Punk rockers/anarchists and Libertarians, what is the difference?

[JohnBrown1917]

Lemme know when corporations are accountable to the general public in the same way as a democratically elected government, sweaty.

Rofl.

yeah, but you see, you vote with your wallet!!
Just ignore the little bit about that pretty much means all the voting power is with the wealthy.


I for one can't to be ruled by our dear overlords/god emperors Bezos and Musk, and it won't be authoritarian at all because they control it all with money! Money is like magic, bro.

- - - Updated - - -

Nonsense. Even if a libertarian experienced hardship that still doesn't mean they would become envious and blame rich people for their failures and use that as a justification for using state force to redistribute wealth.

Ye, like how getting cancer is your own fault. Something like that you mean?

[Machismo]

Lemme know when corporations are accountable to the general public in the same way as a democratically elected government, sweaty.

Rofl.

Why do you call people "sweaty?"

Are you picturing them drenched in perspiration, or do you simply insist on misspelling the same word, no matter how many times you are corrected?

Corporations are accountable to their shareholders, consumers, investors, and even their employees.

[Elegiac]

Corporations are accountable to their shareholders, consumers, investors, and even their employees.

So, not the general public?

Because it sure sounds to me like you think accountability should be a function of how much money you have to throw at the problem rather than input being guaranteed as a matter of right, if you're equating government and business.

[Machismo]

So, not the general public?

Because it sure sounds to me like you think accountability should be a function of how much money you have to throw at the problem rather than input being guaranteed as a matter of right, if you're equating government and business.

I don't care how it sounds to you. You are free to be as wrong as you like.

Is government actually accountable to the general public, or only some voters? Think of those voters as employees, investors, shareholders, and consumers.

[Elegiac]

I don't care how it sounds to you. You are free to be as wrong as you like.

I'll indulge that luxury when I am wrong. In this case, I'm not: corporations are not accountable to the general public in the same way a democratic government is, making the comparison specious at best. QED.

[Machismo]

I'll indulge that luxury when I am wrong. In this case, I'm not: corporations are not accountable to the general public in the same way a democratic government is, making the comparison specious at best. QED.

Is government truly accountable to the general public?

Not really.

Oddly enough, I don't think I made that comparison... so this is your straw man.

[Edge-]

Is government truly accountable to the general public?

Not really.

Oddly enough, I don't think I made that comparison... so this is your straw man.

If the public wants it to be...yeah? That's not to say it's easy, but in a Democracy it's easier to alter the way government is functioning via electing new representatives than it is for minority shareholders in a company to force a company to change when the CEO likely owns a controlling stake, or maintains a minority state but has all the actual voting shares because public shares have no voting power.

[Mayhem]

You sound d just like the GOP members who want to push voting restrictions. They claim to want to do itntomprevent fraud, when its really just to tip things in their favor. I pointed to a great analogy, and you chose to support what they are doing.

The irony is real.

I can only say I'm not ananarchist so many times. I can't comprehend that for you... that's on you.

https://www.gq.com/story/jack-daniels-state-law-whiskey

I see you have not argued against even one single point but just compared me to GOP members. You were also unable to answer even one question but told me again that you're not an anarchist (as if I ever claimed you were one).

So you got absolutely nothing except a smug face, based on I don't know what, it's neither reason nor logic.

Thanks for the link, what's the issue here?

Are these really your best examples? More information for consumers on what they buy and what can be labeled as "Tennessee Whiskey"? That's what you came up with when talking about corporations using the Government to curb regulations in their favor?

So you want less information for consumers and every whiskey can have the label "Tennessee Whiskey"?

Also, what great analogy are you talking about? I am really confused about that GOP stuff, I have no idea where that comes from.

[Machismo]

If the public wants it to be...yeah? That's not to say it's easy, but in a Democracy it's easier to alter the way government is functioning via electing new representatives than it is for minority shareholders in a company to force a company to change when the CEO likely owns a controlling stake, or maintains a minority state but has all the actual voting shares because public shares have no voting power.

The same can be said for corporations being accountable to shareholders, investors, consumers, and even employees.

- - - Updated - - -

I see you have not argued against even one single point but just compared me to GOP members. You were also unable to answer even one question but told me again that you're not an anarchist (as if I ever claimed you were one).

So you got absolutely nothing except a smug face, based on I don't know what, it's neither reason nor logic.

Thanks for the link, what's the issue here?

Are these really your best examples? More information for consumers on what they buy and what can be labeled as "Tennessee Whiskey"? That's what you came up with when talking about corporations using the Government to curb regulations in their favor?

