In a perfect world corporations "only exists because we chose democratically that it should through our purchases." But given that we don't live in a perfect world, the comment makes no sense in relation with reality.

@redbai I challenge you to find me a single example of a business that isn't driven by consumer demand. Any business that doesn't deliver the goods and services desired by consumers goes bankrupt.

If people aren't buying, the company doesn't exist.

@Happy_Killbot Can’t see an argument about that.

Seems like fundamental business practice first page, first paragraph.

@Happy_Killbot How would that prove that purchasing power is a democratic process?

@redbai My challenge would disprove it, because if there is a company that makes money without demand, then it has no obligation to it's consumers, thus it would gain purchasing power infinitely.

My point is that when you trade money for some product or service, you are giving the other entity some of power, or "voting" for them. For example, if you don't like X corporation because they exploit children for labor, and you don't buy from them and instead go to their competitors, Y and Z corporation, you are voting for humanitarianism over cheap products. However if people don't care about child labor they might shop at X corporation. We can not think about corporations as evil once you remember that they have customers who are just as to blame.

@Happy_Killbot I don't agree and again, your answers are assuming a perfect world. It doesn't take into account a corporations ability to control markets and create dynamics that create a desire for products through advertising and hiding what they use their money for. It also assumes that people have the time and resources to find out the particulars of what a company does and has the ability to purchase based on those metrics.

In the real world, most people don't have the luxury of deciding who they are going to buy from or what the political repercussions of their purchases will have. In the real world corporations spend billions to hide their deeds that they feel will negatively affect their profit margins. In the real world people use corporations to do things that would put them in jail as an individual.

That's not a democracy, that's a system that is designed to control people based on the information supplied and the resources supplied. A poor person and a rich person in a "democracy" have the same vote. The idea that a poor person and a rich person have the same purchasing power and therefore can affect the actions of corporations is not real world thinking.

@redbai In a democratic nation, you don't take into account the ability of a government to influence the people, to create dynamics to change popular opinion, to use propaganda, and selective nostalgia to manipulate the masses.

In a democratic nation, people don't have the time and resources to find out about all the policies they are voting for or candidates they are electing. You don't know all the details of their lives, what their actual beliefs are, or who is funding their campaigns.

In the real world people don;t have the luxury of deciding who will win a candidacy, or what the political repercussions will be. Real democracies spend trillions and countless lives to protect their own interests. In the real world democracies do things that the rest of us would be executed for.

That is exactly like democracy. That is a system designed to convince the enslaved they are free and the free to believe they are slaves. A democracy does not mean that everyone gets the same vote or has the same power, it means that those who speak the loudest have the greatest say, by changing the minds of others who chose not think for themselves. It is not real world thinking, to assume that we are all on the same footing even in a system founded on those principles.

pretty naive.
democratically when a few oligarchs control the entire mainstream media? democratically when the polititcians are bought & paid for by big business?

@callmedubious Naive? that's literally what real life democracy is.

@Happy_Killbot Nice rant, but none of it disputes anything I said about the lack of veracity in the idea that purchasing power is a democracy. Comparing a government to a corporation is a false analogy.

@redbai I'm not comparing corporations to governments, I'm comparing democracy the government to democracy the economy. Both function in strikingly similar ways because they are emergent systems from the same set of rules.

They consist of many independent actors who make decisions colectively. It is control of a group by its members, so everyone buying and selling, both in real and imaginary economies is a democracy. No one person is in charge.

@Happy_Killbot Oh, so now we're talking about economies instead of corporations. Didn't know you'd changed the subject.

Economies are not democracies either and you haven't demonstrated that in the least. Spending is not voting, it's trading. Those are two different things.

@redbai I was always talking about economies, corporations are the building blocks of economies. this would make no sense on a corporation level because there would be no decision to be made. If you look at the the example I gave, I'm talking about corporation(S) plural, not corporation singular. Now that I know we aren't on the same page, let me lay out the argument so that maybe it finally makes sense.

Definition of Democracy: A system of governance or decision making under which all citizens make choices through voting

Assumptions: A -a democracy is a metaphysical object composed of physical parts, and as such is a social construct. (ex: country borders exist because we say they do )
B -A vote is an expression of opinion
C -a decision is any action made by individuals acting of their own free will
D -an expression of opinion is made by ones own free will
E -businesses that run out of funds in a free market cease to exist
F - businesses raise funds by selling of currency, stock, or material wealth or services in exchange for currency, stock, or material wealth or services at a premium (what they sell is worth less than they buy it for)
G - individuals chose what they buy and sell based on their own free will
H - buying and selling is a transfer of funds.

Argument: We chose democratically which businesses exist and which cease to exist by voting with our purchases

Rational: 1- A business that is not raising funds ( F ) will cease to exist ( E )
2- Individuals transfer funds( H ) based on their own free will ( G )
3- individuals decide( C ) who to transfer funds to ( 2 )
4- individuals decide ( 3 ) which businesses will exist or cease to exist ( 1 ) by transferring funds
5- a decision is an action ( C ) which is an expression of opinion ( D )
6- a decision is an action( 5 ) which is a vote ( B )
7- individuals decide through voting ( 6 ) which businesses will exist or cease to exist by transferring funds ( 4 )
8- we chose democratically ( def ) which businesses will exist or cease to exist by transferring funds( 7 )

@Happy_Killbot Corporations are not the "building blocks of economies". The are one of many tools that may be included in an economy and an economy can exist without them.

Definition of Democracy: A system of governance or decision making under which all citizens make choices through voting

Definition of Corporation: An organization in which governance or decision making is done by the investor(s) who have the most resources invested in the corporation.

Assumption A is not correct. Democracy is not an object it is an idea. A method of governance.

Assumption G is more ambiguous than you say (again REAL WORLD). Unless you are independently wealthy or have some great job that allows a generous pile of extra cash after paying all your bills, individuals buy what they need to survive and it is based on availability and not free will. If there is only one place to purchase your NEEDS, then you are not doing so based on FREE WILL.

You get to #8 in your rational with self serving statements and assumption which you never demonstrate to be factual.

@redbai I'm going to leave this here, note the 2nd example of the word "vote" is "consumers … vote with their dollars"

[merriam-webster.com]

If we can't trust marriam-webster as a source trusted beholder of discourse, then we aren't speaking the same language and can have no consensus.

I still think you aren't seeing the fact that consumers buy things from businesses, even though I would bet the farm you do that all the time. Have you never noticed how some products just vanish off the shelves never to return? 9/10 times It's because no one was buying them, thus people didn't "vote" for those products.

"Assumption A is not correct. Democracy is not an object it is an idea. A method of governance."

Maybe this one does require an explanation because clearly ontology is a weak area for you, so instead you put up a straw man. I agree, it is an idea, I just said it more eloquently.

What I actually wrote was: "a democracy is a METAPHYSICAL OBJECT composed of physical parts, and as such is a social construct. (ex: country borders exist because we say they do )"

Your critique of assumption G doesn't really follow logically, so you are saying that if you can only buy certain products, thus there is a limit to the amount of things you can buy that don't really have free will.

This is incoherent for two reasons:

1. you have the option to not buy the things, even if you need them, therefore deciding to starve is of your own free will, thus you still have an option even if you only have one source for all your needs
2. In the REAL WORLD you NEVER have only one option to meet your needs, because even if there was only one store in your town, you could go to the next town over to buy things.

A business, in order to maximize it's profits must serve the needs and desires of it's consumer base. If you have ever owned a business this becomes painfully clear immediately. The CUSTOMERS rule the MARKET not the CORPORATIONS!

Think about this a different way: If you never did what your boss told you to do, how long would you remain employed?

Probably not very.

When you have a job, you are selling your time and skills for money, and your boss is buying your time and skills for money. You might even say your boss voted for you, of free will from a pool of candidates for your employment position, and yes this example is based on the REAL WORLD!

@Happy_Killbot You keep saying that consumers vote with their dollars and you haven't provided anything except your opinion to back it up. You assume that because it's true for you it's true for everyone and that's just naive. You obviously can ignore the social dynamics of people who aren't you.

Guess what? I put the phrase "Metaphysical Object" into google and it came back with nothing referencing the term. Why don't you explain what a metaphysical object is and how it differentiates from an idea. Then explain why why democracy fits whatever definition you come up with for it and why it's not just an idea. That would be preferable to your ignorant assumptions about my knowledge.

I think the idea that starving is a viable option for you demonstrates the desperate nature of your argument.

As far as going to the next town, you're just assuming everyone has the option. But that's not the real world, that's an assumption by certain classes in society.

Customers are not bosses so that analogy is simply ridiculous.

Using your logic, everything is a vote/decision so everything is a democracy making the term meaningless.

@redbai "You keep saying that consumers vote with their dollars and you haven't provided anything except your opinion to back it up." I provided a logical prof and a reference that supports my conclusion, because this analogy is used in basically every economics book written since the 1980's.

Here are several sources who use this analogy and pragmatic worldview:
[fee.org]
"In the marketplace, the consumer is the boss."
[huffpost.com]
"As a consumer, you have immense power with your spending."
[inspiredeconomist.com]
“put our money where our mouth is”
[greenamerica.org]
"Want to create a greener world that works for all people? One of the most important things you can do is vote with your dollars."
[transitionus.org]
"We can choose to support businesses that actually make our communities more resilient rather than extracting local wealth and resources"

I don't believe you googled anything because Wikipedia comes up with the following phrase at the very top: "Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, ... What is it like? Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility."

A metaphysical object may be thought to contain concepts, ideas, complete ideologies, or emergent properties. For example, evolution is a metaphysical object because it doesn't actually exist, you can not touch or hold evolution but it has tangible effects. It is an object because it has definite defined boundaries.Democracy is an idea, and metaphysical.

"I think the idea that starving is a viable option for you demonstrates the desperate nature of your argument."
It doesn't have to make sense, you just have to have an option for my point to be valid.

I never said customers were bosses, what you just don't seem to want to accept is that business transactions are voluntary.

"Using your logic, everything is a vote/decision so everything is a democracy making the term meaningless."
No, it would not be everything, only collective decisions making. This is just another straw man.

Anyways, after all this if you still don't agree with me you never will.

@Happy_Killbot We were talking about "Democracys", not simply "voting".
[merriam-webster.com]

I didn't say I googled in the word "metaphysical", I said I googled in the phrase "metaphysical object". If you're not bright enough to see the difference I can't help you.

"It doesn't have to make sense, you just have to have an option for my point to be valid."

This explains everything. You admit that your arguments don't have to make sense. I agree and they don't.

@redbai No, we are talking about "democracIES" not "democracYS", and technically in the original post I said "democratically" which is the adverb form of "democratic" for which Merriam-Webster has this to say: "based on a form of government in which the people choose leaders by voting : of or relating to democracy"

No one wins from arguing semantics.

I googled metaphysical object, If you look at the text from Wikipedia I posted up there you will notice the word "object" is just four words away from "metaphysical" which is why it comes up on top

Just because they don't make sense to you doesn't mean they aren't logically coherent. Tons of things don't make sense but are true, just look at the holocaust, or the inquisition. Does suicide ever make any sense? No, but people still do it every single day. That's my point.

@Happy_Killbot Wow, spelling corrections. I guess when you cannot back up your arguments with facts spellcheck is the next best thing.

So because the word "object" appears four words away from "metaphysical" that's supposed to imply that the phrase you apparently pulled out of thin air has legitimacy? Oh yeah, desperation. Like pretending starving to death is a reasonable option to purchasing something readily available to eat IN THE REAL WORLD.

The holocaust, inquisition or suicides don't make choosing to starve to death a viable choice when there is food available. But again, desperate arguments appear to be your forte. They don't even have to make sense.