The Corporate Police

The corporate police would be organizations that undermine the public interest for profit.
If the activities, bribery and blackmail of these groups can be made transparent in real time they can be stopped in the act. During Hoover’s time the Black Panthers used to follow cops around to crime scenes and then intervene on the spot drawing fire arms on the cops when when they were using their own fire arms in an unlawful manner- proactively dealing with the situation that we see sponsored media now covering in the US as opposed to suppressing because the Admin as the dominant propaganda sponsor has targeted it.

Corporations counter each other in this proactive way. Google did this with Sony and their paid for southern attorney general that was trying to prosecute Google by exposing the bribery as it was happening. So such proactive public interest groups would use the tools of provided by platforms like SAFE to help expose the bribery and blackmail as it was happening. Howard Hughes did it to protect his TWA against Pan Am.

I’ve seen Google searches recently where a search for an image will say “an image in this search was removed for violation of the DMCA.” Its not even they image one is seeking, but this nonsense disclaimer is being shown by Google. This is one of these corporate cop groups trying to increase the currency and mind share of its tools and also the acceptance. This goes along with the quarter billion links that Google complied with removing last year. If a private person wants to address an actual breach of their legitimate privacy, due to no wrong doing on their part, these companies try to say they own the data and have a right to profit from it indefinitely and nothing can be taken down. But if some 50 year old image that one of these companies claims is its property is shown, they pay to have characterized as a violation. According to these people there is no fair use either and public libraries obsolete and violation. We as a global public have to remind ourselves that we own these markets and do not have to allow corporate cops or their presence, power, money nor their continued offenses.

Dull normal does resonant via corporations and perhaps that’s inevitable. For all Google’s pretence of ‘do no evil’, for example, try searching their news feature via Tor… it complains of the requests being automated queries despite passing multiple captchas, as if Tor as a source would be different from normal web. The stifling effect of what are corporate errors can be quite powerful, in same way as other big power and wealth, has deadening effect on the world around it. The only answer is devolution of power and wealth, so errors and impact on others is reduced and the damage it does minimised.

1 Like

I think that’s very well put. A tricky thing. I was thinking back to that gent now run off that wanted to allow end users to have some input on what would run on their local nodes. Very attractive to me but obviously undermines the commons. If one of us end users becomes the big guy with that power still in place then we can upset the balance. Its such a hard balance to talk about or gauge with precision.

We can all be very idealistic about what our great grand kids may require but if some of that planning starts today with us having to act or give up something well then that is a whole other matter. We could give to charity in Africa for hunger but there is a strong impulse to feel that isn’t practical because the prospects are too vague. And none of that changes if we get moved to the top of the pyramid, if anything the people constantly trying to take from us makes it worse. Still seems clear that having corporate police harass the public is going too far.

What makes change and then progress, is different from what perpetuates the current normal. That’s a point that many in authority and especially in politics, simply do not understand. For all their efforts, such actions as wars on nouns, have no effect on what ails them.

  • What is “public interest”?
  • “For profit” isn’t any worse than for power.

They can’t do anything to anyone as long as there’s no State to use coercion to impose “the public interest” on to the unsuspecting public.

The MPAA and RIAA are examples. States that weren’t more corrupted by sponsorship and bribery and were on the whole more responsive to the needs of the people that make them up would also make such organizations impractical, they are basically racketeering outfits. Along the way to getting rid of the centralization of states this criminality can be avoided.

As for the profit part, yes its the pursuit of raw power ultimately but the profit excuse is insult to injury. There is a certain mindset that loves to assume than anything is profitable must be given the benefit of the doubt and is presumed virtuous until proven otherwise. This is the so called permissiveness in the US. We wouldn’t want to be looking at the drugs (food additives) that are added to foods because that would be a slippery slope that would work against the permissiveness doctrine. We don’t want to call vaccines drugs and we don’t want to question a regime that exclusively indemnifies vaccine firms but leaves the for-profit status in place plus a mandate so that other better approaches can never come to market.

Because of the corporate police, we want to control how people can talk about objections to vaccine policy so they can’t damage the cash cow, the only exemption is a ‘belief’ exemption, almost like an ‘idiot’ exemption when it should be more like conscientious objection or scientific/policy diversity exemption- other countries don’t agree but in the US there is the claim of 100% scientific agreement and you must “trust us” compliance expectations- you cannot defy us. The Vaccine industry is the worst of the corporate police, and they defy core consent finding of Nuremberg. In line with Milgram’s experiments a recent study found that 1 in 10 Swiss Pediatricians do not vaccinate their own children (declared anonymously,) the rest just fall in line with useless authority.

That’s why free market proponents argue that the problem is not private enterprises, but corrupt governments.
Remove the government from the picture and there’s no problem.

In a free market where goods and services are sold and bought on a voluntary basis, it seems logical that anything that’s sold at a profit benefits both the producer and consumer. Nothing wrong with that. Anyone can choose to make a profitless product or buy an inferior service.

In 99% of countries there’s only one police that is controlled by the government.

I don’t see the benefit on approaching the problem from this angle, @Warren.
Show me how SAFE could make a difference, when there are plenty bloggers who do the same thing right now, but people generally don’t have time and energy to search for it and inform themselves. How are they going to get more publicity on Maidsafe?

I suggest that the core problem is the juggernaut that are our first-world governments. But as this article so aptly said: “You have to reduce the demand for government.” (…before you can shrink them)
Or, y’know, just remove them outright and rebuild from scratch.

@stormking Let me know which part.

@janitor “Nothing wrong with that. Anyone can choose to make a profitless product or buy an inferior service.” Even for stuff like terminator seed?

I was just thinking the ad industry may be the most powerful and influential. People used to cite the media. But today thats the ad industry. One thing about sales men as shock troops, is they overcome the fear of rejection. They may be mercenary but that overcoming is possibly the strongest advantage in human affairs.

Hm? Oh, sorry, I was referring to your initial post of:

“So such proactive public interest groups would use the tools of provided
by platforms like SAFE to help expose the bribery and blackmail as it
was happening.”

In the end we need something better than the state. I think for historians our best chance is in getting something that will take us beyond hierarchy. The sooner the better.

That sounds like libertarian naivety.

As individuals we cannot do everything ourselves, we will always need some form of representation that supports defence against larger threats, otherwise we’ll be liable to exploitation by selfish interests who will work as groups. Whatever that is will then be notionally the ‘State’. Nation states exist for a reason, it’s not wise to ignore history.

Potentially in the far future where everyone has what they need, there will be less threat but realistically now, we need a balance.

Obviously, centralised power and wealth are corrupt and delivering avoidable errors as it stands, there are too many systemic errors occurring but the extreme opposite is not a good answer… so much so that those in power atm allude to that nonsense in order to encourage people to like what we have and fear any change.

1 Like

What larger threats?

The State is the largest threat.
Compare the number of people killed, maimed and jailed by nation states since WW II with any other criminal organization.

1 Like

I’m not going to defend the big thud and blunder that is current Government but I’m also not going to indulge the idea that an individual can defend against all threats.

It’s all very well for those inexperienced, on the up and up to brag about their capability but everyone is vulnerable at some point, even if it’s just later on in life. The world is not exactly fair in its events and it’s not remotely evenly distributed; so, there are those who will need support from others. Otherwise they are likely to be exploited by opportunists and other selfish individuals… who are motivated if only by their not having everything they need… and then organised groups and nation states. Reality as it stands is not suddenly going to change.

Larger threats than the individual. I do not know what libertarians expect… it seems they fly on some lack of consideration about others… “I’m alright Jack, and let’s ignore that the economic and political model we promote isn’t scalable and requires exploitation of the vulnerable.”

1 Like

Okay we’re going completely off topic with this, but there can’t be exploitation without coercion and we know who is the the chief perpetrator of coercion.
In a peaceful, stateless society people would organize in private organizations according to any model they see suitable for themselves. One town would be socialist, another capitalist. Those who prefer one model vs. another could sell their property (well, those in a socialist town maybe wouldn’t have any) and move where they think is better.

You could call them nation states!.. and they would not want to lose their workforce and they would limit the freedom of movement because they can. Repeat and forget and repeat!

The only difference there is the idea of freedom of movement. Nation states are what they are for the history that created them. That you are a master or a slave in the current ones, is just luck and unfair, leading you to want a reboot into exactly the same situation with no sense of irony. That sounds like you don’t want change… you just want to be on top!.. not an uncommon approach to suggesting answers but not a good one for everyone.

1 Like