Battle of the Bureaucrats 38 replies

Please wait...

Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#21 14 years ago
GreatGrizzlyI would rather put power in the government, because if there is something I dont like (in theory), I can change it. If I put power in the Business, I cant change anything, unless I buy a majority of their stock (That requires A LOT of money, something most people dont have) And even than, I cant call the shots.

If I put power in government, I can't change anything, unless I pay off enough congressmen (That requires A LOT of money, something most people don't have), and even then, I can't call the shots. I hate to burst your bubble, but one vote isn't going to change how the government.

Example: I have to pay hundreds of dollars for an OS that is buggy, insecure, and bulky POS. You know why? because it is the most commonly used OS on earth (a monopoly), my job requires me to learn it because of the first point, and all my software only works on it.

problems with this argument. -Early cars had the same problem. Filled with bugs, insecure, and inefficient. But that had nothing to do with corporate bureaucracy - cars were simply a new technology. Same goes for computers. Always new features and ideas that have to be added to the design. A computer is almost obsolete by the time it leaves the assembly line, because the technology is advancing so rapidly. There is simply not enough time to make a perfect design with no bugs. If you or I tried to do their jobs for them, I doubt we would do any better. -Do you seriously think the government could handle this better? Just look at how the government has handled their existing projects. Take the Comanche attack chopper for example. That stupid thing took 20 years, and billions of taxpayer's dollars to build before it was scrapped as unworkable. Can you imagine what would happen to a private company that made a blunder on that scale? True, the people actually building these projects for the government are corporations, but they are under government contracts, and their government employers are the ones who call the shots. This is why many companies refuse to work with the government. Government bureaucracy is simply too destructive to their corporate ethics.




GreatGrizzly

Fear the Bear

50 XP

23rd February 2005

0 Uploads

1,622 Posts

0 Threads

#22 14 years ago
Machiavelli's ApprenticeIf I put power in government, I can't change anything, unless I pay off enough congressmen (That requires A LOT of money, something most people don't have), and even then, I can't call the shots.[/quote] Its because of people like you who say "Oh well, we cant do anything, why bother?" That is why a government can get away with things, because of people like you. [quote=Machiavelli's Apprentice]I hate to burst your bubble, but one vote isn't going to change how the government.

But thousands of votes can change something, that is why you should encourage others to vote, instead of the usual "my vote doesnt count, yours wont either, so dont bother" crap. And about the OS thing, I wasnt talking about corporate bureaucracy, I was talking about monopolies, Windows is a fine example of what would happen when a corporation becames a monopoly.

Did you know that CEO's and other higherups can drive their busness in the ground and get millions of dollars in severence packages?

Do you remember Enron? How the top guys took millions of dollars for themselves, and screwed over the workers and shareholders.

Ya right, like I would want to put all the power into them.

It is because of the GOVERNMENT that they where caught....




Chemix2

Paladin: The Holy Knight

50 XP

16th March 2005

0 Uploads

3,789 Posts

0 Threads

#23 14 years ago

It's because of people like Griz, idealists who don't understand how to world works, that we can't deal with the world that we actualy live in, only the theoretical one that can't co-exist with man's nature.




GreatGrizzly

Fear the Bear

50 XP

23rd February 2005

0 Uploads

1,622 Posts

0 Threads

#24 14 years ago

You mean mans nature like greed? Isnt that what busnessess are? Their sole purpose is to make money. The want for money and material possesions is called greed. The governments sole purpose is to protect the people. Not to persue a fortune.

You all wouldnt want to live in a dictatorship? Than why would you want to live under a super corperation? They both have money and power, and will be able to control you however they want.




Chemix2

Paladin: The Holy Knight

50 XP

16th March 2005

0 Uploads

3,789 Posts

0 Threads

#25 14 years ago

The want of material items isn't exactly a bad thing, hurting others to get to it is.

The government, despite the teachings John Locke and other "Enlightened" thinkers of the 1700s, is not out there for the sole purpose of protecting the people. Government officials are wealthy, and they like that wealth, it's an above average pay desk job that is often held by a person already wealthy enough to fund a campaign including mud slinging TV adds, posters, so on and so forth. The government, unlike corporations has a fully armed and armored army and can enforce laws, however a corporation has no such power at the current state, maybe in the future when the main competition with China for inter planetary transport and colonization is corporations such as the long descendants of Virgin Galactic and similar corporations.

And until that point a corporation will only have control over one factor of the people's lives, what they sell. Also it runs by the lines of, quality equals sales, people aren't going to buy a shitty product. A boycott of a few thousand people does alot for damage to a corporation than the same few thousand people trying to protest a government which doesn't need that few thousand people. In the US, the only reason protests raise an eyebrow in congress is because it stirs up the media, and when the media push that story the masses follow the words of the reporters like sheep. Whether or not you like your government, you still pay taxes to them, with a company, if you don't buy their product they have difficulties.

The government never has and never will be perfect aslong as it relies on imperfect beings and our imperfect creations. I'd rather have a bunch fragile companies to deal with than an armed to the teeth nation. You have two options, you are going to be driving over an icy bridge with no railing, one is a car that has normal windows and good tires, the other has bullet proof windows and not so great tires. If that thing falls into the water I'd rather have the normal windows that I can kick out, than the bulletproof ones that an automatic rifle can't shoot through




GreatGrizzly

Fear the Bear

50 XP

23rd February 2005

0 Uploads

1,622 Posts

0 Threads

#26 14 years ago

"Fragile" companies such as the Oil companys? any thing they do effects everyone in at every level of the economy 1000 people will do more damage than a 1000 voters? These companies have busnesses around the WORLD, some also make 400,000,000 dollars a DAY. a thousand people is something they can write off "The company never has and never will be perfect aslong as it relies on imperfect beings and our imperfect creations." You think the when shit hits the fan, you want a way out? You ever heard of mercenaries? hit men? they are all hired by deep pockets. Both sides will get you if they want you. You dont put too much power into any one of them.




Chemix2

Paladin: The Holy Knight

50 XP

16th March 2005

0 Uploads

3,789 Posts

0 Threads

#27 14 years ago

What makes these industries fragile is competition, you're not amazingly likely to move across the border if the government makes a law you don't like, but if one gas station is high, then you go to the next.

If you're not for either one than what are you for, what's the point, there is no middle ground here, if you restrict the companies you give the government power, if you let them grow you give the companies power. There's no way to limit either one's power without raising the power of the other without a third party and with a third party we get another easily corruptable part of the puzzle and this simply overcomplicates the system.

By the way, a merc isn't quite the equivilent to a 200,000 man army with tanks, missiles, and the ability to invade your home, kill you and get away with it. A merc has to be careful and will rarely take out more than one man at a time. People will notice if thousands of boycotters go missing and the government will do something about it, what are the companies going to do in the reversed situation, nothing, because they can't do anything on nearly the same scale




GreatGrizzly

Fear the Bear

50 XP

23rd February 2005

0 Uploads

1,622 Posts

0 Threads

#28 14 years ago
Chemix2What makes these industries fragile is competition, you're not amazingly likely to move across the border if the government makes a law you don't like, but if one gas station is high, then you go to the next. [/quote] What if one company destroyes all competition (monopoly)? What than?
Chemix2If you're not for either one than what are you for, what's the point, there is no middle ground here, if you restrict the companies you give the government power, if you let them grow you give the companies power. There's no way to limit either one's power without raising the power of the other without a third party and with a third party we get another easily corruptable part of the puzzle and this simply overcomplicates the system.
And why are you so hell bent on removing one group all together, letting the other become unstoppable? There has to be a balance, you wanting to remove power from the government is NOT a balance [quote=Chemix2]By the way, a merc isn't quite the equivilent to a 200,000 man army with tanks, missiles, and the ability to invade your home, kill you and get away with it. A merc has to be careful and will rarely take out more than one man at a time. People will notice if thousands of boycotters go missing and the government will do something about it, what are the companies going to do in the reversed situation, nothing, because they can't do anything on nearly the same scale

America pays its soldiers to kill who it wants. If there was no government to pay them, they wont fight. However, if a huge corperation pays up for protection, they will take the job, taking whatever military tech they have with them.




Chemix2

Paladin: The Holy Knight

50 XP

16th March 2005

0 Uploads

3,789 Posts

0 Threads

#29 14 years ago

New companies are always forming, if it's better it will catch on, if not it'll stay in the dark, a monopoly will only stay a monopoly as long as people buy from them and not smaller companies.

Also don't take soldiers and furthermore a countries military for simple mercenaries. There is a sense of pride, of protecting the ones they love that comes with that, that is a reason behind a decent portion of the miltary that we have. Also there will always be enough loyalists to stop technology and equipment from being stolen.

The government and the corporations will always exist in a capitalist state, however in a totalitarian regime the corporations work as extensions of the government, which means the grand mahoff decides who gets what. You act as if I am an anarchist, I'm for a balance of government and corporations, but not for major restrictions on their growth. If I create a trillion dollar company, do I really want to have to loose all that because I have a monopoly on a market that I have simply controled due to a quality product which has gained me enough money to buy up my competitors. Microsoft survived by paying people off, and that is what every company with a monopoly will do, because people have no interest in loosing power. Also might I add, 1st world countries aren't exactly competing for best living conditions, unlike corporations.

"Big" Napoleon is coming (as a note, that was sarcasm)




GreatGrizzly

Fear the Bear

50 XP

23rd February 2005

0 Uploads

1,622 Posts

0 Threads

#30 14 years ago
You act as if I am an anarchist, I'm for a balance of government and corporations, but not for major restrictions on their growth.

You want major restrictions on a Governments growth? But not Corporations? How is that balanced?