Why then do so many politicians have business backgrounds? How does that qualify them as leaders of free people?
Prevalent business models are the antitheses of democracy. Oligarchy, aristocracy, plutocracy, or even tyranny—these forms of government more accurately portray big business. Corporations constitute nearly 100% of all business. They are bound by law to put the financial interests of their stockholders above the public interest, and incidentally above the interests of their employees. Is this how a nation should be governed?
When you consider that more than half of all stock is owned by only 1% of stockholders , is it the interests of the public that’s being served, or the interests of the wealthy elite? Regardless, a free nation is not a business and should not be run like one, unless anyone knows of a business that offers freedom and liberty as their products and services.
In a business, the majority of workers cater to the administration. The administration ultimately makes the decisions, oftentimes regardless of the wills or opinions of its employees (like a government that does what it wants despite public opinion, just like the US administration, coincidently). In a democracy, it’s supposed to be the other way around. The government should serve and obey its population at large.
When you buy or sell stock, do you consider how that affects the employees of the invested companies? Do you consider its effect on the public or the environment? Or are you simply trying to make money for yourself? Greed runs the market, and it’s an increasing incentive within governments as more and more businesspeople take them over and as more and more ties are made between governments and corporations.
I’m sure this sounds like a conspiracy theory. But the facts are blatant. Businesses and governments are run by the same group of people: the rich. To think their agenda is ultimately for the public interest is ignorant.
What we’re dealing with is something called corporatocracy.
While anyone can become a shareholder in principle, in reality it is frequently only the wealthy who can afford to own enough stock to directly influence the voting (and hence the activities) of a corporation. Hence the corporatocracy might be considered somewhat synonymous with plutocracy, government by the rich.
Critics of this term argue that the term has no real meaning in terms of political theory, arguing that a corporation is nothing more than a body of individuals, ruled by a governing body (elected by its shareholders) and executives appointed by that body. As such, it is claimed to have as much a right as any other body of people to exercise powers (such as voters).
Comparing a corporation to a body of voters is a flawed analogy. Corporations are hierarchies, or bureaucracies to be more specific. Those at the top make the decisions for those at the bottom. The majority of employees are found within the lower echelon and have little or no say as to the company’s decisions. In a body of voters, each person is equal and independent.
[Went off on a rant there. I’ll clean it up. To be continued]