TED Conversations

James Kindler
Pittsburgh, PA
United States

Mental Health Recovery Coordinator,

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

How do we get corporations out of government.

Large corperations run our government, thay donate huge amounts of money for which they are rewarded. The government no longer represents the people but rather the corporations. We are supposed to be a representitive republic but our needs are not being represented, the corporations are. This is why I'm in the occupy movement, to try and return to our constitution and excercise my rights. We want the government to represent us and not the corporations, they are not people. Everyone thinks we are there to get money from the 1%, while this may be true for many what I have just written is true for me and most in the movement.

+22

Sort By:

Uday Pasricha 100+
- 0
TED Attendee Associate

Jan 25 2012: The challenge is the opposite/inverse. How do we insure that we get Governments out of businesses. This means that discretionary powers that allow exception must be eliminated to tackle this scourge. In simple term this means creating more and more transparency through data, which is easier for all to see and out in public domain. Changing politicians or business ethics is a waste of time. AS we have seen last for more than a decade one or two rotten apples can bring down governments, economies and corporations. Transparency is created by design and process. It is an involuntary process that generates the data/information within the process design.
- Krisztián Pintér 200+
  - +1
  TED Translator
  
  Jan 25 2012: yesssss :)
  
  how nice is that! the conversation started with me saying this, and now it ends with the same statement. i like symmetry :)
- James Kindler 20+
  - 0
  Jan 25 2012: Hi Uday
  I said the same thing in one of my posts. What we need is to get corporations out of government and government out of corporations. The two working together is a financial nightmare for all.
Tim Colgan 50+
- 0
Jan 25 2012: Great conversation you started James. I invite you all to continue it here:

http://www.wedialog.org/conversations/69 (or start a new conversation at weDialog if you wish).

(posts won’t be deleted. threads go to unlimited depth. conversations will continue indefinitely. conversation initiator defines the parameters).

Hope to see you there.
- James Kindler 20+
  - 0
  Jan 25 2012: Thank you so much Tim, this is a conversation that needs to continue. People have a lot of ideas and they are all helpful and we can learn from them. Together we can create our representative republic again, we just have to come out and share ideas and start the process. I hope that people take action with their words and start to get invoved in writing their representatives to speak about what's wrong and help make it right. Senate bill 1867 is what really scares me, I'm afraid that if we do come out and show our discontent with the government, we will be detained. We need to be peaceful and show in mass to get anything to change, we need to voice our message just as we have done on this sight. Thanks again!
Armistral .
- +1
Jan 25 2012: Thor I understand your point and agree that the true cost of corporate "profits" are not calculated and this would suggest another (and not at all contradictory) course of action to improve the situation by ensuring we are doing a "real cost" calculation and collecting it in the form of taxes somewhere (as a user fee for the planet, the people and the resources if nothing else). I have to disagree that the profit motive should remain unchallenged as the basis of corporations. If you redefine profit in the way you suggest (and I agree with) you are in fact including the ideal of responsibility in the idea of profit. I would simply put it to you that adding something along the lines of "it is every for-profit corporations right to pursue a profit in on behalf of the company shareholders and their responsibility to pursue this profit in a way that profits society as a whole. In other words the right of profit for some is balanced with the responsibility of providing a net benefit to all.

