: : Don: The state is, and always will be, an organization for controlling the people. This will be true regardless of the methods of governing used. This is obvious in the case of monarchys and dictators. It is also true in total democracy.
: So which is fairer? An elected state where everyone has a chance of making themselves heard and the representatives are elected from the people, or an unelected state consisting of corporate heads answerable only to their shareholders.
Don: The type of state I prefer is a republic where the power is strictly limited by a Constitution.
Don: Capitalism isn't a "state". It's an economic system. In capitalism, you do have a say, because you are a consumer. Further, since each company that produces is relatively small, it poses little threat to us.
: Why is a free-market state controlled by crime/corporate lords preferable to a democratic one? - the tender mercies of transnational corporations are a matter of public record...
Don: It's not a state. Further, it is not controlled by corporate leaders, but by the collective mass of consumers. It is democratic way beyond what socialism could ever be . . .
: It beats me that people think you can do away with an elected state and yet leave the global corporate world untouched; and that large corporations will somehow start behaving ethically in the absence of regulation. I'm not greatly fond of the state; but I'm far less fond of the corporate state...
Don: I'm not convinced we should eliminate the state. I believe in a republican state of limited power. I do not think it is the job of the state to regulate buisness, except for things like interstate commerce, and even this regulation should be minimal. The true regulation of buisness should be the market, which consists of all of us making our decisions as consumers.