2000-11-13 04:51:00
Stimulating post Keith, but I think some clarification is needed here.
As the book of Revelation tells us, the Beast has seven heads and in addition to corresponding seven world kingdoms since the beginning of recorded history, it also is symbolized by seven divisions of mankind which are:
(1)Politics/government (2) education (3) military/enforcement agencies (4) the arts/entertainment (5) science/medicine (6) religion (7) business and organizations - lodges etc.
These also correspond to the Seven Rays and the beast of authority does permeate each one of them.
However this beast is not slain by changing these organizations, but by shifting the attention of the individual from the authorities on the outside to the authority of the Spirit within. A person can be a member of a benevolent church, business or organization and yet still mindlessly follow the authorities without.
The beast is the mindless following of anything - good or bad in design. Even mindlessly following the words of Jesus in the Bible carries the mark of the beast.
For more details of my teaching on this please read my first 100 posts where this concept is thoroughly explored.
Yes, there are problems with all of these organizations and if we solve these problems and inject more freedom of choice into their functioning then it will make the lives of those who have the mark of the beast more enjoyable and provide an atmosphere where this mark can be removed.
However, as I am presenting the matter I am talking about business and government as existing on their own outside of the mark of the beast. The beast is not caused by anything "out there" but is created by the focus of the minds of the people. One can escape the mark of the beast no matter how corrupt things are "out there."
That said there is a big difference between big business and big government in the wielding of power and that is this: In the United States, for instance, business as a whole is split into millions of divisions. In turn, big business is divided into thousands of larger divisions. Among these divisions there is fierce competition one with another which aids in better service and lower prices.
On the other hand, the federal government is only one entity. Now some may argue that there are three divisions within it, but there are also three or more divisions with each big business so for the sake of correspondences the government is like one big business having a monopoly within its sphere with no competition allowed.
The government's position of power is far, far removed from the power of any one big business with perhaps the exception of the Federal Reserve, which is rarely open to criticism. But then the Federal Reserve (which is a private business) has its power because of the endorsement and grants from the federal government - so again government and not business is to blame here.
To blame big business for our ills is like blaming big people. The people are composed of many individuals, good and bad. As a whole we could point our fingers at this wholeness and blame our problems on humanity. So what should we do? Take away the freedom of individuals to choose good and evil so all humanity as a whole will do no wrong?
God forbid.
Even so business is made up of thousands of entities who in turn are made of millions of people, some good and some not so good. Should we take away the power of businesses to choose between good and evil so none can dare offend us?
God forbid.
If freedom is allowed to flow through individual entities, corporate entities, and group entities then water will reach its own level and the end will be good even though there are problems in the middle.
Government does have a purpose and that is to protect freedom and the purpose of any law or restriction should have an end product that the freedom of the majority is enhanced. But at present all governments gravitate toward greater and greater restrictions and force, where the majority is not served, thus causing the minorities to eventually be not served also.
You speak of the advantages that big business has over small business. I have been a small businessman most of my life and I have never, not once, suffered an injustice from a big business. I could probably imagine one, but in fairness I cannot think of one.
I am presently in the sign business. The big national sign businesses in our area are Signs Now and Fast Signs.
What are their advantages over my wife and me?
National names
National Advertising
More money to run TV ads, big yellow page ads
Closer ties to government bids and contractors.
So, does this destroy the little me?
No.
These local franchisers had to invest over $100,000 to start their business.
We had to invest about $5,000 to provide the same service.
They hire employees that cost not only salaries, but other expenses due to government regulation.
We have no employees.
Consequently we have a big advantage over Big Sign.
We can provide a quality product (usually better than Big Sign) for a lower price.
Consequently we rarely advertise any more because we keep as busy as we can be. Sometimes we wish customers would go away.
If there were not so many problems created by government in hiring employees we would take a stronger look at expanding, but this is put on hold because our expansion interests are now in the direction of publishing.
Bottom line: Is anyone here in Boise forced to go to Big Sign instead of us?
No.
Before this business I was in real estate. I chose not to go into big real estate such as Century 21. Instead I started out working for a small broker with only two agents that made a deal with me for a 90% commission split if I helped pay office expense. Now if I worked for Century 21 I would have only received a 50% commission split.
People entering real estate are advised to have enough money to live on for six months. When I entered I had enough to live on for two weeks, but I went to work and sold and closed a house within the two weeks and I was off and running. By the third month I sold seven homes in a 30 day period. I could have never done this working for Century 21 for they did not allow me the freedom I needed to work creatively. As it was, my broker did not care what I did as long as it was legal and I attribute my quick start to this freedom.
I have also worked in advertising and found similar benefits to being the small guy over the big guy. On the other hand, if I decide I want to be the big business instead of the small I have the right to go for it, but I can tell you this. I greatly admire successful businesspeople bigger than myself for the chances they have taken to get where they are. There is great risk involved in expanding a business (which I know from experience) and whoever succeeds by following the rules certainly deserves what they receive.
