I agree with you, but that's sort of a side topic to my main complaint. The objection I had was applying moral standards to a company.
> Large companies have outsized impact on influence public policy, using bribery aka lobbying. Collectively, billions are spent yearly to influence lawmakers.
Agreed entirely. But the objection wasn't about the root cause for the society system we have. My complaint was about using a moral argument as to why a company should spend their money to provide a social safety net for its workers.
Trusting companies to do the right thing is, at the root, why we are where we are. Companies lobbied for freedoms and the public agreed with it, in the sense that we largely ignored it. We can't be angry at companies for not acting moral. They're working within the freedoms that we allowed them.
But again, I'm not arguing the root cause or anything. Just merely saying that if our only tool in this "fight" is a moral finger wagging, oh boy oh boy will we be in for a quick loss.
> Companies lobbied for freedoms and the public agreed with it...They're working within the freedoms that we allowed them.
This is the part of the argument I'm contesting. I'm not convinced that the public went along with it because companies put forth a well reasoned argument. It's not that we agreed to it, more so that they rigged the system in their favor, despite the opinions of the people.
I think if you poll most Americans, they wouldn't agree that Wal Mart can pay minimum wage and also have employees on food stamps. Or that CEOs should get paid x50 the average worker salary. Or that Amazon should be able to fire employees for trying to unionize. Or that coal mines can dump toxic waste in rivers.
There's actually a huge list of things companies do that are against what many Americans believe, and yet they still get their way. That's my point. The power balance is truly in the favor of the corporate elite. I'm really not sure how much we're letting them do anything, and how much they're just rigging the system the way they want it.
Well that's my contention, that the opinion of Americans only matters as far as they're willing to act.
Americans are pushovers, and if they're not willing to do anything other than share their opinions, what good are their opinions?
It would be like if a Union refused to strike, how much "power" would they actually have? The power of a Union is in the coordinated action of the people, not of the coordinated opinion. Likewise, if Americans refuse to act on this, why would they be listened to?
> Large companies have outsized impact on influence public policy, using bribery aka lobbying. Collectively, billions are spent yearly to influence lawmakers.
Agreed entirely. But the objection wasn't about the root cause for the society system we have. My complaint was about using a moral argument as to why a company should spend their money to provide a social safety net for its workers.
Trusting companies to do the right thing is, at the root, why we are where we are. Companies lobbied for freedoms and the public agreed with it, in the sense that we largely ignored it. We can't be angry at companies for not acting moral. They're working within the freedoms that we allowed them.
But again, I'm not arguing the root cause or anything. Just merely saying that if our only tool in this "fight" is a moral finger wagging, oh boy oh boy will we be in for a quick loss.