> It's anti democratic and it hands sovereignty over to business interests.
I wouldn't like that, but playing the devil's inquirer, why shouldn't business interests hold sovereignty? And what's to stop them?
I wouldn't like that, but playing the devil's inquirer, why shouldn't business interests hold sovereignty? And what's to stop them?
Society is allegedly organised by the people, for the people. Businesses are allowed to exist and governed by laws set up with the benefit of the society in mind. They are limited by inconvenient things like safety standards, pollution restrictions etc etc.
The pure profit motive with which businesses operate (and with which some will advocate they are required by law and shareholders to operate) are necessarily on conflict with these as they add cost. If these protections are removed then we all lose out, including businesses, as they have to operate in a society wracked with illness from pollution, or from accidents (in my trivial example).
So it's not in anyone's interest to let business set all the rules. Not even in the interests of business.
>> And what's to stop them?
Now that is a much more interesting question...
And Citizens United ruling says corporations are people, so what's the problem here? ;)
In the United States.
Additional edit: There is a huge amount of evidence that can be seen already about how businesses wreak havoc on political systems. The United States is a perfect example over and over again. Whether is it government intervention in the forming of labor unions, military intervention around the world and in south america (especially the early 20th century), corporate sponsorship of congressional members, etc - we can already see that this is a thick cloud over our representative government. Noam Chomsky has written extensively about this. Our senators and representatives are continually caught up in this via lobbying and etc. When you let businesses into the process as much as we have you will have problems - but if you allow them further access beyong what they currently have then that would be absolute insanity.
TPA (Fast Track) did pass, contrary to headlines.
TAA did not pass, but will be re-voted next Tuesday.
One reason is that humans need affordable and clean water to drink. ISDS cases have caused water quality and price regulations to be disregarded in Germany and Argentina.
Source: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/10/obscure-lega...
I can't understand how anyone brought up in a democratic country would ask that question.
My thoughts are more intuitive than informed and studied. In general it's most likely a bad outcome to give sovereignty over me to a corporation whose explicit goal is to take from me as much as I can sustain. Corporations have demonstrated that they will rape the commons, given the chance.
More specifically I fall back on the US Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... etc etc
By this statement, governments are created for the benefit of all. Corporations are created for the benefit of the corporation, and as they get hyper-large they don't even serve the needs of their own employees; they become self-aware, and their survival and growth becomes their reason for existence.
Governments can be concerned with my interests. It's impossible for corporations to play that role.
I think this is getting a bit out of hand. Corporations aren't alive or self-aware, in the end humans make all the decisions, and most of the time for the benefit of those same humans.
> Governments can be concerned with my interests. It's impossible for corporations to play that role.
Corporations are led by CEOs (and other officers of the company) and by the board, while government is led by the president (or equivalent from other countries) and the legislative (Congress in the US, Parliament in others). How much does POTUS or the average Congressman care about your interests? They only care as far as it wins them the next election, but that's not much different from a corporation: a corporation might care about your interests as long as you're a paying customer. Government ceases to care about you when you stop voting, companies cease to care when you stop buying.
It was a metaphor.
If the mom and pop in a mom-pop business decided to retire and disband the business, that can happen. Or if mom and/or pops suddenly died, the business has an excellent chance of dying with them.
I seriously doubt the CEO and board of General Electric could decide to disband General Electric. The corporation is effectively protected by its size and its existence. It may as well be self-aware, because its continuation trancends and outlives its human maintainers.
If the CEO suddenly died, there would be no thought of giving up and disbanding. The corporation's rules would immediately come into play, and a temporary CEO would be on duty immediately, followd by a search.