Should a corporation be the master or servant of the people?

[Allthunbs]

I know the status quo.

I'm developing a system to allow democracy over the internet. Implementation of this will meet stiff resistance from the corporate world. I'm trying to justify the development of the system to governments and citizens alike. the systems meets all the requirements for a truly democratic system. Your council is appreciated.

Allthunbs

[Sy Borg]

Given the power difference between institutions and individuals, the former will need to be motivated by win-win solutions in order to change. It needs to be demonstrated that measures benefitting "the little people" can translate into longer term benefits for corporation due to greater stability and utilisation of "human resources'" creativity. At present, corporate behaviour strikes me as akin to squirrels gathering nuts before winter.

[Woodart]

Should a corporation be the master or servant of the people?

If you think of how corporations are structured - board of directors - CEO - CIO - COO - these are all fiefdoms. if you think they are going to lay down their crowns - I say good luck with that

[Allthunbs]

both these answers refer to the status quo. I'm looking for what should be the situation, not what is. For example if I state that corporations should serve the people, not the elite, the next questions become how do we frame legislation to make corporations serve the people?

take a look at Japan. their corporations are integrated to best se4rve the economy of the country. the president of the largest corporation in the world had an exceptional year in 2016 and was awarded a salary of 1.2 million in salary and bonuses. His normal salary is $240K. Compare that to the President of a failing american corporation that bilked the US and Canadian governments out of billions and carted home $30+ Million dollars in salary + bonuses and that doesn't include stock options and other perks of the job.

Now do you see what I'm getting at? If I propose my democratic process the first thing people will demand is reeling in of the corporate pork barrel. How does one accomplish that? How is the corporate world going to fight implementing democracy?

Allthunbs

[Alias]

Corporation literally means "embodiment" - that is, a group of people who form a mutually beneficial association for some particular purpose.
That purpose may be a business venture in which they all invest.
It can be a club, an expedition, or a trades guild.
It can equally well be a township or municipality, including the government, its civil service and its population.

Which kind of corporation are you proposing to put its place?

Whichever, a corporation can be neither servant nor master: it's a legal entity with no volition but that of its shareholders.

[Sy Borg]

both these answers refer to the status quo.

No, my focus was on the broad principles behind what is achievable. No point constructing an unrealistic wish list.

[Woodart]

I'm developing a system to allow democracy over the internet.

I understand you have, what you think, is an ideal agenda. I suggest you outline what it is you want to achieve. Then show us a path to get there. I would also suggest that putting the concept of master and slave in the title is not a good start.

[Allthunbs]

both these answers refer to the status quo.

No, my focus was on the broad principles behind what is achievable. No point constructing an unrealistic wish list.

So, in your mind it is quite acceptable that corporate entities work toward the destruction of mankind?

[Allthunbs]

Corporation literally means "embodiment" - that is, a group of people who form a mutually beneficial association for some particular purpose.
That purpose may be a business venture in which they all invest.
It can be a club, an expedition, or a trades guild.
It can equally well be a township or municipality, including the government, its civil service and its population.

Which kind of corporation are you proposing to put its place?

Whichever, a corporation can be neither servant nor master: it's a legal entity with no volition but that of its shareholders.

I thank you for your candor. You speak to the status quo and well spoken. You speak to the problem not the creation of a solution. I seek a solution wherein corporation can exist to the "volition" of its shareholders but the benefit of mankind. Here's the problem. a corporation breaks the law. It gets a fine that is merely a business expense and it continues on it's merry way doing more of the same. I'm of the opinion that a corporation that breaks a law should be dissolved, it's assets forfeit and it's executive incarcerated. we would have far fewer Bhopals.

We have to change our thinking from one of servants of big corporations to masters. Countries exist for the benefit of its' citizens in the specific environment where they live. Corporations exist wherever money can be obtained for the least cost with no consideration for its citizens or the environment. This can be a mutually beneficial activity but too often the lack of trust leads to exploitation of the citizens.

