• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

True American Empire Scenario

Which side would you support?

  • I would support the military no matter what.

    Votes: 6 75.0%

  • I would support the corporation no matter what.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I would support the military if it represented my interests.

    Votes: 2 25.0%

  • I would support the corporation if it represented my interests.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    8
Daktoria

Daktoria

Banned
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
3,245
Reaction score
397
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
Imagine 25 years from now that an American corporation controls a monopoly of foreign supply chains for a vital American consumer good.

This corporation then issues the American government the following message:

"Either you change your way of living to fit our standards, or we will embargo you."​

For sake of argument, let's assume enough adaptation time is given, but it's not long enough for military preemption.

America refuses to adapt, and decides on military retaliation instead. The corporation threatens to implode 100% of its facilities if any retaliation is organized. If the supply chain implodes, it will devastate America so badly that it will have to resort to martial law in order to prevent anarchy.

Would you support the corporation or the military?
 
You're ceding control to tyrannical authority either way. The consequences are much less severe going with the corporation (presuming "changing your way of living" doesn't involve inconveniences worse than the loss of the consumer good and anarchy). However, military intervention allows some possibility of return of popular sovereignty, since it is our government that institutes it and presumably would have some mechanism to return society to civilian control.

Of course General Ironass might decide he likes all the power and pull a Caesar. With the economy in a shambles, only military members would be guaranteed a paycheck, and that's a mighty powerful way to buy loyalty.

Corporations are answerable to shareholders primarily and to consumers marginally, and to neither not at all.

I'd roll the dice and support the military. At least there's a chance that we could have a free nation after the smoke clears.
 
I'd like to support neither and think that Judiciary or Banking actions could solve the problem. Since the "Corporate" motivation is simply and clearly the "bottom line," profit is the name of the game, and some military actually wish to serve their Country, then I would be forced to support the Military. In many ways, our Country is already in this trap and the "too big to fail" quote comes to mind. Pull the chain on the banks and flush 'em, don't you think?
 
ChuckBerry said:
You're ceding control to tyrannical authority either way. The consequences are much less severe going with the corporation (presuming "changing your way of living" doesn't involve inconveniences worse than the loss of the consumer good and anarchy). However, military intervention allows some possibility of return of popular sovereignty, since it is our government that institutes it and presumably would have some mechanism to return society to civilian control.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure about this. This is a multinational corporation where America has no sovereignty. The government shouldn't be simply allowed to expropriate private assets.

Of course General Ironass might decide he likes all the power and pull a Caesar. With the economy in a shambles, only military members would be guaranteed a paycheck, and that's a mighty powerful way to buy loyalty.
Click to expand...

That's... something I didn't think about, hmmm. You could actually see the corporation and military on the same side. The corporation demands certain standards, the military lets things go, and the standards take over nonetheless.

Corporations are answerable to shareholders primarily and to consumers marginally, and to neither not at all.

I'd roll the dice and support the military. At least there's a chance that we could have a free nation after the smoke clears.
Click to expand...

What if the corporation stood for freedom?
 
DaveFagan said:
I'd like to support neither and think that Judiciary or Banking actions could solve the problem. Since the "Corporate" motivation is simply and clearly the "bottom line," profit is the name of the game, and some military actually wish to serve their Country, then I would be forced to support the Military. In many ways, our Country is already in this trap and the "too big to fail" quote comes to mind. Pull the chain on the banks and flush 'em, don't you think?
Click to expand...

...so you'd support banking actions, but not the corporation?
 
None of the above, of course - why is this missing in so many polls ??
Corporations are more likely to go "bad", than is the military, but world history has taught us that either are possible..
The size of banks must be controlled , somehow....We cannot have a banks failure causing our nation to "go under".
 
earthworm said:
None of the above, of course - why is this missing in so many polls ??
Click to expand...

Sometimes, life doesn't give us a choice.

Corporations are more likely to go "bad", than is the military, but world history has taught us that either are possible..
The size of banks must be controlled , somehow....We cannot have a banks failure causing our nation to "go under".
Click to expand...

...so if the corporation supported feminist, multiculturalist, and environmentalist agendas, you still wouldn't trust it?
 
Daktoria said:
This is a multinational corporation where America has no sovereignty. The government shouldn't be simply allowed to expropriate private assets.
Click to expand...

An embargo can be considered an act of war if the trade product is vital to the survival of the country in question. Whether its a corporation doing it or a country makes no difference...dead is dead.

What if the corporation stood for freedom?
Click to expand...

Embargoing a product to force change in a society seems the antithesis of freedom to me.
 
ChuckBerry said:
An embargo can be considered an act of war if the trade product is vital to the survival of the country in question. Whether its a corporation doing it or a country makes no difference...dead is dead.



Embargoing a product to force change in a society seems the antithesis of freedom to me.
Click to expand...

Are you saying we shouldn't have free markets because some producers are vital for other consumers?

That sounds like slavery. People who are born with talents would be obligated to serve those with needs.
 
I would support the military if it supports our interests. In your given scenario, it seems like the American military and government, still a force for the American public, are being given the ultimatum by a group that has yet to prove itself worthy of any interest but its own. That being said, I do not see a corporation so dramatically and carelessly removing its own facilities.
 
Last edited:
Daktoria said:
[...] Would you support the corporation or the military?
Click to expand...
In the ultimate evolution of capitalism, the corporation controls the government, and therefore the military.

In the ultimate evolution of socialism, the government (metaphorically speaking, at least) controls the corporations.

Therefore your premise is unfounded.

But to answer it regardless, I would support whomever I judged to be right. Keeping in mind that the gov't could be the bad guy in your scenario...
 
The military. **** corporations.
 
Fiddytree said:
I would support the military if it supports our interests. In your given scenario, it seems like the American military and government, still a force for the American public, are being given the ultimatum by a group that has yet to prove itself worthy of any interest but its own. That being said, I do not see a corporation so dramatically and carelessly removing its own facilities.
Click to expand...

TheDemSocialist said:
The military. **** corporations.
Click to expand...

Therefore, you would support imperialism because the corporation exists outside American borders?
 
Karl said:
In the ultimate evolution of capitalism, the corporation controls the government, and therefore the military.

In the ultimate evolution of socialism, the government (metaphorically speaking, at least) controls the corporations.

Therefore your premise is unfounded.
Click to expand...

You're assuming the ultimate evolution has already been reached. For example, this event could be the final phase.

But to answer it regardless, I would support whomever I judged to be right. Keeping in mind that the gov't could be the bad guy in your scenario...
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. A corporation could endorse proper social reform, and the government could oppose it out of nationalism.
 
Daktoria said:
Therefore, you would support imperialism because the corporation exists outside American borders?
Click to expand...

Was that question to me, as well?
 
Daktoria said:
Are you saying we shouldn't have free markets because some producers are vital for other consumers?
Click to expand...

In your scenario, the corporation has a monopoly. Monopoly isn't free market, is it?

That sounds like slavery. People who are born with talents would be obligated to serve those with needs.
Click to expand...

Mothers take care of babies. And it goes from there.

I say again, "freedom" = lulz, at least the way most people mean it. Particularly in the academic sense you seem to be using.
 
ChuckBerry said:
In your scenario, the corporation has a monopoly. Monopoly isn't free market, is it?
Click to expand...

A free market just means respecting freedom of assembly. As long as every acquisition and transfer was reliable, monopolies are permitted.

Mothers take care of babies. And it goes from there.

I say again, "freedom" = lulz, at least the way most people mean it. Particularly in the academic sense you seem to be using.
Click to expand...

Well yea, I agree. Most people don't appreciate freedom unless it makes them laugh.

When people aren't laughing, they don't feel free and become willing sadists.
 
Send Seal Team 6 to assassinate the corporations board.

Or a crack team of call-girl assassins.

I would choose the military as they are at least nominally under the peoples control.
 
The entire scenario is completely absurd. The only consumer good that is both absolutely vital and has incredibly limited supply is oil. Oil is a nationalized resource and it would be impossible for a single corporation to gain total supply. The U.S. also has the strategic oil reserve just in case.

There is absolutely no motive for why the corporate leadership would want to commit suicide and destroy the united states. Employees work a paycheck, they aren't going to commit treason because their boss asks them to.
 
rathi said:
The entire scenario is completely absurd. The only consumer good that is both absolutely vital and has incredibly limited supply is oil. Oil is a nationalized resource and it would be impossible for a single corporation to gain total supply. The U.S. also has the strategic oil reserve just in case.
Click to expand...

This seems naive. Many electronics and raw materials for electronics are imported from abroad.

There is absolutely no motive for why the corporate leadership would want to commit suicide and destroy the united states. Employees work a paycheck, they aren't going to commit treason because their boss asks them to.
Click to expand...

This also seems naive. Lots of American culture revolves around bashing America from the inside out.

Putting these two things together, it would be easy to foresee an Asian syndicate or conglomerate pulling strings on American imports. India is the first country which comes to mind considering that it cooperates with Iran, is familiar with tremendous amounts of American Air Force and Small Arms industry, and is needed by the U.S. to counterbalance China. Indian free labor also displaces American engineering since we lag behind in STEM education.
 
Daktoria said:
You're assuming the ultimate evolution has already been reached. For example, this event could be the final phase. [...]
Click to expand...
True, but I had to lay out some boundries. In the current evolution of capitalism in the U.S., I feel that a powerful corporation would simply buy compliance from the government, not threaten an embargo (or elect their own man as president to do their bidding for them, such as, oh, I don't know, say a Wall Street venture capitalist, for example ;) ).
 
You're essentially supporting Imperialism either way. I would remain neutral, not throwing my support behind either of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom