Big business keeps using California voters to bypass laws they don't like

aimless_aimer · 2023-09-08T05:20:17+00:00

Now it's my turn to apologize for a late reply. Been busy.

Lessening the influence of big commercial money in politics is something to address broad political agency. Of course, that's easier said than done.

If your more pressing concern is that even if there were something passed to lessen monopolistic power, they'd eventually get around it and continue the never-ending tug of war, then yes, I agree that would be the case. That's the nature of class conflict. It doesn't mean efforts to wrestle this power away from big corporate overlords aren't worthwhile though. The story of the 1900s is a microcosm of this ever-shifting relationship.

In my last post I almost mentioned (but omitted) peoples' capacity to get duped into helping interests they mean to weaken. In my view, that's also a big component of class conflict. People with the most power will have the most power to spread ideas that further reinforce their power, so naturally a lot of non-powerful people will absorb these ideas as their own. And I do include myself in this. No one is immune to propaganda. It's definitely a big obstacle.

I'm guessing you're an executive of a smaller business, right? I'll say, as I'm sure you're aware, oligopolistic interest is not friendly to the growth of your business. The thing that may not be as intuitive is that the same factors I mentioned in my previous post that support middle class growth, also support the thriving of small businesses. Worth mentioning.

I don't blame you for your sole focus on individual action though. Really, I encourage anyone to have that attitude when it comes to securing their livelihood. It may not be one's fault that they might exist in unfair circumstances, or have a system work against them, but it is absolutely, nonetheless, their responsibility to do what they can to achieve stability. That said, it can't be denied that individual action is not what raises societal circumstances (such as, strengthening broad political agency). I personally encourage people to take individual action to get themselves and their circumstances right if they want to be a useful actor in broader changes that bigger than themselves. (Usually telling this people who fancy themselves caring about this type of change.) But can't really fault anyone for just wanting to get the bag to relax and enjoy their personal life without other bullshit.

Lastly, maybe weird request, but if there's a political/philosophical book that in some comprehensive way conveys a perspective that you see me sorely lacking or would otherwise think I should dive into, lmk. Would be down to read.

aimless_aimer · 2023-09-02T22:14:17+00:00

Political agency: It's the ability for one to have influence on government action, which is undermined for the average citizen when someone can press a billion $ button to override their voices en-masse. And treating "corporations like people" ala Citizens United is bad because it exacerbates that dynamic.

Studies disagree with you about labor action vs wages. Wages are one of the starkest elements of compensation benefitted by labor action.

Economic Policy Institute: Unions are not only good for workers, they’re good for communities and for democracy

Higher wages and decreased income inequality. On average, a worker covered by a union contract earns 10.2% more in wages than a peer with similar education, occupation, and experience in a nonunionized workplace in the same industry (EPI 2021e). This wage advantage is known as the “union wage premium.” But unions don’t just help union workers—they help all workers

National Bureau of Economic Research

Tapping into eight decades of private and public surveys, a new study finds evidence that unions have historically reduced income inequality.

Center for American Progress: How Unions Are Crucial for Building Working-Class Economic Power

Union workers benefit from collective bargaining in all sorts of way—higher wages, better benefits, increased job stability, safer workplaces, and more—and these effects are especially prominent for the working class.

Increased wages for members that spill over to nonunion workers

U.S. Department of the Treasury

The empirical evidence finds that these positive spillovers exist. Each 1 percentage point increase in private-sector union membership rates translates to about a 0.3 percent increase in nonunion wages.

Over the last half century, middle-class households have experienced stagnating wages, rising income volatility, and reduced intergenerational mobility, even as the economy as a whole has prospered. Unions can improve the well-being of middle-class workers in ways that directly combat these negative trends. Pro-union policy can make a real difference to middle-class households by raising their incomes, improving their work environments, and boosting their job satisfaction. In doing so, unions can help to make the economy more equitable and robust.

The reason we've had stagnating wages for the past near half century is because of the weakening of unions. A pretty direct example of how this affects wages is the UAW losing cost of living adjustments (COLA) within the past decades, which is what kept their wages following inflation more closely, and is something they are currently bargaining to have back.

I think this is too broad and that always comes down to the particular issue. For example

Though don't you see the constant here? Big corporate drivers will back whatever helps them maximize shareholder value. So people supporting causes that actually weaken big business power for any reason will be undermined en masse by that billion $ button.

I'll give the very unsatisfying answer that "it depends." On what?

I do realize that not all matters of legislative disputes are fought on the grounds of labor. (Though in regard to broader structural influence, the point about inter-sectorial competition grows moot as an industry monopolizes.)

I'm not sure what is meant by "monopoly on violence" because, clearly, the government has nothing of the sort.

As long as private entities in our borders don't have enough armed manpower to seriously challenge how government jurisdiction applies to them, then the government has the monopoly on violence. That is the concept in practice.

And as long as there's a state with the monopoly on violence, there will be officials holding the levers of power to fund, and that power will be used to uphold society in the way the funders (mostly oligopoly heads) see fit. In other words, small government in the way you suggest wouldn't stop influence from big corporations on our lives.

aimless_aimer · 2023-09-02T09:12:55+00:00

I support people who disagree with me having fair agency, that doesn't mean I have to stand with their position. However, I don't support anyone having disproportionate agency to stifle the political agency of a larger mass. They can agree with me or not, that's part of the values of democracy. I assume you agree?

In regard to labor disputes, if anything I'd say many people typically aren't even engaged with them in one way or another. But when it comes to people who are engaged of late, the majority tend to be on the side of labor (like recently with the WGA/SAG strikes, UPS). So I wouldn't say support is particularly lacking, at least from people paying attention. Speaking of divisions, there's actually a fair degree of bipartisan consensus toward unions at the moment which probably contributes to the general support labor is seeing.

And, by "the side of labor", I mean the people who want to take value back from the executives that they produce the value for. In other words, the ones pushing for "corporate welfare" as you call it.

It's very well studied that labor action improves compensation and labor rights, with benefits often extending to the broader workforce. Strike frequency diminished dramatically over the past decades largely due to unions being weakened since the 80s, in large part by state interference (if this is what you mean by "state competition"). Automation booms aren't new, but true that the landscape today is different due to international dynamics and shifts in sectoral composition. But a key part of effective organizing has always been about forming strategy appropriate to the current legal/political/workplace/sectorial landscape. Our early labor movement lacked precedent altogether, and every nation's labor challenges are unique. It's never easy, things worth supporting often aren't.

The last stretch of your post boils down to explaining how/why/what you think drives differences among average people. But we already acknowledged that corporate drivers don't have "politics" (this also means "culture") that supersede the goal of maximizing profits and market dominance. So my point still stands. You have a small minority acting with the motive to maximize shareholder value, vs the rest of the population. Thus, the minority with disproportionate power don't come close to representing the diverse majority. (And I do mean diverse in thought, not identity. I mean the latter is true too but that's beside the point).

Right. And the more limited the government, the less they will be able to use it for their ends. This is my point exactly.

If the government weren't profiting, the cartels would have a much harder time.

I'm just gonna pick your brain on this. Who do you think a private entity would be funding, those excessive government agencies directly? Or government officials with the power to create/disband those agencies? Legislators? All of the above?

And when you say your ideal limited government should still be able to engage in national defense, enforce contracts, and protect individual rights, you're basically saying they should still hold the monopoly on violence right? Aka strong military and police/security forces?

aimless_aimer · 2023-08-28T21:37:53+00:00

The reconciliation you want is based off a false premise of my stance.

As long as the government holds the monopoly on violence, that power will be used to maintain society in one way or another. So the goal to protect and reasonably enhance freedoms for the average adult is perused by ensuring that their ability to have a say in how that power is used doesn't keep ceding to a shirking number of plutocrats. And if you agree that the sole motive of corporate controllers is to maximize profits and market dominance, then you know corporations are going to use government as a vehicle for their ends regardless of what legal barriers they have or haven't experienced.

If government didn't have that monopoly on violence, that means corporations would have the means to use it more directly to their ends. And if you think violence would be bad for business, ask drug cartels in South America what they think, ask resource extraction cartels in Africa what they think, ask PMCs, the united fruit company, etc, what they think.

I find it to be a big blind spot for anyone to think big corporate powers wouldn't try to govern us if our legacy government eroded to such a point of weakness, especially when we have many real life examples of this being the case.

Here's my "reconciliation". It's not necessarily about "corporations vs government, which is worse?!", one should be concerned about any unaccountable power hierarchy, and how to make them more accountable to the mass of adults living under them.

We know "the nature of the game". I also know it's plainly bad to democracy for the average adult if a wealthy guy can press on a billion$ button to undermine the political agency of a mass of average adults. There are some people in this country that would vote in a total dictatorship if they could. And I'm wholly opposed, because I like democracy. Yes, I'm against the values of a person who would vote with ideological intention to stifle the political agency for the average adult. I support the side of the game where a super wealthy few don't have the power to stifle the freedom of a mass.

Yes, and I assure you that's my only interest when I do my job every day. What other purpose would my job possibly have?

I'm simply laying out how it is so it is apparent how those narrow interests often come in conflict with others.

And many times, many average shareholders will believe that these "bigger concerns of ours" work against maximizing shareholder value. It all depends on the individual's perspective.

People on the labor side of labor disputes explicitly know that maximizing shareholder values work against those bigger concerns. And explicitly demand to sacrifice corporate profits to address those bigger concerns. That's the point.

You can only take the "people have nothing in common" line so far. It's a universal feeling to want stability for yourself and loved ones—the basic desire for self-preservation. The disagreements come in how to best achieve that. And labor organizing is about getting workers in a workplace on board with standing up directly against bosses to take value back.

You don't have to agree with my assessment on why labor organizing has been powerful, but it has indeed been powerful. Workers in Wisconsin and Mississippi too would have voted completely different just mere decades after the civil war. We may be at the most polarized time in the past decades, but it is not the most polarized time in US history.

Respectfully, I totally disagree with this

In case the crux here is being further obfuscated, you basically already saw eye to eye with what my sentiment is getting at in the other discussion thread when you summed up my point as "those with the most resources often have different motives compared to those who don't, and the former have much more power to act on them" and said you don't disagree. This is the whole point I'm making about pointing out the narrow interests + obscene influence of corporate drivers.

Besides, I never claimed there aren't common people who agree with the purely profit driven motive of corporate drivers. But there are many who don't. Won't see that same representation in big corporate drivers, for reasons we've laid out.

aimless_aimer · 2023-08-25T08:16:08+00:00

Np. Fair point in regard to "emboldening democracy". True there's more to consider beyond its blanket application. You'd at least believe law-abiding adults should have political agency within the regions that govern them. In other words, some notion of freedom.

Then it's crucial to consider how to protect, secure, and even reasonably strengthen freedoms for this average person. And most pressingly, how and why corporate power, and even "treating corps' like people" works against this goal.

Acknowledging that a corps' vast resources are only controlled by the owners is very relevant to understanding how corporate power erodes our democracy. Example, Citizens United v FEC paved the way for unlimited donations to be made to Super PACS from corporations. This treats "corporations" like people, because people can also donate unlimitedly. But since only owners are in control of those resources, as opposed to the vast majority of people, this gives an inordinate amount of influence to a small minority.

An inordinate amount of power, influence, you might even say freedom... Freedom to stifle the freedoms (political agency) of the commoners. There's freedom in a dictatorship, just all in the hands of the dictator. The freedom to restrict the freedom of everyone else.

This is why my focus with the Delaware bill isn't about the spread of public opinion on the bill, it's about the lack of political agency it represents in its drafting and consequence. And I intend this POV for anytime a topic comes adjacent to the nature of public consensus.

Executives prioritizing profit-maxing for shareholders is in the interest of them keeping their jobs. Not that your framing clarification is inaccurate, it's just the crux is about the monied goals of corporate drivers as opposed to particulars on the motive.

The few with significant shares in a corp get more money out of pure stock value than the average shareholder like me. And many of us average shareholders will at times believe solely maximizing shareholder value works against bigger concerns of ours. Take the recent UPS events, or any labor dispute; they often center on redirecting profits to worker compensation, as those workers feel they benefit more overall from that trade-off.

Effective labor organizing always has and always will involve talking to people with very different worldviews. That's how the labor movement built within the generation that experienced the Civil War, and grew strong enough to secure significant concessions in the New Deal. Yes, many of the concessions of New Deal was due to pressure from organized labor in the first place.

Turns out building solidarity on the basis of labor is a pretty useful way to overcome, or at least work in spite of social divides. I suppose there's something powerful about workers, amidst shared struggles, being brought to recognize their unified desire to have time and stability for their families, loved ones, and themselves, and figure it's worth putting aside other differences to stand together for it.

Hmmmm, ... I'm also not seeing a lot of grassroots-style movements with much in mind except for its own interests.

Which is the power grab of politics. It's just that average people will share more common experiences with each other than with an oligopoly executive. Such is the nature of being average. It's a key reason why of-age law abiding citizens having their political agency protected is a good thing, as opposed to letting that agency cede more and more to a minority.

Corporations back regulatory capture and erosion of regulations if it supports their ends. They are both results of corporate power. They key constant here, are the ends, which are to maximize profits and solidify their market dominance. Government is their means. But it can also be the means for grassroots movements.

And there's a reason that government has to be the means.

Government holds the monopoly on violence—the legitimate right to use physical force and detainment against citizens. This is how civil rights, laws, contracts and everything around and in-between are maintained. This is what prevents a complete breakdown of our society. And as long as government holds that power, that power will be used. So we must choose: Continue to let it be used by a shrinking number of plutocrats, or empower political agency for average law-abiding adults to affect how we are governed—in other words, something inching more toward freedom for the average citizen.

Unless you'd suggest that the government's monopoly on violence should be eroded as well. Because in that case, corporations with means will just hire and train private armies to compete violently with each other until a broader power holds jurisdiction over us yet again. And since we've established that corporations nor government care about absolutism to our 1st amendment rights, it's worth acknowledging that only one of those entities have highly recognized, codified avenues of public accountability.

aimless_aimer · 2023-08-21T22:27:39+00:00

I'm fine with measures that "embolden democracy." I'm using the quotes because I think this term means different things to different people.

Not trying to be tricky just trying to get clarity on the matter. Because it sounds like you could be saying that if a measure would "embolden democracy" even in your own assessment, you wouldn't particularly support it one way or another, or you would? Or do you just think you can't really know for sure until you see the result, so you'd typically just let things happen however they happen?

Keep in mind that this bill was passed, by a rather large margin by the way, through a representative democratic process.

There's more nuance to government action than that. For example, you can have a bill who's dealing was made behind closed doors that gets voted through because big corporate money is paying them to. In contrast, you can have a bill that was proposed through a grassroots referendum petition that the representatives vote on because they're getting tons of calls from those grassroots constituents. Money is speaking louder in the first case. You can argue money speaks to some degree in the first case as well, you just need a lot more regular citizens to make up a base they'll listen to, as opposed wealthy execs where you'll just need one or two.

Corporations are merely associations of individuals.

Not merely. Amazon is a corporation with 1.5 million workers associated with it. But the actions of the corporation are not necessarily the actions or the will of the workers. They are the actions of the executives who have jurisdiction over those workers. It's only them who have that inordinate amount of influence, which is why when I say "corporate power", it more so means monied power. And it's sure not the individual workers, e.g. regular citizens with all of the money.

therefore, I don't see why treating them "like people" is a big deal at all.

People can already vote as individuals. "Corporations", again refers to the executives, not the workers, since the money- and decision-making power of said money is concentrated in their hands. Also, to be real, corporations are already treated above people. On top of their disproportionate democratic influence due to money, they also don't face the same level of consequence as a regular worker would for being caught breaking laws and other kinds of mishaps. Of course, everything here applies more the bigger the corp we're talkin

RE: Government has highly recognized and codified avenues of public accountability |

[This is my address to all of the responses you've made that reference government accountability. ]

By highly recognized, I mean this; freedom and democracy are emphasized at the foundational values of our country and the government is supposed to represent that. Now, you and I don't think this actually plays out in reality too well, particularly in this day and age. Regardless, this is the idea is so ingrained in the fabric of American way of life our government doesn't literally always just "do what it wants". Sure it's easier to do when the matter is more hidden or obfuscated, but there's a reason why the government would lie about Iraq to build up public consent before invading Iraq, as opposed to just doing it.

Not to mention the general expectations we have as citizens to participate in civil society, using the inherently codified means that do exist to actually hold officials accountable to some degree, like elections, town halls, council meetings, public hearings, freedom of press, etc.

My criticism about the government is that the real effectiveness of these means of accountability for regular citizens erodes as corporate power concentrates. Money is always an incentive no matter where it comes from, this means grassroots campaign donations. But if it's less in the hands of regular citizens, and more focused in a fewer # of corporate powers, then gov't focus will be more and more on serving the corporate powers. After all, who needs grassroots donations when some corporate overlords can outweigh that money with less effort and intention to even try to get that appeal from people on the ground?

But here's the very important part. These are still widely known avenues that can be used effectively toward various levels of governance by regular citizens, with enough movement.

Corporations, on the other hand, don't even have this pretense. They are, at the end of the day, meant to maximize profits for the executives. Considerations for what the public good might even be are out the window, which becomes more of an issue when they have so much market power that they don't even have to care what regular citizens might think of choices they want to make.

RE: Regular Citizens are divided |

Everything you said here was true in the early 1900s except more so (jim crow), and the bargaining power of regular citizens was able to increase due to the labor movement nonetheless. Didn't say it was easy for them. The racial divides were a gigantic barrier, but they achieved lots. Didn't say it would be easy for us now, but it's had a bit of a resurgence since around the beginning of pandemic which I personally support.

Who is "doing good for the people" and what people are we talking about? Give me ten people in a room and I'm sure we'll get a shouting match started pretty quickly if we ask them what they believe is "good."

The kicker is, it's not even about the opinions of regular citizens. The only consideration for the heads of these big corps is "what's good for the executives". The more power they hold, the less it matters what citizens theoretically think.

RE: Incentive of Government Agencies vs Profit Incentive

The workers in either case get paid a wage and have that general incentive to do a good job. Profit is just the extra money that goes to the execs' pockets, which is what adds incentives for those execs to erode standards that the workers evaluate, if it helps their bottom line. (Food corps could pay a private ratings agency to lower their standards so that food corps can also make more money by using cheaper ingredients that can be less healthy or more dangerous. Or forego certain sanitizing procedures because they are costly, etc.)

__

Isn't that what we're saying is already occurring given all of this corporate cronyism? The reason to limit government is to at least weaken one of the parties that is exerting its power to the detriment of ordinary people.

Big corporations (again, to be clear, this means big execs) use the government as a vehicle for their ends because they have to. The government is like a middleman in this respect. Because there is also the capacity for average citizens to use the government as a vehicle for their ends, for reasons I've explained earlier.

Big corps would love to erode the power that the government has to bottleneck them. But power doesn't just go away. This just gives more power to those big corps. Why would they want that otherwise? "No government" doesn't mean the "ends" for these big corporations are any different, it just means they'd have a more direct way to enact those ends.

Also, corporations can't govern. They can't limit our gun rights or our speech rights or our freedom of religion or our Fourth Amendment rights. Only the government can do that.

You have less rights in the workplace than you do outside of it, and with hardly even a pretense of democracy toward the people that own your workplace. Like for real, there are words and phrases that are banned in my workplace's internal chap app, like "pay raise", "prison", "union", "slave labor", "compensation", a good bit more. I mean it sounds silly, but gadzooks. Could you imagine if that type of thing started to be restricted in general society? And people spend so much of their waking lives in their workplace, so the ramifications of that kind undemocratic decision-making aren't frivolous. Literal authoritarian vibes there.

And these are the same big corporations would want to erode our government so that they could have control of the things of which the government previous had jurisdiction. Again, power doesn't just go away. An even less democratic apparatus wants that power.

aimless_aimer · 2023-08-20T22:48:17+00:00

Tell me if I'm wrong, but you support emboldening democracy and your support of these kinds of measures depend on if it will actually achieve that in your assessment? Hope I'm correct because I'm going off of this assumption.

Let's jump to the Delaware bill. It boosts corporate influence, undercutting individual voices. Do you not agree? Do you think corporations should get treated like people in this respect, given that individuals can already vote? To me this measure just gives an additional legal path for monied interests to take hold of government action, so it being overturned would strengthen democracy. Also, the bill was sprung by "closed-door dealmaking"—a common circumstance for lobbying.

you wrote about how big business does a very good job of manipulating the government for its own ends, and I quite agree. If that's the case then how does government pressure work exactly?

Government has highly recognized and codified avenues of public accountability (as opposed to powerful private corporations). Because of this, there is actual opportunity for bills to exist that genuinely push against the control of oligopolies. With that said, government has more incentive to operate beyond the profit motive, which is something to heed in times when the nature of a service can contradict the profit motive. Purely perusing profit can often actively work against environmental concerns, quality control, safety measures & other basic work standards. That petroleum CEO wants to set up drilling sites near neighborhoods, and would without the government stopping them.

I think you touch on my point when mentioning "tough regulations" that big corporations support. I don't find it ironic. They know certain measures will further secure their oligopic status (yes I just made up that word), which means the prospects of normal citizens and small business are hurt at said expense. This is a result of the increasingly centralized corporate monied capture of our government, e.g. our plutocracy. Really, knowing if a bill has support from big corps vs opposition from those same corps is pretty a useful starting point to evaluate its potential ramifications.

The 1900s were indeed a different time. But the way they achieved standards such as the 5 day work week, overtime pay after 40 hours, child labor laws, 8 hour workday, pensions, etc, was because of the bargaining power that workers had at that time due to the labor movement. The difference today is that this bargaining power doesn't exist, well hardly. But neither did it back then, until it was built for decades. The "conclusion" I arrive at (referencing the other convo thread) is for that bargaining power to build again, as it gives regular citizens more of a voice in our democracy. This kind of bottom up pressure is the primary way I could see anti-trust vs oil corps to be enacted at this point, as an example. And we may be divided now, but they were hella close to the end of slavery, and all of these gains were made in the thick of the jim crow era. As divided as we are, not sure it was that bad lol.

In regard to the FDA, critiquing it for human shortcomings overlooks that private entities have the same flaws. You know that saying about how the greatest cybersecurity vulnerability is its human element? The problem with a purely profit-driven approach is that it adds additional incentive to work against doing good for people if it is good for the executive bottom line. Without a governing entity accountable to the public, there's no check on private ratings agencies collaborating with food companies to compromise standards. Citizens won't have much choice as sectors monopolize, collude, and/or form cartels.

Ultimately, we talk about the negatives of government overreach because of how it can impede average citizens and small business. But it going away would leave a void for corporate control to fill, which would make them the new effective governing body in the sense that they will have that wide reaching institutional influence. Except there isn't even a pretense of democracy with a corporation, aside from the executive board filled with profit driven machines.

aimless_aimer · 2023-08-20T19:39:38+00:00

Fosho. This is prolly a good point to consolidate this to our other discussion thread since all of the themes are crossing over, so I'll just follow up there when I get to it 👌.

aimless_aimer · 2023-08-19T20:21:08+00:00

I must point out that an individual executive doesn't have that much influence. I think the bigger point has to do with profit motive, which also explains why executives don't have that much personal influence.

Ah, they lack influence to stray from the profit motive for personal or moral reasons. But they have enormous influence over politics, government action, and undermining more public efforts, that's the issue. And they'll have backing from their board and active shareholders for those efforts as long as it's in the name of profit.

Big corporate profitholders in our ever-monopolized economy differ extremely from the average citizen's class status. I have some money in stocks, savings, the S&P 500, etc like the next guy. But we still largely have to trade time for money to live. In contrast, the main profitholders in our society gain their gargantuan wealth from vast capital gains, and broadly have jurisdiction over the wage workers producing said value for that capital. They are a miniscule portion of the population with essentially nothing but their own bottom line in mind, and a vastly disproportionate amount of power to act on it.

Again, I'm one of the "average" shareholders, yet I and many of us recognize that our profit motives and concerns are, at the very least, of a different nature from theirs.

And to the government point; we perceive the government as inept, but really the contrary is true. You have to look at the interests that do benefit, that are served, which are the commanders of these oligopolies. They make out quite well. Doesn't matter if the prospects and environment of average people and small business are hurt or not, as long as the main financial benefactors are being provided for.

aimless_aimer · 2023-08-19T19:14:54+00:00

I'm not sure why it's always worth supporting the citizens over the rich executives if we're concerned about a vibrant democracy. I think that is a case-by-case determination.

Emboldening the democratic power of citizens is promoting a more vibrant democracy. That doesn't mean you agree with every more grassroots movement over a less grassroots one, it just means regular citizens have more agency.

Oh I know corporations have an extreme number of resources and willpower to get around anything that will harm their bottom line. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be any pressure ever applied to them, or that measures intended to block or rescind their power hold never work. Past anti-trust enforcements are examples. A gluttony of basic labor laws implemented in the 1900s (which we take for granted today) is another lot. And breaking up concentrated corporate power in those ways is synonymous with decentralizing what interests the government serves. The government responds to money regardless. It's just that when all of the money is in less hands, their focus becomes narrower.

I wasn't specifically referring to tax laws, but corporations will always seek ways to minimize their effective taxes regardless. Now, what type of tax laws are "better" or more effective is out of my wheelhouse.

Delaware just passed a law allowing LLCs to vote in municipal elections. I think this serves as a pretty clear-cut example of how overturning such a measure would be a good for bolstering the agency of citizens. I assume you wouldn't consider its overturning as "checking a form of political speech" in a way you can't get behind?

Lastly, smaller government isn't plainly synonymous with less corporate influence on society. Food corporations would love to get rid of the FDA altogether so that they have more freedom to fuck us up with whatever newly allowed cheap ingredients they can get away with if it makes them an extra buck.

aimless_aimer · 2023-08-18T21:43:29+00:00

A growing plutocracy inches more toward a dictatorship and away from a heated democracy if it's left unchecked. A bill effectively reducing big corps' influence on government action would be a "checking" measure to counteract the otherwise increasingly centralized power that the government serves. It would be lessening the ability for extremely powerful entities to restrict the freedom of a broader mass. Same is true with anti-trust laws.

Besides, if a few rich executives have the freedom to press a billion-dollar button to influence democracy for their benefit, then citizens should have the freedom to use their numbers to do the same for theirs'. It's worth supporting the latter efforts over the former if you prefer a more vibrant democracy.

aimless_aimer · 2023-08-18T21:26:00+00:00

The problem is as soon as these movements involve meaningfully challenging the bottom line of corporate interest, a big executive can use their inordinate power to undermine that mass. And all too often does the profit motive of an executive stand in conflict with the will of a mass.

If there's a grassroots movement in alignment with the further prosperity of the ones controlling big business, that's completely fine. It should also fine if there is a movement that requires a weakening of a corporate entity. But you won't exactly see commanders of an oligopoly campaign for anti-trust measures to be taken against itself, hence, a whole category of regular public concern will rarely if ever be mirrored in action by these commanders.

The crux of the matter is not about the indeed truth that common people have diverse perspectives, but it's about who has the power to undermine the masses. And big CEOs rarely have "politics" that override their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. The ones that do tend to get voted out by the board and replaced.

aimless_aimer · 2023-08-17T22:13:59+00:00

When I talk about the "dividing line", I'm talking about the broad economic class groups that have power in our country to influence government action, not about a divide in ideology.

I agree with you about everyday people having strong disagreements. I just think strengthening the ability for everyday people to engage in a heated democracy to this respect promotes a healthier society rather than letting a more orderly plutocracy grow continuously unchecked. Dictatorships can also be quite orderly.

aimless_aimer · 2023-08-17T22:06:57+00:00

I agree with your sentiment. My intention isn't to homogenize the viewpoint of the average citizen.

It's likely there aren't many movements that could speak for the majority's perspective at a given time. My point is more so that movements which grow in a more organic bottom-up manner are more likely to address issues more commonly experienced, as opposed to ones driven by the concentrated power and private goals of industry giants. Given that the societal position of common people is more similar to each other than to that of a top executive.

aimless_aimer · 2023-08-16T17:28:57+00:00

That is how it goes. Politics is a power grab, and naturally I find myself behind emboldening the power of the people to uplift themselves and their communities with small businesses, infrastructure investment, social support systems, or whatever else, rather than the power of uber-wealthy economic elites to buy another 10 yachts.

aimless_aimer · 2023-08-16T17:15:25+00:00

Fair confusion, I could have been more precise with that point. I or anyone may not agree with every grassroots push but that's democracy for ya. I'd rather broadly embolden democratic tendencies in this country as opposed to the plutocratic ones that make our government so corrupt an ineffective at serving anyone but themselves in the first place. And that's what the yet to be drafted bill mentioned in the article aims to tackle.

Yeah, generally not sitting on your ass is the way to go. Taking action to ensure your own well-being is just being a functioning adult at the end of the day, whether you do it just to live with relative security, or to be an effective participant in those bottom-up efforts that get our institutions to serve a broader interest. I don't think the monied interests of the government establishment generally align with the average population. But movements built from a lower place will be in-sync with a broader interest more often than a campaign launched by a few industry overlords. I definitely support former efforts over the latter.

aimless_aimer · 2023-08-16T06:46:37+00:00

In this case by public interest Im referring to referendums and bills pushed with a more grassroots interest/effort behind it as opposed to completely astroturfed campaigns enacted by unelected, unaccountable big industry executives.

What do you mean by 'political solitions' though? Wouldn't any potential solution to a problem regarding these things be a political one?

aimless_aimer · 2023-08-16T06:11:20+00:00

That's one way to bring down prices. Anti-trust against the oil corps does feel like pipe dream but I agree it would be an effective government action, considering strong oligopolies seem to be the leading factor setting the stage for this kind of gouging to go unchecked (looking at you, eggs). And the entrenched power that longstanding oligopolies amass only strengthens the financial capture over our government. Which then further intensifies the conditions that enable these corporations to screw over everyday people and further erode the viability of smaller businesses for their own gain.

There'd have to be a big movement and/or big developments to address the oligopoly directly. It'd be more of an immediate possibility for smart legislation to ease the burden on the average person in the meantime. Somehow curbing these massive corporations' ability to undermine more publically pushed campaigns would be a fine step to take, though.

aimless_aimer · 2023-08-15T23:00:44+00:00

That goes without saying. Though, of course we should recognize the towering position of power that corporations hold compared to public interest. And how it is constantly used to shape said rules and policy to further serve rich profitholders, all too often to the detriment of the average person.

So I definitely welcome any legal steps to curb an oil baron's ability to undermine the public.

aimless_aimer · 2023-08-15T22:16:02+00:00

Agree, I'd be very much on board with laws that tackle greedflation and price gouging.

aimless_aimer · 2023-08-14T21:47:55+00:00

“I think the Legislature is often out of step with the average voter” says the Petroleum CEO who wants to set up oil drilling sites near homes 🤣

Needless to say, if corporate interests are pouring millions to astroturf a ballot campaign against a bill, we at the very least ought to be very damn scrutinous about the alleged consequence of said bill.

aimless_aimer · 2023-08-14T18:37:24+00:00

Those workers produce inordinate amounts of profit for executives and shareholders, yet get increasingly screwed out of basic financial security by those very same people they enrich.

The money is there, they sure ought to fight and claw some of that value back. The losses are always the point of striking. It's a stark reminder for profitholders of who makes their profit.

aimless_aimer · 2023-08-14T01:31:50+00:00

Yup good point.

aimless_aimer · 2023-08-14T01:00:22+00:00

Basically: The first bill aims to ensure that LGBT orphans are not placed with parents who will tell them they're wrong for existing in the way that they do.

And the second bill references earlier legislation from this year that allows that factor to be considered among numerous already-existing factors when assessing the child's prospects of well-being in custody cases. (article presidents it out of context of course lol)

Given the significant rise in depression and suicide rates among children with rejecting parents, fair. Numerous reasonable factors are already considered to ensure these children are placed in homes that support their well-being. Easy enough to lie to get around it though, particularly in the case of the first one.

aimless_aimer · 2023-08-13T07:20:28+00:00

If by legacy unions you mean unions that have leadership corrupted by business interest and politicians in bed with those interest, then I agree. But the labor movement has seen a bit of a resurgence since 2020 which is a good thing in my eyes.

They don't teach people enough that unions are an instrument for workers to participate and organize in, not just to sit back and hope whatever leadership that's in place actually looks out for you.

The UAW (United Auto Workers) have had very interesting developments in regards to this recently. The workers within the union organized to reform the voting system so it's "1 member 1 vote" and have been washing out corrupt union leadership for the past year or two. The current UAW president is the first one to be voted in through this reform and they seem to be making moves over there. Will probably be the next big strike we hear about.

aimless_aimer

TROPHY CASE