Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't trust companies. Companies have one main goal these days: making profits. The government doesn't have that goal. Basically it is greed vs incompetence. While I don't like either one, I prefer the latter.
A few days ago I was watching a documentary about brave people fighting Monsanto, BP etc. A professor at Berkeley university for instance said that BP has invested half a billion dollars in that university alone and they are literally buying their way into the heart and soul of that renowned university, influencing curricula, manipulating students and opinion. etc. He said that there is no longer freedom of speech at Berkeley, they have tried to get rid of him three times already because he fights the privatization of life and nature.
Monsanto prospers on genocide, they will destroy the whole world if they can make money with it.
That kind of attitude is not there with governments in democratic countries. One of the biggest problems with governments is again corporations with their mighty lobbying groups. Or think of the way the military complex is preying on and manipulating Washington.
So yes, I prefer democratic governments, at least they mean well, even if they screw up and waste money sometimes. Big companies are like psychopaths, hence a danger to society. Big companies should automatically be split up as soon as they reach a certain threshold. This would prevent 'too big to fail', monopolies, dependence, domino effects, etc.
We can all trust companies to strive toward making a profit. At least that is a transparent agenda and there is something to be said for that. Also true when it comes to both companies and government, there is plenty to be wary about, including what "collateral" outcomes might result from their agenda, not always so transparent or positive.
Either way, however, I find the bias clear and strong when either government or business is "demonized," one over the other, when just like people in general, we/they can be good and bad. Again, the key is to optimize the good and minimize the bad.
Picking one over the other does neither best I can tell...
I wouldn't be empowering them. I'd be free to not associate with them, and others would be as well. People really underestimate the power of ostracism and social pressure. It works really well and doesn't violate the non-aggression principle.
I think that people understand ostracism and social pressure just fine. Obviously if people stopped supporting corporations with their money, they would go bankrupt... it's not a difficult concept.
The problem is that people will always put their immediate needs and wants over the bigger picture. People go to Walmart for the low prices, not because it's the right thing to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
It's still a wrong, even if it's an arguably preferable wrong...so I still don't see it as a false dichotomy.
It was a false dichotomy because your second option didn't frame it as a preferable wrong, you framed it as a preference, as if I MUST believe that being a rapist is like being gay.
It's not something that some people just like doing and therefore we should accept it-- it's something that causes harm to others and there should be consequences for that. The only time such an act is justified is if the alternative harms even more people, however implausible that situation might seem to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
In 2009 I would have allowed the depression to occur. That wouldn't be immoral. The tampering of the economy by the FED, leading to risky loans/investment, economic bubbles, etc. was the problem, and letting the economy crash would have been better in the long run. Just rip the band-aid off right away instead of artificially propping it up...now we'll have to deal with a far worse crash in the near future.
I'm pretty sure a lot of people with families who would have ended up homeless and starving wouldn't agree, but okay. I really don't want to get into a discussion about the crash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
Is there a realistic example of a situation where your only choices are two immoral actions, and was that situation set up by an immoral action in the first place? For example, if someone is pointing a gun at you and telling you to rape someone or they'll shoot both of you, morality has already kind of gone out the window when force is introduced. It's also not a very realistic scenario.
How about stealing to feed your starving family?
And morality is relative... it doesn't 'go out the window' as soon as force is introduced, because in that situation you are still capable of acting according to your own moral principles-- ie: causing the least amount of harm (basically the same as maximizing happiness, as the unharmed are probably happier than the harmed).
Ultimately, it doesn't matter how realistic my scenario is-- I was using it to prove a point about morality and I used your own topic (rape is wrong) because it was already in play, not because I think that raping someone to prevent millions of deaths is ever going to occur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
I find these kind of questions interesting when coming from people who don't seem to be interested in consistency anyway. It's kind of like "So T0103E, I see you care so much about consistency...well here's an extremely unlikely and difficult scenario that you have to answer, and if you don't stay consistent I'll use that to reject your whole argument", but at the same time they'll be supporting things that are blatantly inconsistent.
What's inconsistent? I chose the option that maximizes happiness. I would like to think I would always choose that option.
Anyone who has taken a first year morality and ethics course should know that outrageous scenarios like these are often thrown around to prove points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
It's just odd that I have to have 100% proof, while others have far more evidence and logic going against their arguments and people barely care. I like being challenged, but that just seems like a waste of my time. - I don't necessarily put you in that category, FYI. Just something I keep an eye out for so I know when to quit the discussion.
