Why are those who are so scared of government power not equally afraid of corporate power?

[white_wolf]

I always hear the Right say some crap like well people are corruptible so the government shouldn't have much power to interfere with people's lives or businesses. Yet, they all are for letting corporations do whatever the hell they want with no oversight. People who are worried about the government taking away their right need to wake up and realize that the real threat to you rights won't come from Washington, but from Wall St. No institution is more totalitarian than a corporation. Hell, in some cases corporations are more powerful than legitimate governments, they can operate in any country in the world whereas governments are of course limited. They have their own private armies in blackwater and the like, they buy and sell politicians and will do anything in the name of profit.

[Drale]

1. I've been asking the very same thing

Corporate power is far more dangerous then Government power. It probably has something to do with the fact that most of the folks who vote republican just listen to what Faux and the other M$M talking heads tell them to do.

[FarLeftFist]

54. So true.

AT LEAST we can vote for our representatives, you give these corps too much power and they start living above the law with no one to stop them. They have only one purpose, to make their shareholders happy by any means necessary. And they will slit peoples throats for a nickel.

[OHdem10]

2. Perfect Question. Right now, Corporate Power should be the

concern.

[lucca18]

3. It really is quite sad.

The MSM is very disappointing. There is so much distortion, misinformation and lies.

     “The twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy"
 Alex Carey

[BlancheSplanchnik]

62. wow thats an insightful quote

I(l have to look up this Alex Carey person.

[defendandprotect]

76. +1 -- and yet, ironically, while the deceptions of MSM are well noted ...

here at DU --

the biggest lies told by MSM are evidently too big not to be believed --- ?

9/11 and non-reporting of Global Warming's threat to humanity and the planet

just to name two.

[TheMadMonk]

4. Simplistically. Government is "All the little people dragging back...

...anyone who advances ahead of the pack."

Corporate power is what you get, running ahead of the pack.



And even whilst being turkey slapped by a Koch or two, people are still far more comfortable with discovering that they CAN NOT than with being told that they MAY NOT. The obviousness of corporate perfidity is often not a deciding factor, simply because the one having it done to him shrugs it off, because he'd do the same thing in the same position.

[sulphurdunn]

63. I fail to get your point.

Would you be so kind as to elaborate.

[TheMadMonk]

79. People would rather try and fail, than be prevented from trying at all.

Corporations are seen as competetive in the sense that there must ultimately be a winnah (which just could be ME if I wanted to try and played my cards right and no one got in my way, thankyou very much) whilst governments are seen as simultaneously too restrictive, by errecting artificial barriers to handicap "home ground"/"biggest player" advantages AND too inclusive, because they let EVERYONE play, even those "dirty Mexicans", "lazy n******", "scab Euros", etc. Most EVERYONE has someone (or a class or someones) they don't want to be made to "play fair" with.

I don't say it's correct or even rational, but that is pretty much the way people appear to view the world.

[sulphurdunn]

90. Actually, most people don't

view the world that way. Most people are more cooperative than competitive when it comes to survival. Of course, libertarians and other sociopaths are the exception to this "golden rule" but, like the poor, the greedy are also with us always, like intestinal parasites, and so long as they are with us there will be no shortage of poor people or human suffering or rationalizations for their behaving like pathogens.

[TheMadMonk]

91. Beg to differ. Cooperation for survival is one thing.

However, once the belly is full and the body warm and dry, the spirit of greed kicks.

[sulphurdunn]

92. Full bellies and warm hearths

satisfy normal people by weakening the spirit of avarice. They do not inflame it. The type of greed you refer to is not need born desperation but insecurity spawned by advertising.

[ArcticFox]

5. Because those people do as they're told

And the corporations tell them to fear government. Government tells them to fear terrorists. Nobody tells them to fear corporations.

[Oasis_]

9. ok

Can a corporation place you in jail or prison? No, but the government most certainly can. Does a corporation have the ability to declare war? No, but the government does.

Can a corporation decide at what rate to confiscate your earnings? No, but the government does.

A corporation can't even force you to purchase its own products. Did the Founders warn us of unchecked corporate or government power? (and yes they existed in the 18th century)

If you allow the government enough power, eventually it becomes your master---and you its slave.

Corporations need regulation, but aren't inherently evil. Government, while not inherently evil either, becomes so when it stretches its tentacles into areas in which it was never meant or intended.


Oasis

[Shandris]

12. Waiiiiiit a second here...

Can a corporation place you in jail or prison? No, but the government most certainly can. Does a corporation have the ability to declare war? No, but the government does.

Actually the answer to BOTH questions is a resounding 'YES'. Not directly, of course, but through implicit use of corporate power, laws are passed for corporations that send people to prison. For corporate interests, wars are waged. This is elementary to anyone on DU.

Can a corporation decide at what rate to confiscate your earnings? No, but the government does.

When unchecked corporate power forces enough tax breaks, tax write-offs, and other financial considerations to the point that the entire economy depends on raising taxes, then yes...the corporation has determined that the rate currently applied is not enough. It's not a direct setting of taxes, but shaping the debate of how they will be handled is a powerful ability. Also, 'the government' doesn't decide that. Local government, county government, state government, and federal government -- 4 distinct areas of governance -- determine the individual numbers. Not a single monolithic 'THE'.

Also, 'confiscate your earnings'? I wonder...what do you like on your pizzas?

A corporation can't even force you to purchase its own products. Did the Founders warn us of unchecked corporate or government power? (and yes they existed in the 18th century)

However, a corporation can successfully obfuscate the chain of ownership and buy out enough products until who owns what is no longer clear, thereby eliminating your alternatives and ~effectively~ forcing you to buy their products. As for the debate on government versus liberty, that warning goes back far longer than just the Founders; its not like they had some sudden, miraculous insight that should make us overlook the OBVIOUS extent of corporate power in the modern world. Also, consider that the Founders likely never even dreamed of some of the things that we consider common nowadays -- and I'm not talking about tech, I'm talking about basic things like 'corporate personhood'.

If you allow the government enough power, eventually it becomes your master---and you its slave.

Right-wing fearmongering. I know...virtually my entire family is arch-conservative, and this isn't the first time I've heard this line. Or the thousandth. However, it alone is nothing more than that -- simple fearmongering for the simpleminded.

Corporations need regulation, but aren't inherently evil.

When most people here speak of corporations, we refer to the large multinational conglomerates. Sometimes people will pull a bait-and-switch in the middle, then going on to try to compare them to something like an Acme Hardware store. Let us be clear -- the principle of Fiduciary Responsibility is DEFINITIVELY evil, and it is the principal that applies to publicly-traded corporations.

Government, while not inherently evil either, becomes so when it stretches its tentacles into areas in which it was never meant or intended.

This is an area where right-wing thinking (an oxymoron if one ever existed) runs into serious problems. They want me to think that the government should have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with anything that isn't specifically spelled out in a 200+ year old document. Why? I don't look at 200 year old medical journals for knowledge on treatments. So why should I expect a 200-year old document to be able to handle something like, say, the Internet? The United Nations? Space colonization and exploration? Stem-cell and other medical research? Yet, these are problems that must be handled. It is NOT POSSIBLE for a 200 year old document to specifically cover everything that the federal government should be involved in, and how. At best, it can be thrust under one of the generic categories 'common good', 'defense', and so forth. Of course, if you can name something, I can find a way to link it to one of those. Not really the preeminent example of foresight. Also...'tentacles'?

[Scuba]

14. Thanks for setting Oasis straight. n/t

[jp11]

24. Well said.

I'd add that a corporation can and has 'confiscated earnings' in the form of suppressed/stagnant wages while jacking up executive/CEO pay. They alone decide what to pay people and only bow to government regulation OR peer pressure for competition. However when jobs are short there isn't that much pressure to attract the lowly workers and corporations aren't in the business of competing with each other to the tune of rising their own labor costs but somehow there is always pressure to get CEO's.

The only slavery going on between Government and Corporations is corporations making wage slaves, people forced to work 2 or 3 jobs to make it or have any hope of giving their kids a chance at a better life.