I have been a traveling salesman and sold in about half the states in this country and talked face to face with over 20,000 small businesspeople from New York to Ohio, to Missouri to New Mexico to California to just about every city in the Northwest. And what do they complain about?
Let me tell you what affects them is much different than you hear on the filtered media or the political organizations who are supposed to serve them
I can't even remember an instance of a single complaint about some big business creating a problem for them. Not even service stations. More often than this they will complain about some other small business down the street causing a problem. They realize that a big business could move in and hurt them, but most seem to accept that possibility.
And what is their major complaint?
Far above anything else is government interference, over regulation and taxation. You have no idea how much happier most of them would be if they could just work in freedom with big brother not being part of their every day problems.
Now, I'll briefly go through your points Keith.
(1) Big oil companies restrict competition in their markets by driving independents under by restricting access to raw materials and the means to refine these materials and get them to market. Financial institutions and banks will not lend large capital to small independent businessmen. These artificial obstacles prevent small businessmen from expanding to the size that would allow them to compete with the big boys.
JJ
So what are we going to do? Sick the federal government on them by creating hundreds of new regulations to cripple the big guys so the small guys can flourish?
It won't work. If you restrict the big guys the small guys are hurt too. Just look at the government's attack on Microsoft. This has caused many companies outside of Microsoft to lose billions.
Breaking up a true ironclad monopoly may aid the freedom of all, but attacking a business just because it is big and it uses its power in ways we do not like hurts the whole in the long run.
Yes, they do tie up patents but such things could be solved in one of two ways.
(A) Sooner or later another company will work around the patent and this will force the suppressed patent out of retirement if it has any value.
(B) A just law could be passed around this which makes a patent public domain if it lies dormant for 10-20 years.
(2) Big corporations are big polluters.
JJ
Yes, this is true and this is where the true service of government comes in. Just laws around this type of thing are good. The trouble is that many of the laws regulating pollution have been unjust and created from an emotional base and with emotional selectivity. The superfund cleanups also have not worked well and have brought many close to bankruptcy.
Business and law must work together cooperatively on this instead of pointing fingers.
(3) Restrictions and problems from HMO's.
JJ
HMO's became necessary because of government interference. When I had the accident mentioned in my previous post I was in the hospital for a month and my room cost $8 a day and my doctor visits were $5. I had no insurance and my mother just went through a divorce, received no child support and was making $.80 an hour. That was in 1958 when the price of gas was around $.39 a gallon. My sweet mom who had quit drinking after leaving my Dad paid it all off on her slowly increasing salary.
Now you can't stay a day in the hospital without forking out around $1000. That is an increase of 125 times what I was charged.
Let us suppose the price of gas went up this much. How much would we be paying?
Close to $50 a gallon.
Now let us suppose that hospital costs increased with a similar correspondence to gasoline. How much would we be paying a day?
We would be paying less than $40 a day for a hospital room.
So, why this big discrepancy?
Mostly due to government meddling.
Think of it. It wouldn't be the end of the world to have no insurance today if a hospital room only cost $40 a day, just like it is no big deal to go fill up our tank.
Filling up our tank though would be a big deal though if the cost was $50 a gallon.
(4) Major chemical and food corporations influence the decisions of the F.D.A. Food is big business world wide and corporate America is restricting my access to non-toxic foods. The A.M.A. is influenced in the same regard and restricts my freedom to alternative medicines. The Monsanto chemical corporation is restricting farmers' free choice to the crops they wish to grow. Monsanto also forces these farmers to use certain quantities and types of pesticides on the crops they grow.
JJ
Yes, this is a problem but again the FDA and AMA are arms of Big Brother and without them in the way, many of the problems you worry about would disappear. Big companies, small companies and individuals must all deal with their regulatory power.
On the bright side consider this. Thirty five years ago I was considered weird for eating whole wheat bread. At that time you couldn't find a store selling organic products. There were only a couple companies in the country where I could buy herbs and nothing available locally. The public awareness of healthy eating has grown 100 fold and this is the greatest power against government interference. When the demand for healthy food is high enough the good guys will finally get their way. It is just a matter of time.
5. Big corporations of the western world also restrict the freedoms of emerging third world nations.
JJ
The tyrannical governments of the third world are the real restrictors of freedom and will sometimes help corporations unfairly so more money will come their direction.
On the other hand, despite the problems and injustices which occur, the big businesses are doing more good than harm in the long run.
Some object: "But they starve the workers by paying them $1.00 a day. That's outrageous."
But ask the workers if they want the corporation to go away with their $1.00 a day job. They will say no. Without that corporation, in most cases the worker would have no job at all and no $1.00 a day coming in.
Without the injustices created by bureaucrats so they can benefit from and control the corporations, the evolution of these countries would proceed at a much more reasonable pace.
Like it or not the New Age will be ushered in by business. But business is evolving and within a 200 year period businesses will be much more user-friendly than they are now. If things go as planned, governments will assist rather than hinder in the creation of abundance.
"The time will come that the Constitution of the United States will hang as it were by a single thread."
Joseph Smith
Copyright 2000 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved