Lifestyle > Train of Thought
So anybody else find it shocking that Obama basically took over GM?
TraceOneInfinite:
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on April 02, 2009, 02:50:09 PM ---Brian, I'm not sure Microsoft is the best way to support your case. Without the good services of the government Microsoft wouldn't be the empire that it is. In other words, Bill Gates didn't make it on his own. The question is whether you support the idea of allocating public funds and goods to corporations. You claim you "speak against it". If so then why did you just attempt to justify the parasite nature of Microsoft. Sure, it provides jobs, so did slavery, so do sweatshops, does that make them legitimate? If not, it also doesn't justify the privatization of public funds.
You seem to be concerned with individual rights. Corporations infringe on individual rights non-stop. They dominate the traditional media, they are making attempts to dominate the internet, they dominate the government, they constantly deceive the public through propaganda, not to speak of their tremendous impact on foreign policy.Let's also not forget their institutional structure which is straight totalitarian top-down control.Yet, all of this does not count as infringements on individual rights in your moral calculus.
Now, clearly you understand the idea of collectivist entities existing for their own purpose.I share your disgust with such entities.However, there is hardly a more paradigmatic example for such entities than modern corporations, which were initially designed to be temporary public projects, with revocable charters, untill early in the 20th century when they were granted the rights of human beings, not through legislation, not through the constitution, but through judicial activism. They were also ordered a new pathological purpose by the courts- to maximize profit, without any regard for the human environment, unless it serves their business interest. Governments, though often corrupt, have at least some accountability to the public.
In addition, people like Adam Smith, not indifferent to individual rights and markets,would be disgusted by such monopolies that totally undermine free markets, while subjecting people's labour to external control.
--- End quote ---
Obviously im against corporatism, but you can't blame these CEO's for wanting to befriend the government, especially now when the government is firing CEO's. And even before that they were burdening businesses by having so many tax laws and regulations on the books that its nearly impossible for an employer to know what's legal and not legal. They can be sued for millions over spilt coffee, have the government strip their liscence or charge exorbitant amounts for liscencing, and so on....
And your explaination of the history of capatlism was nonsense. There is capatlism everywhere and at everytime in your life. When you walk into the bar, you are a commodity, and women will bid for you, and if they can offer you what you want, looks, sexuality, money... or just good convo, common interest.... whatever it is you like.... when you take her home you've basically secured a business deal in that you and her are agreeing on something.
Let me take it to an even more basic level. you decide who you want to have conversation with during the day.... people want to talk to you and you want to talk to other people, but you will only talk if you have something they want to hear or vice versa.. this is also a business transaction at its root....
money is only a means of exchange, but don't let the size of the private sector fool you, its still the same basic principal. If an employer offers you a better offer than other employers you will deal with him and vice versa, just like you will deal with the girl that offers you what you want, or you will have conversation with those you choose....
Life is a continuous series of exchanges amongst humans and money is only a means of exchange, this is nature and can not be controlled or manufactured by government.
you choose what product to buy and what job to work at, but once government gets involved it becomes and issue of FORCE, and a socialist government can force you to work for a certain cause and pay taxes for whatever the leader feels is most important to him.
M Dogg™:
--- Quote from: Tommy Fits is your hero on April 02, 2009, 08:52:55 PM ---We need more post like this, lets get legit discussion going in this section again.
--- End quote ---
See, less Reptile people and more reality, Infinite has more reason that virtuoso and Matty, but I can go either way... lol.
I TO DA GEEZY:
--- Quote from: Infinite African AND American West Coastin on April 02, 2009, 10:05:54 PM ---
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on April 02, 2009, 02:50:09 PM ---Brian, I'm not sure Microsoft is the best way to support your case. Without the good services of the government Microsoft wouldn't be the empire that it is. In other words, Bill Gates didn't make it on his own. The question is whether you support the idea of allocating public funds and goods to corporations. You claim you "speak against it". If so then why did you just attempt to justify the parasite nature of Microsoft. Sure, it provides jobs, so did slavery, so do sweatshops, does that make them legitimate? If not, it also doesn't justify the privatization of public funds.