I would agree the public needs to take on more responsibility (at the level of universal human rights and responsibilities, see here:http://www.wesolver.org/wiki/Universal_rights_and_responsibilities) but the corporation should also be defined not as an individual person but as a collection of individuals who are all sharing the equal rights and responsibilities of any single one of them. In other words a corporation is "a collection of people" their collective rights should not exceed that of any individual and their collective responsibility is assumed by each of them personally (as individuals). Holding people (under a corporate alias) accountable in this way I think accomplishes what both of us are interested in without conflict.
lin zhao
- 0
Jan 25 2012: I have the same opinion with you !
Alvaro Peralta
- +2
Jan 25 2012: The concept of democracy is that a peoples elect the government. There should be simply a citizen tax that goes to a pool from which elections may be run and each candidate should get an equal amount of money. One vote equals one flat voting tax. This tax should represent the cost of running an election, minimal advertising funds and lots of access to community space and forums for discussion. Corporations should NEVER be allowed to donate, not even in kind, to government.Nor should they be allowed to participate in debates. Other avenues should be set up for dialogue between state and business. And there should be a lot more referendums to get people used to participating and voting.
Brian Cady
- +1
Jan 25 2012: Perhaps we can give assemblies of natural persons; corporations and such, lesser rights than natural persons.
Brian Cady
- 0
Jan 25 2012: Lawrence Lessig addresses this in the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOYI1nUhXcQ&feature=player_embedded
Brian Cady
- 0
Jan 25 2012: John Michael Greer, in his wonderful _The Wealth of Nature_ talks about enacting the equivalent of prison and death sentences for felonious corporations; the first by the state taking over a corporation's operations, and profits, for a set length of time, the latter by disbanding the corporation so sentenced, at the shareholders expense.
Brian Cady
- 0
Jan 25 2012: One step might be to transform corporations from a one dollar:one vote format to a one owner:one vote. This would be more democratic.
It could be argued that this interferes with the private contract between shareholder and corporation, but in taking the form of a corporation, favored as corporations are by government, the contract involves the public, and so can be changed by our representatives.
Shareholders not liking one owner:one vote could form unincorporated partnerships, etc. with a one dollar:one vote format, but we, as our government, are under no obliigation to continue to favor, in licencing as corporations, these less democratic arrangements.
Dan Hegerich
- 0
Jan 24 2012: Your mind can rationalize anything.
- James Kindler 20+
  - +1
  Jan 25 2012: It can't rationalize what's happening to this country.
Stephen Lewis
- +1
Jan 24 2012: One of My hero s is Tankman. He did not stand in front of those tanks for money. (unless of course someone said I'll give you 50 bucks to go stand in front of that tank.)haha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-nXT8lSnPQ

He's a fine example of One man saying volumes without saying a word.
KVEPALU SALA
- +2
Jan 24 2012: I am a big believer in the power of ideas
James Kindler 20+
- +1
Jan 24 2012: To date this comment has 414 other comments, I can't believe how many people are interested in this subject. It looks like people are talking after all and that's what we need. We then need to write our congressman, senators and such and let them know what we are thinking. We need to turn out in mass to support good ideas for change. We need to pull our money out of large banks and put in smaller banks. we need to unite and fight back, these people we have been talking about don't own us and never will. Shop and buy local, use mom and pop stores even if it costs a little more, not all can do this but many of us can. Vote wisely and see beyond the lies, if you don't think they can do what they say, they probably can't. God bless and thank you all for your input. Together we can bring about the much needed change in this country.
- Michael M 30+
  - +1
  Jan 24 2012: James
  Thanks for a great question and very good moderating. There were some real issues dealt with in this question. Whether I agreed with all the people who participated or not, thanks for all the great responses. Dialogue is not about agreeing necessarily, but examining other's ideas and your own.
- Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
  - +2
  Jan 24 2012: James,
  
  Yes!! Well done. This conversation will be read and referred to long after it closes a few hours from now.
  
  Many excellent contributors here who have elevated the conversation about corporations above the dualistic thinking and polarities that got us into this mess in the first place. If we can keep going in that direction, at that plane, here at TED Conversations and in the many other venues where we speak and act and work we might start to see ourselves moving towards a more creative , productive, balanced, wise and sustainable relationship with corporations.
  
  We need corporations and all individuals willing to take the financial and other risks of research, innovation, creation and discovery to move us forward as a people of earth. But we need better more fluid and effective ways of encouraging that in a direction which creates what serves mankind and earth. We need to find more creative, resilient and dynamic ways of insuring that what is produced or extracted, is not only desirable and useful for mankind but also causes no harm to the planet or to the health and safety of people.
  
  As a lifelong advocate and activist in the old school of seeking solutions in laws, regulations and highly empowered oversight bureaucracies, I now see we went about this all wrong..
  
  The more global the realities of life are, the less effective this old way is.
  
  The old way sets up polarities where they may have been room for solutions and new possibilities.
  
  I think we can collaboratively find a new path that defines a more creative relationship between the public interest and free enterprise.
  
  I hope part of that collabortion can and will happen right here at TED Conversations.
Stephen Lewis
- 0
Jan 24 2012: I have gained some insights from other points of view from this topic. I hope it spills over into the other conversations or continues to a new one.

The Beatles told us; "We can work it out" (he just didn't include John in the We)

Thanks again James for your commitment to action.
Thor Hempel
- +1
Jan 24 2012: I came into this from threads recently updated and made a few comments before realizing how deep this conversation has gone. I am rereading from the original thread sequence and am so encouraged by the insights into open systems, eliminating corporate person-hood, the rebirth of a commons and the repudiation of the rugged individualism that survived as long as their were natural resources lands and peoples to be conquered. WoW!
Dan Hegerich
- 0
Jan 24 2012: What do you mean by judicious use of the resources available? We do have a conscious and that is a very important resource, we do have an immagination, we do have free will to make choices of which every choice we make is our expression of Heaven on Earth. So what resources are you referring to? Gas, Oil, food, etc...change is inevitable yet transformation is optional. Transformation is what we are asking for in this dialogue and any transformation requires a change in consciousness. Therefore, how will you change the consciousness of corporations, government officials, bankers, the 1%, without first a change in your own consciousness. Consider your mind can rationalize anything. To talk about gas, oil, food etc... your attempting to solve a problem at the level of thinking which created it.
James Kindler 20+
- 0
Jan 23 2012: I agree Ralph, we need more people writing their legisltor as many of us do. We need everyone to do it to see change.
Ralph Handy
- 0
Jan 23 2012: If you can't limit the influence of the corporate lobbyists then you must increase the influence of the people's lobbyists. The Occupy Movement is great for increasing public awareness but what is the action being taken behind the awareness? Most large corporations will make contributions to both candidates so they will be favored regardless of who wins. It is their lobbyists that actually write the laws they want passed and submit them to the politicians with all the perks needed to get the job done. In my opinion we will only be able to reduce the influence of corporations by limiting their financial contributions and having a strong counter lobbyists center. At a grassroots level it is going to take more communication from the individual constituents.
Dan Hegerich
- +4
Jan 23 2012: To think that the corporations run our govenment- think again. To think that we have a government-think again.

You spend you money on stuff that supports corporations which then gives them the fuel they need to influence the false heart of humans-greed! Stop buying the stuff of corporations and you starve them of the very food that makes them grow big and strong. Start spending money on those things that creates health, liberty and happiness for all who are willing to participate in creating Heaven on Earth.

We do not have a government because we the people of the USA are the government. Every complaint we have against government is a direct complaint against our self. Government is a reflexion of the people. We have a corrupt government as an expression of currupt people voting into office corrupt people. If you desire absolute democracy then you must Govern yourself and reject the temptations of your false heart-your greediness. SELF Governing is True Democracy. It requires SELF discipline in order to Self Govern and we must hold a vision of our future self in order to exercise our free will towards Self Government.

How you live life and exprience love is your current expression of Heaven on Earth.
- Tim Colgan 50+
  - 0
  Jan 23 2012: Dan, although I take issue with your focus on greed, see:
  
  http://www.ted.com/conversations/8519/how_do_we_get_corporations_out.html?c=398180
  
  I do think you are right in pointing out the importance of our individual behaviour to our dilemma.
  
  I recently read an interesting statement - “we need to get beyond the belief in the idea that every human owning a car is a basic human right”. Something in that comment touches on an important issue to human progress. The idea of refocusing our priorities to the things which truly enhance our fulfillment. I don’t think that humankind lacks the material resources for all humans to live satisfying lives. But it is important that we make judicious use of the resources available to us.
  - Stephen Lewis
    
    +2
    Jan 24 2012: Ultimately, we all seem to agree that there are some fundamental problems but we seem to be arguing in different scales of the problems.
    
