Ok thank you for that.
Originally Posted by jody
I see 2 Important things here that would have to be dealt with. One is about the People in these businesses and their relationship to the Environment & Society. There needs to be a Strong connection here because if problems arise from anything these businesses are involved with, they need to feel it for themselves. It Needs to affect & impact their Lives so that whatever decisions their making, it's going to affect them personally & psychologically so they would be more inclined to study the Externalities and how it affects them and not just how it affects others.
So I think you said something in your plan about these People would be Living in these communities where these decisions are being made. I think this is an excellent way for people to be more aware & alert at the consequences their decisions will have. In our current form of Capitalism, the Opposite is happening where the people who are making these decisions can live in places nowhere near where the effects of their decisions will be felt often Negatively.
The other thing I want to mention is related to this and it's about the Values & Priorities of these people. It's also part of the ethos needed for a NLRBE to be realized. Conventional Capitalism pushes for more Competitive/Selfish Values so we get all the problems we have today. If these type of Values creep into the System you are describing, it will only hurt the overall integrity & success of what it is we are trying to build here. So to me it would be Extremely important to have a set of Values in place in these Businesses/Communities that Everyone lives by that are concerned with having a Symbiotic relationship with the Environment. Because if we don't, we see what happens in the destruction & degradation in all of Life happening today in our current Capitalist model.
I may be off on that one a little as the might be no legal mandate but the corporation is liable to be sued by the shareholders. Joel Bakan spells it out in his book "The Corporation" and a movie of the same title. The movie is available on YouTube.
Originally Posted by YouTuber
The belief that there exists some kind of Law mandating corporations to maximize profits on behalf of Shareholders is largely a myth.
There is no such Law....only the belief in it exists.....and under capitalism, our belief or faith in the words and deeds of successful capitalists reign highest among the people...Over and above any known scholar, philosopher or religious leader....
IMHO; Shareholders are usually clueless about where the money comes from...as long as it keeps on coming. Its why they will freely 'give away' the power they have as shareholders to the most unscrupulous 'financial' managers....That said; there is a 'divestment movement' that seems to be gaining strength on a global scale...as 'some' shareholders begin making their voices/POCKETBOOKS heard.....
I find your shareholders definition interesting, and as such would be keen to see some testing in a simulated environment with real people to discover how well it operates in practice, and to spot any flaws to be fixed, or improvements that could be made to it.
I have seen other types of share systems implemented, which tended to result in what we often see today, with shareholders voting for outcomes that the rest of us might rather disagree with !
Often of a short term profit based angle..
But I do feel that voting should be part of the decision making process someplace !
Two very necessary considerations.
Originally Posted by Ernest
As stated by the founder of ekistics, the primary goal of ekistics is human happiness. The corporate charter would serve as the social contract for the enterprise. It would limit the control that the executives have over the personal lives of the other members and clearly delineate that the executives serve at the behest of the community. In my ideal community layout there are 259 buildings housing 2,000,000 people. This ekistic unit should be politically autonomous, free of outside control. That way they are free to function as they see fit. There can be no ivory towers.
The policy makers of the communities must live among those who are affected by their policy decisions. If they adhere to the primary goal of ekistics they should be able to do so without an armed phalanx of body guards. Also it would be included in the charter the right to good leadership. All too often we have had to work under improperly trained leaders who limit our productivity. The corporation would have to conduct leadership training to minimize this phenomena. Poor leaders would necessarily be barred from any supervisorial positions.
The relationship of the communities with the land is crucial to its continued survival and agricultural productivity. If farming practices are not sustainable then the communities will eventually perish. Initially regenerative farming practices will be employed until which time the soils are returned to their optimum condition. With healthy soils we can increase our agricultural yeilds per acre freeing up land to be returned to wildlife habitat. I have been studying farming practices over the past few weeks and am thourougly convinced that it is possible to maintain our land to be productive in perpetutii. It's simply a matter of soil science. Check out some of Gabe Browns videos on no till farming.
Adequate safeguards must be in place to protect this enterprise from becomming an inadvertant dystopia. The potential for this is enormous and I think you have realized this. These safeguards must include preventing those who do not fully understant our mission and goals to become policy makers. To this end there would be a test covering all aspects of our corporate philosophy and mission. As much as we love the concept of democracy we must also acknowledge the consequences of low information voters. We cannot expose the success of our mission to low information voters. Therefore,before conveying the priviledge of voting, there must necessarily be a test to determine the voters level of familiarty with the subject being voted upon. Ignorant voters can wreck a society. There may be some who do not wish to devote their time to study the issues and this is well and fine as long as they have no say so on the issues. Many people just want a just and well managed society in which to live and contribute and could care less about the philosophical underpinnings. They should be accomadated, yet also protected from voting against their own interests.
I have done my best to answer your questions and welcome further inquires. Please let me know if I have been unclear.