[Bobboau]

you know I thought you were in favor of a world government, Rictor, isn't a globalised economy a requierment of that?

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Liberator
A corporation is a legally recognized entity with the sole purpose to make as much money as they can legally.  Anything beyond this is superfluous and not necessary.

Ambrose Bierce defined corporation slightly differently, and far more accurately, I think.

CORPORATION, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.

Even if we stay away from Bierce's wit, I would have to argue with your definition on but one point: A corporation's sole purpose is to gain as much advantage for itself as it can legally. Money is rather narrow, and is certainly a subset of 'advantage'.

[Bobboau]

well isn't the point of that 'advantage' to get Money?
I mean it all boils to that in the end doesn't it?

[mikhael]

That would be the obvious interpretation, yes. It is, however, the WRONG interpretation. As the Zen priest said (and Mr. Lee quoted), don't confuse the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself.

Money is a polite fiction. Its a numbering system for advantage. It a means of trading in power of various sorts.

Advantage is power itself. Advantage is being able to tell a cop '**** off' not because you have cash, but because you and the mayor are good buddies. Advantage is being able to blithely ignore your grades and collect that Yale degree you never really deserved. Advantage is being able to walk past the line of mensch into that exclusive nightclub. Advantage is being able to say, "Kill that man," and know that it will be done and that you'll never get in trouble for it.

Money buys advantage, but advantage is the goal.

[Liberator]

Once again I bow to your superior knowledge.  However, in the modern world, money is the ULTIMATE advantage.  It can bring you almost all the other forms of advantage if you have enough of it.

Speaking as a Conservative, Kaz, you continue to assume that because we do one thing, we intend to do harm to the people who are on the opposite side.  In point of fact the Welfare and Shelters that you seem to think we've done away with are being heavily abused and are not functionion as to their intended function.  Welfare was intended to act as a short term support mechanism for those who had lost their job unexpectedly.  It was not meant to be used as a permanent source of income.

[Kazan]

While I agree that it's not meant to be used as a permanant source of income, and that it's sometimes abused, the core of the assault against welfare is from the fundamentalist sexists

I'm a "liberal" in terms of rights - fiscally I'm for USING OUR FREAKING BRAINS

The only social welfare programs I'm for is socialized education (k-12 and college) and medicine.  When you socialize these you spend the least and get the most benefit.   socializing these often prevents you from having to socialize other things

[Rictor]

Corporation are, in essence, psychopaths. It is insane to allow an organization to exist, which is excused from moral responsibility. And it is even worse when you consider the power corporations have these days. The defense that a corporation is not obliged to adhere to the same "rules" as every single other person or organization on the planet, since its purpose is to make money for its shareholders and nothing else, is incomprehensible to me.

It comes down to what kind of world do you want to live in? I for one do not want to live in a world where ethics are secondary to profit. I do not want to be governed by law made by psychopaths. How any rational person can defend a corporation's "right" to disregard moral responsibility is beyond me. This very concept flies in the face of 500 years of democratic progress. It is fascism with a happy face.

There is an something being discussed in the WTO, this was in 2001 so it might have already been implemented, the VIA articles of GATS. This article takes power out of the hands of democratic bodies (congress, parliments, elected officials) to decide policy. Any law passed can be struck down if it is "more burdensome than necessary” to business. This authority overrides all sovereign powers for a country to govern itself as it wishes, according to the will of the people, and places it squarely in the hands of business. Basically, profits before people.

I've pimped it a few times before, but I will again recommend a documentary called The Corporation, which discusses many of these same issues. It coming to most major US cities around June/July, and I'de recommend shelling out the $5 to see it.

kaz: thats of respond to, so later today.

Originally posted by Liberator
Welfare was intended to act as a short term support mechanism for those who had lost their job unexpectedly.  It was not meant to be used as a permanent source of income.

The economy is a-changin'. Job stability is way down, and people are changing jobs more often with longer periods of time inbetween.

[ionia23]

But companies outsourcing to save money on labor is, in principle, no different than using a coupon at a grocery store.  You are purchasing a same, or similiar, product or service for less than it is normally sold.

"Greed is good.  Greed works." - "Wall Street"

[Ghostavo]

Rictor... I have finally seen what your ideals for a "better" world are... communism!

[Bobboau]

you just _now_ figured that out?

[Rictor]

Since when are there only two options, communism or unrestrecited capitalism? Both suck. I would not like to live in a communist society, not even one done right, unlike the current implemenations. I also would not like to live in a world where the bottom line reigns supreme, this you almost invariably get a very few elites exploiting the rest of the population, grossly uneven distribution of wealth etc etc.

Capitalism is an inherently flawed system, and certain laws must be passed to ensure that the people get the most out of it. The flaw is that greed, exploitation, and generally unethical behaviour is rewarded with power and wealth. So, bad deeds are rewarded, which, I think most people will agree, is not the world you would like to live in.

[Liberator]

Maybe, but I find generally that good deeds are rewarded as wel, if not better than bad deeds.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Rictor
Since when are there only two options, communism or unrestrecited capitalism?  

Since when are there only two options, Rictor's way or anyone else's?

Seriously, in most of your arguments its always TWO options: your narrow opinion, and THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT!!!11!!

If you're going to condemn a schtick, I guess you might as well condemn your own.

[Ghostavo]

Originally posted by Bobboau
you just _now_ figured that out?

I'm slow, so sue me

[Rictor]

This, coming from the man with quotes in his sig comparing corporatism to fascism, and also the one about individual freedom without individual responsibilty. I'm not shouting "end of the world", I am simply stating that corporations are pretty undemocratic institutions, or at least can be (and are currently). And democracy, I take it, is something to be upheld and protected.

What it comes down to for me is, do I believe that corporations are psychopathic institutions, and do I want to live in a world run by psychopaths? Yes and no, respectivlley, so I favour restrictions on corporate activity, to control their inherent impulse to act in an unethical manner.

The "opposition" is always going to have to be more vocal. The man content with the status quo, all he needs to do is expend minimal energy and keep his mouth shut, and he wins. Anyone unhappy with a situation and attempting to change it is going to have to be far more active and vocal, cause they have to actually change the current conditions instead of just preserving them. Hence, most reformers throughout history have been branded radicals, extremists, fringe lunatics and so on.

And I have never imposed my views on others, nor have I stated that my opinion is the only one and/or The Truth. I think you're confusing me with certain others, who shall remain unnamed. You know who you are, you dirty fascist bastards

[mikhael]

If you hadn't guessed, Rictor, the Corporatism/Fascism quote I put in was for people who thought that Corporations were a blessed form of life. Rather like all three of the quotes there now: in all of them the speaker has either contradicted himself or subverted the meaning of the terms he uses. Kinda like you. The Ambrose Bierce definition of 'corporation', likewise, was in my sig to show a disdain for them.

I am not confusing you for anyone else, Rictor. You are the one who has said, repeatedly, if you're not helping the third world then you're actively raping them, or words to that effect. You've implied, or outright stated on numerous occasions that anyone who disagrees with your position on an issue is not only completely wrong, but is actually the cause of the problem you're railing again.

Though its wrong of me, I can't help but dismiss most any position you take because of your inability to consider that there might be shades of grey between the extremes you always present as the sole options for the world.

[Rictor]

If you think my views are extreme, you have had the good furtune never to encounter anyone with truly extreme views. Humanity does and should function in shades of grey. As I said before, the only reason you consider me to be far to one side or the other is because of the relative position on the current accepted norm. A few hundred years ago, anyone in favour of democracy over monarchy would be considred a radical. And now, anyone not in favour of democracy is considered a radical. If you really must label me, do it on something more concrete than the current political fad among the limited number of people you meet in your day to day life. Pure communism or pure capitalism, those are extremes and I favour neither. Pure logic or pure emotion, I favour neither. Totalitarianism or an absence of laws, I favour neither. You see where I'm going with this.

What I fault you and Kazan for is inconsitancy. So, you hold Opinion A for one situation, but hold the oppoisite opinion for another, even though the same logic used to arrive at Opinion A the first time is the same as should have lead you to Opinion A the second time....I hope that made sense.

______________________________________________

For example, the corporate issue. My logic goes something like this, and if I can find no flaws in it, than I accept the conclusion.

1. Do corporations have an obligation to act in an ethical manner?
No

2. Do corporations have a great amount of power and influence in the world today?
Yes

3. Do corporations in general, and the powerful ones specifically, have a long history of acting in an unethical manner?
Yes

If 1=No, 2=Yes and 3=yes, then I conclude that psychopathic institutions are "running the world" to a large degree. Do I like this situation, or do I think that the majority of the world's population likes it, no.

So, I think that it would be a "good thing" if institutions or people which DO have an obligation to act in an ethical manner were to have some degree of control over the actions of corporations, in order to prevent them from harming others.

If you answered No, Yes and Yes, I fail to see how you could not reach the same conclusion I have, unless you consider unethical behaviour (by very, very powerful bodies no less) to be dandy. However, this is my opinion and though I consider it to be the truth, I do accept that other have the right to hold different opinions.

______________________________

As for the Third World thing, there are three positions in the matter.

1. Actively harming the people of the Third World
2. Being neutral
3. Actively helping the peope of the Third World.

Being neutral would entail you neither supporting nor attacking the organizations which bring harm to the Third World, and very few people would fall into that category (we are after all consumers).

So, I reason that it if you are supporting an organization( that harm the Third World, you are yourself harming it to some degree. Same thing for helping. However, harming or helping does not mean that you are only harming or only helping, it only means that you help more than you harm or harm more than you help. Someone can harm the Third World, but offset that by helping it to a greater degree.

Now, as I see it, if you want to be considered than ethical person, you must either be neutral or helpful. Anyone who is neutral has no obligation to help. However, you (and most others here, myself included) do not fall into this category. Why? Becuase we support certain organizations that are harming the Third World, with our votes, our money, our voice and so on. Furthermore, we are subverting democracy by supporting organizations (such as the US government, certain corporations etc) that take away the right of self-determination from some countries, in order to make a profit. Support for dictators, instigating coups, bribes and so on.