    You Tim and others are arguing that the details of the Constitution are being manipulated by government using policy and by corporation using finance. I am blending this entire conversation down into what I sense with that claim and am trying to say that your argument is; The devil is in the details of the systems of checks and balances.
    
    I and I think Dan and others would agree that the main problem with government and corporations is that the people who lead those entities, don't follow the behavior that the Preamble to the Constitution projects. Not the image that I have anyway. Furthermore, the people, who actually do have a voice, in both government and corporation at the cash register (not the voting booth), aren't exactly living the lifestyle that is implied in the Preamble either. That is essentially the mission statement of each individual and is each individuals responsibility, if they themselves desire freedom.
    
    In order for me to justify the freedom I have, I must insist that everyone is entitled to the same. Anyone being entitled to any more or less of anything is not in the spirit of equality. I consider a vast majority of the things we have in some way are harmful to other specific people on this planet. My desire for a coke is harmful to other people on this planet in some not so obvious ways but hang on, I've got a party coming up this weekend and guess what goes great with rum. When I behave in this manner, I consider that to be "greedy". Perhaps I could choose another word that is more suited to my beliefs but then again, that would just be semantics. I would still feel the same way just with a different vocabulary.
    
    This might be a good add to the conversation. If you make profit, how is that an equal trade? (this question is more at the root of the concept and not what happens in the market place.)
    - Michael M 30+
      
      +1
      
      Jan 24 2012: Stephen
      A really good post. I think you are correct in your general description of people who have participated in this dialogue.
      
      I am not against profit or even people making money. My biggest concern is how that money is used. Is it used to exploit more people? Is it used to buy undo influence either in the marketplace or in Congress? Is it used to actually multiply the common good? See I believe there are companies who try to do that. They do make a buck, but somehow in all of that, the common good, more jobs, better products, a better world (at least materially) is out there. We don't live in a barter society, so attempting to say profit production is not an equal trade just doesn't make much sense. But again, what are corporations doing with their profits?
      
      In my own personal life I am coming to revalue some things: solitude and quiet, work that is fulfilling and makes me happy, a lifestyle that enjoys while not exploiting.
James Kindler 20+
- +1
Jan 23 2012: Thanks Don
We are tring to wake the 99% up and when we do things will change. It will change when it's everyone and not just a few. We are trying hard to the seperate corporations and government message out there and just from this post you can see it garners a lot of interest. I own my own house and car but have to listen to many people drive by and yell "get a job " Camping in 20 degree weather is symbolic and won't be a way of life for me but if it gets people taliking then that's what we need. As for the drivers by, they only know what the media has put out which has not been flattering. We are not a bunch of young rich kids or hippies, we are people just like all of you. We range in age from 20-70 and have many supporters not camping. Maybe I'll make a sign that says you may have money and food but you are owned.
- Tim Colgan 50+
  - +1
  Jan 23 2012: James - Your experience with the Occupy movement fascinates me. Wish I could be out there camping as well. I visited the Occupy Philly site a couple of times and found it very intriguing. Can’t help but think that as the weather warms and the elections approach that the movement will fully blossom and have a profound effect on our whole political system. And I wish to thank people like you who are keeping the flame burning.
  
  I’m curious as to your opinion related to Andrea’s comment:
  
  http://www.ted.com/conversations/8519/how_do_we_get_corporations_out.html?c=396878
  
  One thing that strikes me about the Occupy movement is the diversity of opinions which it represents. Many of these viewpoints are non-conventional and as such may be political non-starters. But it does seem that the one issue which is accepted by the majority of Americans is that money has too big an influence on politics.
  
