Google and Facebook: Unelected Superpowers? 243
theodp (442580) writes "'The government is not the only American power whose motivations need to be rigourously examined,' writes The Telegraph's Katherine Rushton. 'Some 2,400 miles away from Washington, in Silicon Valley, Google is aggressively gaining power with little to keep it in check. It has cosied up to governments around the world so effectively that its chairman, Eric Schmidt, is a White House advisor. In Britain, its executives meet with ministers more than almost any other corporation. Google can't be blamed for this: one of its jobs is to lobby for laws that benefit its shareholders, but it is up to governments to push back. As things stand, Google — and to a lesser extent, Facebook — are in danger of becoming the architects of the law.' Schmidt, by the way, is apparently interested in influencing at least two current hot-button White House issues. Joined by execs from Apple, Oracle, and Facebook, the Google Chairman asserted in a March letter to Secretary of State John Kerry that the proposed Keystone XL pipeline is not in the economic interests of the U.S.; the Obama administration on Friday extended the review period on the pipeline, perhaps until after the Nov. 4 congressional elections. And as a 'Major Contributor' to Mark Zuckerberg's FWD.us PAC, Schmidt is also helping to shape public opinion on the White House's call for immigration reform; FWD.us just launched new attack ads (videos) and a petition aimed at immigration reform opponent Rep. Steve King. In Dave Eggers' The Circle, politicians who impede the company execs' agenda are immediately brought down. But that's fiction, right?"
Who watches the watchers (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of people care (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong. I'm in favor of _more_ federal gov't. Civil rights for Black People in the Southern American States only happened because the Federal Government stepped in with the National Guard. Hell, we had outright terrorism in the south up until the late 50s early 60s. Mega corps are just too powerful to be reigned in with any less than a National Government. It's a double edged sword. But it's the only sword big enough...
Re:Lots of people care (Score:4, Informative)
Civil rights for Black People in the Southern American States only happened because the Federal Government stepped in with the National Guard.
BULLSHIT. Slavery and Jim Crow were both the RESULT of government laws. Neither can exist in the absence of government. Jim Crow in particular owes its existence to a Louiana law requiring a railroad to segregate its railroad cars against its own wishes, said law being approved by the US Supreme Court.
You need to learn a lot of history before opening your yap next time.
Re:Lots of people care (Score:4, Interesting)
Fed vs State. Simple.
Easy for white man to get all emotional about the politics, without caring for the people.
Re:Lots of people care (Score:4, Interesting)
People care about people. Governments do not. Any one who thinks the government is his friend is either a crony or a fool, possibly both. Governments' mission is to compel or prohibit; their core competence is coercion in the name of the status quo.
Before government made black self-defense illegal and enforced bigotry with government guns, blacks at least had a chance. Society was at least slowly intergrating even in the face of government sanctioned lynching, before government stepped in officially and made it illegal, backed by government guns and jails. The US Post office and military were more integrated than most people realize, until Woodrow Wilson came along and enforced segregation. That Louisian railroad was just one of many companies who integrated in pursuit of the amlighty dollar, until governments came along and stopped them with government guns and jail.
Progressives are an ignorant whiny lot, like all statists. All power to the government! The people, not so much.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I repeat, legal oppression only exists because of government. If you cannot see that simple truth, you are wilfully blind.
Primogeniture and entailment were government laws which enforced class distinctions and warfare -- withotu government creation and enforcement of classes, there would be no class oppression and warfare.
Government laws prevented women from owning property, voting, or having much freedom at all, and made marriage rape legal.
Slavery and segregation were the direct result of government laws
Re: (Score:3)
Government is only a corporate tool. Corporations are the shadow actors created by the super-rich to give themselves vehicles for action that are both superior to the state, and state-sanctioned legitimacy in this superiority.
Hating the "Government" is like pig-iron hating the hammer and the forge - not the Blacksmith.
Re: (Score:3)
Government is only a corporate tool.
You can say that, but that doesn't make it so. Governments have far more power than corporations since one can readily acquire money with power, but not the other way around. Why would you even think that a company like Google would have more power than a government?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you even think that a company like Google would have more power than a government?
Because the guy on the radio said so, and he swears just like a regular Joe so he must be authentic.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is OWNED by the "people" who OWN the Government.
Who creates money?
Re:Who watches the watchers (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes I wonder if democracy is dead.
Sometimes I wonder if I was the only one paying attention in Civics and Social Studies. Cliff notes version:
1) The United States is not a Democracy, it's a Republic.
2) The devolution of Democracies into fragmented self-interests is a problem that's been studied since the time of Athens. It should surprise no one.
3) The United States Federal Government was obstinately set up to minimize the aforementioned trend, but several big mistakes (Reynolds v. Sims [wikipedia.org] and the 17th Amendment [wikipedia.org] top the list) along the way and 200 years of mission creep have undermined most of the protections put in place.
What can we do about it? You've got me. My best suggestion is to pray for the emergence of an existential threat, because that's the only thing that will get the American people to set aside their differences long enough to find the sort of common ground it took to come up with the original Constitution. You've actually got two problems to overcome:
1) The iPad crowd's apathy towards the political process, which is reinforced by:
2) The tendency of those engaged in that process to assume that those who disagree with them are out to destroy the American way of life.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To paraphrase: The best argument against democracy (and yes, even democratic republics) is a five minute discussion with the average voter.
Toss it all out, it is corrupt by nature, and appoint everybody by lottery for one term only. Only then can we get the turnover needed to eliminate the careerism and mitigate the corruption.
Re:Who watches the watchers (Score:5, Insightful)
And you will replace "careerism" with incompetence. Can you imagine having a House of Representatives where no one has more than one term's experience? In the end you would literally hand over all power to bureaucrats, lobbiests and staffers, who would be the only ones with any long term experience. You would, in the end, make things worse, not better.
Re: (Score:2)
Because lawmaking isn't a skill magically bequeathed upon people merely because they won an election. Would you think this scheme a good idea for lawyers, doctors, welders, accountants or plumbers?
Re:Who watches the watchers (Score:4, Interesting)
They're quite competent; they just don't do what's in the best interest of all the stakeholders.
Re: (Score:2)
If your premise is that corporate leaders are not people, I can guarantee you I would form a militia and fight to restore American ideals of personal freedom.
Corporations are not people, but corporate employees are. It is none of my business if a politician changes jobs and becomes a corporate employee.
And how would you decide what jobs you'll let former pols do? It is like inverted Fascism; fascism was the merger of the functions of business and State, this would be a merger of the functions of anti-busine
Re:Who watches the watchers (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes I wonder if I was the only one paying attention in Civics and Social Studies. Cliff notes version:
1) The United States is not a Democracy, it's a Republic. ...
Oh jeez this again? The classic GOP / Libertarian / Tea weak-minds binary thinking that gets the meaning of both "republic" and "democracy" wrong.
The US is (supposed to be) a democracy. Just ask any living current or ex-President. Look at any respected list of "countries that are democracies". You do the research. It's simple.
The US is a republic. As in, "not a monarchy".
Republics can be democracies or they can be dictatorships, and pretty much anything in between. There is also nothing in the word "republic" which implies "representative". Just ask North Koreans.
Democracies can be direct democracies, like ancient Athens or a current-day New England Town Meeting or California ballot initiative. Or they can be representative. There is nothing in the word "democracy" that implies "direct-only".
"Democracy" and "Republic" are orthogonal concepts, they are not antonyms. Even when the US Senate was appointed, it was appointed by state legislatures which were comprised of elected representatives, who were elected by democratic elections. As opposed to being appointed by the monarch or being passed down via aristocratic houses.
Actually nowadays we are closer to that, with the money=speech nonsense and an increasingly distractable and distracted public who will vote whichever way paid media brainwashes them to do. House Clinton, House Bush, House Kennedy, and the upstart House Paul.
You may flip the order of the following words around, depending on what you want to emphasize, change some from adjectives to nouns, but all these terms are needed to properly define what the US system of government is:
Constitutional Federal Republic governed as a Representative Democracy,
or a
Federal Constitutional Representative Democratic Republic.
Choose your emphasis, but you cannot leave any of those terms out without misrepresenting how the system is designed.
Leaving any of that out is at best, ignorant point-missing. Usually it is deliberate agitprop.
The sky isn't blue, it's where birds fly. What you are saying is every bit as nonsensical and more dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
You have not provided any positive definition of the word "republic," only asserted it as a simple antonym of monarchy. As I understand the "republic, not democracy" meme, those who buy into it (and I am rather sympathetic myself) are bemoaning the fact that the central government is controlled by a specific, entrenched political class who determine the choices set in front of the electorate. This situation is just as dangerous as an unfettered monarch, albeit in different ways. Simple assertions that the s
Re: (Score:3)
You have not provided any positive definition of the word "republic," only asserted it as a simple antonym of monarchy.
Actually that is a proper definition of "republic". Not every definition is positive.
Re: (Score:3)
Geeze, even Mr. Franklin said "A republic - if you can keep it" when asked what the Constitutional Convention gave us. I'd take he oughta know a lot more then you! Additionally you didn't even bother to define or look up the definitions of the words you rather poorly attempt to define to mean what you want them to mean. A republic is defined as "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch". You are correct as there is nothing in the word republic that implies representative - it's in the fucking definition you nimrod!
Saying that the US was "supposed to be" a democracy is nothing more than your wishful thinking. It was defined as a republic and that's what it is.....
Ah, that strange binary thinking the OP alluded to.
Let's try this, shall we?
From Dictionary.com:
Democracy
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Republic
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
Do you notice that the "Republic" is a type of
Re: (Score:2)
Do you notice that the "Republic" is a type of "Democracy"?
You missed the words "free" and "direct" in the definition of Democracy. In Democracy, everybody chooses. In a Republic, some undefined set of people choose. Also, a Democracy is direct but a Republic can be direct, or indirect. Therefore, assuming the definitions you quoted, a Democracy is a type of Republic, but most Republics are not Democracies.
Sheesh...
Couldn't agree more! ;)
Re:Who watches the watchers (Score:4, Informative)
Let's try this, shall we?
From Dictionary.com:
This thread would be hilarious, if all of the people on both sides weren't taking it so seriously.
You can't quote Dictionary.com to have an argument about what Ben Franklin (or whoever else) might have meant 200+ years ago. Language changes, but more importantly, the detailed connotations of words change.
I'm not AT ALL on the side of the Tea Party lunatics, nor do I want to repeal the 17th amendment. But people claiming that "It's supposed to be a Republic, not a Democracy" is meaningless or misguided are being a little ignorant of history.
What this statement really means -- to those who actually know something about history and what those terms meant in the 18th century -- is that the U.S. was founded as something closer to the Roman Republic, and less like direct democracy (a la Athens or something). Those were the models the Founders were often discussing.
It does NOT mean that a republic can't be a democracy or whatever -- it means that the terms had (and still have, to some extent) default connotations that put them at somewhat different places on the government spectrum of where power lies. You can see this if you actually spend time reading what the Founders wrote, where they often tend to qualify the word "democracy" with "representative democracy." They did this because saying the word "democracy" by itself had connotations more connected with direct democracy.
It's kind of like the word "bachelor." Does it just mean "an unmarried man"? Well, is a divorced man a "bachelor"? Some people say no, others say "sometimes." The word "bachelor" also has historical connections to eligibility for marriage, not just marital status (hence "eligible bachelor"), and historically divorced men were uncommon. Now divorced men are common, and they are often considered eligible for marriage. So, can they be "bachelors"? Certainly they can have a "bachelor pad" or behave in ways that are "bachelor-like" (yet another connotation of the word, having to do with certain behaviors, rather than marital status).
All-in-all, language is complicated. Words have default connotations, and when we start arguing about word meanings over time or boundary cases, we're bound to have disagreements. For example, in the 18th century, a "republic" couldn't mean a communist republic, since communism didn't yet exist in the form we talk about today. Acting like that has something to do with the 18th century meaning is a little bizarre.
By the mid-1800s or so, language had evolved to the point that "democracy" and "republic" had enough default connotations in common that they could often be used interchangably in the U.S. But that doesn't mean we can't still mean something by saying that the Founders intended to have [something closer to their stereotypical version of] a Republic rather than [something closer to their stereotypical version of] a Democracy.
There has been a gradual shift over the past centuries in the U.S. moving closer toward a direct democracy, which is not in-line with the (pseudo-Roman) Republican tendencies of the Founders. For a few examples:
"Roman Republican" Founders: suffrage should generally be limited to people entitled to make decisions because of their positions and assets, i.e., free male landowners.
Modern-day "more Democratic" ideal: suffrage should be nearly universal, excepting only minors and maybe felons.
"Roman Republican" Founders: many offices should be filled by indirect elections or appointments, isolated from direct democratic interventions -- such as having senators elected by state governments or presidents by an "electoral college."
Modern-day "more Democratic" ideal: senators are elected by direct popular vote; the electoral college is viewed with great suspicion, along with other indirect election or appointment methods.
"Roman Rep
Re: (Score:2)
"Republic" is not defined as "not a monarchy" in the US
Let's look at the actual definition [merriam-webster.com]. This is the first one listed:
a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
There are other definitions which do fit your opinion more or less, but they aren't the only definitions of "republic" - in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Republics also support fragmented self-interests. Probably even more so than democracies.
The Founders made the US Government a Republic because they feared the tyranny of the majority would trample out the rights and interests of minorities. They made it a Democratic Republic because they also feared the tyranny of entrenched minorities. Checks and Balances were arguably the single most important consideration given to every facet of their governmental design.
Re: (Score:2)
The United States is not a Democracy, it's a Republic.
Those two are not mutually exclusive. A Republic is one form of Democracy. I suppose you could have a Democracy that isn't a Republic though (democratically elected Monarchy?).
Of course we've all heard the argument that "Democracy" means direct governing by the people without elected representatives. That's one form of Democracy, Republic is another. It's most accurate to say the United States is a federation of semi-autonomous states which are themselves Republics.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you! Thought I'd give a shout-out from another fan of civics.
I also want to point out that here in Oregon we have direct Democracy and also "Representative Democracy." Most laws are State laws, not Federal, and we have real and direct control of those laws; when we want to. And the rest of the time it functions as a Republic, with elected representatives doing the daily work.
The 17th amendment stuff is funny. A bit of submarine attack; you're suggesting it would increase Democracy to remove the right
Re: (Score:2)
The United States Federal Government was obstinately set up to minimize the aforementioned trend, but several big mistakes (Reynolds v. Sims [wikipedia.org] and the 17th Amendment [wikipedia.org] top the list) along the way and 200 years of mission creep have undermined most of the protections put in place.
You're claiming that Reynolds v. Sims was a bad decision? Without it, you could have stunning levels of effective disenfranchisement; all the party in power would need to do is to allocate all the strongholds of their opponents to as few seats as they could get away with (preferably one!) and split the remaining ones among the areas that they dominate, rapidly leading to an effective, perpetual one party state with no hope of ever changing it.
Any functioning representative democracy has to have something si
Re: (Score:3)
The Framers were specifically, clearly, and explicitly against "Democracy." That is why only a small percentage of people were allowed to vote, and they only voted on who would then go on to vote for the rulers. They were focused instead on guarantees of civil rights and local control of local issues.
The original system of electing "electors" who then choose the President was based on the English parliamentary system, but effectively with a different parliament (the Electoral College, a title borrowed fro
Re: (Score:3)
The two things aren't mutually exclusive. They don't even refer to the same thing. It's possible to be both, one or the other, or neither[1]. Draw a venn digram, FFS..
Until you grok that, shove your civics class up your arse.
[1] For extra credit, name one in each category.
Re: (Score:3)
Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally - either directly or indirectly through elected representatives - in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. [wikipedia.org]
Sgined: another Brit.
Re: (Score:2)
And from this site (http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic):
"However, in a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a pure democracy, the majority is not restrained and can impose its will on the minority."
I would be happier to go with the "republic" definition for my country.
Re: (Score:2)
So much like the old Soviet Union, a Federal Republic, made up of 15 IIRC Soviet Republics who also kept their sovereignty in all matters not assigned to the Federal government by the USSR Constitution.
Totally different then Canada, a Constitutional Monarchy made up of 10 Provinces which retain their sovereignty in all matters not explicitly assigned to the Federal Government by the various laws that make up the Canadian Constitution. Of course Canada is different as it was originally designed to have a str
Re: (Score:2)
THe American civil war was the opposite. The federal government was too strong for the south's liking.
South Carolina was the first state pre-civil war to nullify a federal law in the 1830s. It spread and caught on in the south afterwards and irritated the federal government. When territories wanted to become slave ones the southerns just nullified whatever the federal government wanted. Kansas had 2 different governments as a result as the south wanted it to be a slave one and anti slavery advocates
Re: (Score:2)
It's all relative, some States thinking the Federal government of the time was too strong does not mean that it was strong enough to prevent a civil war and it obviously wasn't as the civil war happened.
First time I've heard that the South was about to become a monarchy to get help from the British. At that my understanding is that at the beginning they expected British help as Britain was so dependent on cotton that they couldn't afford to not get involved. Instead the British seeing the war coming stocked
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it varies on whether the north was too weak to allow southern states to nullify laws or the south felt that had to nullify them because the federal government was too strong.
What is odd is the south today is solid republican and conservative and prides themselves on states rights. Oddly, they favored a strong government to enforce slavery on northern states who voted against them. Too many slaves went on the underground railroad to the northern states. But they nullified laws in a schizophrenic way
Re: (Score:2)
The idea of Confederation started with a plan to unite the Maritime colonies (Charlottetown accord 1864), then Canada showed up and wanted in. Politically the Province of Canada was deadlocked due to the way it was designed and that was one motivation, internally there were others such as trade and such. Externally there was the horror of the American Civil war, American manifest destiny, cancellations of free trade agreements, terrorists attacks (Fenians) based in America and England losing interest.
As for
CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE? (Score:2)
Money is speech?
You are seriously fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
Money is speech?
You are seriously fucked.
Well, actually, it's the price of a louder megaphone.
But such subtleties are lost on the modern-day Supreme Court, which is less interested in preserving the balances of Government and more in their own peculiar interpretation of the Law of the Land.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Republicans are currently attacking the 17th Amendment because they're scared of changes in demographics that will marginalize their right-wing views, and if they can strip the right to vote on Senators away from the People, and return it to the State Legislatures, then they can elect Senators based on gerrymandered State-level district lines, instead of by popular vote within the State.
Why do you hate Democracy, and why do you hate the Constitution?
Re: (Score:2)
"Sometimes I wonder if democracy is dead."
Not dead, just taking a deceptively deep sleep. In the US we still have the possibility of democratic action. So far. The problem is that people just don't participate because their lives are comfortable enough or they are too busy just trying to survive. They don't take the easy actions (voting and political participation) and then when pressed they feel they have to take the drastic actions (aiming guns at Federal officers in the dessert). It's stupid and it'
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes I wonder if democracy is dead.
In the U.S.A., it died quite some time ago. The U.S. is more accurately called an oligarchy now. The will of "the people", not to mention their interests, is (distant) secondary consideration. That much is obvious to anyone willing to actually look. Alas, most are not. Instead they allow themselves to be satisfied with the bread and circuses that are so freely handed to them.
Re: (Score:2)
> Instead they allow themselves to be satisfied with the bread and circuses that are so freely handed to them.
Funny, because I thought those cost money. Now in countries with a generous benefit systems, you get lodging, food and cable TV included in your benefits...
Re:Who watches the watchers (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not sure why there's all this hand wringing over corporate influence on the political process, I'd much prefer corporations having a say than some of the more powerful ideological interests that influence politicians.
I say this because corporations are basically greedy.
Greed doesn't care about your skin colour, your gender, your nationality, greed isn't interested in reframing the social dialogue in order to deconstruct gender roles that are constantly evolving anyway, greed won't murder you or drive you out of a job because you think the wrong way or hold the wrong opinion. All greed cares about is its own self interests. I trust greed, I know what it is and what it wants, and I can reasonably reliably predict what it's going to do next. Greed is in fact the great equaliser that is the holy grail of most progressive politics.
I mean putative corporate dystopias can hardly hold a candle to some of the actual real life ideological dystopias which have existed.
And so I don't get worried about corporations influencing governments. As long as they're kept at one anothers' throats (capitalism) things are working more or less the way they should.
Re: (Score:3)
Third, they can hold ideologies and attempt to pursue their greed in a way steered by their ideological blinders. For example, the Russian sell off of oil assets was expected to be a massiv
Re: (Score:3)
Just to mention two of your three objections to my comment are in fact objections to ideologies (and are hence the same objection), so we're in agreement there, and third I never said greed was the best of all possible motivations. However, if I may quote the great jester of our time, Terry Pratchett:
"A thumb pressed against two fingers, and the lean figure of Dr Cruces, head tutor, looming over the startled boys.
"We do not murder," he said. It was a soft voice; the doctor never raised his voice, but he had
What the hell is this article? (Score:2, Interesting)
The implication seems to be that we cease google and face book as state assets... nationalize them.
No. We're not some pathetic third world dystopian shithole... yet. And until we are, modern, civilized, and rational countries don't go around stealing the assets of companies or individuals. Its moronic. You do that and you discourage improvement. That's what happens in countries that never get better. They got desperate at some point and they stole from the people. The people responded by not improving anyth
Re: (Score:2)
yet what you seem to be advocating is that corporates can steal the assets of the state!
If a corporate gets large and/or powerful enough that it becomes a governmental player, then it needs either regulation to prevent it from becoming that powerful (eg, broken up), or nationalised in the interests of the well-running government for everyone.
Nationalising these businesses is not stealing from the people - 99% of the people don't have a stake in Google being a privately run company anyway. If the government
Re: (Score:3)
No I'm not.
If I build something then it isn't the state's.
By all means, tax me at the same rate you tax everyone else... but you don't get to take something from me just because you want it.
Get in that mode and you'll discourage people from building great or valuable things. Because they'll know that some weasel eyed dickless asshat will come along and cease it at gun point.
You either let people keep what they build or you society will go backwards.
Re:What the hell is this article? (Score:5, Insightful)
You either let people keep what they build or you society will go backwards.
Any absolute statement about topics like government or economics are almost guaranteed to be absurd (notice I said almost guaranteed).
Free market capitalism is great. It has created the most powerful economies the world has ever known. Even state run economies have only been successful when they take full advantage of global free market capitalism.
But capitalism still needs to be kept in check. You can't just take advantage of its benefits and ignore the perils. Nothing is free. Capitalism is used because it is in the best interests of society, not to benefit only the best and brightest. When situations arise that are no longer in society's best interests, it is our responsibility to react. We have had to break up other monopolies in the past to keep competition strong, and we will have to do it many times in the future.
Breaking up Standard Oil and Bell Systems did not collapse capitalism, so I really doubt that breaking up or nationalizing a few tech companies will destroy it either.
(note I am not commenting on whether anything needs to be done about Google or Facebook, just that saying we should do nothing no matter what is a silly argument)
Re:What the hell is this article? (Score:4, Insightful)
But crack their wrists when they abuse their power and fewer will abuse their power.
Take over or break up companies that get "too big" and they amazingly will manage to exist right under the "too big" line and constantly lobby / use lawyers to find way to get bigger.
Unfettered corporate power is turning the U.S. into an oligarchy. This ends badly for a long time for many citizens and then finally ends badly for the oligarchs too. It's not a good path to head down.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just another reason we need less power in Washington and more in the states. It is much more difficult for big corporations to lobby all state governments than it is to lobby the federal government.
Sure, we might end up with a state or two heavily lobbied by Google, but a State of Google is arguably better than the United States of Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Its more elemental. If those that produce are convinced they won't keep or benefit from what they produce they won't produce and everyone suffers.
Its worse than that. They do not understand that everyone that trades benefits when trades are a choice. The "Free" in "Free Trade" means Liberty. You are also Free to not trade. These are not ironically the same people that complain about things that they are willing consumers of....
I don't think that its the "socialist" philosophy that has turned them into "fuckwits" as you say -- I think its simply that they are Statists. See their calls to confiscate Google properties. "Nationalize them" indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't that rather depend on whether the things they build are any good?
Re: (Score:2)
but we're not talking about what you build, we're talking a corporate that has grown so big they are a danger to free governance of everyone.
By all means, you build something and stick to building it - we've got no problem with you. But once you get to interfering with government, trying to influence democratic process with your buckets of cash, then we have a problem that needs addressing.
Regardless of that, we need regulation of big businesses as the market forces that allow self-regulation to occur brea
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, here we are then.
Tell me... who is allowed to donate money to politics and who is not? I ask because I suspect there is some revenue source near and dear to your political faction that must be exempted from your rule.
I've seen this too many time to not be cynical about it. Every faction says the other's revenue sources are wrong but its are fine.
Its pretty much uniform self serving horseshit.
The courts have already said its all legal under the first amendment. You don't like it... then lets talk about a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, if you become large enough, you begin to warp the lines of power. Something somewhere has to give if democracy is to be preserved.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Can't we nero or constantine them instead?
If you're using a speech-to-text program can you tell us what it is, so we don't accidentally use it?
Just another facet of post 'Citizens United' USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just another facet of post 'Citizens United' US (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of thse billionaires lean right, like the Koch brothers, and some don't like Google's owners.
Google's owners lean right, but talk left. Like many other tech companies, they donate to liberal advocacy groups, while using tax shelters to shift their profits overseas. They are all for big liberal government programs as long as some else pays for them. The only difference between Google's owners and the Koch brothers, is that with Google you get an extra layer of hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They are all for big liberal government programs as long as some else pays for them.
You've just described 100% of the American electorate.
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand that when the Supremes declare something unconstitutional, Congress is not allowed to pass laws reversing it, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Those laws reversing it are properly called "Constitutional Amendments".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
US Congress can start a constitutional amendment process, but they can't make it happen by themselves.
Splitting hairs.
They can't do anything by themselves. Even a regular bill needs to go through the senate, and end with a presidential signature... etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Even a regular bill needs to go through the senate, and end with a presidential signature... etc.
The Senate is part of the US Congress. And they can pass veto-proof legislation with supermajorities in both branches of Congress. So legislation is not at all the same as a constitutional amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
You can craft a new law that won't run afoul of the court guidelines.
And that can be done with the Citizens United ruling since the problem was that corporations were explicitly banned from doing activities that individuals could do. Of course, preventing individuals from donating to campaigns might run afoul of other constitutional restrictions such as the First Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd suggest money buys a more effective microphone, as one gets on the big newspapers and the big, high-readership sites, far more easily if you have the bucks.
It's on things like IETF discussions that money doesn't help as much, as it's hard to find people to astroturf on technical subjects, and they rapidly become well-known.
Re: (Score:2)
Ask Warren Buffet about $$ to halt the keystone pipeline genius.
Solution (Score:4, Interesting)
Just allow companies to only grow up until they have, say, 1000 employees.
After that, they can only split.
What this solves:
No more conglomerates, companies form modular structures, output of 1 company can be reused by another company at a useful granularity.
This leads to much more competition, where previously only monopolies or quasi-monopolies were possible.
This, in turn, reduces and redistributes power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ok, so I then hire a bunch of "interns" or "part time employees" or some other way around the law. that is a kind of arbitrary rule that screws over the regular man while the people with money can skirt the law, oh I can only have 1000 employees? well ill just make a new company, that i run, and hire all the employees. Or I will only hire temp employess, from the temp agency that I own and run.
You forgot the bigger elephant in the room ... automation. While this kind of regulation would likely topple society, it would bring huge advances in robotics and artificial intelligence. Instead of hiring 10,000 employees, companies will have to hire a few hundred more engineers because regulations will stop them from having humans do the work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
its a global economy, if the US doesnt want to be business friendly, the companies will move overseas and destroy the country faster than the government could ever do on its own
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be interested in seeing whether something like the Hoover Dam or a supertanker could be built with a workforce of 1000 people. Or how much an automobile would cost if the largest auto plant were only 3% the size of the current largest plant. Or how much computers would cost if the largest chip fab were 3% of its current size...
Or have you never heard of economies of scale?
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook only has about 6000 employees now, and I believe it grew to most of its current size with under 1000 employees.
Also I suspect your proposal can be circumvented by establishing multiple companies owned by the same individual which cooperate together. Or (equivalently) by outsourcing certain business units to contractors.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this will just cause companies to hire the rest on as "contractors," which is worse because those people will usually get screwed over on benefits. This is what Exxon Mobil does. They only have about 75,000 employees, but are one of the most profitable companies in the world. Although they do take fairly good care of them... but can you imagine if a company like Walmart did this? Hell, they pretty much already do!
Why concerned about only one side of Keystone XL? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
but not concerned with the Koch brothers
What's the deal with this Liberal/Progressive/Leftist obsession with two people that the vast majority (85% in one poll I saw) of the American people have never even heard of? It's like the Democrats are already trying to rationalize why they've lost the 2014 mid-terms. It wasn't the platform, the electorate's exhaustion with the party, the bad economy, or even the usual historical trend away from a two term President.... it was those Machiavellian brothers and Citizens United!
Seriously, it's counter-pro
Re: (Score:3)
It's like the Democrats are already trying to rationalize why they've lost the 2014 mid-terms.
They want the Koch brothers silenced just like they want Rush Limbaugh silenced. It is unimaginable to them that others might disagree with them without the root of that disagreement being pure greed.
.. their logic is
They just cannot believe that half the country disagrees with them, even though clearly half the country isnt "the 2%" They truly believe that "the 2%" are greedy and the other 48% that also disagree with them are "too stupid to vote in their own self interest." This is of course a catch-22
Re: (Score:2)
I would LOVE to take all of that money out of politics as well, ALL of it, the koch money, the hollywood money, the soros money, and the FB and google money.
Meet the new boss... (Score:2)
shareholder interests? (Score:4, Insightful)
one of its jobs is to lobby for laws that benefit its shareholders
really? How does an oil pipeline have anything to do with anything Google shareholders care about?
Similarly, how does immigration reform benefit Facebook shareholders, who I assume, would be more interested in reducing immigration - especially cheap-ass tech workers than only benefit Facebook executives in keeping pay of those shareholders down.
Re: (Score:2)
How does an oil pipeline have anything to do with anything Google shareholders care about?
It makes Google's power generation holdings more valuable, if there is a net shift from oil to electric powered vehicles.
Similarly, how does immigration reform benefit Facebook shareholders, who I assume, would be more interested in reducing immigration
Your assumption would be incorrect.
Nothing new here folks (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
Actually I would argue that the period after WWII where a middle class emerged was an anomoly rather than a norm. And we Americans got so complacent we lost it and the oligarchy wrestled the power back into their hands. And the only reason that period happened was because 2 world wars and 1 depression temporarily destroyed capitalism's grip over people.
Facebook is already in bed with the govt (Score:2)
Google Can And Should Be Blamed (Score:5, Insightful)
Google can't be blamed for this: one of its jobs is to lobby for laws that benefit its shareholders,
Yes, they can, and should, be blamed for this. Pro-social corporations should be rewarded for their behavior. Anti-social corporations should be punished. This is a pretty basic part of free market theory and the power of the purse. Stop repeating this sociopath-loving dogma as though it had any relation to healthy free market economics. Public backlash against despotic corporations is a very important correcting force in the free market.
where the fuck on the google (Score:2)
IPO shareholder or other shareholder information is the text where it says that the company exists to lobby for benefit of shareholders?
watf? is this again the same shit about how "a stock company has to be doing 100% and use all the dirty tricks to get maximum profit or else they're illegal since stock companies by the law have to try to do that" shit?? a stock company can exist for variety of purposes and goals, "making profit at any cost" is rarely in their stated goals or strategies.
(and since googles f
What about.... (Score:2)
Maybe we could go after the industries that paved the way, first.... Big Pharma, Oil, Defense, etc...
You have a point about Google but unless the others are dealt with, does it really matter? If the contest is between the corporations then, so far, Google remains the lesser evil.
Strangely rooting for Microsoft in 2014 (Score:4, Insightful)
I was an anti MS zealout and linux fan boy back in 2000. Hence why I choose my name. I was trying to find a post where I rant about MS after the DOJ sided with MS where I threatened to quit IT if MS won!! etc
But today it is different. Mainly because I prefer 3 mobile players rather than 2. 2 search engines rather than 1. Yes it is still bad for competition but this hatred for Microsoft stealing and monopolizing everything is so 10 years ago.
It is like being afraid of IBM today. Weird.
Even if you Android and Linux full time a 30% marketshare for Windows Phone will ensure Google wont get too evil and incredibly lazy and wont' set W3C standards to its own version of IE6 in Chrome. Apple is pretty small outside the US and Canada. No one in China even knows about the iPhone and Android is like Windows of the 1990s in PC's over there with 95% marketshare in the smartphone market.
Many slashdotters are still mad at MS and refuse to touch a win based OS. Fine, I feel the same about Sony. However things change and any company whether it is IBM, Microsoft, or even Google can be evil. Remember when Apple was cool again a decade ago and Steve Jobs was a nice guy who could do no wrong with opensource? Gee look what happened when Apple got power? YIKES. Not so cool and hip anymore.
I think competition where no one can set the standards is what is needed. Another facebook may come along someday if it can do something people demand. Myspace was all the rage too you know. I still wonder how facebook beat myspace?
Google search ... that is heard to beat. They are too powerful and the cost of entry is too great to compete. Google though in its current state is nimble and quick to update. Once it settles down to an ugly corporate behemonth with MBA's afraid of change where cost accountants run the show it will then become vulnerable if and only if someone can make a superior product with much much limited resources.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a lot of good points there.
they are not unelected (Score:2, Insightful)
The customers voted by opting to use their products (or by letting to be used as such), thus giving these companies their power.
But this has been going on for years (Score:2)
Here is a fact about today's society. We are ruled by the television, who has what rights is deterimined by PR men, and sold to you with celebrities, they determine what is and is not culturally acceptable, and they can and do change standards everyear to suit their wil
Possible Fixes (Score:3)
1 have strict limits on the amount of funding that can be given to a given elected official (say X million per year TOTAL to include non cash gifts (use the tax value) and gifts to persons within 3 jumps of a give official) also ALL GIFTS ARE TO BE MADE PUBLIC AND POSTED TO A STANDARD LOCATION (official website??).
2 term limits lets say 3 terms and if you can be proven innocent of any crimes you can spend your third term in office and not jail.
3 Elected officials should be forbidden any after office jobs in industries that benefited from a given officials lawmaking (do 2 jumps on this part)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't doubt they're concerned about the environment, but Google also has a financial stake in energy. From Google Reaps Tax Breaks in $1.4 Billion Clean Energy Bet [bloomberg.com]: "The Galt solar farm, 20 miles south of Sacramento, is one of 15 alternative-energy projects that Google has funded since 2010 as part of a more than $1.4 billion investment in clean power production. That makes the Internet search giant the biggest backer of U.S. alternative-energy projects over that stretch, excluding financial institutions an
Re: (Score:2)
There's no truer election—no more explicit mandate—than voluntary commerce.
I wish I had mod points. I was about to post the same thing but I don't see the need to repeat.
It is absurd to complain that companies are a problem because they are not elected. Society votes every millisecond of every day when we decide to log into Facebook or use Google. We have far more control over what Google does than what our government does, because we can stop funding Google without being thrown in jail.
Companies can still become massive organizations that need to be kept in check by society, but
Re: (Score:2)
You can quit funding the government without being thrown in jail any time you want. It just means losing the benefits of funding the government like having a good job. Shit if everyone decided to sit down, not work and not fund the government, government would respond as fast as Google would respond to everyone boycotting them.
Re: (Score:2)
They thrived when they were trust busted up. Not before
Re: (Score:3)
You should read the American Constitution. It features a democratically elected House of Representatives, A Senate appointed by the democratically elected States governments and a President elected by people appointed by the democratically elected States government. This makes it a representative democracy which having a President also makes it a Republic.
China is also a Republic but doesn't have the democratic elected part and yet all you fixate on is that your country is like China, a Republic.