lindalove

I dont know why I was thinking about it, but what exactly is the difference between a corporation and a country?

I figured it boils down to the ability to maintain a militia that doesn't answer to a different entity or authority. That, or property details or something. What if, by some insane lobbying, a corporation was somehow granted their own property or jurisdiction of force that is not beholden to a country? I'm pretty damn sure you've got a corporate nation right there. They call their shots, and are not accountable to ANYTHING anymore aside from what they alone dictate, or someone pointing a gun at their face. Just like a country.

So that got me thinkin, say a dozen corporations got some swaths of land under their belts, a small town each perhaps. They might set up incentive programs for their employees to move into their space. All their prior national rights and holdings or whatever are severed, and the employee is now granted exactly what the corp decides. Naturally, the only way an employee would be convinced to go along with this is if the deal were sweet enough. That doesn't seem like it'd be such a hard thing to do.

Our economy dictates much of what a nation decides. In more digestable terms, to the money goes the power. Companies can lobby for their interests currently, even though it clashes with the majority of the population, due to this. So why not just do away with the growing sham of representative government? (I speak from an American standpoint, of course.)

Heres my question ... If you had a dozen companies asking you to move into their territory, each having different benefit packages you could choose from that probably out-do your country's benefits in every way, replacing your government programs and ties, would you take the deal?
Why/Why not?
Would life get worse? Better?
Looking beyond your own wellbeing, are there good or bad consequences for the rest of the world from such a thing as this?

Charlatan

Many here feel that this would be the ideal world. Thankfull public opinion currently sways the other way.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

dksuddeth

One word.......DeBeers

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

WillyPete

Q: would you rescind your constitutional rights to certain things such as legal disputes over land or protection in order to do so?

What if you were fired, who do you appeal to if you felt it was unfair dismissal?
Would you be happy losing your pension simply over losing your job?

'Hostile takeover' would have much more depth as a word.

You wouldn't need terrorist attacks, just get enough other countries to do a run on your shares and you'd lose a war.

Ustwo

Countered with one acronym.

U.S.S.R.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

alpha phi

Company towns are common in our past.
Some turned to ghost towns when
the company pulled up stakes.
The surviving towns are all around us
I'd wager a guess more then half of modern
towns were at one time started as company towns.
The last town I lived in was built by Upjohn
My current town a paper mill.

__________________

snowy

There is a town in Washington State called Dupont (gee, wonder who owned it). Despite its proximity to I-5, Fort Lewis, and Olympia, this former company town was little more than a ghost town until about 11 years ago, when Intel decided to build a facility there. Other businesses more or less followed, and now it's one of the fastest growing communities in Western Washington.

Driving around old company towns is kind of cool, though. There are a few in Eastern Washington that sprouted up to house the people who built the dams on the Columbia. Indeed, Boulder City, NV, initially came to life as a company town for the construction workers and engineers responsible for the Hoover Dam. Notably, because the Bureau of Reclamation controlled the town, Boulder City did not allow the sales of alcohol until 1969. Gambling is still illegal, making it the only place in Nevada where gambling isn't allowed.

So sometimes the rules corporations make about the towns that they run stick around long after the corporations themselves are gone. In my opinion, not a good thing.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

nezmot

I don't get the point Ustwo is trying to make (that the U.S.S.R. was a communist country, with 4 words in its name until it went bankrupt?) but will put it down to me missing something, rather than just being a non sequitur.

This is already happening all around the world, where rich western corporations move into nation states and either with the backing of their western governments, or sheer force of cash, manage to operate on entirely their own terms, flaunting local laws, because they can.

Examples might include Union Carbide, various 'sweatshop' operators, and historically, over 200 years ago, such things as the East India Company (who's flag seems kind of familiar don't you think?) - So yes, this has been going on for a long time, but not necessarily always with entirely positive results.

Ustwo

One bad corporation does not mean that they are somehow worse than nations as they are, that is all.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Cynthetiq

You already live in a "corporate territory" with benefit packages.

