Seanmc30
02-07-2008, 08:52 PM
I know its long, but please take some time and debate this... this is a massive issue dealing with the polarization of 'Left' and 'Right' we now face.
I would like to understand the proposed policy and intended outcomes of the two figures Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky in regard to corporation. Trying to leave ALL stereotyping, jargon, and ANGER at the door, I want to compare their ideas. I just want some creative input and forward thinking to try to untangle how I, and maybe all of us, should approach this issue.
Now, what they both seem to agree on (as well as I) is that U.S. corporate capitalism, in its current form, has almost entirely engulfed our Government. It is now to the point that the U.S. Government acts and legislate, almost as one, solely in the interest of Corporations to maintain growth and economic stability.
Chomsky, believes that the very structure of corporation is flawed. The flaw is that Corporation in its current form, is only concerned with THE BOTTOM LINE, and as a result of this many people suffer. The suffering can be anything from poison water, acid rain, sweat shops, contaminated food (big one for me), and the list goes on. Now I'm not one of those "Profit is evil" people, but I've witnessed this behavior, and to be honest I think the description of Corporation being "psychotic" is fairly accurate. How else do you define an organism, while maybe even operated by moral individuals, operating on the premise of "Growth, by any means necessary."
Paul, like Chomsky, seems to want an end this bastard union between our Corporation and Government by deregulation and severing the ties that are beginning to bind us. In Pauls platform, however, this is to be followed by privatization of absolutely everything.
The concept of "what happens next" is what is confusing me. I really understand and see how business can "do it better", but what I don't understand is how unregulated companies can be kept from leaving mass devastation in their wake. For Example: We all know how media works...*AHEM* If companies owned/partnered with the media and there were no regulatory standards.... what is to prevent business from simply creating huge fabrications and PR campaigns to quell social objection and continue to operate, business as usual.... while we are all drinking some mutated growth hormone that causes cancer but makes us feel 'temporarily divine'.
If the nature of business is to make money, and businesses must be selfish to do so efficiently, what must exist to counter the businesses tendency to exploit its surroundings and neglect responsibility for its actions?
If your answer is "Free market demand controls all...just like democracy once did.", my question still stands. How do we make sure companies don't destroy our drinking water to the point that humanity will face inevitable extinction..... before anyone ever realize there is a problem?
I would like to understand the proposed policy and intended outcomes of the two figures Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky in regard to corporation. Trying to leave ALL stereotyping, jargon, and ANGER at the door, I want to compare their ideas. I just want some creative input and forward thinking to try to untangle how I, and maybe all of us, should approach this issue.
Now, what they both seem to agree on (as well as I) is that U.S. corporate capitalism, in its current form, has almost entirely engulfed our Government. It is now to the point that the U.S. Government acts and legislate, almost as one, solely in the interest of Corporations to maintain growth and economic stability.
Chomsky, believes that the very structure of corporation is flawed. The flaw is that Corporation in its current form, is only concerned with THE BOTTOM LINE, and as a result of this many people suffer. The suffering can be anything from poison water, acid rain, sweat shops, contaminated food (big one for me), and the list goes on. Now I'm not one of those "Profit is evil" people, but I've witnessed this behavior, and to be honest I think the description of Corporation being "psychotic" is fairly accurate. How else do you define an organism, while maybe even operated by moral individuals, operating on the premise of "Growth, by any means necessary."
Paul, like Chomsky, seems to want an end this bastard union between our Corporation and Government by deregulation and severing the ties that are beginning to bind us. In Pauls platform, however, this is to be followed by privatization of absolutely everything.
The concept of "what happens next" is what is confusing me. I really understand and see how business can "do it better", but what I don't understand is how unregulated companies can be kept from leaving mass devastation in their wake. For Example: We all know how media works...*AHEM* If companies owned/partnered with the media and there were no regulatory standards.... what is to prevent business from simply creating huge fabrications and PR campaigns to quell social objection and continue to operate, business as usual.... while we are all drinking some mutated growth hormone that causes cancer but makes us feel 'temporarily divine'.
If the nature of business is to make money, and businesses must be selfish to do so efficiently, what must exist to counter the businesses tendency to exploit its surroundings and neglect responsibility for its actions?
If your answer is "Free market demand controls all...just like democracy once did.", my question still stands. How do we make sure companies don't destroy our drinking water to the point that humanity will face inevitable extinction..... before anyone ever realize there is a problem?