place to some compulsory “re-education” in the “CR libertarian appreciation programme”.

Ok, I'll play, and not be 'polarized,' for a few words:

What the Soviet Union did to their environment:

http://tinyurl.com/34fwsy

Books to read before you vote:

http://tinyurl.com/2vp6rm

OK, now I'm through being nice, because it doesn't work on the global communist insurgents who will do/say anything and eventually kill anyone who gets in their way of establishing their utopia.

Another eco-commie considers returning to their violent revolutionary ways to force their global socialism on all of us:

http://tinyurl.com/2kn673

You Aussies were stupid enough to turn in your guns when your "Liberal"(socialist, communist, fascist, authoritarian) govt. demanded them so you fully deserve what these freaks to do you, just like the Brits.

However here in the good ol' USA, which isn't a 'democracy' by the way regardless of what garbage Dubya spews forth to the newswhores, see my quotes page:

http://www.willowtown.com/promo/quotes.htm

We plan to not put up with this crap much longer:

http://www.willowtown.com/promo/links.htm

You sheeple need to wake up. The eco-commie groups, most of them, are worth billions. They get billions in funding from the global corporations. Why? How can they afford to spend millions on constant fear mongering commercials on the telly, or as I prefer, the weaponvision? Who really wants us to be this stupid?

waypasthadenough:

Are you trying to engage people in thought? Are you trying to encourage people to your point of view? Or are you into self-degradation?

I might go back and read what you said later, but for the life of me, at this stage of the game, I think I have wasted part of my life in reading your post. I am probably wasting even more by responding.

What I would like you to learn from my post is that you need to revamp your attitude, your style, your whole approach, if you want people to read, analyse and think about what you are saying.

You can take comfort, I suspect, in realising that my voice is only one voice, and perhaps I am the only one in the world who reacts in this way to your post.

Um, haven't you heard the news that the population bomb is now a fizzer.
The family formation rate in wealthy democracies is plumeting and populations are imploding.
Wealth is the most potent contraceptive followed by female literacy.
The populations of France, Spain and Italy halve over the next thirty years or so.
The total global population goes into population decline around the middle of the century.
The best way to reduce family formation rates in the rest of the world is to promote economic growth and development and education.
In most cases that means getting rid of tyranny - not entrenching it.

Climate change has as much with democracy as democracy with justice or love with sex.

Playing English, not more.