Agree with you,as far as your limited analysis goes. But what is harm? Let's say I live in Libertopia, and have a farm. Well, my rich, mean neighbor wants my farm because my soil is perfect for growing his prize orchids. But I refuse to sell. So he buys up all the land surrounding mine. He says he'll shoot me if I come onto his property. And he'll shoot anyone coming to visit me. Or sell me food. After all, it is his property and he is harming no one by refusing them entrance. Completely legal in Libertopia, where all the government does is protect people and property from 'harm.' It's not his fault if I starve to death, right?
Down the street, we have the quaint town of Ramblesnatch, with picturesque old buildings and clean, unspoiled vistas. Lots of people in Ramblesnatch make their living off of tourism, which is quite popular due to the unspoiled vistas and quaint old buildings. Unfortunately for Ramblesnatch, that mean old rich neighbor wants to put up a garbage boiling plant and a new high density pig farm right next door. It's his land, he can do what he likes, right? It's not his fault if everyone in Ramblesnatch loses their jobs because of his choices, they can't tell him what to do and what not to!
You see, freedom means more than just 'I get to do what I want and you can't stop me unless I'm physically hurting you.' Freedom is only a valid concept within a society which creates it. Outside of society, there is no freedom, only power. Only when you live in a group does the concept of freedom become meaningful.
Freedom is a contract entered into by individuals. Individuals agree that they will protect certain rights. The individual gets a benefit, but at a cost, as with any contract. They must refrain from abridging others freedoms, as defined by society (meaning, the contracts between individuals, which is all society is) and they must protect others whose freedoms are being abridged. That is the cost you pay for freedom: you are limited in what you can do in certain ways, in exchange for not being limited in other, more valuable ways. I certainly like the freedom to swing my arms around wherever I please, but I value the freedom from getting punched in the face more.
There is plenty of free land where no one will bother you, it just does not happen to be very good land.
Where?
Antarctica. Plenty of tiny desert islands no one wants. Anyplace no one from the government ever goes, like most of Alaska. Go, build a log cabin, hunt and gather your food, no one will bug you to do anything. Look at the Unibomber, dude was a wanted criminal and he lived in the wilderness for decades unmolested. Don't tell me someone who wasn't in the business of mailing bombs to people couldn't do it for a lifetime.
But the thing is, this argument is besides the point. Let's say I want a diamond encrusted flying pony, and I want to spend $5 on it. I go into Wal-Mart and demand a diamond encrusted flying pony. They laugh at me, so I get mad and say they are taking away my rights to a diamond encrusted flying pony. As there are no diamond encrusted flying ponies anywhere else, Wal Mart has an obligation to sell me one.
You want a diamond encrusted flying pony, and you are demanding that your country provide you with one at the cost you want to pay for it. Your rational is that you can't buy a diamond encrusted flying pony anywhere else, and you can't find one just lying around, and you deserve one, so they have an obligation to sell you one at a price you find convenient.
The strong do not want the weak becoming strong, because strength is relative. If everyone has the same strength, no one is stronger than anyone else, and no one can force their will on others. Right now, the rich can force their will on others. Why would they allow the weak to become strong, and give up that privilege?
As for the rest, you have my complete agreement, even the last sentence. Ultimately, no one can oppress you unless you oppress yourself first. That does not excuse the oppressors, of course.
Good question. You see, me and a bunch of other individuals, collectively known as the citizens of the United States, have decided on what we will allow, and what we won't. That's our business, and here you come, demanding we do things your way.
What gives you the right? Some imaginary ideal that you, and only you, have about your personal rights? Yeah, well I think It's my right to be provided with hookers and blow, so jump to it and go get me some!
If you don't like the deal that we, as individuals forming a group known as 'American Society' are offering you, that does not give you the right to dictate terms to us. You can take the deal, or leave it. Or even take the deal and try to change the deal, as allowed by the deal. But you don't get to just dictate terms, if we say something is the law, you follow it or suffer the consequences. That's life, kid, and maybe it seems unfair, but only if you insist on looking at everything through the lens of your own self importance.
There is plenty of free land where no one will bother you, it just does not happen to be very good land. That's property for you, though. Nothing to do with governments and countries, everything to do with private ownership of natural resources.
We do compromise on the basis of mutual consent. If you like the deal offered to you by your country, you stay. If you don't, you take your business somewhere else. Just as with any business you can not just walk in, demand what you like, and refuse to pay. What, exactly, do you deem 'tyranny?' I'm guessing tyranny means 'anything I don't want to do,' right? Well, that is not how society works, you do not get to dictate terms to the majority who have already agreed how things will work. You get to take the deal we offer you, or leave it and find a better deal. It is not our fault if the deal you want is not available in the world marketplace of governance.
You will always have people telling you what you can and can't do. It's called 'society.' Rational adults realize that we have to make compromises in order to live together in peace and prosperity, while spoiled children continue to whine that no one is the boss of them. If you don't want people telling you what to do, you don't have to live in society. What you don't get to do is to have all of the benefits of living in a cooperative society, while paying none of the costs. That's called 'stealing.'
The benefits inherent in having large corporations may be maintained through the use of democratic cooperatives, as I mentioned. I challenge you to come up with an example of corporate efficiency that can not be replicated or exceeded by a group of smaller businesses acting cooperatively.
I don't want to cut down the strong. I don't consider the bandit who has me at gunpoint to be 'strong.' In fact, I consider him to be weak. The truly strong can give away all that they have because of their inherent strength. The weak seek every unfair advantage they can find, be it a gun or a law.
The weak can not grow strong while the strong seek to maintain their monopoly. Leveling the playing field is the first step. The strong, if they are truly strong, can not be 'cut down' simply by changing the rules of the game. If they are inherently strong, they will find a way to succeed in any system. I've lived all over the world and found a way to contribute and be strong everywhere, even when I was an illegal immigrant in a foreign country.
To be clear, I don't seek equality of outcome, only equality of opportunity. No one should be more powerful, influential, or wealthy than the majority agrees they should be. That is stealing power from the majority, demanding they respect you, using intimidation to get your way. But the majority of people, when they are not being abused, actually love to look up to someone. Let the powerful be the ones the people choose to give power to, not those who take power from others through force.
Often times, people spin stories about themselves that downplay or ignore their true motives, instead focusing on what they believe to be positive aspects and motivations. This is especially true of people with borderline psychosis, who tend to become unreasonably angry and start flinging insults when their world view is threatened. Just FYI.
Okay, are we done dick waving now? Can we actually debate shit?
California has an unfunded liability of half a billion dollars because California stupidly allowed its citizens to vote themselves tax decreases, but people still want the services. Yes, this is an example of diffusion of responsibility. Someone else will pay for it all, right? Sigh.
Sole proprietorships and partnerships are unlikely to grow as large as corporations, because each individual investor is liable for more than just what they invest. And being smaller, we see major benefits. More, smaller businesses means more competition, and a more efficient free market. It also means less diffusion of responsibility. And finally, with money concentrated in fewer hands, money will have a smaller impact on politics. Wins all around, right? Larger organizations should ALL be democratic cooperatives that smaller members join for the mutual benefits. Such organizations, like the California Almond Grower's Cooperative, could easily take the place of corporations while maintaining transparency and accountability.
That's one type of diffusion of responsibility. Another kind is the 'just following orders' concept, then we have the 'but everyone's doing it' echo chamber type, where evil is gradually normalized. And then we have all the investors, who are free to profit from blatantly criminal activities without having to even acknowledge their part in the system.
As I have clearly stated my rational for disliking the corporate structure, and for using the 'human being' analogy, this argument fails as well.
Seriously, groups have an impact on their members, and different structuring of groups have different impacts. A sole proprietorship or partnership do not have the same potential for diffusion of responsibility (you might want to try addressing 'diffusion of responsibility' in your arguments.
I'd be all for people using pure contract to arrange their business, rather than having a government backed limited liability entity.
Now, let me try your style of argumentation. The status quo has served you well, and thus you defend it. Society may change, and in changing, decrease both your personal power over other people, and the good light in which the current status quo will remember your achievements. It's not just that when things change, your position might change. Everything you've done in your life might be seen in a new, negative light. So you fight against any change in the status quo as if your very life depended on it.
Ok, you're an idiot. If you think the small business around your corner, or the sandwich shop, are corporations with limited liability, you don't understand small businesses.
Let's see, sole proprietorship, partnership, worker's and buyer's cooperatives, there are plenty of other business structures that do not promote diffusion of responsibility as much as the corporation.
What we need, though, is real democratic control over the means of production.
Three people? How many insightful mods have I gotten this thread? More than three, by a long shot.
But you still haven't addressed the issues I raised, merely continued your baseless and disjointed yammering. We get it. You don't like how I think. Do some of your own thinking if you don't like it.
No, our consciousness is geared to make evolutionarily useful simplifications. All thinking is a simplification. Or do you think your map of reality is reality?
Does it make me look like a dumb disingenuous hippie? With +5 insightful? Must be a bunch of us dumb disingenuous hipppies out there. Does it burn, just a little, knowing your opinion of me is not shared by anyone?
Who said I said this was a production well? You fail reading comprehension, too.
And talking about how corporations diffuse responsibility and turn ordinary people into soviopathic decision makers is important. In fact, it is one of the more important issues of our times.
Not originally. The nobility were cash poor, the merchant class were wealthy, and they had them some colinizin' to do. So they set up little economic fiefdoms for the merchants, in order to encourage them to invest in colonization. But of course the crown sharply limited the power of corporations so the merchant class wouldn't get too uppity. Only took them 400 years to turn their little mini fiefs into the real thing.
Cars don't act like sociopaths. Corporations do. You have not addressed any of the actual arguments I've raised, simply repeated your silly assertion that corporations are not people, thereby demonstrating your failure to grasp the use of analogy. So I'll put it in very. simple. language.
Corporations, as dynamic entities that affect the individuals involved with them, have certain emergent properties, such as the diffusion of responsibility, that causes the decision makers involved to make sociopathic decisions. Clear now?
See how idiotic it sounds when you deliberately pretend to misunderstand simple analogies?
Corporations are groups of people with certain emergent properties, such as diffusion of responsibility. By considering corporations as people, I am engaging in what is commonly known as analogy. Corporations act in the world as if they were people, every group does, and thus we can ask: what kind of people are they? If they are people, and as you admit, by law they are, corporations are sociopaths. So, we should enact laws that deal with them in the same light they deal with the rest of us, harshly limiting their power.
Slashdot Mirror
Agree with you,as far as your limited analysis goes. But what is harm? Let's say I live in Libertopia, and have a farm. Well, my rich, mean neighbor wants my farm because my soil is perfect for growing his prize orchids. But I refuse to sell. So he buys up all the land surrounding mine. He says he'll shoot me if I come onto his property. And he'll shoot anyone coming to visit me. Or sell me food. After all, it is his property and he is harming no one by refusing them entrance. Completely legal in Libertopia, where all the government does is protect people and property from 'harm.' It's not his fault if I starve to death, right?
Down the street, we have the quaint town of Ramblesnatch, with picturesque old buildings and clean, unspoiled vistas. Lots of people in Ramblesnatch make their living off of tourism, which is quite popular due to the unspoiled vistas and quaint old buildings. Unfortunately for Ramblesnatch, that mean old rich neighbor wants to put up a garbage boiling plant and a new high density pig farm right next door. It's his land, he can do what he likes, right? It's not his fault if everyone in Ramblesnatch loses their jobs because of his choices, they can't tell him what to do and what not to!
You see, freedom means more than just 'I get to do what I want and you can't stop me unless I'm physically hurting you.' Freedom is only a valid concept within a society which creates it. Outside of society, there is no freedom, only power. Only when you live in a group does the concept of freedom become meaningful.
Freedom is a contract entered into by individuals. Individuals agree that they will protect certain rights. The individual gets a benefit, but at a cost, as with any contract. They must refrain from abridging others freedoms, as defined by society (meaning, the contracts between individuals, which is all society is) and they must protect others whose freedoms are being abridged. That is the cost you pay for freedom: you are limited in what you can do in certain ways, in exchange for not being limited in other, more valuable ways. I certainly like the freedom to swing my arms around wherever I please, but I value the freedom from getting punched in the face more.
Where?
Antarctica. Plenty of tiny desert islands no one wants. Anyplace no one from the government ever goes, like most of Alaska. Go, build a log cabin, hunt and gather your food, no one will bug you to do anything. Look at the Unibomber, dude was a wanted criminal and he lived in the wilderness for decades unmolested. Don't tell me someone who wasn't in the business of mailing bombs to people couldn't do it for a lifetime.
But the thing is, this argument is besides the point. Let's say I want a diamond encrusted flying pony, and I want to spend $5 on it. I go into Wal-Mart and demand a diamond encrusted flying pony. They laugh at me, so I get mad and say they are taking away my rights to a diamond encrusted flying pony. As there are no diamond encrusted flying ponies anywhere else, Wal Mart has an obligation to sell me one.
You want a diamond encrusted flying pony, and you are demanding that your country provide you with one at the cost you want to pay for it. Your rational is that you can't buy a diamond encrusted flying pony anywhere else, and you can't find one just lying around, and you deserve one, so they have an obligation to sell you one at a price you find convenient.
The strong do not want the weak becoming strong, because strength is relative. If everyone has the same strength, no one is stronger than anyone else, and no one can force their will on others. Right now, the rich can force their will on others. Why would they allow the weak to become strong, and give up that privilege?
As for the rest, you have my complete agreement, even the last sentence. Ultimately, no one can oppress you unless you oppress yourself first. That does not excuse the oppressors, of course.
Good question. You see, me and a bunch of other individuals, collectively known as the citizens of the United States, have decided on what we will allow, and what we won't. That's our business, and here you come, demanding we do things your way.
What gives you the right? Some imaginary ideal that you, and only you, have about your personal rights? Yeah, well I think It's my right to be provided with hookers and blow, so jump to it and go get me some!
If you don't like the deal that we, as individuals forming a group known as 'American Society' are offering you, that does not give you the right to dictate terms to us. You can take the deal, or leave it. Or even take the deal and try to change the deal, as allowed by the deal. But you don't get to just dictate terms, if we say something is the law, you follow it or suffer the consequences. That's life, kid, and maybe it seems unfair, but only if you insist on looking at everything through the lens of your own self importance.
There is plenty of free land where no one will bother you, it just does not happen to be very good land. That's property for you, though. Nothing to do with governments and countries, everything to do with private ownership of natural resources.
We do compromise on the basis of mutual consent. If you like the deal offered to you by your country, you stay. If you don't, you take your business somewhere else. Just as with any business you can not just walk in, demand what you like, and refuse to pay. What, exactly, do you deem 'tyranny?' I'm guessing tyranny means 'anything I don't want to do,' right? Well, that is not how society works, you do not get to dictate terms to the majority who have already agreed how things will work. You get to take the deal we offer you, or leave it and find a better deal. It is not our fault if the deal you want is not available in the world marketplace of governance.
You will always have people telling you what you can and can't do. It's called 'society.' Rational adults realize that we have to make compromises in order to live together in peace and prosperity, while spoiled children continue to whine that no one is the boss of them. If you don't want people telling you what to do, you don't have to live in society. What you don't get to do is to have all of the benefits of living in a cooperative society, while paying none of the costs. That's called 'stealing.'
The benefits inherent in having large corporations may be maintained through the use of democratic cooperatives, as I mentioned. I challenge you to come up with an example of corporate efficiency that can not be replicated or exceeded by a group of smaller businesses acting cooperatively.
I don't want to cut down the strong. I don't consider the bandit who has me at gunpoint to be 'strong.' In fact, I consider him to be weak. The truly strong can give away all that they have because of their inherent strength. The weak seek every unfair advantage they can find, be it a gun or a law.
The weak can not grow strong while the strong seek to maintain their monopoly. Leveling the playing field is the first step. The strong, if they are truly strong, can not be 'cut down' simply by changing the rules of the game. If they are inherently strong, they will find a way to succeed in any system. I've lived all over the world and found a way to contribute and be strong everywhere, even when I was an illegal immigrant in a foreign country.
To be clear, I don't seek equality of outcome, only equality of opportunity. No one should be more powerful, influential, or wealthy than the majority agrees they should be. That is stealing power from the majority, demanding they respect you, using intimidation to get your way. But the majority of people, when they are not being abused, actually love to look up to someone. Let the powerful be the ones the people choose to give power to, not those who take power from others through force.
Often times, people spin stories about themselves that downplay or ignore their true motives, instead focusing on what they believe to be positive aspects and motivations. This is especially true of people with borderline psychosis, who tend to become unreasonably angry and start flinging insults when their world view is threatened. Just FYI.
Okay, are we done dick waving now? Can we actually debate shit?
California has an unfunded liability of half a billion dollars because California stupidly allowed its citizens to vote themselves tax decreases, but people still want the services. Yes, this is an example of diffusion of responsibility. Someone else will pay for it all, right? Sigh.
