Theortical Question:

[FleasTheLemur]

Now, I usually don't like to let people do my thinking for me, but I've become engrossingly curious on a simple idea. Why can't we just democratize capitalism? It sounds kind of dumb, but I beginning to think that the problem isn't with the the idea of free markets but more so with despot CEOs; the contemporary equivilent to a Machiavelli-esque monarchy. These 21st lords grasp onto all aspects of life, including my decent enough (yeah, it could be better) American democracy turning it against its own interests and using the most underhanded tatics just to add another million.

Should a democractic economy coppled with regulation and a democractic government be the answer? If so, why not?

[redstar2000]

Well, a publicly-held corporation is a "democracy"...every share of stock has an "equal vote".

In theory, shareholders meetings could be held on the internet and policies decided by a "live vote" of all the shareholders.

Unfortunately, your 100 or even 1,000 votes is up against someone with 500,000 votes...you lose!

And if no one were permitted to own more than, say, 100 shares of a particular corporation, then that form of business organization would be "phased out" and all corporations would be "privately held"...as some are now.

There have been occasional (if rare) voices on the "left" calling for the democratization of the corporations...but no one has ever figured out a practical way to make that happen.

It's also been proposed that states -- which "charter" corporations as legal entities -- start revoking charters when corporations behave badly. But since state governments are elected on the basis of their willingness to serve corporate interests, that idea has likewise proven to be a non-starter.

Even an outfit like Enron -- as close to a criminal conspiracy as makes no difference -- is still (if I'm not mistaken) a legally-chartered corporation in Texas. It's just not worth anything anymore.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[JKP]

Democracy is incompatible with private proprty.

Period.

[Publius]

It's an interesting idea, but a flawed one, I think.

Democratizing capitalism wouldn't work, for rather obvious reasons.

If people could vote on what cars to make, wouldn't they all vote to make nice cars? Nicer, more expensive, cars.

People would be free to vote for things that they couldn't normally afford, that is, the price-signal system that allows an economy to function would break.

If everyone could simply vote for the nicest of everything, would everyone have the nicest everything?

The answer to that should tell you why it's impossible, broadly.

More specifically, how do you decide who votes? How can you be sure of the voters intent?

Actually, what I see happening is monopolies and oligopolies forming left and right because the company with the moste votes will be able to defeat any other company and run it out of business.

Then who are you going to vote for?

I think the systems are incompatible, which I don't think is a bad thing, because I dislike democracy.

[Publius]

Democracy is incompatible with private proprty.

Period.

I was originally going to disagree with this, but actually, I think I agree.

True democracy is incompatible with private property, and that's a good thing.

Private property preserves individual rights while true democracy tramples on them.

[KC]

I was originally going to disagree with this, but actually, I think I agree.

True democracy is incompatible with private property, and that's a good thing.

Private property preserves individual rights while true democracy tramples on them.

Not to mention voting with your wallet.