Maybe you misunderstood. Apple was applying pressure to keep businesses from agreeing to exclusivity agreements with its competitors.
And I’ve been asking you how they’ve been applying this pressure. Is it through legitimate, legal, and non-coercive means? If so, then is it unethical to pressure a potential employer to hire you instead of the guy next to you?
I have read the Constitution many times and it never says anything about corporations. You claim that corporations being composed of individuals means restrictions against them constitute a violation of individual rights yet embrace restricting government despite it also being composed of individuals. So clearly being composed of individuals does not mean an entity should be free from restrictions.
Corporations are associations of individuals that have been spontaneously created through mutual organization. I again state, it is wrong to limit a corporation’s right to free speech just as it is wrong to attempt to limit the right of the AFL to free speech. And yes, I believe the only organization of individuals that NEEDS to be regulated and restricted is the government, because the government is in the business of controlling human beings. THEY, the politicians, the bureaucrats, the technocrats, the czars, and all the rest on CBS, MUST be restricted from forcing their moralistic worldview down all our throats. They are in the business of control, and therefore need to be highly restricted in this power (as the Constitution and Federalist papers explicitly assert). Corporations have success as a major leverage for power, but I’m of the belief that we separate the institutions of state and the market. And besides, pound-for-pound, the corporate body has done wonders for society while the government has wasted trillions (of other people’s money) and killed innocent millions.
Do you mind explaining where the Constitution or Federalist Papers come into play in this question?
They would help you a lot in this debate, especially when attempting to understand the role and boundaries of government. I’m sure you’ve read the Constitution, but all well-equipped debaters have also read the Federalist Papers.
I have not misconstrued your arguments. When arguing against monopolies you countered by saying such restrictions prevent us from competing globally and then talk about the impossibility of a global monopoly, clearly indicating that you are allowing the existence of a national monopoly. In fact, you seem to embrace it as a necessity in the globalized world. In claiming this will prevent war and imperialism it seems you fail to understand this is one of the most common traits of imperialism. Various countries created national monopolies like the British East India Company and Dutch East India Company that competed for the control of resources and territory. What you are suggesting is no different and the end result is the same: the merger of state power with corporate power.
Yes, you have misconstrued my arguments, many times. I still maintain that such restrictions on companies, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, have had detrimental effects on the companies’ ability to compete with global firms. I’ve mentioned this act before specifically, and I suggest you read up on it. It has NOTHING to do with monopolies. The rest of your statement is drivel, unworthy of my time.
Of course you don't, that doesn't mean the comparison is wrong. Rather, as I noted just now, it is quite accurate as the two tend to be inseparable. Now, that doesn't mean every monopoly turns out that way or that each is as bad as the next, but certainly you would be wrong to suggest it is rare or impossible.
If we were comparing fascism to communism, I would be the one arguing that the two were fundamentally identical in their political and economic nature. But we’re comparing business to government, and their fundamental structure is not identical, besides the simple fact that both have generalized “management.” If we wanted an analogy that would satisfy this generalized management criteria, we could compare a colony of ants with Apple, Inc. Other than generalized management, your argument is weak. Businesses and government are fundamentally different in their structure, their mission, and their productivity. If you would like to go on, be my guest. But I’ll leave it at that for now.
I do not have a negative view of "profit" by itself. Rather it is a necessity for any functional entity to have some surplus of resources at its disposal whether out of a need to expand or as a cushion in leaner times. That said, profit leaves plenty of room for corruption and pursuit of greater and greater profits for individuals does lead to exploitation.
How much would you characterize as “some surplus of resources at its disposal?” And profit does not equal corruption. “Pursuit of greater and greater profits for individuals” does not equal exploitation. Of course, we absolutely must agree to disagree on this one because it is a fundamental debate on personal values.
Actually, I think someone posted an article some time back in the Breaking News forum or Environment forum mentioning how much of the oil was sunk underwater. I think I posted a link in one of those threads or some other thread on the spill.
Since you mentioned it, it would be your responsibility to materialize the sources in order to prove your assertions. Assuming that it was true, I would only argue that BP must pay for their fraudulent acts. We would probably agree on that.
It is a cop-out because it is kind of like saying "if you don't like it here then leave" when someone criticizes the country they live in. Sometimes it just simply isn't that easy for a variety of reasons. As far as alternatives, I am asking for a different example of how the masses can restrict corporations since you are the one who seems to think any and every corporation can be brought down by the masses more easily than governments.
When did I ever suggest that you should pack up and leave this country because we have disagreements? I NEVER argued that the corporations can be more easily brought down by the “masses” than the government. And btw, I don’t particularly like to use the word “masses” to describe people. I think it’s truly bad form. Are the people, as individuals, just “masses” to you?
What I did argue was that people do not need large, centralized government in order to eject these corporations, and their products, from their daily lives. If you hate Walmart, then don’t shop there and tell your friends and family. They won’t bother you if you don’t bother them. But it seems, if you hate Walmart, the only option is to put in place some drastic legislative measure that will hurt Walmart. Simply because they are as successful as they are is reason enough to put a cap on their ability to do X, Y, and Z (at least, that’s what your logic implies). The same is true of Apple. Don’t like them? Then don’t give them the time of day. Go about your own life and leave them alone. They’re not preventing you from your own pursuit of happiness, so let the grudge go.
Do not distort what I said. In fact, what I cited would mean a person going to every single one of these stores for something they can get at Wal*Mart and some, like furniture stores, really have plenty Wal*Mart doesn't have because iWal*Mart cannot devote the same amount of space to the product. Also, in smaller towns you find increasingly fewer alternatives because there simply are not enough people to support that many stores.
I understand the very last sentence, but the rest you might need to rephrase. It’s better to debate when you’re sober and the keyboard is clearly visible. Basically, what is your point, in one, sweet simple sentence?
No, I reject the notion that this somehow means we shouldn't even try to make things fairer. It is funny because even many theories people cite as pushing this idyllic equality actually only insist on a fair distribution of income based on one's contribution and sufficient to satisfy one's needs.
And how do you make things fairer? Is it by forcible taking from one individual in order to finance the lifestyle of another? On the one hand, you claimed that businesses should have a “fair” chance in the market, without ever clarifying what a “fair chance” means. And then, you claim it’s a cop-out for me to argue life isn’t fair. Why is it a cop-out? I’m not evading any sort of argument, because you refuse to actually solidify your statement with clarity and empirical evidence. As for the last statement in the above paragraph, I totally disagree. If we look at attempts to equalize society by Western European standards (standards some people wish so desperately were adopted here), then society isn’t equal unless everyone is making roughly the same amount of money and receiving the same cradle-to-grave entitlements from government.
Of course, underlying that is an embrace of social Darwinism. Those who fall behind are consumed by the wolves without remorse.
So, taking responsibility for your own actions = social Darwinism? Give me a break!