[webmobdev]

> This is the idealistic view.

You work with the reality you live in, but you do strive for idealism. If you don't, you stagnate as the society rots.

The reality today is that in some democracies the balance of power has shifted from the people to the corporates. And that's unacceptable. Thinking that this is what's the best achievable in your democracy is just nihilistic and pessimistic attitude. Sitting silent is not an option. Regulation is one of the tools through which the government restores the balance between the corporates and the people. And it is possible to strike the right balance between the greed of the corporates and the need of the people.

[rglullis]

You are not "working with the reality you live in", you are effectively ignoring and denying reality in order to be able to sustain your worldview.

[webmobdev]

I am advocating political action for change in a democracy. Unless you live in a country that doesn't claim to be a democracy, this applies to any democracy. Just because your democracy is being screwed by the power to be, doesn't mean you stop believing in it and stop fighting for it.

[rglullis]

The issue is that the medicine you are proposing is oftentimes worse than the disease.

You call for increased regulations as a way to control corporations and "more power to the Government" but don't acknowledge the number of times that the elites have subverted the institutions for their own benefit. Sorry for the bluntness, but that is either malice or stupidity.

You completely ignored my argument that is important to look at the scale and reach of the democratic institution you're dealing with. It's all good if you say that you are working for democracy. It is not okay of your idea of democracy is to have some federal bureaucrat responsible in making decisions that affect so many people at once and does not take into account the desires and peculiarities of the people in the local level. I don't want Federal Government being responsible for and the arbiter of matters that are in the realm of the city council, much like I don't want the city council to step into things that should be in the realm of my neighbors association. The scale of power and reach matters. Do you understand that?

It seems your idea of "fighting for democracy" is in advocating more power and authority in an single entity and more central planning. History is filled with examples where centralization of power has always led to tyranny and abuse. Road to hell paved with good intentions and all...

So, before you start advocating for regulations that can affect so many people and have so many catastrophic unintended consequences, consider acting on the change on the smallest possible level: you. Once you do it and can honestly tell that the change was good, then you go a little bit higher in your circle and advocate for them to adopt the policies you did. Go bottom-up, not top-down. Not only is the most realistic way to affect change, it is the most ethical one.

[webmobdev]

> It seems your idea of "fighting for democracy" is in advocating more power and authority in an single entity and more central planning.

No, that isn't my idea at all - decentralisation and independence of institutions matter in a democracy. And I consider regulatory bodies as a NECESSARY institution of democracy that strive to balance the needs of the executive, the corporates and the people (consumers). Democracy is all about balancing everyone's needs and corporates too have a role, just as the consumers do too.

As a citizen of a country that was once enslaved by one of the largest corporate of its time (East India Company)^, to me you are the ignorant one here if you think that regulation has no role in a democracy.

^(The British East India Company — the Company that Owned a Nation (or Two) - http://www.victorianweb.org/history/empire/india/eic.html ).

[rglullis]

If your best example of a "corporate" that got so big and powerful to the point of enslaving a nation is one that was financed and supported by the largest Empire at the time, we should really re-frame the debate.

Which regulations do you think would've stopped East India from becoming what it did, and what democratic institutions do you think would have effectively restricted their unchecked expansion and abuse of power?

[tiktokdoc]

I didn't see any mention of "federal government" in his statements. Regulations can be localized.

[rglullis]

Every mention from OP is regarding democracy in the "country" and in the context of a powerful State to "fight" corporate interests. The discourse rings all the Socialist/Social-Democratic talking points. Not buying the idea that he is talking about local communities and direct democracies.

[webmobdev]

While I do believe in decentralization and am an advocate for it, I don't think it works well in the context of consumer rights that we are discussing. Different regulatory laws at different levels and in different states will just create a hassle for both the consumer and the corporate.

Democracy is about balancing the needs of everyone, and that includes the corporate too. Regulatory bodies should have the necessary independence to hold regular discussions with the stakeholders (the executive, the corporates and the people) so that appropriate regulations can be drafted and more importantly fairly enforced.

It is in the nature of corporate to vie for power with the sovereign and thus in a democracy it is very much necessary to ensure that the corporate never gain gain an upper hand to do so. Regulations can definitely help with this. But ultimately it all about finding the right balance as hurting the corporates too is not the aim and in the best interest of a nation.