When the Dutch created trading organizations it was for a single purpose; to spread the risk of trading voyages across many people with promise of great reward if 'their ship came in'. These voyages took cheap Dutch goods and traded them for cheap good from other nations.

Elon Musk defined a problem and created PayPal to put trust where normally trust would not exist. He had to do this with the participation and approval of someone somewhere in the American Bureaucracy. He is doing the same thing with Tesla, again with the support of some aspect of American government with sufficient power to allow him to continue. Look at Tucker and DeLorean. Both equally good product but flew in the face of moneyed elite who feared their loss of control. Both were destroyed by any means possible.

Tesla uses a motor that is controlled by software. General Motors bought similar technology from a Canadian organization 15? years ago. General Motors still does not use the technology although the original manufacturer continues to produce motors daily - for bicycles. General Motors has had the technology and the power to implement environment saving product, for years. Instead it continues to produce polluting and energy wasting technology with little regard for anything but their own greed.

Is it possible that Tesla is the product of an altruistic philosophy and General Motors the product of a selfish philosophy? In which case how can we encourage corporations to adopt an altruistic philosophy.

[Allthunbs]

I'm developing a system to allow democracy over the internet.

I understand you have, what you think, is an ideal agenda. I suggest you outline what it is you want to achieve. Then show us a path to get there. I would also suggest that putting the concept of master and slave in the title is not a good start.

I developed a legal production system for the notarial function of a law office. In some places notarial law and adversarial law exist in the same envelope. It was a smart system but it had one major flaw --- it could be lied to. Since then the major part of developing any of my systems has been identifying threats. The "Democracy Algorithm" has one flaw, the point of control. If controls remains within an arm's length entity of government (in Canada, this is Elections Canada) the prospect of benefit to mankind is excellent. If, on the other hand, control is wrested away from the 'people's control', it can be quickly turned into a data mine and the results for sale to the highest bidder.

At some point I have to trust someone. I can protect the algorithm but then it would stagnate and never grow with technology or the people. I can protect the data for its' benefit and detriment at the same time. If this were a corporation I wouldn't hesitate to put the 'keys to the vault' in the hands of the President. This is not. This is a country, and a history and environment and a collection of people from desperate backgrounds each contributing according to their experience and knowledge. This is not something so trivial as a company.

In my books I create a society based on altruism. I realized that altruism is a product of education. Without education you cannot be altruistic. Two hundred years ago the majority of the population of Canada had a perspective of the world that existed to the next village, or possibly town. Today we are bombarded by news from some obscure dot on the map long abandoned by its' inhabitants being fought over to no benefit of anyone except the arms mongers.

Two hundred years ago, a man trusted, no aided his neighbour. Altruism and selfishness went hand in hand. You had to help each other to just survive the winter. Today many people don't know who their neighbour is let alone trust him or even come to his aid. In this environment of distrust I'm handing over the keys to a people's future. Who do I, and they, trust?

[Togo1]

The issue is that 'corporation' is just a unity of people. The problem we have with corporations at the moment is that they reward those people for screwing over all the stakeholders (including each other), for the short-term benefit of shareholders.

The key is to to make corps masters or servants, but to put shareholders last. Most companies need to focus on their customers, their employees, their community, their country, and all the other stakeholders,including the company itself (investment) before they can know if there is anything left as profit. Not because shareholders are bad, or profit is bad, but because the others represent commitments that must be met, and the only reason why shareholders get everything leftover is because all other needs are assumed to be met.

Once you put shareholders anything other that last, then you get a problem. Either exploitation of one or more stakeholders, or a hollowing-out of the company itself, as it is starved of the funds it needs to grove and prosper. The poor reputation of companies, and our desire to being them to heel, is a product of the exploitative interactions you get whenshareholders try and starve other stakeholders of what they're due.

[Sy Borg]

(Nested quote removed.)

No, my focus was on the broad principles behind what is achievable. No point constructing an unrealistic wish list.

So, in your mind it is quite acceptable that corporate entities work toward the destruction of mankind?

Do you think that was what I was saying? Really? The most jaundiced possible interpretation is often not the correct one.