Adrian Tymes wrote:
>
> "Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> > Paul Hughes wrote:
> > > Also true as long as *individuals* remain the focus of such transactions. But what
> > > I see happening are large numbers of individuals being controlled by small numbers
> > > through the traditional hierarchy of corporations. If this is not the case, then
> > > why is it that less than 5% of any company dictates and controls policy while the
> > > other 95% have to *obey* or get fired.
> > >
> > > i.e. Corporation = Dictatorship. I challenge anyone to say otherwise. Sure I know
> > > there are a *few* exceptions.
> >
> > A corporate CEO, chairman, or president is held accountable by the board of
> > directors (i.e. congress) who themselves are held accountable by the
> > stockholders (the body of voters).
> >
> > If a corporation is a dictatorship, then so is every 'democratic' society that
> > ever existed, and there is no such thing as democracy.
>
> Err...not quite. In a democracy, one person = one vote, and buying
> votes is (supposedly) out of bounds. In a corporation, one stock = one
> vote, and buying stock is how one is supposed to acquire votes. Thus,
> those with the most money invested in the company have the largest say,
> and they're going to be interested in making more money with their
> money. They also tend to vote themselves into the board of directors,
> thus making the board in practice accountable to no one but itself
> (since they are typically the majority stockholders).
In a world where the opinions of the population are controlled or manipulated by
the media, those who own the presses are just as manipulative of a democratic
system as a rich man is of a corporation.
>
> > An employee has the choice whether or not to be a voter, by buying stock, just
> > as every citizen of a democratic country is free to choose whether or not to
> > vote. Is the elected president of a country a dictator simply because some part
> > of the population decides not to vote?
>
> Unless said employee has lots of money to invest - which is almost never
> the case - said votes will be worthless in practice, as described above.
Not so. The employees typically outnumber other investors by far, and if they
are unionized, their union would also tend to be one of the largest stockholders
in the company (if they were smart).
> (The stocks may be worth some money, but the votes they give have a
> value of zero since they're always outvoted.) Even in a democracy (or,
> more accurately, a republic, there being few if any national direct
> democracies at the moment) with millions of people, a single person's
> vote can still make some difference - and without the motivation of
> "make the money I invested in this turn into more money" dominating
> voters' minds, other values have a chance to compete.
A voter in a nation of 200-300 million people is worth far less than an employee
owning 100-1000 shares of stock in the company they are employed by. When the
parties are in league with the major media, which uses its propaganda power to
program the sheeple, the vote of one individual is always outvoted as well.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:12 MDT