>>593792 They provide jobs, stimulate the economy, create items, foodstuffs, clothes, and other essentials of life. They facilitate the the continued functioning of the modern nationstate. In addition, many of them fun charities and other aid organizations for those less fortunate, as well as fund scientific and research groups.
>>593805 I agree with you for the most part. What I like about corporations is their ability to maintain uniform standards. To take a small example, as much as people praise small restaurants as 'authentic', your taking a shot in the dark whenever you enter one and there's a good chance you'll get shitty service and sub-standard food. But the dilemma in places like Finland is that corporations provided a significant boost in living standards, but there is always a risk the corporation will fail and drag down the economy and wellbeing of the people with it. And as the example also showed, coporations DO interfere with the sovereignty of the nation state. You think people would just accept immigrants naturally? I don't think so, its corporate lobbying that gives them access to cheap labor.
Funny that Jefferson was worried about corporations, if not him then another founder. Wilson was against them. They are obviously a contentious topic today. Could you provide a definition legal if a corporation though, OP? I don't think I have a clear understanding of the difference between a corporation and a company, for the purposes of the discussion
>>593831 Of course, and I'm not saying we should just let corporations do whatever the hell they want without some type of regulatory framework, but i fully believe corporations can and do provide more good than harm.
>>593841 I'm not that familiar with the ins and outs of corporations, but to the best of my knowledge corporations are a type of company that represents a group of people as a single entity. There are different types of corporations. The ones under discussions can issue stocks/shares that people can purchase. In all scenarios, corporations are considered legally as people. So someone can purchase a stock in a corporation, but has no legal responsibility for the company as a whole when, say, it goes bankrupt or gets sued by a disaffected group or a government. This is why corporations are called "limited liability" companies. Of course people are delegated to manage the legal entity that is a corporation, such as chairmen, executives, boards of directors etc. etc.
>>593869 Do you mean Ford? I think you must have your baked out companies mixed up. >>593888 Would making shareholders accountable for debnts reduce the power of the corporation? If the corp is going to be viewed as a person is directors should be accountable as people. How would that better or worsen the situation?
>>593917 but the same should apply to any type of lobbying, no? because as it stands anyone with enough money today can shill in congress to get stuff passed. of course, private legislation of all sorts was a staple of english parliament for centuries before smith, so it seems impossible to take special interests out of goverment indefinitely
>>593923 >We face the immediate danger of extinction in every second that our species is limited to a single planet. Many economists like Mill agree that in a state of stagnation it is best for the members of society to be complacent in their position and wealth, and if desiring more riches the avenue for hard work is there, but not always taken. This is not how reality exists for the members of society, indicating a systemic problem considering how vast our expansion and globalization is. We should probably start to consider this as more of a philosophical issue on the foundation of which our progress rests as opposed to looking for more avenues of resource extracting.
>>593925 well limited liability exists for a reason. it is a fantastic way to mitigate risk. before corporations people with capital faced ruin, imprisonment or humiliation if they were held personally responsible for investment. so arguably, without corporations risk-taking, and thereby innovation, would be curtailed. At the same time, it makes it hard to weed out the crooks. Look how few people Obama prosecuted for the disastrous financial collapse of 08. People got off the hook cause they hide behind the mask of the corporation. >is directors should be accountable as people. It does happen sometimes. These directors become the fall guys, even if they were not personally responsible for some problem with the corporation. Corporations are also notoriously unfathomable when it comes to understanding management and who's in charge. People's livelihoods in the corporations rely on the whims of board execs. Just read this horrifying article about Amazon: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/technology/inside-amazon-wrestling-big-ideas-in-a-bruising-workplace.html
>>593930 I do not think the English parliament was as rigged as it is today. I know the House of Lords has a reputation for being very susceptible to influence by money. During Smith's time I believe the House of Lords was more full of pure nobility, very unlikely to be influenced by monetary interests. For a long time, feudalism was like this, barons had control of large swaths of territory and had extensive control over regions because of nobility and birthright, as opposed to monetary control. This is quickly becoming inverted. Some people like Hobbes, Plato, and the founding members of the Persian empire after the overthrow of Astyages reign, despised democracy for the corruption inherent, meaning you would be required to establish many connections to gain power and control, many of which would necessarily be clandestine.
>>593766 By adopting "functional socialism". > Instead, let us take out current capitalists of their ownership functions, so that in a few decades remain formally as kings, but in reality as more or less powerless symbols of a bygone era. From "Functional Socialism: An alternative to communism and capitalism" by Gunnar Adler-Karlsson. Functional Socialism is the official doctrine of the Swedish Social Democrats.
Nuclear war (or sufficiently devastating conventional war) would be the most obvious one that comes to mind. There are any number of ways that we could cripple our ability to expand into space before we actually get there.
>>593952 That article actually seemed flattering. Probably terrible on paper though. Either way, is the a viable method to promote risk taking, then, as an LLC or sole proprietorship/partnership? I feel like the bankruptcy laws must be forgiving; trump has filed on four different occasions.
>>593990 Yes but you did admittedly not grasp what was previously said. The point was we have a philosophical issue here, not a resource grabbing, population spreading one. You are adopting a stance very similar to ones adopted by rationalizing colonial progress. Since Smith was mentioned, he used the colonies of Rome and England as an example of expansion that liberated that capital of the country to seek employment elsewhere. If we keep thinking about expansion in terms of a simple enhancement to a math equation we lose sight of why society really exists.
We see this in how our stagnation is far from what our ideal of it should be, as referenced earlier through Mill.
We absolutely have a population spreading problem, in that we're not doing nearly enough of it. This is about promoting the continued existence of the species (though I admittedly have a more selfish motivation advanced by the same actions), not mulling over why we exist and what we should do with that existence.
Many have fooled themselves into thinking that we have reached the point as a society where we can, for the most part, disregard the problems of sustenance and security in favor of more abstract philosophical questions. This is a lie we have told ourselves. Humanity is still engaged in a desperate scramble for survival, but very few realize it in any meaningful way and even fewer are doing anything about it.
>>594034 I don't think we have to worry about survival of the species anymore, that's an evolutionary biology term.
This is an issue of economical foundation. What sort of system are we indoctrinating these countries into? Is it one which they would benefit from? In a utilitarian sense are they actually receiving a higher number of 'hedons' per head? Why must we continually seek more means of agricultural improvement, even genetically modifying foods without fully examining the effects or philosophy behind it? Why must this system be so unsustainable, cyclically?
Society exists ultimately to facilitate the perpetuation and production of human organisms. It provides a relatively sheltered environment away from "nature" where offspring can be produced and raised to maturity with greater ease.
>>594004 He identifies several points that's important among the function that capital have in capitalist society.
* Decisions regarding the production of existing fixed capital resources investment
* Decisions regarding the utilization of labor
* Wage Decision
* Decisions concerning the distribution of profits
* Redistribution Decisions
* Decisions regarding economic equalization
* Control of the concentration of power
* Balance between economic and other values
Trough legislation, these will be wrestled into submission to serve the people without the state to own and run them. How far the legislation and the like needs to go depends but it's a gradual transmission.
>>594069 We only exist to rear more humans? Why wouldn't we try to improve our understanding of the universe and reality? Why wouldn't we all collectively try to raise the enjoyment of all members of the society as much as possible?
But no, you are stipulating the existence of society is it's only justification: that it only must rear the next generation.
As long as we are restricted to a single planet, we have to worry about the survival of the species. With more self-sustaining colonies spread further and further away, we have less to worry about, because few things could wipe out a species distributed across several planets or several solar systems.
>>594073 No, but perhaps we should examine our operating philosophy and form of government a bit more to see why we constantly see others adopting principles like >>593923
Because that sounds more like we are a virus than anything else. Based on that post I would feel sorry for any future planets we come into contact with. And that is the mentality adopted by many leading officials, trust me.
That's the goal of every other organism on this planet. As I said here >>594056 , we are not yet beyond the base biological concern of the survival of our species, as much as we'd like to think we are.
Improving our understanding of the universe is necessary for expanding into space, but we should be applying the knowledge as it is gained instead of sitting around on Earth with thumbs up our asses until we think we know enough.
>>594096 >we are not yet beyond the base biological concern of the survival of our species, I'm sorry, you have to stop using the term survival of the species, as if we were threatened by competition of other species.
>>594104 Why wouldn't you feel pity laying waste to natural resources? This shows a lack of understanding of respecting all celestial bodies. And hypothetically, if we were to come across another species, would we even have a beneficial philosophy to spread? No, please start farming your lands for us, they present a great opportunity to produce our genetically modified crop which produces cancer in two thirds of our population. So smart.
>>594115 Rocks and rare earth minerals do not deserve respect as they are inanimate objects. Oh yes, I'm sure the discovery of fucking aliens would lead directly to some industrial age cotton picking in SPACE.
>>594110 >We're threatened by ourselves Mass war is quickly becoming something of the past, thank god. Unfortunately, it did use to be a positive check on population, but that is the ONLY negative consequence. >environmental pressures If this is the threat you meant when you said we are threatened by ourselves then I agree, global warming is a real threat caused by us and we are ruining this planet.
Why in the name of all existence would you pity a chunk of platinum? What purpose is there in respecting celestial bodies except in cases where we want to preserve for future generations outliers that are particularly aesthetically pleasing? If we do encounter other intelligent species, I do hope that we extend respect and cooperation to them.
You seem intent on crippling our species and tethering it in place, much for the same reasons a child may not want to step on to a pristine field of snow.
The planet will be fine. Humans may bring about a mass extinction, but if we do, it's almost a certainty that we'll be among the victims. Whatever is left in our wake will establish a new ecological regime in short order if we wipe ourselves out.
Do keep in mind that biodiversity is at an all-time high in Earth's history, despite environmentalist whining.
The motivating factors are irrelevant at this stage. Any motivation at all for expanding into space is sufficient for now.
Dissenting opinions on our goals will arise as they always do, but that will happen when humanity is in a position of relative security. As natural as it is for us to destroy and consume, we are prone to compassion and the search for knowledge. These tendencies will arise in the aftermath of expansion, no matter the original intent.
>>594162 So you wouldn't respect the landscapes of other planets the same as you would of Earth's? >>594159 What about the Dodos? The many other species we've caused to go extinct by hunting or expanse of civilization?
Species go extinct literally every day without human contribution or intervention. They've been doing that since life started on this planet. Do you condemn a fungal parasite for destroying a species of insect, or a meteorite for disrupting entire ecosystems?
Corporations exist at the behest of whatever nation state they operate in. Their survival depends entirely on the mastery of striking deals and providing products and services consumers are willing to pay for.
Imagine if your neighbor built a windmill and sold the electricity. They own the means of production and according to Karl Marx this is evil, but would it really be right to demand a share of the profits? If corporations are good at what they do even with heavy taxes laden on them, why is that a problem? If you want more money simply found your own successful company, we are in the midst of a paradigm shift and major technological changes and economic growth in emerging markets, there are plenty of opportunities, if you can't make your first million before you are 30 it is because you aren't trying hard enough.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.