Sole proprietorships and partnerships are unlikely to grow as large as corporations, because each individual investor is liable for more than just what they invest. And being smaller, we see major benefits. More, smaller businesses means more competition, and a more efficient free market. It also means less diffusion of responsibility. And finally, with money concentrated in fewer hands, money will have a smaller impact on politics. Wins all around, right? Larger organizations should ALL be democratic cooperatives that smaller members join for the mutual benefits. Such organizations, like the California Almond Grower's Cooperative, could easily take the place of corporations while maintaining transparency and accountability.
That's one type of diffusion of responsibility. Another kind is the 'just following orders' concept, then we have the 'but everyone's doing it' echo chamber type, where evil is gradually normalized. And then we have all the investors, who are free to profit from blatantly criminal activities without having to even acknowledge their part in the system.
And they've gone all wrong! Seriously, though, I'd be on the lookout for bank robbing penguins disguised as roosters if I owned a pair of these.
As I have clearly stated my rational for disliking the corporate structure, and for using the 'human being' analogy, this argument fails as well.
Seriously, groups have an impact on their members, and different structuring of groups have different impacts. A sole proprietorship or partnership do not have the same potential for diffusion of responsibility (you might want to try addressing 'diffusion of responsibility' in your arguments.
I'd be all for people using pure contract to arrange their business, rather than having a government backed limited liability entity.
Now, let me try your style of argumentation. The status quo has served you well, and thus you defend it. Society may change, and in changing, decrease both your personal power over other people, and the good light in which the current status quo will remember your achievements. It's not just that when things change, your position might change. Everything you've done in your life might be seen in a new, negative light. So you fight against any change in the status quo as if your very life depended on it.
Ok, you're an idiot. If you think the small business around your corner, or the sandwich shop, are corporations with limited liability, you don't understand small businesses.
Let's see, sole proprietorship, partnership, worker's and buyer's cooperatives, there are plenty of other business structures that do not promote diffusion of responsibility as much as the corporation.
What we need, though, is real democratic control over the means of production.
Three people? How many insightful mods have I gotten this thread? More than three, by a long shot.
But you still haven't addressed the issues I raised, merely continued your baseless and disjointed yammering. We get it. You don't like how I think. Do some of your own thinking if you don't like it.
Boo to the motherfucking hoo, babycakes. Bitter much?
Good to know that 'redistribution of wealth' is not socialism. I'll be sure to tell the teabaggers.
I don't think your argument is coming across very well. Maybe it's time to try another.
No, our consciousness is geared to make evolutionarily useful simplifications. All thinking is a simplification. Or do you think your map of reality is reality?
Why so angry, little guy?
Does it make me look like a dumb disingenuous hippie? With +5 insightful? Must be a bunch of us dumb disingenuous hipppies out there. Does it burn, just a little, knowing your opinion of me is not shared by anyone?
Who said I said this was a production well? You fail reading comprehension, too.
And talking about how corporations diffuse responsibility and turn ordinary people into soviopathic decision makers is important. In fact, it is one of the more important issues of our times.
Not originally. The nobility were cash poor, the merchant class were wealthy, and they had them some colinizin' to do. So they set up little economic fiefdoms for the merchants, in order to encourage them to invest in colonization. But of course the crown sharply limited the power of corporations so the merchant class wouldn't get too uppity. Only took them 400 years to turn their little mini fiefs into the real thing.
Cars don't act like sociopaths. Corporations do. You have not addressed any of the actual arguments I've raised, simply repeated your silly assertion that corporations are not people, thereby demonstrating your failure to grasp the use of analogy. So I'll put it in very. simple. language.
Corporations, as dynamic entities that affect the individuals involved with them, have certain emergent properties, such as the diffusion of responsibility, that causes the decision makers involved to make sociopathic decisions. Clear now?
See how idiotic it sounds when you deliberately pretend to misunderstand simple analogies?
Cheers,
Spun
Why, that's the exact same thing I say to Libertarians.
Cheers,
spun
Corporations are groups of people with certain emergent properties, such as diffusion of responsibility . By considering corporations as people, I am engaging in what is commonly known as analogy. Corporations act in the world as if they were people, every group does, and thus we can ask: what kind of people are they? If they are people, and as you admit, by law they are, corporations are sociopaths. So, we should enact laws that deal with them in the same light they deal with the rest of us, harshly limiting their power.
I never said their rationalizations made sense.