Inquire at your local government and you will find that each township, village, city, county, and state is in fact incorporated. Each gives it's residents or employees benefits based on many factors like income levels, land ownership, age, etc.

As far as companies allowed to have militia? Some already do, just not in the USA.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

nezmot

Ah Ustwo, it makes more sense now.

Plus, after reading a little about the East India Company, I found a link to the 'Virginia Company'...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Company

So according to this, the USA as we know it today, actually started off life as a corporate enterprise.

Charlatan

The difference is that Governments (such as we have in the west) are empowered by the people for the people.

Corporations are interested in profits and more profits. They are barely accountable to their shareholders.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Cynthetiq

we like to believe that...

look at the state of NJ politicians that are covered in scandal and corruption.

governments are also interested in profits, via bonds, taxes, ticketing revenue, fees and licenses...

Some city governments are barely accountable to their constituents.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Charlatan

Yes, there is corruption. In a properly functioning democracy, these corruptions would be exposed and the scoundrels would be voted out of office. Sadly it doesn't always work that way.

Governments are into profit but for the purpose of public spending rather than lining shareholder pockets. Government spending should go to things like infrastucture and social spending (if your system leans this way). Whereas, corporate profits go in part to bettering the corp but also benefitting the shareholders.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Cynthetiq

Note what you are saying is correct, it is also semantically equal. Remember the constiuents are shareholders of the government company.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Charlatan

Yes, but constituents equals everyone. While corporations are a selected few.

The OP did not suggest that Corporations become governments rather it suppested that corporations run countries.

Corporations can be privately owned as well as owned by a collection of shareholders. In the end, corporations are stictly about profit (as represented by the money flowing to shareholders).

Democractic countries are not about profit. They are about providing collective leadership and pooling resources (to greater or lesser degrees depending on a nations particular bent).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

DonovanDuVal

I'd be very wary about working for a company that took on the role of government also, but I also don't think that it would happen. I get the feeling that large companies have more influence over political change than Premiers and Presidents. Real power seems to be influence, and why would an organisation want to offer better rights when they don't have to, and don't have to take responsibility for any messes that are made in that area.

On the larger subject of the greater good I think that the rest of the world would be sorely served if this were somehow to occur. The greater good seems to be the rare occasions when we all work together. Would crap jobs, equate to crap company, equate to crap country?

Imagine a world in which you could only get a job flipping burgers at Maccy Dees. Like going to work there wouldn't be bad enough, having to live according to their rules when you knocked off, would be hell on Earth. What the hell would the national anthem be?

*Cue the music/ All stand please!*

To all beef patty, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickled onions on a sesame' seed bun.

*Repeat to fade. Please God fade.*

__________________
"I've been Donovan DuVal. Take care of yourselves, and each other."

Cynthetiq

The OP didn't express it as a condition to be a democratic country that one comes from or goes to for that matter.

Again, I stand behind that we already live in the questioned scenario. We move from state to state, county to county based on taxes, school systems, freedoms and liberties, all by the incorporated respective governments, local, county, state, etc.

Don't like the laws of the right to bear arms in the state of California, one moves to Texas. Don't like the school systems in your city/county? You move to an area that has better schools for your children. Even welfare recipients will move to where there are better programs that support them better, as do artists, elderly, rich people, etc.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Rodney

Having spent a great deal of time inside large corporations.... and not addressing at all how "evil" or "good" a corporation's effect is on the outside world...

...I always figured that living in the USSR was like living in a corporation 24 hours a day. Corporations aren't democratic. They're not necessarily meritocracies; I've seen plenty of corruption, lots of favoritism. Like, the CEO brings in an old buddy of his to run e-commerce, and _that_ guy buys an e-commerce engine from a company he has ties to, even though the IT guys are all screaming it's a POS. And it is. And when it's all over and the e-commerce project has gone down in flames, the CEO simply shifts his old bud to another department. And we're talking a Fortune 500 company here.

