[rdiddly]

I'm not so sympathetic to that idea in the first place. A business, particularly a corporation, is one of the most authoritarian structures ever devised. If the government were like a business, every citizen would be either an asset to be exploited or a liability to be eliminated.

[omalleyt]

Citizens would be the shareholders

[dsr_]

Small shareholders (less than 0.01% holdings) have essentially no voice in a corporation's policy; nor are they a consideration for the board of directors. Sometimes they are the beneficiaries of policies that are satisfying major stockholders, but not in a big way.

No, this metaphor does not work.

[qntty]

In what way does that meaningfully differ from the way a democracy is supposed to be run? Shareholders are treated as "voters" in a democratic organization, where 1 share = 1 vote.

[Gibbon1]

Despite the common wisdom governments tend to care a lot about citizens bitching. A friend used to work as a lawyer for a state utility board. They sit and listen to rants by 75 year old cat ladies and then consider how to mollify them.

[rabidrat]

So who gets the majority of shares in the country? Should it be the executives, or the funders? Maybe we should have a 1 vote per tax-dollar system.

[0815test]

Wait, I thought the way this whole "shares and CEO's" thing was supposed to work is that Moldbug would get to decide that, and everything would work just fine afterwards.

[bilbo0s]

Being a small shareholder is even worse.

[rdiddly]

True, the shareholder role is certainly better than the "employee" role for example.

[Gibbon1]

> shareholders

Shareholders have zero say in how modern corporations are run.

[internet_user]

Why? Can't the vote? There is even such a thing as activist shareholders.