Look up Dodge vs Ford Motor Co. (1919) and the idea of "shareholder primacy". More recently, ebay vs craigslist (2010 - technically Domestic Hldgs., Inc. v. Newmark) found that Craig Newmark, founder of craigslist was acting illegally because he and his business partner Jim Buckmaster (they were majority shareholders between them; ebay was a minority shareholder) wanted craiglist to remain primarily a service that benefits local and national communities rather than purely a maximizer of shareholder value.
that private tyrannies topic is so interesting. the first time you hear it you think its absurd. what a ludicrous statement. after some while you realize its not that absurd and there is some truth to it. however still sounds fishy. later on you realize its pretty accurate and also so obvious and simple as a concept.
So then IF Chomsky wants Anarchy so bad, why hasn't Chomsky ever tried to implement it himself, and show it actually works in the Real World? Instead of Chomsky becoming a multi-millionaire himself via Capitalism?
Aren't we lucky to have Noam Chomsky to judge, ' Regulating Corporations '? After all, who could be better qualified on this subject, than a Linguistics Professor, with ZERO Real World Experience in Law, or Finance, & who has never even run a burger stand? This makes perfect sense-Right??? UGH-It is a tragedy that anyone actually takes this ridiculous old man seriously! SMH
@@tyroneedge8267 , Because you asked so nicely, here is my own condensed resume: -Former Executive Position at an International Corporation -Former U.S. Military Intelligence, with Security Clearances, Commendations from my Superiors, and Honorably Discharged. -Current President of my HOA. So I have actually achieved more than merely criticize everyone else from the sidelines, involving fields that he has never actually worked himself, which is everything outside Linguistics! :-)
M CK thank you for your detailed reply. Calling someone “just a critic” is pretty disingenuous. He’s clearly done plenty of research which you dismiss with your “just a critic” comment. Congratulations on your success in your chosen fields, but you’re not exactly convincing with your “he’s just a critic” dismissals. There is tons of research and evidence to go into each claim here- which you don’t even address individually at all- you just issue a blanket dismissal with no evidence whatsoever to back it up. Sorry, totally unconvincing. Please provide specific evidence that what is being said here is false, or else your no-effort denials will be ignored as they should be. Your resume doesn’t mean a thing. You have address zero of the issues. Perhaps reading “How to Argue” would be useful. I’m open to listening to your specific proof, but you can do much, much better than “He’s just a critic” with a resume like that.
@@tyroneedge8267 , Your post suggests that perhaps you did not see the larger point I am making clearly: Chomsky is a Linguistics Professor who has in fact spent his career criticizing others in fields that he has never actually worked himself-Which is everything outside Linguistics-And all with the great luxury of Hindsight-Hindsight which those whom Chomsky criticizes did not have at the time! So to use a sports analogy, this is the forensic equivalent of Chomsky watching video of last season’s NFL games, pointing out the losing team’s mistakes, and then using that knowledge to judge the performance of the players & coaches on the field! Which makes Chomsky no more than a very intelligent-sounding Monday-Morning-Armchair-Quarterback, and renders his criticisms of others essentially Worthless-Even If Factual! And so the Worse that Chomsky believes that those whom he criticizes have acted all these years, then the Worse this makes Chomsky himself look, for never getting involved in these fields himself, and-with his superior wisdom-Show he can do better! Instead of merely criticizing everyone else from the sidelines-Which is precisely what Chomsky has done his entire career!
@@mck1972 Your argument that because someone is not, for example, a professional politician, that we have no right to criticize them, is preposterous, and, if you are American, entirely counter to the protections engendered by your constitution. You live in a society that has a very free press, yet you seek to invalidate the deeply researched and clearly factual criticisms (seeing as many of the documents are declassified government memos) of someone who you seem to admit has "factual" criticisms...that are somehow at the same time "worthless." That is circular logic of the highest order. Chomsky points out countless times the continual, repeated violations of international law that repeat in an endless pattern, gives clear examples backed by actual documentation, yet somehow this is all invalid because apparently you can't criticize political and corporate power brokers unless you once were one? Your arguments violate the rules of arguing. Read "How To Argue" and let's reconvene.