So you want less information for consumers and every whiskey can have the label "Tennessee Whiskey"?

Also, what great analogy are you talking about? I am really confused about that GOP stuff, I have no idea where that comes from.

My argument is that it's unnecessary, and doesn't restrict an action that causes harm.

There... done.

As for the examples, I provided two of many. Those are both prime examples of corporations s pushing legislation in order to tip the competitive marketplace... which was my argument.

Just like the GOP and their voting restrictions.

[Edge-]

The same can be said for corporations being accountable to shareholders, investors, consumers, and even employees.

Shareholders: Again, no. Many companies are majority owned by executives, or have executives holding voting shares while investors hold non-voting shares. There are few companies where shareholders have anywhere near the kind of power or influence needed to alter a companies course.

Investors: See above, and investors are a hyper-minority in companies pre-IPO. This reflects the views of only wealthy investors, nobody else.

Consumers: They can engage in boycotts to attempt to alter a companies behavior, but that's not remotely the same as having control over who your elected officials are.

Employees: Again, see above. The only time this would actually be the case would be for businesses operated as co-ops where employees collectively own the business. And even then, it's only employees and nobody else.

Compared to: Every citizen of legal age to vote.

[Machismo]

Shareholders: Again, no. Many companies are majority owned by executives, or have executives holding voting shares while investors hold non-voting shares. There are few companies where shareholders have anywhere near the kind of power or influence needed to alter a companies course.

Investors: See above, and investors are a hyper-minority in companies pre-IPO. This reflects the views of only wealthy investors, nobody else.

Consumers: They can engage in boycotts to attempt to alter a companies behavior, but that's not remotely the same as having control over who your elected officials are.

Employees: Again, see above. The only time this would actually be the case would be for businesses operated as co-ops where employees collectively own the business. And even then, it's only employees and nobody else.

Compared to: Every citizen of legal age to vote.

Of course it's similar... it's just a matter of the will to do it. Without customers and employees, you don't have much of a corporation.

Without investors or shareholders, you are on your own.

I should add, this isn't even some claim I started... this is someone else's straw man.

[Edge-]

Of course it's similar... it's just a matter of the will to do it. Without customers and employees, you don't have much of a corporation.

In a vacuum, sure.

But employees aren't going to quit writ-large, there aren't endless employment opportunities and many will need the job to stay afloat financially. Same goes for boycotts and things people actually need.

Investors and shareholders are, again, a minority and often times shareholders will have no actual voting power with their shares so are just along for the ride in the hopes value increases and they can sell off to make a profit. It's not that they have an ownership stake, they don't, they have a profitability stake and that's it.

Investors proper have more say usually, but again, we're talking about a hyperminority of ultra-wealthy folks so hardly representative of the whole of a nation and its people.

Without investors or shareholders, you are on your own.[/QUOTE]

[Glorious Leader]

Is government truly accountable to the general public?

Not really.

Oddly enough, I don't think I made that comparison... so this is your straw man.

Formally in a democracy the government would be accountable yes. The corporate structure is totalitarian by design.

[Bodakane]

So, why make the boot as big and dangerous as possible?

The boot isn't dangerous. The foot is. A boot without a foot just sits there.

All controls meant to stop the foot, are generally derided by you and other conservatives. Boots are actually there for protection. The problem is, your side of the political ideology wants the corporate foot in the boot and not the people's and wants that foot to do anything it wants to.

[Mayhem]

My argument is that it's unnecessary, and doesn't restrict an action that causes harm.

There... done.

What the flying fuck is IT?!

As for the examples, I provided two of many. Those are both prime examples of corporations s pushing legislation in order to tip the competitive marketplace... which was my argument.

How is information for consumers tipping the marketplace? How is a label that probably no one really gives a fuck about tipping the marketplace? Shouldn't you be in favor of letting consumers decide? You know with all the talk about liberty and shit. So how is a label changing what consumers can or can't buy?

Just like the GOP and their voting restrictions.

Of all the "arguments" you came up with, that comparison is without a doubt the most stupid one. You really have to quote me on where I am in favor of corporations creating their own rules. You, on the other hand, want to make away with voting altogether and let the GOP just do their thing.

[Machismo]

Formally in a democracy the government would be accountable yes. The corporate structure is totalitarian by design.

Accountable to those who actually seek to make them accountable, which was the point I was making.

Corporations are also accountable, to shareholders, investors, consumers, and even employees.

- - - Updated - - -

The boot isn't dangerous. The foot is. A boot without a foot just sits there.

All controls meant to stop the foot, are generally derided by you and other conservatives. Boots are actually there for protection. The problem is, your side of the political ideology wants the corporate foot in the boot and not the people's and wants that foot to do anything it wants to.

So, you want to protect the corporations?

Are you sure people want to go with that analogy?

- - - Updated - - -

In a vacuum, sure.

But employees aren't going to quit writ-large, there aren't endless employment opportunities and many will need the job to stay afloat financially. Same goes for boycotts and things people actually need.

Investors and shareholders are, again, a minority and often times shareholders will have no actual voting power with their shares so are just along for the ride in the hopes value increases and they can sell off to make a profit. It's not that they have an ownership stake, they don't, they have a profitability stake and that's it.

Investors proper have more say usually, but again, we're talking about a hyperminority of ultra-wealthy folks so hardly representative of the whole of a nation and its people.

Without investors or shareholders, you are on your own.

[/QUOTE]

They can. They can also collectively bargain.

Consumers can also stop buying the product/service.

Meanwhile, this isn't even my analogy, nor my claim, so take it up with the guy who is pushing it.

- - - Updated - - -

What the flying fuck is IT?!



How is information for consumers tipping the marketplace? How is a label that probably no one really gives a fuck about tipping the marketplace? Shouldn't you be in favor of letting consumers decide? You know with all the talk about liberty and shit. So how is a label changing what consumers can or can't buy?



Of all the "arguments" you came up with, that comparison is without a doubt the most stupid one. You really have to quote me on where I am in favor of corporations creating their own rules. You, on the other hand, want to make away with voting altogether and let the GOP just do their thing.

Are you serious, I literally just told you.

The entire design is to tip the competitive playing field. GMO foods are not dangerous, so this is about playing on fear and ignorance in order to push an agenda... just like the GOP and their voter restrictions

They claim it's just so we can be sure that everything is on the up and up... when it's really just to make things more difficult for their opponents.

[Edge-]

They can. They can also collectively bargain.

Again, in a vacuum. If we're to ignore, say, the history of unchecked corporate power when it comes to union busting. This is an a-historical take that ignores the power of corporations in whittling away union power through governmental means.

This arguments all fall apart when you place them in real world contexts and outside of the isolated and individual bubbles the arguments can only survive in.

Consumers can also stop buying the product/service.

Again, not always an option. Hate you electric company? Tough shit, that's likely the only game in town and self-generated power likely ain't in the cards for the overwhelming majority of folks.

Works for some things like luxury goods maybe, not for a lot of actual necessities.

[Bodakane]

So, you want to protect the corporations?

Are you sure people want to go with that analogy?.

I have to stop making analogies when talking to you, because you ALWAYS misunderstand them.

I want the people to be the foot protected by the boot. Your political ideological side does everything it can to keep the corporate foot in the boot.

Corporations and the wealthy are stomping the people, thanks to conservatives.

[Machismo]

I have to stop making analogies when talking to you, because you ALWAYS misunderstand them.

I want the people to be the foot protected by the boot. Your political ideological side does everything it can to keep the corporate foot in the boot.

If people are going to say that the boot is to protect... and corporations are the foot... I'm simply using the analogy you guys are pushing.

So, you want to stomp all over corporations, and anyone opposed to your authoritarianism.

Got it.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, in a vacuum. If we're to ignore, say, the history of unchecked corporate power when it comes to union busting. This is an a-historical take that ignores the power of corporations in whittling away union power through governmental means.

This arguments all fall apart when you place them in real world contexts and outside of the isolated and individual bubbles the arguments can only survive in.



Again, not always an option. Hate you electric company? Tough shit, that's likely the only game in town and self-generated power likely ain't in the cards for the overwhelming majority of folks.

Works for some things like luxury goods maybe, not for a lot of actual necessities.

There was just a vote, and they decided not to unionize.

Voting people out isn't always an option, either. Thank the Electoral College for that one.

Besides, this isn't even my fucking argument, so take it up with Elegiac, he's the one pushing it.

[Bodakane]

If people are going to say that the boot is to protect... and corporations are the foot... I'm simply using the analogy you guys are pushing.

So, you want to stomp all over corporations, and anyone opposed to your authoritarianism.

Got it.

I mean if you're just going to make up the other side's argument, then its easy to sit back and pretend you're never wrong.

The government is a tool. It can be used by the people or by the corporations. Corporations are using the government to stomp on the people. If people had the boot, as they are supposed to, then they'd use it to protect themselves as the walk forward.