You seem to be concerned with individual rights. Corporations infringe on individual rights non-stop. They dominate the traditional media, they are making attempts to dominate the internet, they dominate the government, they constantly deceive the public through propaganda, not to speak of their tremendous impact on foreign policy.Let's also not forget their institutional structure which is straight totalitarian top-down control.Yet, all of this does not count as infringements on individual rights in your moral calculus.
Now, clearly you understand the idea of collectivist entities existing for their own purpose.I share your disgust with such entities.However, there is hardly a more paradigmatic example for such entities than modern corporations, which were initially designed to be temporary public projects, with revocable charters, untill early in the 20th century when they were granted the rights of human beings, not through legislation, not through the constitution, but through judicial activism. They were also ordered a new pathological purpose by the courts- to maximize profit, without any regard for the human environment, unless it serves their business interest. Governments, though often corrupt, have at least some accountability to the public.
In addition, people like Adam Smith, not indifferent to individual rights and markets,would be disgusted by such monopolies that totally undermine free markets, while subjecting people's labour to external control.
--- End quote ---
Obviously im against corporatism, but you can't blame these CEO's for wanting to befriend the government, especially now when the government is firing CEO's. And even before that they were burdening businesses by having so many tax laws and regulations on the books that its nearly impossible for an employer to know what's legal and not legal. They can be sued for millions over spilt coffee, have the government strip their liscence or charge exorbitant amounts for liscencing, and so on....
And your explaination of the history of capatlism was nonsense. There is capatlism everywhere and at everytime in your life. When you walk into the bar, you are a commodity, and women will bid for you, and if they can offer you what you want, looks, sexuality, money... or just good convo, common interest.... whatever it is you like.... when you take her home you've basically secured a business deal in that you and her are agreeing on something.
Let me take it to an even more basic level. you decide who you want to have conversation with during the day.... people want to talk to you and you want to talk to other people, but you will only talk if you have something they want to hear or vice versa.. this is also a business transaction at its root....
money is only a means of exchange, but don't let the size of the private sector fool you, its still the same basic principal. If an employer offers you a better offer than other employers you will deal with him and vice versa, just like you will deal with the girl that offers you what you want, or you will have conversation with those you choose....
Life is a continuous series of exchanges amongst humans and money is only a means of exchange, this is nature and can not be controlled or manufactured by government.
you choose what product to buy and what job to work at, but once government gets involved it becomes and issue of FORCE, and a socialist government can force you to work for a certain cause and pay taxes for whatever the leader feels is most important to him.
--- End quote ---
First of all, notice you didn't dispute any of the corporate infringements on individual rights I pointed to. Plus, you once again tried to justify government intervention by saying "you can't blame these CEO's for wanting to befriend the government". "Befriend" is not the most accurate term, try "influence". There's a good study on the mechanics of this. Just look up Thomas Ferguson's "Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Parties and the Logic of Money Driven Politics", at the local library.
Second of all, I didn't offer an "explanation of the history of capitalism". Instead, I gave a general outline of the evolution of corporate law. If you want to dispute it-you appear to think it's "nonsense"- you might want to write a critique on the excellent series of studies called "The Transformation of American Law" by this guy from Harvard named Morton J. Horwitz, cause that's where I got it from.
Third of all, you seem to think you're living under capitalism, where there is competition and free markets. You'll notice I referred earlier to Adam Smith, who provided the intellectual foundation for free markets and capitalism. I said he would be disgusted by the current shape of the system. The reason I said this-and this should be obvious to anyone who hasn't lost touch with reality-is that free markets and competition don't really exist in systems like the U.S, where the leading players rely on huge government subsidies, as well as other practices (the ones I mentioned earlier) that are designed to undermine markets. There may exist some limited degree of competition between the few bodies receiving huge government subsidies, but this is oligopoly, not what Adam Smith had in mind in "The Wealth of Nations".
Javier:
Expansions of presidential powers has happened every time there has been a major crisis in the country. Lincoln is the most guilty of this, but it's mainly been modern Presidents from the 1920s and on. It's not shocking, it's something I expect during any crisis.
virtuoso:
Thanks for the informative posts Geezy ;D, I will be reading the Adam Smith mentioning first and foremost below is the link for anyone else that wants to read it to.
http://www.bibliomania.com/2/1/65/112/frameset.html
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version