🚀 go-pugleaf

probst@fraser.sfu.ca (Scott Probst) writes:
>yes, well it seems that corporations do what everyone else does - if they
>have to pay out more money, they take more wherever they can get it. it
>also seems that something we have to consider is that we have basically
>legislated ourselves into a situation that dictates that corporations get
>to do a lot of the dictating of general financial conditions, and have
>the monetary muscle to move people howsoever they choose. we could change
>this, if we wanted, limit the overall size a company can be, or limit the
>scope of its ownership, as well as ask them to pay for the privilege of
>using resources, such as people, do achieve their profit aims.

Companies already pay for the privilege using people - salaries.

I certainly agree that they should pay for the privilege of using resources.
National resources are owned by the citizens of this country, and their value
is part of the value of living here.  By selling them at a fair price the
government could defray costs for the services the citizens value - that is,
reduce taxation.  But the government does not sell them at a fair price - it
sells them too cheaply.  Why?  Because the grossly overpriced labour in
Canada makes it impossible for resource extracting companies to make a profit
unless they can get the resources for a song.  The whole situation is just
*one more* form of handout going on in this country.  Resources workers get
excessive wages at the expense of the rest of the taxpayers.

You also comment that we could, "limit the overall size a company can be, or
limit the scope of its ownership".  Wouldn't it be better not to limit the
scope of ownership of a company, but instead hope that the number of share
holders grows - thus increasing the distribution of the profits?  In both
cases however you are suggesting dabbling in the affairs of companies -
things that are none of our business (unless we are share holders).  One
thing that always amazes me is that the very people who support limiting the
size of companies are often the same people who favour bigger government.
Aren't governments the biggest, badest organizations of all?  If there is
*one thing* that history has taught us, it is that when a group of people are
given stewardship over resources of any sort, they abuse it.  It always
happens.  "Power corrupts...", is but one variation of this theme.  As a
result, the resources over which people preside should always be kept as
small as possible.

Now we can do nothing about the size of companies (aside from a few
reasonable anti-trust laws), but we can certainly control the size of
government.  Companies must survive.  If they become too abusive internally,
they will collapse.  So there are natural anti-abuse forces that operate in
companies.  Nothing similar occurs within governments (short of popular
revolt).  There is also far more direct feedback in companies than there is
in governments - stocks are bought and sold every day.  The feedback provided
to governments (voting) is sparse, and the confused message provided by the
voters must be applied to a huge number of behaviors in different realms.
This is an "adaptive system" disaster.  The solutions are to drastically
reduce the size of government (bring it down to the size where there are no
sections immune to feedback), and to decentralize the decision making as much
as possible.  Constituent assemblies, referendums, community based service
departments - basically what you find in Switzerland.  One thing you don't
find in Switzerland is "political leaders" of the Mulroney, Bush, Harcourt
mold.  We don't want them either.

When you've got a complex curve, it is best to fit it with segments that are
as small as possible.  One big parabola won't do.

>bucky fuller always contended that the origination of corporations was in
>the buccaneers of old - they basically tok whatever they could, and gave
>away as little as possible. without descending to personal accusations of
>corporate bosses now, i think there is a lot to support this point of
>view, particularly if you simply look at the outcome of much corporate 
>activity.it seems the less regulation, the more abuse of the individual 
>and collective good, in the form of pollution, low wages, bad working 
>conditions, poor product, etc.

What is the problem with the buccaneer model (ignoring outright theft)?  They
were honest about their intentions.  "Greed is good, greed is right."

Certainly regulation should be used to prevent the abuse of human rights,
including the right not to suffer from pollution, but other regulations are
not needed.  And it is nobody's business to apply them.  Companies are
voluntary collections of consenting adults: workers and share holders.  One
should never tell consenting adults what to do (unless they are harming
people).

Low wages?  If someone has accepted a job, they've implicitly agreed that
the wage is an acceptable return for their efforts, whatever it is.  Bad
working conditions?  Do you mean dangerous, or just tacky office wallpaper?
The former could lead to harm and should thus be regulated against.  By
accepting the job, workers have implicitly agreed to the latter.  Poor
product?  You can't possibly be suggesting regulating against that!  It 
is the one thing that *certainly* takes care of itself.

Ken Buckland
kenb@ee.ubc.ca