[dalecooper]

A common logical fallacy is the false dichotomy of government vs. corporation. In modernity, there is no meaningful difference between the two. Power is a zero-sum game. Both groups must increase its own power by decreasing the power of the individual it encounters. Both consume power from people in the form of money, labor, information, abstract freedom, and civil liberties. Ultimately both groups can become most successful by being hostile to humanity (as opposed to "promoting human progress").

Welcome to the Kali Yuga! The age in which down is up.

[JoeAltmaier]

"Power is a zero-sum game" doesn't sound right. You inspire people to do something, they create something. You chill their spirit so they are dissolute, you lose something. Definitely possible to create and destroy power.

[dalecooper]

That's an excellent point. It would appear that the sum total of power ebbs and flows. In terms of power as expressed through its ostensible components (e.g. wealth, political strength, mechanical energy, etc.) this is certainly the case.

However, power is a transferable abstract (like currency). If you frighten a population into paralysis, then you may appear to lose creativity, motivation, economic wealth, etc. However, those losses simply become the "cost" of "buying" different forms of power.

[dllthomas]

'However, those losses simply become the "cost" of "buying" different forms of power.'

I don't think we can assume those are equal (or even of the same magnitude).

[pcrh]

Not quite. Corporations don't have the power to imprison (or in the US, execute) you.

[rayiner]

I find this unpersuasive. The typical person is justified in believing that the government has no interest in imprisoning or executing them. They are entirely justified in having a greater fear of private parties.

[pcrh]

Governments imprison people for minor perceived infractions of the law every day of the week.

[rayiner]

At least in the U.S., you have to pretty clearly violate the law in order to be imprisoned. You may think the law is stupid, but that's a different matter. You have less margin if you're a racial or political minority, but by definition that's not something the typical person has to worry about.[1] Indeed, in the U.S., the law adjusts pretty rapidly to what the typical person thinks should be acceptable. E.g. in the last couple of years we've gone from a majority of people thinking marijuana should be illegal to a (slight) majority thinking it should be legal (http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports...), and lo, there has been a wave of legalization activity around the country in the same time frame.

[1] I don't think people have the correct perception of how oppression works in a democracy. The line between the FBI trying to get MLK to commit suicide and the FBI imprisoning random middle-class white Americans is a lot bolder than people assume. I think the misunderstanding stems from a failure to appreciate the nature of oppressive government actions within a democracy. It's not like oppression of civil rights leaders in the 1950's and 1960's was the result of a self-contained entity within government, who could turn its attention to ordinary people at a whim. Instead, it was a classic case of the majority oppressing the minority, acting through government. Oppression of the majority requires an inversion of that power dynamic, and I think is harder to achieve than people assume.

This is all, of course, not to justify oppression of the minority. Rather, it's to point out that your typical person is quite justified in assuming the government has little reason to oppress him.

[pcrh]

I am not speaking of the effect that corporations may have on the legislative process, but rather of the effect of local policing on the lives of local people.

My concern is that excessive surveillance leads inevitably to excessive perceptions of culpability.

One does not need to be formally found guilty for a run-in with the law to lead to "temporary" detention and legal bills; and if you can't afford the legal bills, maybe you might be forced into plea bargaining and end up with a criminal record. Even if this scenario does not happen, a genuine harm to one's reputation as a result of "helping the police with their enquiries" often occurs, especially if one is a middle class corporate employee.

[harryh]

It's funny how fast you downgraded from governments imprisoning people to "genuine harm to one's reputation."

[dredmorbius]

The police don't have the power to imprison you either. They can arrest you and place you in jail. Prison requires courts.

Corporations can, and increasingly do, pursue actions against individuals which result in prison time being imposed, including for purely financial transgressions which bear an exceptionally strong resemblance to debtor's prison.

[pcrh]

To imprison versus to jail is a distinction in US English; apologies for my English...

Corporations per se do not have the ability to imprison people, they petition the government to do so. Corporations may sue people in the courts, but if the suit does not result in a criminal conviction (as opposed to a civil one), it does not result in imprisonment.

[dredmorbius]

Corporations do alter the law to make criminals of people. As happened, say, to Aaron Swartz, who faced at least 10 felony counts, $1 million in fines, and 50 years in prison.[1] The laws he was indicted under were supported by various online, software, and publishing interests. Pursuit of criminal charges against Swartz was initiated by JSTOR and MIT.

The same law made violating a Website's TOU/TOS a felony -- which in the case of 17 Magazine meant that visiting its website if you were in fact 17 was a Federal crime.[2]

The reform to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act which would have closed the loopholes under which Aaron Swartz was blocked by Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle Corporation.[3]

______________________________

Notes:

1. http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/217117-united-states-...

2. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/04/until-today-if-you-wer...

3. http://o.canada.com/technology/swart z-doc-director-oracle-and-larry-ellison-killed-aarons-law