As for government becoming evil when it stretches 'tentacles' into areas it was never meant or intended, this is partially correct YET EXACTLY what many republicans WANT, No abortions, no same sex marriage, no protection from discrimination, etc.

[melm00se]

33. a couple of things to address is your post

Actually the answer to BOTH questions is a resounding 'YES'. Not directly, of course, but through implicit use of corporate power, laws are passed for corporations that send people to prison. For corporate interests, wars are waged. This is elementary to anyone on DU.

the flaw in your argument is directly and indirectly. a corp cannot send you to prison directly whereas a government can.

When unchecked corporate power forces enough tax breaks, tax write-offs, and other financial considerations to the point that the entire economy depends on raising taxes, then yes...the corporation has determined that the rate currently applied is not enough. It's not a direct setting of taxes, but shaping the debate of how they will be handled is a powerful ability. Also, 'the government' doesn't decide that. Local government, county government, state government, and federal government -- 4 distinct areas of governance -- determine the individual numbers. Not a single monolithic 'THE'.

you can elect (albeit it requires a certain amount of effort) not to deal directly with a corporation (ie not shopping at Walmart), there are aspects of the government that are both de facto and de jure monopolies. not dealing with corporations inidrectly, yes that is damn near impossible.

Corporations, via the government (as long as there is an engaged populace), can be controlled. If the People continue to sit with their collective thumbs up their asses, you get the government that they deserve.

Right-wing fearmongering. I know...virtually my entire family is arch-conservative, and this isn't the first time I've heard this line. Or the thousandth. However, it alone is nothing more than that -- simple fearmongering for the simpleminded.

then I guess our founding fathers were right wing fearmongers. they were deathly afraid of a highly powerful, centralized government which is why the Constitution was drafted the way it was with the limits on the powers embedded within. Additionally, there are plenty of current and historical examples of overly powerful central/federal governments and their eventual overthrow by the people who were no longer willing to live under their yoke of oppression. The current upheaval in the Middle East should provide ample evidence. You can also look at:

USSR
Nationalist China
France
USA
and other too numerous to list

When most people here speak of corporations, we refer to the large multinational conglomerates. Sometimes people will pull a bait-and-switch in the middle, then going on to try to compare them to something like an Acme Hardware store. Let us be clear -- the principle of Fiduciary Responsibility is DEFINITIVELY evil, and it is the principal that applies to publicly-traded corporations.

fiduciary responsibility evil? all businesses, from the largest to the very smallest, have fiduciary responsibility to their owner(s), be it a one man shop (who is responsible to himself and his family) to the largest corporation (shareholders are owners)

This is an area where right-wing thinking (an oxymoron if one ever existed) runs into serious problems. They want me to think that the government should have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with anything that isn't specifically spelled out in a 200+ year old document. Why? I don't look at 200 year old medical journals for knowledge on treatments. So why should I expect a 200-year old document to be able to handle something like, say, the Internet? The United Nations? Space colonization and exploration? Stem-cell and other medical research? Yet, these are problems that must be handled. It is NOT POSSIBLE for a 200 year old document to specifically cover everything that the federal government should be involved in, and how. At best, it can be thrust under one of the generic categories 'common good', 'defense', and so forth. Of course, if you can name something, I can find a way to link it to one of those. Not really the preeminent example of foresight. Also...'tentacles'?

barring another document, that is the one that we live with. until or unless it is changed, it is the law of the land. there are certainly areas that the federal government is involved in that they probably shouldn't be (and what they are are certainly one of the major divisions in socio-political ideologies).

taking your examples:

So why should I expect a 200-year old document to be able to handle something like, say, the Internet?

the internet is covered by the Constitution in several areas:

1) 1st Amendment (free speech and association)
2) 5th Amendment (Property rights but also tempered Article 1, section 8)

The United Nations?

1) Article II, Section 2.

Space colonization and exploration? Stem-cell and other medical research?

a little dicier, from a Constitutional standpoint, but Article I, section 8 is clearly applicable if, by the consent of the governed that these activities are deemed for the "general welfare".

Is it possible to cover ever specific eventuality (past, present and future)? Only a fool would believe it possible. this is where and why the Constitution is a beautiful document. It contains language and principles that allow for the flexibility to address not only 18th century issues but also 21st century ones. it is when someone disagrees with the interpretation of the applicability is when the Constitution is a moldy dusty outdated inflexible document.

Now, can lawsbe developed, written and passed, to cover unimagined events, situations and events? most certainly, but they must be drafted, enacted and enforced within the confines of the Constitution.

[Shandris]

36. I'm a bit confused...on most points, you seem to be reiterating my intent.

the flaw in your argument is directly and indirectly. a corp cannot send you to prison directly whereas a government can.

How is it a 'flaw' in my argument when I took the time to ~directly~ point out that it wasn't directly? Furthermore, does the prisoner care whether he got there directly or indirectly? Or does he simply recognize that he is in prison?


Corporations, via the government (as long as there is an engaged populace), can be controlled. If the People continue to sit with their collective thumbs up their asses, you get the government that they deserve.

So the key to a good government is an educated, engaged populace. The key to controlling corporate power is BOTH an educated, engaged populace AND the resultant government. How then are they not more insulated than government itself, if a government is the key to controlling them? Again, this speaks to corporations having ~more~ power. Multiterritoriality (did I just make up a word? :) ) only strengthens that collective power.

fiduciary responsibility evil? all businesses, from the largest to the very smallest, have fiduciary responsibility to their owner(s), be it a one man shop (who is responsible to himself and his family) to the largest corporation (shareholders are owners)

Now here we're running into false equivalency again. A small business owner, a sole proprietership, a partnership, et al, can not be replaced by fiat if they fail to maximize every solitary dollar that they possible can glean from their operation. A man's responsibility to his family, which you cite, is not a legally-binding term vis-a-vis business and law. Small businesses are not immune from prosecution (always) because they are 'persons', and they don't have a track record of ignoring regulation because the cost of compliance is always greater than the cost of the fine (!). Meaning, in a technical sense, that a corporation is obligated to break as many laws as it can to pass more dollars to the shareholders, regardless of what it means to the people harmed by that lawbreaking. No other business type has that peculiarity of purpose. Small businesses can do all manner of things to support their local economy, their community, and so forth. Corporations do so ~only~ under the guise of Public Relations after assessing a cost-benefit analysis of how much they stand to gain in ~advertising~. It's NOT the same.

barring another document, that is the one that we live with. until or unless it is changed, it is the law of the land. there are certainly areas that the federal government is involved in that they probably shouldn't be (and what they are are certainly one of the major divisions in socio-political ideologies).

While it's true that it is the document we have now, the conservative mindset claims that its the greatest that is written, the greatest that CAN be written, and should neither be challenged nor questioned one iota (unless it serves their purpose, of course). Only a ~fool~ believes that the passing of time has not changed, made obsolete, or otherwise affected the original intents of the Constitution and, more importantly, the ~reasoning behind~ the intents. The Constitution, our Republic, all of it...it was an experiment. A beta test. Not a Release Candidate (I'm hoping you're familiar with these terms :) ). The Constitution is better than many documents, but there is need to clarify a LOT of it, to change some of it, and to address other, changing concerns with political realities and times (not the least of which is the inclusion of a Statement of Intent on EVERY Article!).

Also...while you do a good job enumerating how the Constitution is applied to the questions I mentioned, notice that all of them are vague generalities, not specifics (which, as you also rightly note, they ~can't~ be specific because they didn't exist back then). Conservatives, however, always refer back to 'If it aint in the Constitution, it aint a gubmint power!'. This thought process was what I was originally addressing with that whole section; I may be misreading you, but I think we actually agree on this section, at least somewhat.

[StarsInHerHair]

87. also, the history of the East India Company shows what corps. can do & did

in the past, & I believe they owned slaves on plantations-the corporation. I also recall the Founders DID say that the right to incorporate WAS FOR A LIMITED TIME ONLY. They too, did not want corporations running roughshod over Democracy.

http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/content/original-intent-founding-fathers-re-corporations

..."In the first 100 years after the American Revolution, there were severe limits on the powers of corporations. The American
colonists had freed themselves from English corporations, and the
Founding Fathers retained a healthy fear of corporations and limited
them to an exclusively business role. They were prohibited from
attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of
civic society.

The states also imposed conditions such as limited lifespans for corporate charters (renewable by the legislature),
prompt revocation if the corporation broke a law, limiting them to
activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose, not allowing
them to own stock in other corporations or own property not needed for
their chartered purpose, terminating them if they exceeded their
authority or caused public harm (take that, BP!), making owners and
managers responsible for crimes committed on the job, banning them from
making any political or charitable contributions, and banning them from
spending money to influence law making. These restrictions persisted
for the first 100 years."...

[ArcticFox]

46. Thank you

Also speaking of 200 years ago, corporations were required to act in the public interest. use of the corporate form was viewed as a privilege with corresponding duties.

[Locrian]

52. nice post Shandis - thanks nt

[lunasun]

59. Thank you as always,BS really does stink

[Demeter]

65. +15 Trillion BRAZILLIAN!

Where did the health insurance reform legislation come from? Insurance corporations and health care corporations! It sure as hell didn't come out of any real "governmental care for the general welfare".

[Scuba]

13. Read your post and disagree across the board. n/t

[Enthusiast]

19. You're way off here.

Most of us have come to understand that government becomes an evil when it represents the interests of corporations at the expense of actual human beings.

This is why we fight wars that only serve corporate interests, like Iraq. And most of us on DU don't consider paying taxes as 'confiscating our earnings' -a recognizable right wing talking point. Where are the good corporate citizens? They no longer contribute to the well being of the nation's citizens.

And Thomas Jefferson did, in fact, warn of us of unchecked corporate power. Quote someone?

No, the problem isn't government, as Reagan said, the problem is government representing the interests of corporations at the expense of the citizens.

[baldguy]

23. "Does a corporation have the ability to declare war?'

First, look up the history of the United Fruit Company.

Second, why did we go to war in Iraq?

[bluetex]

25. ^THIS^

While I (individually) have a choice as to wheter or not I do business with Coca-Cola, or Chase, or Walmart, or GM....


I enjoy no such priveledge with regards to MY government.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. "confiscate your earnings"

:eyes:

[yodermon]

39. Which raging liberal said this:

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

[backtomn]

48. I believe that there are problems with corporate power......

....and particularly its collusion with governmen.....but, please......The government CAN tell me what to do and a corporation CAN NOT. I don't even need to go into a WalMart (and I don't). My biggest fear is a corporation that convinces government to force me to do something......like being required to buy private health insurance....or be fined.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

56. When corporations own and control the government (which they DO)

they can do all those things and they do, directly or indirectly, with utter impunity.

[livingonearth]

72. We are the government!

If you allow the government enough power, eventually it becomes your master---and you its slave.

Yes, if you allow your government to become a dictatorship, which would be rather convenient for corporations since they then wouldn't have to go to China and other places to get cheap slave labor.

[livingonearth]

77. Confiscate your earnings? Maybe not directly, but...

Can a corporation decide at what rate to confiscate your earnings? No, but the government does.


Do you think the TARP bailout wasn't some indirect form of confiscating our tax dollars? Do you think it wasn't big corporations that made that whole thing happen?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

88. So a corporation does NOT become evil...

...when it stretches its tentacles into areas in which it was never meant or intended?

[Enthusiast]

18. Exactly.

Someone could quantify the level of fear generating rhetoric on TV I suppose. I think it would be revealing. We used to have REAL journalistic efforts on TV about corporate abuses. These have nearly disappeared altogether.

[RufusTFirefly]

6. The answer is alarmingly simple

Right-wing ideologues (and those who aren't paying attention) believe that buying or not buying is more effective than voting or not voting.

This is a "mission accomplished" situation for Grover Norquist and his ilk. Individual Americans forget that, rich or poor, we are the government, whereas our impact on the course of a corporation is directly proportional to our wealth. In other words, the path of government (at least, theoretically) is controlled by INDIVIDUALS, while the path of corporations is controlled by WEALTH.

The beauty of the Norquist agenda is that when government and corporations merge, most Americans will opt for the latter instead of the former.

[Darkhawk32]

74. Good gravy, that's so dead-on. n/t

[hansberrym]

7. Or maybe, the real threat will come from Washington working with corporations.

Government ought to be a check on corporate power, but more and more government is an enabler. Bailouts for Wallstreet, bailouts for Banks, Carmakers. On the state level we have KELO, sports stadium deals, etc.


Most recently there is PPACA, and the Mead v. Holder decision which gave us the immortal Re-mancipation Proclamation:

Economic Decision-Making Is an Activity Subject to Congress’s Commerce Clause Power


If that doesn't scare you, nothing will.

[RegieRocker]

8. Ass kissers?

[lutherj]

10. Substitute the word "democracy" for the word "government", whenever Republicans

complain about it. Thus Reagan: "Democracy isn't the solution, democracy is the problem." Or Norquist: "I want to drag democracy into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." We all know perfectly well that these republicans won't give up that part of the government that protects their interests, or that makes them rich.

[socialist_n_TN]

30. THIS if GREAT! I'm SO going to steal this

Because democracy=government, or it should.

[Kablooie]

11. That's not exactly the question. The question is...

Should government control the corporations or should corporations control the government?

Corporations are amoral entities. They must do whatever they can to increase profits without consideration of moral values.

The US government is moral, in theory, in that it was implemented with moral principals as a guide i.e. Justice, support for freedoms, etc.

Corporations have no such principal. They are simply designed to increase profits in any manner available to them.
If they can increase profits by hurting or destroying others, they must do this. That's how they are designed.

The only thing that prevents then from destructive actions are governmental laws that make negative actions more costly than positive ones.


Liberals feel that the moral entities controlling the amoral ones is the preferred option.

Conservatives claim that it is better that the amoral rule over the moral.
This is an amoral stance in itself which is understandable since it comes from the leaders of corporations.


So the big question is why so many ostensibly moral conservatives embrace an amoral future for our country that goes against human interests.

[mmonk]

15. Because they have been trained to think backwards.

They believe government has taken over the private sector instead of the private sector having taken over the government. It is the culmination of decades of cold war propaganda colliding with fear of others and the associated propaganda with that. Humans are a very trainable species of animal. Sometimes, that training gets in the way of rational and objective analysis.

[robcon]

16. Goverment power is centralized. Corporate power is spread among thousands of entitities.

I'd say that the repuglicans would argue that they are not anything like each other.

[socialist_n_TN]

31. Corporate power is WAY more centralized than that

the growth in wealth disparity shows that.

[Enthusiast]

17. Those "people" you speak

of are victims of right wing indoctrination.

They have heard Reagan's "Government is the problem." words for thirty years. And they have learned that low taxes and the sacred unrestricted 'free market' are the answers to all our woes. In other words, they haven't given the whole government as a watchdog of industry and a guardian of our liberty much thought. And just look at the results.

[sendero]

20. Because ..

... they are idiots.

[bettyellen]

21. i think they would love to work and not pay tax on their income or profit, and so they feel in a

sense that their interests are aligned more with businesses. Of course it is idiocy to compare themselves with large corporations and to fail and consider what life would be like without the services we get from government. But I think that's the root of it all. The freedom they ar elooking for is to be selfish and short sided.

[TBF]

22. Delusion is powerful -

they've all bought into this "american dream" nonsense, and think they could be the next person to win the big lotto. For some reason the fairy tale does not die despite actual conditions for 95% of this country.

[DenverDad]

26. Because corporations don't fund

social programs that may benefit people who are darker than they.

[fascisthunter]

27. because they are idiot fascists

[socialist_n_TN]

29. GREAT question. I've asked it myself on numerous

occasions. It all boils down to who do you trust with power? My framing is that you can trust the people REPRESENTED by the government OR you can trust profit. I choose the people.

[undeterred]

32. Great question.

Especially in light of the news that corporations are installing suicide nets and asking people to sign statements promising not to take their lives. Sheesh, if the job is that bad, maybe there's something really wrong that the corporation should change.

I think the people who don't ask this question have never had to be on the wrong side of corporate power.

[Land Shark]

34. AND The Constitution does not protect against corporate (private) power. nt

[white_wolf]

35. Someone mentioned a quote from Jefferson warning us about corporate power, here is one of them:

“"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocrac­y of our moneyed corporatio­ns which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country

[socialist_n_TN]

41. Great quote. The original tea party in Boston was

at least partly as a reaction against the East India Tea Company, the tea cartel of the era. It's been going on a long time.

[Dj13Francis]

37. They don't see it.

Completely incapable of perceiving the irony of it all. Right over their heads.

[moondust]

38. Some/many of them are more invested in Wall Street than in Main Street.

Either personally or in the expectation that someday they will inherit a big part of Uncle Joe's Wall Street fortune. They'd rather count on that than think about having to work for 40 years! Thus the better Wall Street does the better off they'll be and the sooner they can retire on Easy Street. That means unleashing corporations to do whatever they have to do to boost profits which in turn boosts stock prices. Winning! And besides, government promotes "equality" and "minimum wage" and stuff which imposes on some people's sense of entitlement and cuts into profits.

:rant:

[Modern_Matthew]

40. I've seen it vice versa, as well. Both are detrimental to the lives of the average person...

And until corporate influence is abolished from the world, this will continue.

[southernyankeebelle]

42. That is so crazy that they think this way. I think it has something to do with them thinking that

if they can make a million then someday they can. Forgetting some of these millionaire are wealth babies and handed down.

[Overseas]

43. K&R! But of course we let our mass media be consolidated

into conservative hands, and they've pushed the bad government meme to the hilt.

[chillspike]

44. And you can vote a politician out of office but not a CEO

Not only that but taxes can be directly linked to a monetary system or Capitalism. Why does a government collect taxes in the first place? Because of the monetary system we all have accepted by default. Why are we charged to live on land? Same reason. Before land could be bought or sold, unoccupied land could be reused by someone else. It was recycled. Resources were recycled. Now resources are hoarded. You can live in Texas but own land in Utah. As a resource that land is squandered, made off limits to others, unusable.

"One does not sell the land upon which the people walk" - Tashunka Witko (Crazy Horse)

[Armstead]

45. You have hit upon the Big Riddle of modern UDS politics

I wish I had an answer

[Odin2005]

47. because they have been brainwashed into LIKING Corporate Power.

[DirkGently]

49. Something about you identify with. And who you fear.

Liberals fear the empowered. Conservatives fear the. unempowered

[toddwv]

50. Corporations control the media.

[Locrian]

51. scam

Because thru propaganda and conditioning people are told to behave JUST LIKE a corporation. A corporation is the pure selfishness: so people are turning into that perfect consumer and fool.

The big lie is that the corporation is the most efficient and smartest way to run a society. That the free market is a natural law akin to gravity, and that if gov would just get the hell out of the way we would all be living in the land of milk and honey (or beer and flat screen teevees, whatever).

Corporations have got us all believing that you are either part of their blessed and rich system, or you are the lazy good for nothing "poor" people. And they spend billions telling you so. Which way do you want to see yourself and identify with (branding)? Part of the "winners" or the "sniveling poor masses" that need big government to take care of them?

Never mind it's all a scam to continue to extract as much $$ out of us as possible....

[L0oniX]

53. Same people don't want "big gobment" single payer health care but want the "big gobment" to help out

...with the recent flooding and storm damages in the repuke south. Seems that property is more important than life to repukes.

[The Wizard]

55. Since we have a participatory government

that requires us to vote to be a part of the decision making process we take some responsibility if things go wrong. If a corporation like Enron goes bad most people had nothing to say about what caused its demise and by extension most people don't feel responsible on any level. In essence those who would rather trust corporations are irresponsible or raking in the cash from corporations.

[JJ]

57. That is the point

The powers behind the right-wingers want the government weak and small so as to not be able to stand up to corporations. They hate and fear democracy, and want a system like the old feudalism.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Shandris]

60. Another thought that occured to me just reading responses...

...

Imagine what Congress would look like, and how they would act, if -- for sake of argument -- there was NO moneyed interest to cater to. No corporate lobbyists, no national coalitions and 'business roundtables'. No kickbacks, no need to procure vast corporate headquarters in their districts. Just the constituents, and laws that affect their lives.

