No. They wouldn't say that. People would just ignore them and move on. They can't use force.
Can't use force? Why not? If the government is weaker, or absent who is there to tell them what not to do? You and whose army?
If they have no legal standing to own property since they don't legally exist, they're not going to be able to get anyone to do anything. Any violence would be purpatrated by individuals, not a corporation. And, individuals are subject to laws and can be held accountable by being imprisoned or executed if necessary. Corporations can never be held accountable.
And, if there's no government whatsoever, it's not a corporation running things, it's warlords or tribal leaders. It's not corporations.
I'm not arguing for no government to protect people from other people. I'm arguing that corporations and all the resulting problems are due to government power in the market. No government in the market with respect to creating artificial entities (and artificial scarcity while I'm on it) would be a much better alternative than the government created problems being "regulated" by government created "solutions" to the problems it created in the first place.
Say a corporation hires the services of Blackwater Worldwide, can you outgun them?
No, but a corporation wouldn't be doing that. There would be no such thing. It would be individuals with the means to hire them.
But, I would expect the government to perform it's core role in that situation, which is to protect people from other people. It's not government creating problems in that scenario. It's government doing what it is supposed to do.
Governments allow the creation of Corporations, but just because a Government vanishes or gets too weak to maintain its monopoly on violence, it doesn't mean the Corporations it help create/nurture will vanish.
Governments don't allow the creation of corporations. They create them. Period. If they didn't define what a corporation was, there would be no way to do it. It's not a natural entity.
And, you're confusing two issues here. One, is the governments role in protecting people from other people. There it can take peoples property, liberty or life if they get out of hand. That is a proper role for government to have. The other is the government inventing artificial beings with little liability that allow people to hide behind them and get away with things an individual never would be allowed to get away with.
No government is an impossibility. Something always fills that vacuum. But, government created problems can and should be avoided. Corporations are one of those things. They exist because of too much government involvement. The answer to the problem of too much government involvement isn't more government involvement.
Do you really believe that the Dutch East India Company would have dissolved itself if the Dutch Government vanished overnight? It'll have continued to rule its territories. Business as usual... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company
No, it probably wouldn't have. Different place. Different time. Financial resources are much more widely distributed today. Individual capabilities are much greater today than at that time. Information is more available. More people are able today to take advantage of the weakness that would exist from the loss of government sanctioning for the corporation. Without the ability to use courts to enforce their "rights," they'd have a difficult time lasting today. The pace of the world and level of competition is much, much greater.
We have to look at what we're dealing with today, not some place and time with circumstances that are virtually alien to the present.
Of course, with the multinationals today, you'd need other governments to simi
Corporations are a creation of government... they don't naturally exist without it. And without, they certainly couldn't dominate since they wouldn't exist to begin with.
Maybe some Corporations will go "Oh no, there's no government, we can't exist anymore" and just go poof and vanish.
But some will do as I said: if Governments are too weak and small, Corporations would become defacto governments.
Corporations in such areas will have their own "military"/security forces, own courts/tribunals etc.
No. They wouldn't say that. People would just ignore them and move on. They can't use force. And, if the government isn't there creating the structure and laws that support their existence, they have no rights to be violated. They can't sue you because there has to be an actual party in existence to file a suit. They can't enforce property rights, because nothing that doesn't exist can legally own anything. So, they can't pay people to do what they want because they don't have any resources. The people in the corporation might still cooperate, but there's no legal rules in place to force them to play nice amongst themselves. So, they either completely collapse or fall apart into much smaller organizations based around people, not some artificial, non-person, government-created entity.
Look at the recording/movie industry. Assuming the corporate organization remained, if the government was weaker, do you think they'd be able to enforce their artificial scarcity laws of patents and copyrights?
It's exactly the power of government that allows the corporations to do what they do. Every single thing they have a "right" to do is defined by government. It's the complete opposite of people, that are assumed to have natural rights. The entire character and accepted behavior of corporations is defined by government. Everything you hate about them exists only because of government.
Of course, the government wants you to think that you need them to protect you from the corporations. Never mind that they're the one's that give the corporations all their power. And, most people buy that ridiculous argument, assuming that corporations are the natural state of things.