  So my question to you - do you see a congealing around this issue? Are the people you are around able to put aside some of the more tangential issues which they care about and unite around this one?
  - James Kindler 20+
    
    0
    Jan 23 2012: My computer wouldn't let me make a comment on Andreas comment or at least not one that would go through. But I did comment that I signed the petition and asked her what a Q-Thread was because I don't know. Thank you for your support of Occupy, I'm trying to build consensus around the idea, no short chore.
Armistral .
- +4
Jan 22 2012: I would turn this question on it's head and ask "How do we better govern corporations?" specifically instead of railing against the legal concept that corporations are people (even if collective ones) give them their rights (as a collective) and add their responsibilities and back this concept up with the force of law. Ghandi (among others) was on a very productive path when he talked about rights and responsibilities and I do not believe you can have one without the other. A right in order to be "granted and guaranteed" must be the responsibility of all people to grant and guarantee it. Every right includes a responsibility (to be redundant). So start with improving (in the US) the bill of rights to include (with the force of law) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and add all the corollary responsibilities.

This does not get corporations out of government so much as recognize them formally under existing rights (the right to assemble) and add their responsibilities. Right now in the US the only formal responsibility of a "for profit" company is to make a profit...this is enshrined in law and it is at the heart of the problem (in my view).

I have also posted this solution here: http://www.wesolver.org/wiki/Universal_rights_and_responsibilities as a solution to the problem of the for profit corporation here: http://www.wesolver.org/wiki/The_For_Profit_Corporation

I would love comments on this idea (as it relates to the orignal topic).
- Michael M 30+
  - +3
  Jan 23 2012: Amistral
  I do think you are on to something with the rights/responsibilities thing. What we do need however is also a description at least of what those corporate responsibilities would look like. One, off the top of my head, would be pay your taxes!
  - Armistral .
    
    +1
    Jan 23 2012: Agreed. A project I would like to so is for people to get together and describe what they believe should be those corporate rights and responsibilities. Open it up to everyone and rate the top content, government then can and should use this as input into making laws.
    - Thor Hempel
      
      +1
      
      Jan 25 2012: "...the only formal responsibility of a "for profit" company is to make a profit..." and I would suggest it stay that way for purposes of simplicity. I recall ethics and similar business classes that ultimately created situations that would create more work for lawyers and politicians. The profit motive is an efficient one. The issue to me is how and who defines profit? Why are the externalities such as waste, pollution and health issues not properly accounted for? Why are the public facilities and services not properly charged for? How is it that producing weapons of mass destruction are profitable while clean water, alternative energy, education and health care require subsidies or are dependent on charity. Get the accounting right , create situations where those things that advance civilization are profitable and let them compete to get it done. The Chinese have a saying that another man's margin is an opportunity. I wonder how inexpensive the things we really need would become if we just made it profitable. I also wonder how we could afford to have an under educated population of unhealthy people that are deprived of the necessities of life that turn to drugs and crime to survive. Should prisons be one of our fastest growing industries? I would suggest the problem is not profit but rather the accounting and that is where we, the public , the people (the breathing kind with a pulse) need to take on more responsibility.
Stephanie Parks
- +2
Jan 22 2012: It will require a whole lot of hard work, but it can be done by a real movement that uses the present system to elect people who are not backed by corporations. A superpac can spend millions of dollars to its media partners (rather incestuous, it seems), but we actually have the means to combat them on the internet by promoting candidates to run for the available senate and congressional seats, which are basically local contests. Choose the party that ailgns most with your core philosophy, and promote a candidate who is reasonable and willing to work to reach solutions. Not one Superpac has a vote. It is our job as responsible people to encourage better candidates. Americavotes.org is doing this, and probably others. One big problem, however: people have to work with others of totally different views; each one must give up the need to be right and work on common goals. Can we do it any better than our politicians?
ralph haulk
- 0
Jan 22 2012: Mardshall had a sharp mind, but hios decisions were not "without fail". He was a federalist, and hios decisions were usually chosen to further his federalist intent. The founders, both federalists and anti-federalists, had a good working knowledge of history, and could for the most part present far better arguments than we can today. The problem here is that the constitutio n is the "law of the land" for federal interpretations, but it is not actually what the founders recognized as "law of the land". That law was in fact the common law, over which the federal government had no jurisdiction. That is still the way it stands, even if being ignored. This is not merely legal theory, this is historical fact, as i stated from historical documents and decisions. Your argument still amounts to straw man, whether intended or not.
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
- +2
Jan 22 2012: James,

Civic engagement is the key to keeping any democratic government on course in a way that serves "we the people".