Now look at what ~actually~ gets debated.

The difference between those two pictures...is corporate power personified.

[paparush]

61. Because Corporate Media tells them to be afraid of govt. nt

[ck4829]

64. Because the little people can vote out the government

[sarcasmo]

66. Corporate power/ Lobbyists control quite a bit of Government power.

[annabanana]

67. Well said, sir!... . . . . . . .k&r

[RandomThoughts]

68. Belief in dictatorship, or totalitarianism.

Although sometimes it is belief that only some people are citizens, shareholders.


In ancient Rome, only Citizens had rights, the 'Corporate system' is like that also.

Also many translate older texts as saying that what they think of as God supports picking dictators to rule over the people. And some people think they are picked by God.

Bush thought he was doing God's work.
Goldmans Sachs said the same thing.
As did Osama.

As did most cult leaders, most psycopaths, and even many of the worst Criminals.

As do many people that do many great things for many people.

So thinking that doesn't mean much does it.

If you can get a person to 'follow' something supernatural and use part of there bias as bait, then they can be led to do much wrong.


On a side note, I mentioned 'in the zone' as stepping behind reality where the completion of an event pulls the actions to that point of completion. The idea where outside of linear time the result creates the actions.

However in that situation, only the functions a person knows will be used to reach that point, why you have to have a moral center, or if you are pulled by a future effect to create that effect, it may be lesser actions you do that create that. If you have the basic fullness of empathy and kindness, the bad functions don't get used to reach the event and instead the same thing is achieved by the better actions of a person or many people.


"She can't take you any way you don't already know how to go"

Eagles - Peaceful Easy Feeling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94Y1izRUTpk

[Harriety]

69. Eggzakly!

[Tripod]

70. k&r, Just because of your screen name,

A very good post too. Thanks.

[white_wolf]

83. I stole it from a video game actually.

[Tripod]

86. That is great, good for you, a lasting impression.

[Avant Guardian]

71. Apparently 'We The People' are not to be trusted to govern ourselves...

...and cold uncaring corporations have out best interests at heart.

[Pholus]

73. Because, so the myth goes, become successful and you'll be the one with the power.

And since RW'ers always see themselves as more resourceful and hard working than the rabble they fully expect to get to the top. If they don't, it's government's fault.

[defendandprotect]

75. Because rightwing propaganda has for so long glorified capitalism and wealth --

and certainly they remain silent about the damage capitalism has done to

nature/planet -- i.e., Global Warming --

Needless to say, the damage capitalism has done to humanity, as well.

[glinda]

78. Majority of Americans do not understand the connections. Not at all.

[bertman]

80. Great point, white_wolf. REC. nt

[Kurovski]

81. K&R. (nt)

[aj_cd]

82. I am not as knowlegeable as most of you but

for me it is simple.

If it is between me and a big corporation, I used to think I could count on the rule of law of my government to protect me. But since the big corporations have been spending more and more money to own my government and every politian they can buy I have been feeling pretty scared. Who do I got to when the corporations own my government?
I thought the little man would be defended against big corporations by gov, big or small.
It never occured to me that if I had problem with gov. I could go to a corporation.
I never thought corporations were there for me, I hoped my government would be.

So yes,big corporations scare me more than big government. And big corporations that own my government don't just scare me they terrify me.
silly me.

[socialist_n_TN]

89. Hey aj, welcome to DU..........

It's OK to be scared, but how you REACT to that fear is more important than the fear itself. You can't cower, you've got to fight and resist. And it doesn't have to be a BIG fight, just do what you can to resist the complete capitalist takeover of government. Sign petitions, make phone calls, march, rally and protest IF YOU CAN. Get involved in a group that's resisting and do what you can WITH that group. Just do SOMETHING.

You can die on your feet or live on your knees. That IS the choice we're faced with today.

[Quantess]

93. Same here. Welcome to DU!

Interesting thread.

[krispos42]

84. Freedom from government is by no means freedom.

It is merely freedom from government.

[Common Sense Party]

85. The same reason those that are so scared of corporate power aren't that

concerned about government power.

You fear what you do not understand.