Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jedi Wanderer on December 30, 2011 at 6:08pm

Cool, I'll look for ya. Maybe we can find something to agree on!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MCT on January 17, 2012 at 2:57pm

Government is the problem, not the solution.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greg LeGore on January 17, 2012 at 4:27pm

Sorry, I don't believe that to be true any more than corporations are the problem.  For example, gov't public health programs in the first world have produced public health outcomes that would not have been believed a century ago.  Corporations have unleashed creativity and entrepreneurship, creating extraordinary wealth.  Our wealth may be too concentrated (esp. recently) and our environment hurting, but it's not any better in many other countries...simply saying that corporations are not solely at fault as we consumers buy their products...if we didn't buy them, they wouldn't make them.  Of course corporate power is huge (a problem worth discussing and acting upon).  I simply don't want to go for the simple solution which sounds great but may be wrong with a few examples too illustrate the point.  Leaving much out of course in such a concise answer.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MCT on January 17, 2012 at 5:10pm

I have zero problems with corporations, or the power they have to make products and sell them for profit, as long as they do not get government assistance or violate an individual's right to their own life. I don't think that wealth can be too concentrated, unless done so, by non-retaliatory force. I do not value economic disparity or even consider it relevant. And the environment will be just fine as long as the market is left free enough to allow innovation and development.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greg LeGore on January 17, 2012 at 5:29pm

I guess we're at opposite ends of the spectrum on some issues - I have many problems with corporations as they are often terribly destructive and too often intentionally so.  Companies in the US and Europe will not use poisonous, harmful materials but will in third world countries where they cannot afford the luxury of environmental protection.  How is that moral, responsible, fair, etc.?  And Wall Street gambling, under the guise of investing, has caused astonishing damage to individuals, to families, to communities, the nation and the world. The environmental record of corporations is at best awful, with the commons a dumping ground which is seen as a free good.  Why not charge each company for all discharges and also reduce the allowed waste as technology improves?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MCT on January 17, 2012 at 6:14pm

You write about corporations as if they are people. People do bad things. Corporations don't. The bad things you describe are actions of certain individuals breaking the law or making immoral choices. All decisions are done by individuals. That's how the brain works and that is what morality is concerned with. There is no collective consciousness or social contract. Autonomous singular conscious decisions. There is no other entity, other than a sentient brain, that can make moral choices. If a group of individuals at a company decide to pollute your land, you can sue them, and under proper law, gain the support of the government, for its only moral purpose, to provide protection of your right to your own life. If you would like to change something about reality, then go ahead, but when you gain the favor of the government for something other than individual protection, you are necessarily taking that power from others that might not want you to, by force. Do you at least see that, first and foremost, if you want the power of the government for your special interest, you must violate the rights of another? That, it is you that is the aggressor?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on January 17, 2012 at 7:12pm

Oh! Oh! Let me think a minute, the SCOTUS ruled corporations are persons. Now, If corporations are people, and corporations can raise vast sums of money to elect the president, congress and supreme court, then the average citizen has no hope of getting fair input into the executive, legislative or judicial branches of government.

You say there is "no collective consciousness". Have you any neurological or any other studies that can confirm your statement?

I thought "We the people" forms the framework upon which our government is based. Isn't that a contract? 

If you have a pollution complaint against a large corporation, and if you earn your living by wage labor, or farming, or whatever, and you go up against corporate power, how likely are you to get a chance to voice your complaint, and once heard, do you have enough money to get you through all the appeals, and delays that smart lawyers know how to use? A single individual, or even a group of individuals probably do not have the money, time, energy, or desire to spend all their time trying to win against such deep pockets. If you are successful in winning a lawsuit, what is the probability you will be successful in getting the judgment? 

Well, if the individuals in a corporation soak the ground and aquifer with cancer causing chemicals, and you get cancer, will you live long enough to have your medical bills paid? Will you suffer pain from radiation and chemotherapy while waiting? When Your life is ended and you have not been compensated for your personal loss and your heirs may not be compensated either, is that aggression, or what?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MCT on January 17, 2012 at 7:25pm

Corporations are not people. Consciousness is by definition singular. I am not going to explain to you why this is true. But if you don't get it, I would start with basic sciences and then progress through post-graduate cognitive neuroscience. It is fact that consciousness is singular. The constitution explicitly states that it is our individual rights that have priority over government, not the other way around. That you cannot force another to do your bidding. That is the pledge of the government. I didn't sign it, but I do pay for it. A moral government's only role is to protect anyone from their person or property being violated by another person, or group of people or government. You have no moral ground to take what is not yours. You can come up with any crime anyone ever commits and it will not give you the moral right to vote and then take my right to my own life away from me. You are the aggressor.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on January 17, 2012 at 5:26pm

MCT, I strongly disagree. This government is the problem, but governments that are based on laws and enforced, produces a more stable society. Government that is well thought out, fairly and judiciously executed, empowers individuals, businesses and international relations. No branch of current government is free of undue influence of money.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MCT on January 17, 2012 at 6:14pm

The only moral government is one that defends only individual rights. Non-retaliatory force against any individual is immoral, especially when it is institutionalized, and even if it is to force someone to give a little piece of bread to a beautiful little starving child, when they have loaves and loaves in their house. Cooperation is moral. Force is not.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on January 17, 2012 at 7:22pm

I need more information. You wrote, "The only moral government is one that defends only individual rights." What about Shell Oil, going into towns selling gas at lower rates than other gas stations in town, driving them out of business. As soon as the competition is beaten, the price of Shell went higher than it was before their intrusion. The same thing is happening with WalMart, kill the competition then jack up prices higher than before they came to town. 

Sure WalMart, for example, has clothes cheaper than the little Mom and Pop store because they have access to slave-labor produced merchandise. So, Mom and Pop go out of business. I don't know how your town looks, but my town has so many closed businesses ... maybe that is a good thing, but what about all the people who have no jobs or jobs that don't pay a living wage. If government is to protect the "individual" then how do you square the history with reality?  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on January 17, 2012 at 7:45pm

Ah but he thinks thinks that individual rights includes the right to starve.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• 16
• Next ›
• Page