When you actually look at it for what it really is without all the brainwashing that has been done on both sides (pro and anti corporation), it looks a lot like a mob protection racket. "It'd be a shame if one of those evil corporations took advantage of you, wouldn't it?"
But, where does the real threat actually originate from? Why should we have to pay the government to protect us from something that they have created and could easily destroy completely? Why is the solution always more regulation and power for government instead of less power or even complete dissolution of the concept of artificial entities?
You can hate corporations if you like. I'm right there with you. But, if you're really interested in removing the threat and intellectually honest about it, the answer isn't more government involvement with corporations. The problem is that government has any rules regarding corporations to begin with.
The interesting question that is begged is, what makes being focussed on self-interest and not valuing others "bad?" What makes being selfless and giving to others "good?"
This is kind of a strawman version of thousands of years of philosophical thinking about ethics. Objectivist ethics is not particularly well informed about the ideas it criticizes or is based upon. It is supposedly founded *axiomatically* on two propositions: (1) Existence exists and (2) selfishness is good. Proponents of this position simply assert that people who disagree with them about something like economic policy deny their own existence, without actually providing any justification for that assertion. Of course there is no such proof. There couldn't be any rigorous proof of anything interesting drawn from such a weak set of axioms. The credibility of the assertion comes from elsewhere.
Well, 1 could easily be argued as true. But, 2 is really just a subjective evaluation and arbitrary. It's not alone in that, though. The belief that selfishness is bad is equally subjective and arbitrary.
We tend to agree that those are "good" and "bad" things in general, but what are the root criteria that we are basing that on?
Well, let's go back to the thinker who created the field of "Ethics", even coining the name. Aristotle. In Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle introduces the concept of "eudaimonia" -- literally "good spirit", often translated as "happiness" or "flourishing". What he means, I think, is a desirable, rewarding life; one that a thinking person can enjoy and feel satisfaction living. That's not simple ethical egoism, which says that morality is pursuing one's own happiness exclusively, because that *really* begs the question of whether such a program is feasible. Aristotle realizes that human nature and society are complex things, and that the pursuit of personal happiness requires a balance between satisfying personal desires and disciplining them.
Let's bring this back to the issue of CEOs and their philosophical views for a moment. One of the attractions of Nietzsche and Rand is that they give you a ready justification for your successes, to wit: I am a superman and deserve my wealth and status. They also provide you with an excuse for your failures: slave morality / collectivism is restraining my genius. This is not to say that really superior men are *never* held back by hordes of collectivists. Of course that happens. But for the vast majority of us, even CEOs, the question of whether collectivism is restraining our superhuman genius really does beg the question: are we really that much of a genius that this is the best explanation for our disappointments?
And that I think is the crux of any *practical* ethical philosophy: how to reconcile our desires and disappointments with our actions. Life is full of disappointments, no matter how superior you may be. If you're a CEO, eventually the company you run will fail. The splashy actions you take today will eventually spread out into an imperceptible ripple in economic history. Nobody really wins immortal glory, nor does anybody get to enjoy the slender slice of posthumous glory they might earn.
A satisfying life must be built in the here and now, with the tasks at hand, and most importantly the people around us. Finding satisfaction in the welfare of those around us may have no rigorously *formal* support in some axiomatic model of how the world should be. It just works. I have yet to see any philosophy which easily generates self-serving excuses for its adherents disappointments lead to any kind of life *I'd* want to lead, but your mileage may vary.
Once again, most evaluations of good and bad here are subjective and arbitrary. The most interesting statement, to me, is "practical ethical philosophy." And, essentially, that's what we're always left with when discussing why things should be "good" or "bad."
No. They're just making information available. The voters will still be not be informed.
Yes, to inform is "to officially tell someone something, or to give them information about something".
Ignorance is based around ignoring facts, not being unable to access them.
Now you partially understand it. People are being informed but it's up to them as to what they do with it, whether that be ignore it or to make a more informed decision.
Falcon
You're making the assumption that people have actually read the information. From what I've heard on TV, radio, Internet, at the office, etc, people haven't looked at the information. They're all in the middle of the government/pundit/media circle jerk.
Why would it benefit me personally to have to deal with wads of cash, write checks or directly expose my bank account via debit cards rather then making credit card transactions? And since when did it be OK for someone else to illicitly make that decision for me? How the fuck do you get off talking about limiting freedom and then turn around and do the exact same thing. Talk about hypocritical.