I'm not asking for proof of anything.... I'm asking you to realize that it possible for there to be a scenario in which refusing to use force could end up hurting more people than it helps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
Ah, that's the misunderstanding. I wasn't saying non-aggression is the solution. I'm saying that initiating force is wrong, and isn't an acceptable solution. I'm not saying non-aggression will solve problems, just that aggressing against others IS a problem and we should stop doing it, and then any problems that arise after that will need to be figured out without initiating force.
So how are you going to get people to stop aggressing against others? How do you define aggression? What about passive-aggression?
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
No, I agree with you on that, and I kind of explained why in my last paragraph above. I think I forgot to use one example of how statism is inherently irrational/contradictory. It was the step by step series of questions...
1. Can you delegate a right to someone else that you don't have yourself?
2. Can you and 10 other people delegate that right to someone? 20? 50? 1000? Any number?
3. How did Congress get the right to tax if no individual has that right?
1. Me? No.
2. No... but it might depend on who the 10 other people were.
3. Because Congress/the government, when it works, is not an individual, nor is it simply a collection of individuals.
Where's the contradiction?
Ultimately the law is whatever the state says it is, but that doesn't mean that the state isn't capable of devising laws that work in the best interests of the majority. Again, there is no universal truth, nor are there natural rights... the state typically protects the rights that it has chosen for its citizens. If the state values equality overall, then it will enforce equality. If it values your version of 'liberty', then it will enforce that.
I support a state that enforces what I believe is best for society, and if in order to do that it needs to have certain rights that individuals don't have, then I support that, so long as it doesn't end up creating more suffering than otherwise would have existed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
I agree, but I truly do believe that you (and if not you, most people) are unknowingly going against their own moral code. The easiest example is probably supporting taxation. If you want to get more specific, let's go with taxation to pay for public education. Most people would not feel justified in going to their neighbor's house and ordering them to help pay for their kids' education at gunpoint, but they feel no guilt when they vote for someone to do it, as if it's suddenly different when you have a very official-looking process and ceremony.
Nobody is going into anyone's house and pointing guns at them for not paying taxes... come on. If you're really keen on dialling down the irrationality then we could all do without the melodramatic gestapo narrative.
Okay, yes... if you don't pay your taxes, you will face legal penalties, but nobody is going to come into your house with a gun and shoot you. They will probably just garnish your wages.
Since it's okay for you to use state services without paying, is it okay to walk into a store and take something without paying? What would happen then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
Because if the state is held to the same moral standards as everyone else, it isn't the state anymore. It ceases to be the state if it doesn't have the right to tax or initiate force in some other way.
The state is given certain rights so that it can enforce society's laws (which are rooted in its morals). The state isn't a person-- ideally, it is something much better than a person.
If a person uses the state purely in the service of his or her own interests, then that person has either broken the law or is part of a dictatorship that has nothing to do with socialism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
After it fell, or are you asking why it fell?
After.
You were talking about how centralization always leads to tyranny... so what does decentralization lead to? Were the dark ages good for Europe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
It's the principle of it for me. One thing that comes to mind is something I heard in a video/speech awhile ago in regards to voting. "A lot of people out there want a limited government, and they want to vote for Ron Paul. I'm sure I'd be relatively happy, and that he'd be a very nice master, but when you need to ask permission from someone to be free, you freaking lose."
You might be able to free yourself from the government, but you can't free yourself from your own needs.
What good is freedom if you're starving, sick and miserable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
Glad that you made that point, because it's one that I think a lot of people get wrong. Hoarding wealth doesn't cause suffering. Wealth is created. It isn't a set amount. If it was, it would be a zero-sum game and you'd be correct. Since people can create wealth on their own, it's irrelevant how much someone else has.
Just because it is possible for someone to create wealth on their own, it doesn't mean it is plausible.
And of course it's relevant how much someone else has... if everyone had the same amount, prices would need to reflect that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
The problem I was imagining would be if everyone had to take the bus and nobody was allowed to have their own vehicle.
The problem I see with buying cars for everyone is in the long term. It's the whole thing about countries going through more free market periods where the economy grows, and that creates the wealth that can sustain a more socialist system, but at some point the money starts to run out. Then at some point you need new cars, etc.
Where and when did this happen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
I think the most important question here is...why would he decide to not take advantage of his position for his own benefit? This question relates to what you said here, and in the next section I'm about to reply to...
How would he take advantage, exactly?
He's not the owner, he's the manager.
I would imagine that when the manager disobeys the owners (ie: the people in the community), he would end up like every other manager who disobeys every other owner in the business world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
Maximizing happiness isn't the goal of voluntaryism, but I think it's a side effect.