Where you and I probably disagree with me is what constitutes support for organizations harming the Third World. I consider support to be financial support (buying Nikes), vocal or "moral support" (voicing your support for them, the opposite of what I'm doing now) or direct support (picking up a gun and breaking up a union meeting, lobbying Congress on their behalf etc ). I'm sure there are others, but I can't think of any more right now. The way I see it, you are supporting them in 2 of 3 ways, which means that you are to some degree responsible for suffering in the Third World. Also, you vocally (and perhaps fincancially via campaign contributions?) support another organization which gives tremendous financial, vocal and direct support to corporation harming the Third World, the United States government.

So, I reach a conclusion that you are harming the people of the Third World, which I consider to be unethical.

__________________________

How you can call be an extremist an not Kazan or Liberator (or ionia etc) is beyond me. All I do is apply some basic logic and keep in mind the principles which I hold dear (freedom, democracy, blablablabla), and I come up with a concludion. And I do this for ever (or almost every) situation. I am, essentially, consistant in my views. I don't see how anyone can love self-determination and yet consider himself right in denying to to others. I also don't see how someone can be against an invasion of a soverign nation, and feel sympathetic towards the deaths of defenseless civilians, and yet support the people who are doing the killing. And so on and so forth, you get the idea.

And I'll say it again, just for effect: I do not remember when I have ever stated that my opinions were fact, and everyone else is wrong. I don't remember when I have ever supported extremist views, or betrayed the principles which are generally held to be important (peace, freedom etc). If I have ever stated that your or anyone else is the cause of any problem, it is becuase I genuinly believe that you/they are, and not becuase your/their views differed from my own.

________________

Alright, **** that was pretty long. I figure if I wrote this much every day instead of debtaing on HLP, I'de have my first book ready to go in about a month. Ah well....

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
What I fault you and Kazan for is inconsitancy. So, you hold Opinion A for one situation, but hold the oppoisite opinion for another, even though the same logic used to arrive at Opinion A the first time is the same as should have lead you to Opinion A the second time....I hope that made sense.

Rubbish. You're completely inconsistant yourself. For all your complaints about poor countries you were the one who advocated letting the starving in Africa continue to starve rather than letting them use GM food to feed them.

In the Macedonia thread dispite all your other rants about the evils commited in the War on Terror you suddenly refused to believe that one could come out of Macedonia for no good reason other than your racist belief that any pakistanis in the country must be terrorists.

You're as inconsistant as the people you're complaining about. Don't try to pretend to me that you're following any kind of logic here.  [/B][/quote]

[Kazan]

Attacking someone for inconsistancy if a form of argumentum ad hominem.  

Furthermore if you think my views are inconsistent then you simply don't understand the logic behind them and all the factors i'm taking into account to reach the conclusion

Different Situation Different Solution

[mikhael]

There are an infinite number of gradations between "rape the third world!" and "do your utmost to uplift the poor benighted souls of the third world".

In not understanding (or, really, ACCEPTING)  this, you fail, Rictor.

For most human beings, conclusions are based on a plurality of ideas and facts and beliefs. Ideas, facts and beliefs that apply to ONE situation are not always considered when making decisions on OTHER (possibly related) situations. All human decision making is purely, compltely, and utterly situational.

In not understanding (or, really, ACCEPTING) this, you fail, Rictor.

I do call Kazan, Liberator and ionia's views extremist. However, their views are at least in touch with reality. Yours, however, are not. Consider: you espouse the idea that people should feel no loyalty to their nation because their birth as a citizen of that nation was random circumstance. While you are correct about your STATEMENT ("Birth into any given nation is a random circumstance."), your PREDICATE ("you should feel no loyalty to your nation.") does not logically follow. It is, truly, non sequitr. In the realm of logic, your implication is false. You set up false dilemmas ("Either you believe corporations are evil, or you're helping the corporations rape the world"), wherein two logically disconnected propositions are joined in an XOR relationship. This sort of logic may serve to further your arguments, since it is trivial to find a counterexample (I neither believe corporations are evil, nor am I helping them rape the world).  

Even when your logic is flawless, it, unfortunately, ignores human factors. In an idealized world, human factors would be perfectly logical. In the real world, however, they are not. People are going to feel loyalty to their country. Its a basic extension of the herd instinct.

Rictor, you must simply accept that what you see as 'logical' is not necessarily 'logical' to anyone else. I'm sure, like you, Liberator believes he's being perfectly logical when he espouses both fundamental Christian beliefs AND a willingness to invade a sovereign nation. I see this as a logical contradiction. Your "logic" is no more logical than anyone elses. The same, of course, can be said about your notion of "ethics".

I think I'm going to avoid any such discussions with you in the future. You'll always claim the moral, ethical and logical high ground, and then defend it with bizarre arguments that are inconsistent, or make no logical sense (I make absolutely no claim as to the consistency or logical defensibility of my own arguments). In the end, its simply not worth it.