[nemo846]

> The people != some random group of people who aren't part of the government. The people should be understood as all the people of the nation. "People," by itself, could be a small (or large) group of oligarchs. Those are very different things.

That’s the thing. Anyone can be a shareholder of a corporation. There is nothing preventing anyone from buying shares. You just have to be willing to risk your money to buy said shares that may or may not yield any returns - i.e. risk throwing away your money.

> Democracies have a lot of experience with representative bodies that can support faster decision-making while still having some accountability to the people. It's a straw-man to to present worker representation as being direct democracy for every decision.

On a separate note, THE people already have democratic control over the most powerful organization in the land, their government.

The government can unilaterally (corporations have no real say) set laws and even break up corporations or even just outright seize them (i.e. nationalization).

[ardy42]

> That’s the thing. Anyone can be a shareholder of a corporation. There is nothing preventing anyone from buying shares.

Are you serious? There's nothing preventing anyone from buying shares, except having lots of money to spare. The people include a great many who don't. That's the thing.

Then you have things like share classes with massively disproportionate voting power and individuals with massively more money than is typical.

The people aren't going to find representation and control through shareholding.

> On a separate note, THE people already have democratic control over the most powerful organization in the land, their government.

One difficulty with the current system is that the actions the people can take to influence the government are too remote from the use of that government's power, so in the end it does a poor job diffusing the "concentrated power" that the GGGP post was talking about. This is true especially in the present day, when that "concentrated power" has learned to wield its influence to blunt the people's electoral influence over the government.

[nemo846]

Guess it’s the same everywhere. Downvotes if you disagree.

[ardy42]

> Guess it’s the same everywhere. Downvotes if you disagree.

BTW, if you're not aware, I can't downvote you.

I doubt the downvotes are due to an ideological disagreement or anything like that. If I had to guess the reason, it's that the ideas you're expressing here just don't have much merit and are pretty tone deaf to boot. They're not that much different than saying a penniless, starving man should just buy food, which you personally find pretty affordable as a well-compensated software engineer.

[nemo846]

> lots of money to spare

You can buy stock with just a few hundred dollars ...

You of course won’t have much voting power but you aren’t risking all that much money. If you have little to no money in it ... then you should have little to no say in how they conduct their business - it’s none of your business; Would you want random strangers to get a say in how you spend your time and money?

Regardless, no one buys stock to “have influence”. People buy stock to (ultimately) make money.

If said shareholders and their corporations are doing things that are harmful to society at large ... that’s what the government and the laws they enforce are for.

> has learned to wield its influence to blunt the people's electoral influence over the government.

And how do they do that?