Except it's more like a few people are really really happy and everyone else is miserable.
I think that people understand ostracism and social pressure just fine. Obviously if people stopped supporting corporations with their money, they would go bankrupt... it's not a difficult concept.
The problem is that people will always put their immediate needs and wants over the bigger picture. People go to Walmart for the low prices, not because it's the right thing to do.
You asked if I'd be friends with someone who refused to help me even if they easily could. I said no, and you said that was empowering them. I'm saying I can just cut them out of my life, and anyone else who cares about me can do that as well. They aren't empowered in that situation.
Quote:
It was a false dichotomy because your second option didn't frame it as a preferable wrong, you framed it as a preference, as if I MUST believe that being a rapist is like being gay.
It's not something that some people just like doing and therefore we should accept it-- it's something that causes harm to others and there should be consequences for that. The only time such an act is justified is if the alternative harms even more people, however implausible that situation might seem to you.
I agree that there should be negative consequences for harming others. Refusing to do something for someone doesn't fall under that category. You didn't cause them harm. They were already in harm and you chose not to do anything. If you put them in that situation, then you're responsible and obligated to help.
Quote:
I'm pretty sure a lot of people with families who would have ended up homeless and starving wouldn't agree, but okay. I really don't want to get into a discussion about the crash.
Same. That's a whole new discussion on its own.
Quote:
How about stealing to feed your starving family?
And morality is relative... it doesn't 'go out the window' as soon as force is introduced, because in that situation you are still capable of acting according to your own moral principles-- ie: causing the least amount of harm (basically the same as maximizing happiness, as the unharmed are probably happier than the harmed).
Ultimately, it doesn't matter how realistic my scenario is-- I was using it to prove a point about morality and I used your own topic (rape is wrong) because it was already in play, not because I think that raping someone to prevent millions of deaths is ever going to occur.
What's inconsistent? I chose the option that maximizes happiness. I would like to think I would always choose that option.
Anyone who has taken a first year morality and ethics course should know that outrageous scenarios like these are often thrown around to prove points.
I didn't say you were being inconsistent there, and I understand why you're using those scenarios. I just wanted to note that a lot of people get on my nerves, not you, but a lot of people, because I can tell they don't actually care about consistency and yet they expect me to have all the answers figured out before they'll change their mind...which I know they never will. They're just nitpickers. But no, I haven't put you in that category. I was just hoping to avoid going in that direction.
To answer your question, no, I don't think it's okay to steal to feed your family. That's never the only option. I also don't believe that attempting to maximizing happiness should come before allowing people their own free will. I think human liberty is the #1 priority, and then you try to solve problems from there. I think people should try to maximize their own happiness and the happiness of others, sure, but not forcefully.
Quote:
I'm not asking for proof of anything.... I'm asking you to realize that it possible for there to be a scenario in which refusing to use force could end up hurting more people than it helps.
I'm sure its possible, but I don't think the ends justify the means.
Quote:
So how are you going to get people to stop aggressing against others? How do you define aggression? What about passive-aggression?
The initiation of force is what I mean by aggression. I was just trying to change it up instead of repeating the same phrase. How do you get people to stop? You can't get everyone to stop, and even good people will have errors in judgment from time to time, but we can at least stop treating state initiations of force as good and legitimate. That takes care of most of the aggression, and with the remaining private criminals you'll still have defensive force to deter them and to stop them if they decide to try anything. There can still be systems of defense in place, but the state won't have a monopoly on it. Criminals only care about what happens to them if they try to do bad things, not who is doing those things, as I'm sure you know...but people often forget that. They think "the law" and "law enforcement" is what keeps people from committing crimes.
Quote:
1. Me? No.
2. No... but it might depend on who the 10 other people were.
3. Because Congress/the government, when it works, is not an individual, nor is it simply a collection of individuals.
Where's the contradiction?Ultimately the law is whatever the state says it is, but that doesn't mean that the state isn't capable of devising laws that work in the best interests of the majority. Again, there is no universal truth, nor are there natural rights... the state typically protects the rights that it has chosen for its citizens. If the state values equality overall, then it will enforce equality. If it values your version of 'liberty', then it will enforce that.
I support a state that enforces what I believe is best for society, and if in order to do that it needs to have certain rights that individuals don't have, then I support that, so long as it doesn't end up creating more suffering than otherwise would have existed.
No natural rights? The problem is that that would mean the state can rightfully do whatever it wants to it's citizens. I think there are certain things that no person or group of people can rightfully do to someone.
For number 3, what is it then? A deity? People seem to treat it that way. Are they not regular people?
Quote:
Nobody is going into anyone's house and pointing guns at them for not paying taxes... come on. If you're really keen on dialling down the irrationality then we could all do without the melodramatic gestapo narrative.
Okay, yes... if you don't pay your taxes, you will face legal penalties, but nobody is going to come into your house with a gun and shoot you. They will probably just garnish your wages.
Since it's okay for you to use state services without paying, is it okay to walk into a store and take something without paying? What would happen then?
You mostly understand the gun in the room, so that's good. If you don't pay your taxes, and you refuse to pay their fines, they will often try to repossess your house or property, or you go to jail. If you resist, they kill you (or subdue you non-lethally if you're lucky). The wage garnishment situation would be theft, and if I tried to take my money back, which I'd be justified in doing, they probably would kill me.
I also never said it was okay to use state services without paying. If you use their services, you should pay. If you don't want to, you shouldn't have to. To go along with that, they can't forcefully stop people from offering competing services that I can then choose instead.
Quote:
The state is given certain rights so that it can enforce society's laws (which are rooted in its morals). The state isn't a person-- ideally, it is something much better than a person.
If a person uses the state purely in the service of his or her own interests, then that person has either broken the law or is part of a dictatorship that has nothing to do with socialism.
"The Most Dangerous Superstition" as Larken Rose calls it...referring to the idea of legitimate government. You should watch this...if only for the humor. (I think 6:00ish is where they discuss what you just said)
You were talking about how centralization always leads to tyranny... so what does decentralization lead to? Were the dark ages good for Europe?
The collapse of an empire isn't the same as a group breaking off to have their own territory. I was referring to the fact that having power centralized into one small group/person = more one size fits all solutions, which means a lot of differing opinions and lifestyles will be shoved into one box. Decentralization allows for a greater variety of opinions, and people can feel more well-represented. That's why a lot of nations want to break free of the state they're currently in. They want their own place to make their own rules.
Quote:
You might be able to free yourself from the government, but you can't free yourself from your own needs.
What good is freedom if you're starving, sick and miserable?
It's the whole freedom from force vs. freedom from responsibility thing. One of my favorite quotes is by Samuel Adams...
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
It's just a very different mentality between the two, and I'm on his side.
Quote:
Just because it is possible for someone to create wealth on their own, it doesn't mean it is plausible.
And of course it's relevant how much someone else has... if everyone had the same amount, prices would need to reflect that.
I think that's the kind of mentality that keeps people poor. It's always plausible to create wealth. It might not be easy, but it's also not easy to sit there and be poor, so why not try? In the rare case that someone has a legitimate disability that keeps them from doing anything productive, maybe they can't do it, but that's a very small number.
Not sure what you mean by that last part. I was just saying that someone else having $1305244524 has no effect on how much you have.
Quote:
Where and when did this happen?
The specific example I was thinking of was Sweden (I believe?) which was very economically free, and then all of their social programs and regulations were implemented once their economy was already strong. There have been literally 0 private sector jobs created there in the past...I forget how many years, but it was at least since the 90's...but the point is that the state only gets wealth by taxing the private sector - it isn't a business that creates any of it's own, and the more you burden the private sector, the less there will be to take.
Another topic that we don't have to get into here...maybe another time.
Quote:
How would he take advantage, exactly?
He's not the owner, he's the manager.
I would imagine that when the manager disobeys the owners (ie: the people in the community), he would end up like every other manager who disobeys every other owner in the business world.
The other problem I see is with decision making...if the people decide whether the manager is doing a good job or not, does that mean that everybody has to agree? Is it like a democracy where they vote for whether the manager should be replaced or not? I'm just trying to understand how a large group of people will be "in charge" when there will be many different opinions.
I just think of the whole "the people are the government" thing in a democratic republic. Choosing your leader doesn't make you the leader. In an actual democracy, it's rule of the majority, not rule of the people as a whole. In statist communism, it was rule of Stalin, Lenin, Mao, etc. while telling the people they were in control. Not sure what it would be for stateless communism...
Quote:
Except it's more like a few people are really really happy and everyone else is miserable.
I would just like to know why liberals trust "government" as a concept more than "big business" as a concept. I am giving liberals far more ground here because I could have said that liberals trust the government more than business, but instead, I said "Big Business" which should allow liberals to present a far more convincing argument to trust "government" over "big business."
I'm willing to go tit-for-tat with liberals and name off atrocity after atrocity that government has performed, in turn liberals name atrocities that corporations have committed. I just don't know what about government has convinced the left that it has the propensity toward "good" while big business is bad. I mean think of the Holocaust, Khmer Rouge, Maoism, North Korea, Stalinism, etc...the list goes on of atrocities committed by governments.
I wonder if this article and the information it contains might help to at least partially address this comment. Again, some proof I think that it is not a matter of "trusting" government more or less than business. The goal is to balance the mutual and competing interests to the most optimal level, as maybe California might serve as example...
Success of Jerry Brown, and California, Offers Lesson to National Democrats
I would just like to know why liberals trust "government" as a concept more than "big business" as a concept. I am giving liberals far more ground here because I could have said that liberals trust the government more than business, but instead, I said "Big Business" which should allow liberals to present a far more convincing argument to trust "government" over "big business."
I'm willing to go tit-for-tat with liberals and name off atrocity after atrocity that government has performed, in turn liberals name atrocities that corporations have committed. I just don't know what about government has convinced the left that it has the propensity toward "good" while big business is bad. I mean think of the Holocaust, Khmer Rouge, Maoism, North Korea, Stalinism, etc...the list goes on of atrocities committed by governments.
So I'm supposed to trust and accept my fate at the hands of the corporate overlords because they haven't yet committed a holocaust? Gee, would I like to get punched in my pee hole or have my teeth smashed in? What great choices to have.
I would just like to know why liberals trust "government" as a concept more than "big business" as a concept. I am giving liberals far more ground here because I could have said that liberals trust the government more than business, but instead, I said "Big Business" which should allow liberals to present a far more convincing argument to trust "government" over "big business."
Simply because you can vote out government in 2016.
Business isn't some new concept. We have multinational companies today, but there have been powerful merchants and industries since the dawn of civilization. Private companies have had powerful private armies in the past, just look at modern day drug cartels to view an extreme example of big business.
Businesses aren't inherently bad, people are. It's pretty simple.
Quote:
I'm willing to go tit-for-tat with liberals and name off atrocity after atrocity that government has performed, in turn liberals name atrocities that corporations have committed. I just don't know what about government has convinced the left that it has the propensity toward "good" while big business is bad. I mean think of the Holocaust, Khmer Rouge, Maoism, North Korea, Stalinism, etc...the list goes on of atrocities committed by governments.
What does that have to do with anything? Humans are quite adept at committing atrocities regardless of the overall factor.
Government isn't inherently bad, people are. It's pretty simple.
Simply because you can vote out government in 2016.
So if a company picked out a few people and let you vote on which of them would be in charge for 4 years, would you think that was a good way to hold the business accountable? Within those 4 years they could still force you to pay for their products and tell you what to do, but in 4 years you can just pick a new CEO from the people they roll out for you.
Quote:
Business isn't some new concept. We have multinational companies today, but there have been powerful merchants and industries since the dawn of civilization. Private companies have had powerful private armies in the past, just look at modern day drug cartels to view an extreme example of big business.
Businesses aren't inherently bad, people are. It's pretty simple.
What does that have to do with anything? Humans are quite adept at committing atrocities regardless of the overall factor.
Government isn't inherently bad, people are. It's pretty simple.
Those atrocities only happened because it was the government carrying it out. They can only fund that type of operation by forcefully taking their citizens' money or resources, and the law enforcers or soldiers only killed all those people because they were acting on behalf of "the law" and following orders.
Plus, I'm not sure how you can say that taking what belongs to people by force and threatening them if they don't do whatever you say isn't inherently bad...
So if a company picked out a few people and let you vote on which of them would be in charge for 4 years, would you think that was a good way to hold the business accountable? Within those 4 years they could still force you to pay for their products and tell you what to do, but in 4 years you can just pick a new CEO from the people they roll out for you.
I don't get it. Is this single company replacing all companies?
Quote:
Those atrocities only happened because it was the government carrying it out.
No. Private armies are not something new.
Quote:
They can only fund that type of operation by forcefully taking their citizens' money or resources, and the law enforcers or soldiers only killed all those people because they were acting on behalf of "the law" and following orders.
Plus, I'm not sure how you can say that taking what belongs to people by force and threatening them if they don't do whatever you say isn't inherently bad...
We believe in the Social Contract here in the west so none of that really applies for modern times.
Again, people are the problem not governments. Governments are a human construct not some sentient being.... Governments are only as good or evil as the PEOPLE in charge.
I didn't realize there was a difference between government and big business.
Government cannot produce anything.
Government can only take from someone, in order to give it to another.
Government can only create... Legislation. Laws that restrict liberty of people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
