- + Mukabla voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Brijo247 voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Fierce.Competitor voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Fierce.Competitor voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Jolischats3.14159265358979 edited the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Fierce.Competitor voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Brijo247 voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Gogogo voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Gogogo voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Mukabla joined Debatewise
- + Mukabla voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Fierce.Competitor joined Debatewise
- + Urikipiecreks joined Debatewise
- + Fierce.Competitor voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Gogogo voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Fierce.Competitor voted on the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Gogogo voted on the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Geargo Augmerm joined Debatewise
- + Gogogo joined Debatewise
- + Mukabla voted on the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Mukabla voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Gogogo voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Mukabla voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
CORPORATIONS ARE A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY AND SOCIETY.
Citizens must become the masters of corporations or they will become slaves to corporate power. Corporations' aggregation of wealth, political influence and legal protections has far surpassed those available to citizens. Corporations have usurped citizens' contract with their elected representatives so that government primarily serve corporate interests rather than those of citizens. People must reclaim their rights and their government by demanding from legislators a regulatory framework that will reassert the primacy of people and the welfare of society. Citizens need to reclaim the power to: 1) exclude corporations from the political process, 2) hold management and shareholders responsible for corporate actions and 3) terminate corporate existence and imprison management for repeated or grievous breaches of the law.
Corporations are a threat to Democracy and society.
Yes, because... Corporations are by their nature amoral actors in society
Citizens must have power over corporations because, by their nature, they act like psychopathic people. Corporations are amoral; they act purely for their own gratification without consideration for society, without empathy for people and without remorse for the consequences of their actions on others (see, Joel Bakan, The Corporation). All individuals and bodies are supposed to be equal under the law, but the executives of Corporations, in their effort to maximise the dividend to their shareholders (and thus keep their own position secure), wield the power and influence of their companies to effect the legal and socio-political environment of a country to meet their needs rather than develop the fundamentals of the business itself. Thus Unionisation is either legislated out of existence, or emasculated, sometimes in breach of acknowledged principals of Human Rights. Where a corporation finds the situation in a country uncomfortable it is quite happy to ‘up sticks’ from that country. According to the BBC’s Analysis programme, even China can allegedly be cowed by the power of Corporations. It seems that the Chinese hierarchy realises that the country has a pollution problem but does not want to apply legislation restricting corporate pollution for fear of these companies moving to Vietnam, and the greater freedom to pollute there.
This presupposes that corporations can act in a manner that is unrestrained by law, commercial forces and public opinion. The law of tort restrains companies from being able to inflict unrestricted damages on people. For example, parties injured by cars and drugs are able to sue the corporations who manufacture these products.
The ability of companies to "up sticks" is a call for greater international co-operation to take a strong stand on employment and environmental issues, not for dissolving the companies which contribute vast amounts to national economies.
Vote on this point: Corporations are by their nature amoral actors in society
See history of changes to this point
Corporations are a threat to Democracy and society.
Yes, because... Corporations have Special Legal Protections and Rights Unavailable to Citizens
Corporations are more powerful than people. They can live in perpetuity; they are legally immune from almost all punishment except financial fines; they can commit criminal acts repeatedly without loss of liberty; they serve only their management and shareholders' interests - all other considerations, including the law, social welfare, the environment, human rights etc. are merely a cost/benefit analysis.
CEOs can be held accountable for the actions of their company. The company may continue but those running it may have to pay the penalty and serve the punishment.
Vote on this point: Corporations have Special Legal Protections and Rights Unavailable to Citizens
See history of changes to this point
Corporations are a threat to Democracy and society.
Yes, because... Suggested Reading on Corporate Power and its Undermining of Democracy
.
This is not a point for the argument - could be posted in comments below.
Vote on this point: Suggested Reading on Corporate Power and its Undermining of Democracy
See history of changes to this point
Corporations are a threat to Democracy and society.
No, because... Corporations support our living standards and ensure democracy and human rights are STRONGER, not WEAKER!
Capitalist society - that is, a society based on free trade rather than coercion - has existed before corporations. Corporations were merely an addition to free-trade-based society, that gave investors the comfort of capping their personal losses in case of bankruptcy, thereby encouraging investment.
This capping of risk may now be unnecessary, and indeed harmful, as the risk-spreading measures of Credit Default Swaps and securitized mortgages have shown by evaporating trillions of dollars in value in the last crisis.
At any rate, abolishing corporations has nothing to do with abolishing free trade. Jobs can be granted by unlimited-liability companies, partnerships and individuals. Calling "Socialism" won't win this debate.
We live in a capitalist democracy - without corporations we would be socialist - a system which undermines human rights, is less likely to give us the standard of living we are accustomed to, and would be foolish when we look at historical examples of capitalist countries turning to socialism. Corporations employ people and allow us to live well. And we have a social safety net to pick us up when we fall. Get rid of corporations and you get rid of our high standard of living and destroy our economy. The idea that they are a threat to democracy is absurd because without corporations we would be socialist - we all know how well North Korea is performing on human rights, now don't we?!
Vote on this point: Corporations support our living standards and ensure democracy and human rights are STRONGER, not WEAKER!
See history of changes to this point
Corporations are a threat to Democracy and society.
No, because... Without limited lliability, innovation is in bad shape
Corporations give people with new ideas the ability to try without risking everything they have - by placing only their investment in the corporation at risk. Before corporation, a failed idea could cost an enterpreneur his entire assets, financial freedom and sometimes physical freedom. Innovators were employed by nobelty, which was in short supply, and innovation crawled along slowly while Humanity suffers through hard winters. Now that hundreds of thousands of corporations allow innovators to try with limited risk, innovation moves at dazzling pace, and so are standards of living.
Vote on this debate: Corporations are a threat to Democracy and society.
Modified:
07 Dec 2009
Point 1. Corporations are by their nature amoral actors in society
Citizens must have power over corporations because, by their nature, they act like psychopathic people. Corporations are amoral; they act purely for their own gratification without consideration for society, without empathy for people and without remorse for the consequences of their actions on others (see, Joel Bakan, The Corporation). All individuals and bodies are supposed to be equal under the law, but the executives of Corporations, in their effort to maximise the dividend to their shareholders (and thus keep their own position secure), wield the power and influence of their companies to effect the legal and socio-political environment of a country to meet their needs rather than develop the fundamentals of the business itself. Thus Unionisation is either legislated out of existence, or emasculated, sometimes in breach of acknowledged principals of Human Rights. Where a corporation finds the situation in a country uncomfortable it is quite happy to ‘up sticks’ from that country. According to the BBC’s Analysis programme, even China can allegedly be cowed by the power of Corporations. It seems that the Chinese hierarchy realises that the country has a pollution problem but does not want to apply legislation restricting corporate pollution for fear of these companies moving to Vietnam, and the greater freedom to pollute there.
This presupposes that corporations can act in a manner that is unrestrained by law, commercial forces and public opinion. The law of tort restrains companies from being able to inflict unrestricted damages on people. For example, parties injured by cars and drugs are able to sue the corporations who manufacture these products.
The ability of companies to "up sticks" is a call for greater international co-operation to take a strong stand on employment and environmental issues, not for dissolving the companies which contribute vast amounts to national economies.
We can regain control over corporate-rule/corporatism when we start asking questions about the big picture...
Do we need a Referendum For A New Democracy?
Are you concerned about the future of democracy? Do you feel democracy is under attack by extreme greed in countries around the world? Are you sick and tired of: living in fear, corporate greed, growing police state, government for the rich, working more but having less?
Can we use both elections and random selection (in the way we select government officials) to rid democracy of undue influence by extreme wealth and wealth-dominated mass media campaigns?
The world's first democracy (Athenian democracy, 600 B.C.) used both elections and random selection. Even Aristotle (the cofounder of Western thought) promoted the use random selection as the best way to protect democracy. The idea of randomly selecting (after screening) juries remains from Athenian democracy, but not randomly selecting (after screening) government officials. Why is it used only for individual justice and not also for social justice? Who wins from that? ...the extremely wealthy?
What is the best way to combine elections and random selection to protect democracy in today's world? Can we use elections as the way to screen candidates, and random selection as the way to do the final selection? Who wins from that? ...the people?
Point 2. Corporations have Special Legal Protections and Rights Unavailable to Citizens
Corporations are more powerful than people. They can live in perpetuity; they are legally immune from almost all punishment except financial fines; they can commit criminal acts repeatedly without loss of liberty; they serve only their management and shareholders' interests - all other considerations, including the law, social welfare, the environment, human rights etc. are merely a cost/benefit analysis.
CEOs can be held accountable for the actions of their company. The company may continue but those running it may have to pay the penalty and serve the punishment.
Point 3. Suggested Reading on Corporate Power and its Undermining of Democracy
.
This is not a point for the argument - could be posted in comments below.
Point 1. Corporations support our living standards and ensure democracy and human rights are STRONGER, not WEAKER!
We live in a capitalist democracy - without corporations we would be socialist - a system which undermines human rights, is less likely to give us the standard of living we are accustomed to, and would be foolish when we look at historical examples of capitalist countries turning to socialism. Corporations employ people and allow us to live well. And we have a social safety net to pick us up when we fall. Get rid of corporations and you get rid of our high standard of living and destroy our economy. The idea that they are a threat to democracy is absurd because without corporations we would be socialist - we all know how well North Korea is performing on human rights, now don't we?!
Capitalist society - that is, a society based on free trade rather than coercion - has existed before corporations. Corporations were merely an addition to free-trade-based society, that gave investors the comfort of capping their personal losses in case of bankruptcy, thereby encouraging investment.
This capping of risk may now be unnecessary, and indeed harmful, as the risk-spreading measures of Credit Default Swaps and securitized mortgages have shown by evaporating trillions of dollars in value in the last crisis.
At any rate, abolishing corporations has nothing to do with abolishing free trade. Jobs can be granted by unlimited-liability companies, partnerships and individuals. Calling "Socialism" won't win this debate.
Point 2. Without limited lliability, innovation is in bad shape
Corporations give people with new ideas the ability to try without risking everything they have - by placing only their investment in the corporation at risk. Before corporation, a failed idea could cost an enterpreneur his entire assets, financial freedom and sometimes physical freedom. Innovators were employed by nobelty, which was in short supply, and innovation crawled along slowly while Humanity suffers through hard winters. Now that hundreds of thousands of corporations allow innovators to try with limited risk, innovation moves at dazzling pace, and so are standards of living.