The major goal of the corporation is not necessarily the greater benefit of its employees. There is no system of internal checks and balances. And the only force that might cause most corporations to change course is external: falling sales, increasing competition, etc.

I won't say that some corporations aren't better than others. But there's nothing inherently democratic about them, and living inside a corporation would be a lot like living in an authoritarian state. The only advancement or safety you could be sure of would come from favoritism, brown-nosing, and personal alliances.

Like somebody said about Heaven and Hell: they're both absolute dictatorships. The only difference is who's in charge. We aren't angels here on earth; so messy democracy is the best we can do. Abandoning it for a "secure" authoritarian structure, like a corporation, is giving up your freedom for, in the end, no security at all.

Charlatan

You are right. I was just trying to narrow the field in terms of what the OP meant by "government" to "Western Democracy". Getting hung up on the USSR doesn't do anything but serve as a cautionary tale and/or muddy the waters of the discussion.

The on thing that it does do (and your assertion above as well) is underscore that fact that there are different flavours of government (even within the term western democracies).

A corporation's share holders are not neccessarily the "employees". The shareholders can be owners who have no interest in the workings of the Corp beyond its profitability. For example, the shareholders of a country run by a corporation need not live in that country or even be of that nationality. Their only interest is in deriving profits from that country.

While it may have a passing similarity to a national government, a corporation is a very different entity with very different goals.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

FngKestrel

Ever play the game Syndicate? That's exactly the scenario. You become an operative that helps your company acquire more land from other corporation through strong-arm tactics. If you don't succeed, you get terminated.

Of course, that was just a game, that could never happen, right?

Suave

Corporations are based on what provides the most profit to their shareholders, whereas governments (democratic ones at least) are ideally focused on providing the best possible quality of life to all who live within them.

__________________
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

nezmot

The main difference I see is that people are born into Democracies, but choose to join (and have the freedom to leave) companies.

This means that companies can operate on a shorter-term than countries - they can also act more aggressively, and take greater risks. If things go wrong, the people involved can simply up and leave the corporation.

In a nation, it's much more difficult to leave (it's still possible, but less so) and the decisions a nation makes effect the current population, and generations to follow. That's why we need a system like democracy - it dilutes power enough to ensure that outrageous behaviours are less likely to happen, and it allows a greater continuity between governments.

You might find the perfect dictator, capable of turning a country around, putting fine institutions into place and making a country profitable (the way a CEO might) but the problem is finding a new CEO after this one dies, or retires. It's much better to have a succession of weak and mediocre leaders, than it is to have all the good work of one strong leader undone by another equally strong, but less capable one.

Fire

the idea of a corporate run world has been around for years in Sci-fi, especially in the cyberpunk genre (sp?) and has been a staple of computer games and RPG's - not too pleasant an Idea in my opinion, but good for generating interesting novels and fun as a game- but why should a corp ever want to rule openly, when they can do it without all that hassle?

__________________
Thought the harder, Heart the bolder,
Mood the more as our might lessens

yournamehere

And the reality even longer.

__________________
If you want to avoid 95% of internet spelling errors:
"If your ridiculous pants are too loose, you're definitely going to lose them. Tell your two loser friends over there that they're going to lose theirs, too."
It won't hurt your fashion sense, either.

Lucifer

According to my 4th year Political Science class (International Law) and the Montevideo Convention, a country needs 5 things:
1. permanent population
2. defined territory
3. effective government
4. ability to independently enter into international relations with other countries
5. Recognition by other states.

In a Geo-political sense, recognition by other states is the clincher on this argument. The USA's veto power on the UN Security Council is probably the biggest stepping stone for a new country forming, such as an independant Kurdish state from Turkey/Iraq. If the USA doesn't want it to happen, it won't. And vice versa, of course.

__________________
I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.
- Job 30:29

1123, 6536, 5321