I think his point was more on the availability of easy credit and the ensuing issues that derive from that in a materialistically obsessed culture rather than the convenience side of it.
And, the reason you're not as protected with your debit card as you are with your credit card is because the big banks don't make as much money when you use your own money. So, their politicians don't protect you if you don't want to pay their campaign donors some interest.
Wikileaks is informing voters of what their government is doing.
No. They're just making information available. The voters will still be not be informed. Ignorance is based around ignoring facts, not being unable to access them.
Mate of mine is a lefty, but used his mouse in a right hand configuration. He just positioned the mouse in his hand so his left index finger was over the left mouse button, and moved it between the two buttons as needed.
Six months ago I switched it for him. His immediate reaction was "Oh wow that's much better!"
He wants a technical job in IT.
From what I've seen in the industry, he as qualified as many that are working today... even in this economy.
The reason, I think, is that Ayn Rand's philosophy is that people become rich and powerful because they're better and more valuable people than those who don't. Compare that to, say, Karl Marx, who would argue that people become rich and powerful because they're scum-sucking leeches who like to steal from everybody else. Now, if you're rich and powerful, which philosophy would make you feel better about yourself and what you did to get to where you are?
If you're not rich and powerful, which philosophy would make you feel better about yourself and why you are where you are?
It's all about perspective. Probability is that truth lies somewhere in between... or nowhere around.
I don't think it's even about rich or non-rich. What Ayn Rand does isn't as much a defense of being rich, as a defense of psychopathy and of not giving a damn about the others or their well being.
At a much deeper level, she is arguing against artificial morality. Unfortunately, she tends to define that as any value system not in harmony with hers. But, I'm certainly not going to attempt to defend her or her work here. She was demonstrably twisted (as is almost anyone who has achieved significantly to some degree).
The interesting question that is begged is, what makes being focussed on self-interest and not valuing others "bad?" What makes being selfless and giving to others "good?"
We tend to agree that those are "good" and "bad" things in general, but what are the root criteria that we are basing that on? Humanity? There are plenty that would argue that humanity is a scourge that destroys everything it touches. So, what perspective is "good" if that is the case?
Personally, I do believe in humanity. But, an intellectual evaluation of those beliefs, detached of a lifetime of emotional influences, could easily find them to be quite arbitrary and even mostly unnecessary.
What non-arbitrary reasons do we have to always do "good?"
Libertarians would do well to realize that if Governments are too weak and small, Corporations would become defacto governments.
Interesting assertion since the complete existence of corporations is due to government. If government didn't create corporations through law, there would be none in existence.
Corporations are a creation of government... they don't naturally exist without it. And without, they certainly couldn't dominate since they wouldn't exist to begin with.
I despise what China is, if I had to choose I'd live in the US over China for sure - but you're both near the BOTTOM of my list of places I would most like to live.
>This summer, Middletown, Pa., schoolteacher Leslie Herneisey -
>a three-time Teacher of the Year nominee - was arrested and
>charged with lying to colleagues about having an inoperable brain
> tumor so she could take extended sick leave.
I love journalists. Since when is lying to colleagues an offense you can be arrested for?
If she got paid short-term disability, it could be felony theft...
Seriously. I worked as an Assistant MIS Director at a university. I worked my way up from student worker.
My boss complained when I came in at 8:05 AM after staying until 10:00 PM the night before, and I didn't get overtime!
I told her, "Fine, but be careful of what you wish for. From now on, I will come in at 8:00 on the dot every morning. But I will take a break from 10 AM to 10:15 AM, no matter who is here, what they want or what's on fire. I will leave for lunch at noon exactly and I will come back at 1. I will leave at 5 on the dot, and don't expect me to stay a minute later. If you want to count time, that's what we'll do."
Sure enough, since we were hopelessly understaffed, there was a line in my cubicle at 10 AM. Too bad. I put up a pre-printed sign that said, "On Break" and made them wait. There was a major problem right before lunch the same day, but I went ahead and left it. (The network admin had to struggle through it, but he applauded me for doing the right thing.) When I came back at 1, she brought me into her office and told me that she had rethought it and that I was right!