Three recent issues show how even without the legislative and constitutional fixes we point to and seek," we the people" can take charge of our nations priorities and its agenda even against massive corpoare investment to "have it their way":

(1) Keystone Pipeline
(2) SOPA/PIPA ( Stop on Pircay--Hiuse and Senate Versions)
(3) Not Granting Banks immunity from criminal liability

In each, corporate interests invested a huge amount of money in lobbying congress and in public advertsing campaigns trying to persuade "we the epople' these were all things in our interest. Occupy awakened the 99% movement so people are more disposed now in their own hearts around their own dining room tables to work through to the truth and act on that. So when petitions come around from Move On or Credo or AARP or whatever groups express their views people are more likely, I think, to already understand the issue addressed and more ready to sign. And on these three issues "we the people" have been heard and we have had an effect

.None of these issues is fully put to bed..there's a lot of corporate money still pushing on all ( and more) but it is less likely they will sneak through now with so many milions of americans awake and watching and now better informed . In any democratic government, even one as constiutionally challenged and legsilatively impaired as our own in the U.S. at the moment, when all the people rise and speak we can drive legislativve agendas, we can drive prioriities, we can determine outcomes

.If no one is wtaching and noone is engaged, day by day, every day no amount of legislative and constiutional reform will bring change. Corporations and special interess will always seek to influence governement because so much of what corporations want to do is only possible with active legislative/government support.

It Takes Us.

Awake!!!

Engaged!!!
- James Kindler 20+
  - +2
  Jan 23 2012: Thank you Lindsey
  I got over 350 comments on this post, people are awaking and will hopefuly engage, that's the idea behing Occupy, wake up everyone.
Maxime Touzel
- 0
Jan 22 2012: Instead of asking

How do we get corporations out of governments ?

ask

How do we get governments out of corporations ?

And then change stuff.
- James Kindler 20+
  - 0
  Jan 23 2012: Hi Maxime
  I want government out of corporations also, but also corporations out of government. The two would operate more for the people if seperated. Thank you for your comment.
Andrea Morisette Grazzini 30+
- +2
Jan 21 2012: James,

As I answered earlier on your Q thread, two things must be prioritized to get corporations out of government.

One, to put major energies behind amending Citizen's United. MoveOn.org is answering your Q with a petition to President Obama urging him to also prioritize two things. One urging Obama to strongly declare his support of a constitutional amendment to Citizen's United.

http://pol.moveon.org/moneyinpolitics/?rc=pac_moneyinpolitics_letter.fb.v1.g0

I'm not a "joiner" of political issues groups. I'm not interested in my ideals being lost in the shuffle of groups who's vision I might agree with, but, whose means to achieve it, I sometimes disagree with. Beyond that, I don't sign many petitions. But this one is critical, so I did.

I added this note:

President Obama,

Neither our Founders nor Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would stand for Citizen’s United. It is an unconscionable co-option of We the People ideals.

Undoing Citizen's United is a cross-partisan win for our representative democracy.

The Framers designed our government to liberate America from foreign control. They rejected by-proxy interpretations of anti-citizen initiatives.

Our leaders, from the Founders to MLK, would roll in their graves to see how Citizen’s United corrupts our We the People ideals.

Take a stand, as they did, against by-proxy "shadow" government.
Take a stand, as they did, for the rights of individual citizens.
Take a stand, as they did, for no taxation, no representation.

Take a stand for hard working American taxpayers whose Congress and government is being represented by tax-sheltered corporations, many owned by non-tax paying foreign interests with increasingly less strategic interest in investing in America.

Regulation is not enough. Take a stand to amend Citizen's United.

Thank you,
Andrea Morisette Grazzini

Those here who are serious about getting corporations out of government should seriously consider signing, too.

Andrea
- Stephen Lewis
  - +1
  Jan 24 2012: By the way, I also went to your cite from one of the other posts. Very impressive. Nice work, Andrea.
  - Andrea Morisette Grazzini 30+
    
    0
    Jan 24 2012: Stephen,
    
    My understanding is Obama will take a strong populist stance tonight in State of the Union Speech. As I see it, his talk, should reinforce all serious citizens get serious about closing gaps in visible, sustained efforts.
    
