>
> My dad's a teacher, and was our sole source of income growing up. Every few
> years they'd threaten to strike, and they'd continue to get screwed. Alas,
> teaching is one of those things that people take for granted and thus
> undervalue. Privatizing it entirely has many other issues, but I think the
> teachers would perhaps be better off.
>
> I'm baffled by discussions which point out how large corporations "can't be
> trusted" or act only in their own self interests. Well, yes - but if you
> don't trust *anyone*, at least you can rely on everyone to be greedy. I
> don't trust governments to behave competently; I can easily believe that one
> million employees each do a competent job and be working towards widely
> shared ideals, but the collective whole acts in somewhat monstrous ways.
>
> Joshua
A corporation is legally a person (at least in the USA). A corporation is
also a legal artifact/entity that exists APART from its owners. It becomes
a species unto iself, all powerful and self perpetuating (if it doesn't
make money, it won't continue to exist. Maybe the profit imperative is
like our genetic imperative to reproduce?) It can become almost godlike
and arbitrary esp if it is trans-national and no government can control
it. OK, maybe it's a "wealth creating machine." Most of the wealth tends
to go to a few (the major shareholders), and in any case calliing it a
legal person is incredibly stupid. Corporations can't *directly*
contribute to political campaigns, but devices like political action
committees let them get around that. In any case (a) no US politician can
get nominated, let alone elected, without corporate money. Only
corporations and a few rich individuals can afford to contribute enough to
a campaign to really matter. Sure, they'll take your $1 donation, but how
much will that help? Campaign financing undermines
democracy. (B) economic power exceeds that of any government, so it may
not matter how democratic (or not) you are in the long run.
Kristin
