Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:20:09 -0700
From:      Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
To:        "Doug Young" <dougy@bryden.apana.org.au>, <cjclark@alum.mit.edu>, "Jeremiah Gowdy" <jgowdy@home.com>
Cc:        "Jason" <kib@mediaone.net>, <ldmservices@charter.net>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   Re: CA Power Shortage (was Re: Why do you support Yahoo!)
Message-ID:  <4.3.2.7.2.20001220120244.04767ed0@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <000d01c06a4e$15def320$847e03cb@apana.org.au>
References:  <001d01c06a2d$279654d0$aa240018@cx443070b> <002301c06a1d$a52783c0$19bad818@debbie> <002701c06a25$27e7c9d0$aa240018@cx443070b> <006a01c06a40$11ffc580$ad181f40@bignet.net> <06fc01c06a28$7d9c3840$847e03cb@apana.org.au> <00b401c06a45$4d279020$ad181f40@bignet.net> <001d01c06a2d$279654d0$aa240018@cx443070b> <4.3.2.7.2.20001219223202.0467c4e0@localhost>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:28 PM 12/19/2000, Doug Young wrote:
  
>Whilst this is hardly the "proper" place for political debate, the point
>about
>"corporations have as much power over our lives -- if not more -- than
>governments"
>is a very real problem these days .... and not only in the US either !!!!

Absolutely. Many of today's Libertarians -- especially American Libertarians 
-- hold the notion of "private property" sacrosanct, even when that
property is owned by a large corporation rather than a private individual.
 From this logic arises their odd notion that, while governments should be
limited, corporations -- which in many cases have more control than
governments over key aspects of our lives -- should be untouchable,
even when they pass the "duck test" for being a government.

These ideologues, all of whom grew up in democracies, forget that before 
democracy was widespread there was another form of government: empires.

Today, a citizen of a democracy may in fact be ruled simultaneously 
by several "horizontal" empires -- private corporations such as utility
companies each desiring complete control of one business, market, or
aspect of citizens' lives. None, of course, are democratically
elected, so if the government does not regulate them, what we have
in fact are unbridled governments. This is exactly the opposite of
what a principled Libertarian would want.

I recently asked an American Libertarian think tank -- fee.org -- if
I could submit an article explaining this thesis to their newsletter.
So horrified were they by the notion that this simple idea might get
out that they not only refused the article but indicated a desire to 
repress the idea. I believe that they may have been worried that their
large corporate sponsors (e.g. Microsoft) would react badly.

>When one considers that the head of state in most western countries is
>"officially" paid a fraction of what the "head of state" for major
>corporations earns, its obvious that many of these corporations are in a
>position to buy & sell virtually anyone they wish. eg its difficult for
>those of us outside the US to know exactly what dealings went on in order to
>get Bush in the White House, however some of us with nasty suspicious minds
>harbour a feeling that he didn't get there on the basis of  personal
>ability.

Bush became a candidate because monied interests thought that he would
favor them and thus contributed many millions to his campaign. He won
because a majority of the Supreme Court justices, some of whom wished
to retire and be replaced by members of the same political party, were
willing to defy their own long standing principles to ensure that party's
victory. Two of the justices in the majority had close relatives who were 
actively campaigning, and yet did not recuse themselves -- a horrendous
breach of judicial ethics.

--Brett Glass



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20001220120244.04767ed0>