| Well.. when i go to do something (like offer my consulting services or buy a plane ticket) for my business or non-profit, i'd prefer not to do it as an 'enslaved' party but rather as one that has choice and autonomy..
just like i want to have choice and autonomy if i'm doing something individually for myself personally..
both the for-profit and the non-profit are "groups" of a few people who work together and essentially use the corporate structure to pool money and offerings or make offers... the main reasons to have them is because the IRS is less likely to audit you as a consultant if you have a company, pooling money for a non-profit means you don't have to pay taxes on the money in the door, but there are other reasons as well...
your reference to "99 percenter" -- is that some kind of insinuation that because I would like for small business owners to also have autonomy and choice as they do their work and offer products and services that I'm somehow like Goldman Sacks ripping off the US and the world for extreme profit (ie.. the 1%)?
On Oct 12, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Frank Paynter wrote: Funny, I've never identified that personally with my business entities. Consider them tools, actually. I'll bet Meg Whitman feels just like you do!
Me, I'm more a 99 percenter.
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Mary Hodder <
">
> wrote:
Ok.. well. i would guess that a number of people on this list have corporations...
I have a couple.. for work, for non-profit or community service reasons, etc.
Should I be enslaved because you don't like ATT but I happen to have a corporation?
What i didn't specify but what i mean aare small businesses.. that have corporate status, but are really just people..
I still believe what we want is an equal playing field where entities and individuals interact with equal power, notice, autonomy, control and choice.
But I do not think that a small business, of maybe two people, maybe 10 people, needs to be 'enslaved.'
I think we need to undermine the largest (too big to fail) entities and i think an individual centric model does that.. so that the ATTs of the world can't function in it..
that's better than enslaving.. it makes something that is huge irrelevant.
On Oct 12, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Frank Paynter wrote: Mary, I'd understand your concern and sympathize if corporations were people. They're not. Not all enslavement is human. For example: "The master cylinder is a control device that converts non-hydraulic pressure (commonly from a driver's foot) into hydraulic pressure, in order to move other device(s) which are located at the other end of the hydraulic system, such as one or more slave cylinders." And: "Connecting a hard disk drive in slave only mode leads to system halt during resume from standby..."
I very much disagree with your assertion that "What we want is an equal playing field where entities and individuals interact with equal power, notice, autonomy, control and choice." Can't work. AT&T c an't be brought to heel under the polite fiction that they function as "persons" with "equal power."
Making slaves of the goliaths is as much or more a mechanical and systems construct as it is sociological and your bow to policies and regulations shows that you understand that. To harness the power of corporations and great wealth in the service of mankind is a legitimate exercise; and, to the extent that VRM is aimed at empowering people of modest means in a world dominated by "goliaths," the metaphor works well.
fp
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Mary Hodder <
" target="_blank">
> wrote:
Doc.. one point of clarification..
Or better yet, the kid who makes slaves of the Golaiths.
My issue with enslaving anything here is that it doesn't get us what we want ultimately.
What we want is an equal playing field where entities and individuals interact with equal power, notice, autonomy, control and choice.
It reminds me of the "no marriage if there isn't marriage for everyone" movement that came about 2.5 years ago.. I tweeted at that time that I was helping with and attending Salim & Lily Ismail's wedding and people said: you need to boycott all weddings until everyone can get married.
My response was: I don't want to tell same sex couples what to do and I don't think we should tell straight couples what to do (or their wedding guests)... in other words, all the dictating of personal choice about one's self by others is wrong.. and telling straight couples not to get married is as bad
as telling same-sex couples they can't...
And I would say the same here.. enslaving anyone or anything is wrong.. we want businesses to operate with choice, autonomy and freedom..
just like we want choice, autonomy and freedom for individuals.
In fact I would argue that showing businesses the right way to do this.. by our example, is more powerful than enslaving them for our purposes.
However, given the power businesses have, i do get that regulation may play a role (ie, government saying a business has to, say, have product safety or provide safe working environments.. makes sense..) but that's not enslavement.. it's minimum standard regulation..
and if rights frameworks like Trust Frameworks create regulation in code and policy.. and an individual chooses a TR and then a business says okay, we'll operate under that TR.. then we are all operating out of choice, autonomy and freedom.
so.. my 2 cents..
mary
On Oct 12, 2011, at 9:27 AM, Doc Searls wrote:
Better to see yourself as the kid with the slingshot.
Or better yet, the kid who makes slaves of the Golaiths.
i want to be inspired to imagine a scenario where there's a level playing field in which i am an empowered agent, i have a wide range of ways in which to express, exchange, create and receive value, and there is a minimum standard of trust and ethics that i will tolerate when considering interacting or transacting with you.
- venessa
You're doing a good job of inspiring, right now. Thanks.
Doc
-- Frank Paynter
-- Frank Paynter
608 235-9546 Cell phone 608 221-8309 Land line
|