Which goes to show you that if you're actually valuable, you can expect to get treated reasonably. You may have to point out that value at times, but when they realize it, they'll cut the bs. If they don't, you're either not as valuable as you think you are or you're working for idiots. If it's the latter, I'd just take the rest of the week off and browse the job boards.
Yeah, except that you get sick and you spend your entire time "off" in bed. I had that once and I hated it.
If I'm sick, I'm told to stay home, and I'll happily try to do some work from there. If you tell me that I'll lose vacation time by staying home, I'm gonna come into the office short being unable to walk. Take your pick, which do you prefer?
If you get the same number of days, it just means you don't have to be sick to take off. So, you essentially get more vacation days.
Of course, that's not always how it's done as some employers do take a day or two from the total if they combine them into PTO. But, you still end up with more days that you can take voluntarily.
This is a list of the amount of paid days you are required to give your employees:
Finland 30
Frankrike 30
Förenade Arab Emiraten 30
Estland 28
Litauen 28
Polen 26
Danmark 25
Grekland 25
Luxemburg 25
Sverige 25
Österrike 25
Israel 24
Malta 24
Tyskland 24
Ungern 23
Portugal 22
Spanien 22
Cypern 21
Egypten 21
Marocko 21
Rumänien 21
Sydafrika 21
Australien 20
Belgien 20
Bulgarien 20
Irland 20
Italien 20
Japan 20
Lettland 20
Nederländerna 20
Nya Zeeland 20
Slovakien 20
Slovenien 20
Storbritannien 20
Tjeckien 20
Sydkorea 19
Malaysia 16
Libanon 15
Hong Kong 14
Pakistan 14
Singapore 14
Taiwan 14
Vietnamn 14
Indien 12
Indonesien 12
Kanada 10
Thailand 6
Filipinerna 5
USA 0
from unt.se
It would be interesting to see the average days given to workers as well. We know that it isn't 0 for the US even though that is what is mandated.
It would also be interesting to see unemployment rates, per capita GDP and wealth distribution for those.
I have no preconceived notions as to whether or not any of those data points correlate. I'm just not sure this data shows anything other than the cultural relationship of government involvement employment relationships in the various nations. And, it doesn't even really show that since we know the US government is more involved than 0.
Another question would be if there are any provincial rules for paid days off. I don't know it to be a fact, but I suspect there would at least be 1 of the 50 US states that had some form of mandated paid time off.
In a sane world, the US would protect its domestic industries and prevent hemorrhaging money all over the world by making offshoring outright illegal and not allowing foreign labour into the country. As is, it's rabidly de-industrializing and going bankrupt as a result.
In a sane world, people would just be people and not some generalized group that can be dehumanized. There would be no ridiculous nationalism, ethnocentrism or sexism. People would be hired and paid according to their merits. And, humanity would be at the core of all our actions.
One great tool against this problem is raising the estate tax.
Or get rid of the income tax and replace it with a wealth tax... Then Warren Buffet can quit pretending that an increase in income tax rates will mean his taxes go up and thus things will be "fair."
I'm not really for the estate tax because it's a little morbid to be taxing someone for dying... Taxing them for the actual wealth they have while their alive seems better. And, it seems more "fair" than taxing based on income where someone who's trying to work their way up is disproportionately impacted as compared to the "rich" guys that make their bucks on capital gains and whatever ways their high-dollar accountants and lawyers tell them they can and still keep the most for themselves.
You do realize that the level of horsepower found in Corvettes is by highly efficient engine designs, right? Did you know that most Corvettes achieve 30+ MPG on the freeway? Sure, those V8s can suck gas when pushed to their limits but they are very good at taking small sips for everyday driving.
30+ does sound respectable until you realize you're looking at a 2 seater. If GM were working on a 2 seater like the Smart Fortwo, I think you could make an argument about their commitment to making efficient vehicles. And, something tells me the Corvette fleet's real world mileage probably isn't getting the 30+ mpg potential.
Slashdot Mirror
No. They wouldn't say that. People would just ignore them and move on. They can't use force.
Can't use force? Why not? If the government is weaker, or absent who is there to tell them what not to do? You and whose army?
If they have no legal standing to own property since they don't legally exist, they're not going to be able to get anyone to do anything. Any violence would be purpatrated by individuals, not a corporation. And, individuals are subject to laws and can be held accountable by being imprisoned or executed if necessary. Corporations can never be held accountable.
And, if there's no government whatsoever, it's not a corporation running things, it's warlords or tribal leaders. It's not corporations.
I'm not arguing for no government to protect people from other people. I'm arguing that corporations and all the resulting problems are due to government power in the market. No government in the market with respect to creating artificial entities (and artificial scarcity while I'm on it) would be a much better alternative than the government created problems being "regulated" by government created "solutions" to the problems it created in the first place.
Say a corporation hires the services of Blackwater Worldwide, can you outgun them?
No, but a corporation wouldn't be doing that. There would be no such thing. It would be individuals with the means to hire them.
But, I would expect the government to perform it's core role in that situation, which is to protect people from other people. It's not government creating problems in that scenario. It's government doing what it is supposed to do.
Governments allow the creation of Corporations, but just because a Government vanishes or gets too weak to maintain its monopoly on violence, it doesn't mean the Corporations it help create/nurture will vanish.
Governments don't allow the creation of corporations. They create them. Period. If they didn't define what a corporation was, there would be no way to do it. It's not a natural entity.
And, you're confusing two issues here. One, is the governments role in protecting people from other people. There it can take peoples property, liberty or life if they get out of hand. That is a proper role for government to have. The other is the government inventing artificial beings with little liability that allow people to hide behind them and get away with things an individual never would be allowed to get away with.
No government is an impossibility. Something always fills that vacuum. But, government created problems can and should be avoided. Corporations are one of those things. They exist because of too much government involvement. The answer to the problem of too much government involvement isn't more government involvement.
Do you really believe that the Dutch East India Company would have dissolved itself if the Dutch Government vanished overnight? It'll have continued to rule its territories. Business as usual... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company
No, it probably wouldn't have. Different place. Different time. Financial resources are much more widely distributed today. Individual capabilities are much greater today than at that time. Information is more available. More people are able today to take advantage of the weakness that would exist from the loss of government sanctioning for the corporation. Without the ability to use courts to enforce their "rights," they'd have a difficult time lasting today. The pace of the world and level of competition is much, much greater.
We have to look at what we're dealing with today, not some place and time with circumstances that are virtually alien to the present.
Of course, with the multinationals today, you'd need other governments to simi
Corporations are a creation of government... they don't naturally exist without it. And without, they certainly couldn't dominate since they wouldn't exist to begin with.
Maybe some Corporations will go "Oh no, there's no government, we can't exist anymore" and just go poof and vanish.
But some will do as I said: if Governments are too weak and small, Corporations would become defacto governments.
Corporations in such areas will have their own "military"/security forces, own courts/tribunals etc.
No. They wouldn't say that. People would just ignore them and move on. They can't use force. And, if the government isn't there creating the structure and laws that support their existence, they have no rights to be violated. They can't sue you because there has to be an actual party in existence to file a suit. They can't enforce property rights, because nothing that doesn't exist can legally own anything. So, they can't pay people to do what they want because they don't have any resources. The people in the corporation might still cooperate, but there's no legal rules in place to force them to play nice amongst themselves. So, they either completely collapse or fall apart into much smaller organizations based around people, not some artificial, non-person, government-created entity.
Look at the recording/movie industry. Assuming the corporate organization remained, if the government was weaker, do you think they'd be able to enforce their artificial scarcity laws of patents and copyrights?
It's exactly the power of government that allows the corporations to do what they do. Every single thing they have a "right" to do is defined by government. It's the complete opposite of people, that are assumed to have natural rights. The entire character and accepted behavior of corporations is defined by government. Everything you hate about them exists only because of government.
Of course, the government wants you to think that you need them to protect you from the corporations. Never mind that they're the one's that give the corporations all their power. And, most people buy that ridiculous argument, assuming that corporations are the natural state of things.
When you actually look at it for what it really is without all the brainwashing that has been done on both sides (pro and anti corporation), it looks a lot like a mob protection racket. "It'd be a shame if one of those evil corporations took advantage of you, wouldn't it?"
But, where does the real threat actually originate from? Why should we have to pay the government to protect us from something that they have created and could easily destroy completely? Why is the solution always more regulation and power for government instead of less power or even complete dissolution of the concept of artificial entities?
You can hate corporations if you like. I'm right there with you. But, if you're really interested in removing the threat and intellectually honest about it, the answer isn't more government involvement with corporations. The problem is that government has any rules regarding corporations to begin with.
The interesting question that is begged is, what makes being focussed on self-interest and not valuing others "bad?" What makes being selfless and giving to others "good?"
This is kind of a strawman version of thousands of years of philosophical thinking about ethics. Objectivist ethics is not particularly well informed about the ideas it criticizes or is based upon. It is supposedly founded *axiomatically* on two propositions: (1) Existence exists and (2) selfishness is good. Proponents of this position simply assert that people who disagree with them about something like economic policy deny their own existence, without actually providing any justification for that assertion. Of course there is no such proof. There couldn't be any rigorous proof of anything interesting drawn from such a weak set of axioms. The credibility of the assertion comes from elsewhere.
Well, 1 could easily be argued as true. But, 2 is really just a subjective evaluation and arbitrary. It's not alone in that, though. The belief that selfishness is bad is equally subjective and arbitrary.
We tend to agree that those are "good" and "bad" things in general, but what are the root criteria that we are basing that on?
Well, let's go back to the thinker who created the field of "Ethics", even coining the name. Aristotle. In Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle introduces the concept of "eudaimonia" -- literally "good spirit", often translated as "happiness" or "flourishing". What he means, I think, is a desirable, rewarding life; one that a thinking person can enjoy and feel satisfaction living. That's not simple ethical egoism, which says that morality is pursuing one's own happiness exclusively, because that *really* begs the question of whether such a program is feasible. Aristotle realizes that human nature and society are complex things, and that the pursuit of personal happiness requires a balance between satisfying personal desires and disciplining them.
Let's bring this back to the issue of CEOs and their philosophical views for a moment. One of the attractions of Nietzsche and Rand is that they give you a ready justification for your successes, to wit: I am a superman and deserve my wealth and status. They also provide you with an excuse for your failures: slave morality / collectivism is restraining my genius. This is not to say that really superior men are *never* held back by hordes of collectivists. Of course that happens. But for the vast majority of us, even CEOs, the question of whether collectivism is restraining our superhuman genius really does beg the question: are we really that much of a genius that this is the best explanation for our disappointments?
And that I think is the crux of any *practical* ethical philosophy: how to reconcile our desires and disappointments with our actions. Life is full of disappointments, no matter how superior you may be. If you're a CEO, eventually the company you run will fail. The splashy actions you take today will eventually spread out into an imperceptible ripple in economic history. Nobody really wins immortal glory, nor does anybody get to enjoy the slender slice of posthumous glory they might earn.
A satisfying life must be built in the here and now, with the tasks at hand, and most importantly the people around us. Finding satisfaction in the welfare of those around us may have no rigorously *formal* support in some axiomatic model of how the world should be. It just works. I have yet to see any philosophy which easily generates self-serving excuses for its adherents disappointments lead to any kind of life *I'd* want to lead, but your mileage may vary.
Once again, most evaluations of good and bad here are subjective and arbitrary. The most interesting statement, to me, is "practical ethical philosophy." And, essentially, that's what we're always left with when discussing why things should be "good" or "bad."
No. They're just making information available. The voters will still be not be informed.
Yes, to inform is "to officially tell someone something, or to give them information about something".
Ignorance is based around ignoring facts, not being unable to access them.
Now you partially understand it. People are being informed but it's up to them as to what they do with it, whether that be ignore it or to make a more informed decision.
Falcon
You're making the assumption that people have actually read the information. From what I've heard on TV, radio, Internet, at the office, etc, people haven't looked at the information. They're all in the middle of the government/pundit/media circle jerk.
They're still ignorant of the actual information.
Why would it benefit me personally to have to deal with wads of cash, write checks or directly expose my bank account via debit cards rather then making credit card transactions? And since when did it be OK for someone else to illicitly make that decision for me? How the fuck do you get off talking about limiting freedom and then turn around and do the exact same thing. Talk about hypocritical.
I think his point was more on the availability of easy credit and the ensuing issues that derive from that in a materialistically obsessed culture rather than the convenience side of it.
And, the reason you're not as protected with your debit card as you are with your credit card is because the big banks don't make as much money when you use your own money. So, their politicians don't protect you if you don't want to pay their campaign donors some interest.
Terrorism is coercion through FEAR
Which aptly describes the practice of government for at least the entire history of man.
FTFY
Wikileaks is informing voters of what their government is doing.
No. They're just making information available. The voters will still be not be informed. Ignorance is based around ignoring facts, not being unable to access them.
The status quo continues...
Mate of mine is a lefty, but used his mouse in a right hand configuration. He just positioned the mouse in his hand so his left index finger was over the left mouse button, and moved it between the two buttons as needed. Six months ago I switched it for him. His immediate reaction was "Oh wow that's much better!" He wants a technical job in IT.
From what I've seen in the industry, he as qualified as many that are working today... even in this economy.
The reason, I think, is that Ayn Rand's philosophy is that people become rich and powerful because they're better and more valuable people than those who don't. Compare that to, say, Karl Marx, who would argue that people become rich and powerful because they're scum-sucking leeches who like to steal from everybody else. Now, if you're rich and powerful, which philosophy would make you feel better about yourself and what you did to get to where you are?
If you're not rich and powerful, which philosophy would make you feel better about yourself and why you are where you are?
It's all about perspective. Probability is that truth lies somewhere in between... or nowhere around.
I don't think it's even about rich or non-rich. What Ayn Rand does isn't as much a defense of being rich, as a defense of psychopathy and of not giving a damn about the others or their well being.
At a much deeper level, she is arguing against artificial morality. Unfortunately, she tends to define that as any value system not in harmony with hers. But, I'm certainly not going to attempt to defend her or her work here. She was demonstrably twisted (as is almost anyone who has achieved significantly to some degree).
The interesting question that is begged is, what makes being focussed on self-interest and not valuing others "bad?" What makes being selfless and giving to others "good?"
We tend to agree that those are "good" and "bad" things in general, but what are the root criteria that we are basing that on? Humanity? There are plenty that would argue that humanity is a scourge that destroys everything it touches. So, what perspective is "good" if that is the case?
Personally, I do believe in humanity. But, an intellectual evaluation of those beliefs, detached of a lifetime of emotional influences, could easily find them to be quite arbitrary and even mostly unnecessary.
What non-arbitrary reasons do we have to always do "good?"
And enough rifles will kill as many people as died at Hiroshima, or Dresden. Or under Stalin.
Genghis Khan's work at Nishapur shows that one doesn't even need rifles...
Libertarians would do well to realize that if Governments are too weak and small, Corporations would become defacto governments.
Interesting assertion since the complete existence of corporations is due to government. If government didn't create corporations through law, there would be none in existence.
Corporations are a creation of government... they don't naturally exist without it. And without, they certainly couldn't dominate since they wouldn't exist to begin with.
I despise what China is, if I had to choose I'd live in the US over China for sure - but you're both near the BOTTOM of my list of places I would most like to live.
What's your top 10 places to live?
From the referenced article:
>This summer, Middletown, Pa., schoolteacher Leslie Herneisey - >a three-time Teacher of the Year nominee - was arrested and >charged with lying to colleagues about having an inoperable brain > tumor so she could take extended sick leave.
I love journalists. Since when is lying to colleagues an offense you can be arrested for?
If she got paid short-term disability, it could be felony theft...
Seriously. I worked as an Assistant MIS Director at a university. I worked my way up from student worker.
My boss complained when I came in at 8:05 AM after staying until 10:00 PM the night before, and I didn't get overtime!
I told her, "Fine, but be careful of what you wish for. From now on, I will come in at 8:00 on the dot every morning. But I will take a break from 10 AM to 10:15 AM, no matter who is here, what they want or what's on fire. I will leave for lunch at noon exactly and I will come back at 1. I will leave at 5 on the dot, and don't expect me to stay a minute later. If you want to count time, that's what we'll do."
Sure enough, since we were hopelessly understaffed, there was a line in my cubicle at 10 AM. Too bad. I put up a pre-printed sign that said, "On Break" and made them wait. There was a major problem right before lunch the same day, but I went ahead and left it. (The network admin had to struggle through it, but he applauded me for doing the right thing.) When I came back at 1, she brought me into her office and told me that she had rethought it and that I was right!
Which goes to show you that if you're actually valuable, you can expect to get treated reasonably. You may have to point out that value at times, but when they realize it, they'll cut the bs. If they don't, you're either not as valuable as you think you are or you're working for idiots. If it's the latter, I'd just take the rest of the week off and browse the job boards.
Yeah, except that you get sick and you spend your entire time "off" in bed. I had that once and I hated it.
If I'm sick, I'm told to stay home, and I'll happily try to do some work from there. If you tell me that I'll lose vacation time by staying home, I'm gonna come into the office short being unable to walk. Take your pick, which do you prefer?
If you get the same number of days, it just means you don't have to be sick to take off. So, you essentially get more vacation days.
Of course, that's not always how it's done as some employers do take a day or two from the total if they combine them into PTO. But, you still end up with more days that you can take voluntarily.
This is a list of the amount of paid days you are required to give your employees:
Finland 30 Frankrike 30 Förenade Arab Emiraten 30 Estland 28 Litauen 28 Polen 26 Danmark 25 Grekland 25 Luxemburg 25 Sverige 25 Österrike 25 Israel 24 Malta 24 Tyskland 24 Ungern 23 Portugal 22 Spanien 22 Cypern 21 Egypten 21 Marocko 21 Rumänien 21 Sydafrika 21 Australien 20 Belgien 20 Bulgarien 20 Irland 20 Italien 20 Japan 20 Lettland 20 Nederländerna 20 Nya Zeeland 20 Slovakien 20 Slovenien 20 Storbritannien 20 Tjeckien 20 Sydkorea 19 Malaysia 16 Libanon 15 Hong Kong 14 Pakistan 14 Singapore 14 Taiwan 14 Vietnamn 14 Indien 12 Indonesien 12 Kanada 10 Thailand 6 Filipinerna 5 USA 0
from unt.se
It would be interesting to see the average days given to workers as well. We know that it isn't 0 for the US even though that is what is mandated.
It would also be interesting to see unemployment rates, per capita GDP and wealth distribution for those.
I have no preconceived notions as to whether or not any of those data points correlate. I'm just not sure this data shows anything other than the cultural relationship of government involvement employment relationships in the various nations. And, it doesn't even really show that since we know the US government is more involved than 0.
Another question would be if there are any provincial rules for paid days off. I don't know it to be a fact, but I suspect there would at least be 1 of the 50 US states that had some form of mandated paid time off.
many people tend to hold onto illogical beliefs if it benefits them personally.
Wow... you just summed up the entre political process...
Garbage collection is for little boys.
So, only men create memory leaks?
In a sane world, the US would protect its domestic industries and prevent hemorrhaging money all over the world by making offshoring outright illegal and not allowing foreign labour into the country. As is, it's rabidly de-industrializing and going bankrupt as a result.
In a sane world, people would just be people and not some generalized group that can be dehumanized. There would be no ridiculous nationalism, ethnocentrism or sexism. People would be hired and paid according to their merits. And, humanity would be at the core of all our actions.
"Secrecy is a tool of evil, pure and simple."
Classification of information is essential to any government or military (to a point).
Sounds like the same 2 sentences to me...
You should watch out, though, if they start telling the same lies.
How do we know when that's happening?
Profit IS ideology.
Or, if you're Sarah Palin, ideology is profit... though I am troubled by the word idea being the root there when discussing her.
One great tool against this problem is raising the estate tax.
Or get rid of the income tax and replace it with a wealth tax... Then Warren Buffet can quit pretending that an increase in income tax rates will mean his taxes go up and thus things will be "fair."
I'm not really for the estate tax because it's a little morbid to be taxing someone for dying... Taxing them for the actual wealth they have while their alive seems better. And, it seems more "fair" than taxing based on income where someone who's trying to work their way up is disproportionately impacted as compared to the "rich" guys that make their bucks on capital gains and whatever ways their high-dollar accountants and lawyers tell them they can and still keep the most for themselves.
You do realize that the level of horsepower found in Corvettes is by highly efficient engine designs, right? Did you know that most Corvettes achieve 30+ MPG on the freeway? Sure, those V8s can suck gas when pushed to their limits but they are very good at taking small sips for everyday driving.
30+ does sound respectable until you realize you're looking at a 2 seater. If GM were working on a 2 seater like the Smart Fortwo, I think you could make an argument about their commitment to making efficient vehicles. And, something tells me the Corvette fleet's real world mileage probably isn't getting the 30+ mpg potential.