    Andrea
- Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
  - 0
  Jan 24 2012: well said Andrea..I'll be listening tonight as well and looking for clearer, stronger more visionary policies not just on corporations and banks but on inclusion and opportunity for meaningful work, for wisdom on extraction based jobs and profits, for wisdom on sustaianable energy and a sustainable stable economuc policy.
  
  .This is not a night for inspired rhetoric, inflated claims or empty promises. It is a night to hear about the nuts and bolts of a change we can bring about together.
  - Andrea Morisette Grazzini 30+
    
    0
    Jan 24 2012: Lindsay,
    
    I think we'll hear visionary policies. But as you point out, they must be clear, real and perceivable. Anything too lofty won't fly.
    
    Inclusion of sustainability and less ecologically damaging economy is likely. More so, though, is manufacturing, I expect. Best if they are "married" solutions, where possible. Manufacturing speaks to cross-partisan calls for jobs, less complicated that environmental issues. Obama wants, as you point out, clarity and concrete deliverables.
    
    I expect another topic on the night will be education. I imagine evidence of the HigherEd and civic education effort American Commonwealth Partnership led by Harry Boyte and other is heading up will be present.
    
    Let's hope all focus less on corporate and gov't and more on aiding, abetting and engaging citizen agency and public assets.
    
    Andrea
  - Andrea Morisette Grazzini 30+
    
    0
    Jan 25 2012: Lindsay (and all) --
    
    Here is what President Obama on getting corporations out of government:
    
    ""Send me a bill that bans insider trading in Congress, and I will sign it tomorrow. And, while we're at it, lets make sure that people who bundle campaign funding, can't."
    
    From his State of the Union speech, tonight.
    
    Andrea
    - Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
      
      0
      
      Jan 25 2012: may it be so
    - Krisztián Pintér 200+
      
      0
      
      TED Translator
      
      Jan 25 2012: meanwhile, mr president, you might stop handing out bailout money to selected corporations. also stop spending zillions of dollars on new (and occasionally nonfunctional) weapon systems. because, you know, we might get the impression that you serve special interest groups. and it would be a disappointment. for some.
Stephen Lewis
- 0
Jan 21 2012: @ Justen

""I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, to be honest. What are you getting at? What alternative do you suggest?""

The point I am making is that you make a lot of claims. Long, multiple post claims that suggest, if we do what you do, we will find our way out of this mess. You seem to be talking from the point of view that you have answers when it is clear to me that if anyone had answers, we wouldn't have anything to discuss here.

A lot of this mess is created while we are trying to make things better and people are less barbaric now than just 500 years ago. Governments, corporations, free markets all are made of people who get along better now than in the past. This is growth and I am optimistic.

Also I am not prepared to offer my suggestions as they have all been brought up, discussed, praised, criticized. Every suggestion I make is exactly right to some but way off the mark for others. Understanding this truth is crucial when deciding what"s the right thing to do.

You mention and are a member of groups that not everyone can get into and that is where I draw the line. We are already members of a group and any suggestion of separation is an invitation to war.

""If you want to be part of the solution, and not part of the problem, do it. You don't need a committee, you don't need a vote, and you don't need permission.""

How condescending. That is what I'm talking about. That is my point.

Everyone is both the problem and the solution. Not only do I not need permission, I do not have a choice. Nor does anyone else.
Justen Robertson 50+
- 0
Jan 21 2012: Well I think I've said all I wanted to say here, spent more time than I probably should have at it, and exhausted my ability to contribute anything productive to the conversation. Thanks everyone for the input and conversation, apologies if I left anything unresolved, have a good weekend :)

Load more comments…

Sign In

To join or start a conversation, you'll need to sign in. Not a member? Register Now (it's free and fast).

Live Conversations

Live Conversations are hosted by TED speakers and TED Fellows. Ask your questions and participate in the discussions on the following dates and times: