Corporation VS Government control...PLEASE share your opinion!

[Seanmc30]

Bear with me here, I hope I can get some good feedback from this question, as it is a major fulcrum in my understanding of the Paul economics.

First, we will vote for Dr. Paul and fight against "liberalism" because the idea of "Big Government" control and care taking is against everything we know and hold sacred.

What I fear, however, is control of the country in the opposite direction. A free market is great in theory but when a corporation gets large enough and powerful enough, it can have the same detrimental effect on a society that an oppressive Government can....even if it is NOT merged with the Government (as we are starting to see now)

My QUESTION is: Is there some kind of failsafe or concept I am missing about the whole concept behind the Ron Paul campaign, that not only limits the power of Government, but will limit the AWESOME monetary power of a mega-corporation?

[forsmant]

Most large corporations got that way by using government to limit competition. Corporate control is usually voluntary whereas government control is backed up with physical force. These are generalizations. In a true free market there would be no need to be certified, registered, approved or whatever else that is needed to be in business. These are all things that limit competition. I am a carpenter and I have trouble getting side work because I have no Insurance or certifications but I know just as much as those that have them. I am not complaining just saying.

[NoxTwilight]

This is a very complex subject, one that I have read some very interesting things about such as Corporations as individuals and a host of other things. I will try to find them tonight when I get home and post them unless someone beats me to it. I think it is a very important subject as so much of our problems are clearly linked to the power of corporate wealth in politics and government. Well worth out time to discuss and understand. A real big picture is needed!

[lucius]

'Treason: The New World Order' by Gurudas: http://www.amazon.com/Treason-New-World-Order-Gurudas/dp/0945946147/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196378015&sr=1-1

“All these people say there are powerful groups threatening our way of life. Some sources identify the bankers and corporate elite as the source of our problems, while others feel the national security state is the threat. The power of Wall Street is now obvious to many. So much is happening today that it is increasingly clear a police state is no longer some distant event to fear. The American people must awaken and join together to restore constitutional government and diminish the power of the large corporations and their agent, the federal government, so that we can again be a free people.”

[forsmant]

The Banksters got their power from the Congress and so do many other corporations. Laws can also hurt corporations like the ones used to ensure your safety at airports and in automobiles. Laws, laws and more laws, I wish some candidate would run on just eliminating bad laws. We have way to many laws as that is the purpose of a legislature. They always make new ones and rarely get rid of the old ones.

[Oddball]

According to a little-known law, 16 stat 419 (http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/351.html?template=print), the federal gubmint is itself the biggest and mother ship of ALL multinational corporations.

From the link:


351.1 ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY

Established: Effective June 1, 1871, by an act of February 21, 1871 (16 Stat. 419), abolishing the Corporations of the City of Washington, DC, and Georgetown, DC, and the Levy Court of Washington County, DC; and replacing them with a municipal corporation known as the District of Columbia.

[forsmant]

Does that mean they can declare bankruptcy?, and allow the banksters to control our monetary system?

[Oddball]

They already have.

Read The Creature from Jekyll Island (http://www.realityzone.com/creature.html)

[forsmant]

I already read something to that affect. All the major players of the Geneva convention declared bankruptcy and the USA is a British colony. It was interesting.

[torchbearer]

without their government feedbags, corporation will have to start acting like companies competing in a free market again... and it only benefits the consumer when there is true competition for their money.

[Oddball]

The problem there is that gubmint needs the coprorations to shake down the rustics, like capos busting out the windows of peeps who don't pay the protection money. Then, everyone complains to Don Vito about Tessio and Clemeza shaking them down, without realizing who begat and works for whom.

[FunkBuddha]

I recently debated this with my brother... This was the argument killer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

I asked him to give me one instance of a corporation, WITHOUT government collusion, committing similar atrocities.

He could not.

[Seanmc30]

The problem there is that gubmint needs the coprorations to shake down the rustics, like capos busting out the windows of peeps who don't pay the protection money. Then, everyone complains to Don Vito about Tessio and Clemeza shaking them down, without realizing who begat and works for whom.

"Oddball" indeed!

[Seanmc30]

I recently debated this with my brother... This was the argument killer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

I asked him to give me one instance of a corporation, WITHOUT government collusion, committing similar atrocities.

He could not.

I guess I could see this being relevant...under the condition that politicians after Paul could stick to the constitution and not be tempted to allow corporate money to corrupt.

[Oddball]

"Oddball" indeed!
Wha...don't like the analogy??

[terryp]

It was on sundance or one of the low tier cable channels like maybe indy.
The documentary was very good and stated that corporations originally were designed to be used as a tool for the gov to join with certain business to complete jobs that were very large like the TVA.
Sometime in the late 1800's or early 1900's some businesses were pressing elected officials to relax those laws which they did.
Until then business had an obligation to be civically minded. When the law was changed they were no longer bound by civic duty but bound to their stockholders.
That's it in a nutshell and may not be 100% accurate.

[Oddball]

Corporations go back waaaaaaaaay further than that. Think Hudson's Bay Corporation.

Also, corporations were declared legal "persons", under the 14th Amendment, by SCOTUS in the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad ( http://www.iiipublishing.com/afd/santaclara.html) case.

[terryhamel]

This is a timely subject, as I've a democrat carpenter friend who likes Dr. Paul's stance on monetary policy thanks to the DVD's I gave him, but he is stuck on one issue - corporate monopoly. I explained to him that monopolies are a result of gov't protection in the guise of regulation, but he believes the Taft law proves that regulation is necessary to impede monopolies. To him, free markets allow corporations to monopolize because no one can stop them.

He also cited an African diamond mining company as proof of a failed free market. Now, I don't know anything about a foreign national industry, but I'd be willing to bet it was NOT a free market and was gov't protection that allowed that.

As I see it, my task is to first debunk his two claims with evidence, then show proof of gov't protection smothering competition which creates monopolies. I need a little help researching and documenting these tasks, as he is not going to do it - he'd rather get his info from socialist radio stations such as NPR. If I can do this, I think he'll will convert and spread Dr. Paul's message to his co-worker's, all whom have copies of Dr. Paul's DVD's too because of him.

-Terry

[Pete]

This is a timely subject, as I've a democrat carpenter friend who likes Dr. Paul's stance on monetary policy thanks to the DVD's I gave him, but he is stuck on one issue - corporate monopoly. I explained to him that monopolies are a result of gov't protection in the guise of regulation, but he believes the Taft law proves that regulation is necessary to impede monopolies. To him, free markets allow corporations to monopolize because no one can stop them.

He also cited an African diamond mining company as proof of a failed free market. Now, I don't know anything about a foreign national industry, but I'd be willing to bet it was NOT a free market and was gov't protection that allowed that.

As I see it, my task is to first debunk his two claims with evidence, then show proof of gov't protection smothering competition which creates monopolies. I need a little help researching and documenting these tasks, as he is not going to do it - he'd rather get his info from socialist radio stations such as NPR. If I can do this, I think he'll will convert and spread Dr. Paul's message to his co-worker's, all whom have copies of Dr. Paul's DVD's too because of him.

-Terry

This is from the Wikipedia entry for DeBeers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debeers#Legal_issues:


The diamond market is dominated by De Beers companies which were originally formed in South Africa by British owners. De Beers now owns about 70% of diamond mines in Africa. The De Beers “family of companies” collectively are responsible for around 40% of world diamond production by value.

Debswana, a fifty-fifty partnership between De Beers and the government of Botswana, is the world's leading producer of diamonds by value (originally it was only 15% for government of Botswana). However, the supply of diamonds worldwide is controlled only by De Beers; the government of Botswana has nothing to do with it.

De Beers enjoys a monopoly in Botswana and almost virtual monopoly in diamond supply in the rest of the world. There are other diamond mines owned by small companies with less control on the market. None of the companies are owned by Africans.

De Beers currently holds a legal exemption in South Africa from the mandatory dust suppression method of spraying water when drilling, on the grounds that the dust in its mines is uniquely harmless. However, dust in a diamond mine can cut and scar the lungs of mineworkers.

So there is some evidence of cooperation with government enhancing DeBeers' quasi-monopoly.

The very founding of DeBeers is a love story of government and business cooperation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes

At least in a market society, a consumer has the option of participating in the 'diamonds are forever' scam or not. In a Marxist society, I imagine that diamonds would be either MANDATORY or FORBIDDEN. :)

Your friend no doubt has direct experience with government interfering with his business. I have some relatives who attempted going into new home construction, and they were screwed left and right by city officials who favored established builders. This was not so much official corruption but a 'buddy system' of relationships, but the law was used as a club (very unfair inspections, etc.). This is an example of socialist policies being used to promote monopolies.