Political wrangling and human beings.
A pro-government argument, the more socialist view, states that more government is good because it can distrubute things fairly and watch over capitalists out to make a profit at the expense of human good (see "The Corporation" documentary).
A pro-corporation argument, the right-wing or libretarian look, suggests that business competition is fairer, because people can decide on their own what's best for them, so they'll make the right decisions for themselves. In this way, healthy competition will regulate itself, and keep those self-righteous communists at bay who hoard their own power at the expense of human good (for example, see "Democracy: The God That Failed").
What I don't understand about either of these arguments is that neither of them are based on human nature. They seem to think that an idea or an entity can stop people from being people.
Human beings, given power, will hoard it and keep it away from others. It's what we do. Government liberals like Blagojevich and the Kennedys have done this; conservative companies like Enron have done this. As far as I know, the inevitable story of every government or powerful entity of any kind on Earth is: they become top-heavy as those at the top hoard power, and then there's a scandal or a revolution when the people underneath get fed up.
I'm always hesitant to say "every" or "none" because there are always exceptions. But in this case, I really can't think of any. @_@ Minus countries that are conquered from outside, anyway.
So how will putting more power in the hands of a government OR corporations be for anyone's good when they'll both do the same thing: whatever benefits them?
(If people have heard of exceptions, I'd love to hear about them. Seriously, it'd be great to read about an uncorrupt system.)
A pro-corporation argument, the right-wing or libretarian look, suggests that business competition is fairer, because people can decide on their own what's best for them, so they'll make the right decisions for themselves. In this way, healthy competition will regulate itself, and keep those self-righteous communists at bay who hoard their own power at the expense of human good (for example, see "Democracy: The God That Failed").
What I don't understand about either of these arguments is that neither of them are based on human nature. They seem to think that an idea or an entity can stop people from being people.
Human beings, given power, will hoard it and keep it away from others. It's what we do. Government liberals like Blagojevich and the Kennedys have done this; conservative companies like Enron have done this. As far as I know, the inevitable story of every government or powerful entity of any kind on Earth is: they become top-heavy as those at the top hoard power, and then there's a scandal or a revolution when the people underneath get fed up.
I'm always hesitant to say "every" or "none" because there are always exceptions. But in this case, I really can't think of any. @_@ Minus countries that are conquered from outside, anyway.
So how will putting more power in the hands of a government OR corporations be for anyone's good when they'll both do the same thing: whatever benefits them?
(If people have heard of exceptions, I'd love to hear about them. Seriously, it'd be great to read about an uncorrupt system.)