The Age of Corporate Treason

[Toro]

Slavery is better than starvation?^

It's not slavery. People who work in sweatshops often come from subsistence farming and earn a better living.

 

[MikeK]

Good for you. It's still subjective nonsense with no meaning.

Do you delete subjective terms from your lexicon?

I'm not a computer, I don't delete things.

But certain ideas and concepts can be eliminated from our consciousness or modified via the process of indoctrination which the American consciousness has been subjected to with increasing intensity for quite some time. And I'm not suggesting this has been entirely the result of an insidious plot, because no one anticipated the kind of phenomenal wealth the U.S. Economy was capable of generating, not even those who were generating it. It came about rather overwhelmingly and many Americans simply were caught up in it and it has since developed into a mass obsession -- a cultural pathology with an extremely divisive side effect.

Would you deny that money has evolved as a veritable religion in our Country?

 

[The Rabbi]

Slavery is better than starvation?^

It's not slavery. People who work in sweatshops often come from subsistence farming and earn a better living.

Amazingly when a multinational opens a new factory in Thailand or wherever they don't need to go around advertising positions. Instead local people sit on line for days for an opportunity to work there because they typically pay better wages than any local company.
But the Left only wants to feel good about itself for "doing something."

 

[Toro]

Multinationals generally pay better and have better working conditions than local operators.

 

[JoeNormal]

It sounds like in your world, the people who work long hours in hazardous sweatshops for a pittance aren't wage slaves because they agreed to work under those conditions. Have I got that right?

It sounds like in your world those people would somehow be better off unemployed, have I got that right?

Yeah. Because it obviously beats their alternatives in life. Like starving to death. You'd rather people starve to death than have the choice. That's the difference.
But that is irrelevant to the ass-pounding I just gave your post. You did not refute a single thing I wrote, just changed the subject.

And this is the system that you expect people to gravitate towards, huh?

You two are beyond my help. If only I could, I would elevate you above spriritual cripple status and turn you into thinking feeling human beings complete with souls. Unfortunately, I don't think even Jesus could do that.

 

[JoeNormal]

Because you posited something and I'm asking you to defend it.

I'd have defined it as the desire for excessive material wealth at the expense of others.

Then of course you'd have said "define excessive".

Then I'd have said going beyond necessary or proper.

Then you'd have said "define necessary and proper"....

Repeat ad nauseum.

Of course this mindless focus on minutae is typical of right wingers. You're probably wired that way and just can't help it. But in addition to being mindlessly tedious, it gets one no closer to understanding an issue.

What you call a "focus on minutae" is in reality a focus on objectivity. No matter how you slice and dice it, there is no objective way to quantify "greed." You refuse to admit that because it blows your lame theories on re-engineering society out of the water. They will never work, and one of the main reasons is that they are based on utterly bogus premisses like "greed."

This is why conservatives aren't scientists. A liberal would find the Higgs Boson before a conservative decided what matter was.

The Higgs Boson will only be found if it actually exists - in other words, if it's an objective fact. A libturd like you would spend his life searching for unicorn farts to power your planned utopia

The Higgs Boson has been detected and there's a reason I felt it was pertinent to this discussion. Was the Higgs seen with a microscope? No, its presence was detected by predicting its interactions within its environment. Just as greed might be too subjective to arrive at a universal view of its specific nature, its presence can be measured quantitatively by metrics like wealth disparity.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Do you delete subjective terms from your lexicon?

I'm not a computer, I don't delete things.

But certain ideas and concepts can be eliminated from our consciousness or modified via the process of indoctrination which the American consciousness has been subjected to with increasing intensity for quite some time. And I'm not suggesting this has been entirely the result of an insidious plot, because no one anticipated the kind of phenomenal wealth the U.S. Economy was capable of generating, not even those who were generating it. It came about rather overwhelmingly and many Americans simply were caught up in it and it has since developed into a mass obsession -- a cultural pathology with an extremely divisive side effect.

Would you deny that money has evolved as a veritable religion in our Country?

Money is merely a means to an end. Humans have been striving to better their lives since the beginning. You can call that a religion or greed if you want, but it's simple common sense really.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It sounds like in your world, the people who work long hours in hazardous sweatshops for a pittance aren't wage slaves because they agreed to work under those conditions. Have I got that right?

It sounds like in your world those people would somehow be better off unemployed, have I got that right?

Yeah. Because it obviously beats their alternatives in life. Like starving to death. You'd rather people starve to death than have the choice. That's the difference.
But that is irrelevant to the ass-pounding I just gave your post. You did not refute a single thing I wrote, just changed the subject.

And this is the system that you expect people to gravitate towards, huh?

You two are beyond my help. If only I could, I would elevate you above spriritual cripple status and turn you into thinking feeling human beings complete with souls. Unfortunately, I don't think even Jesus could do that.

Well that's one way to respond I suppose.

 

[bendog]

Yeah, don't reply to anything that I actually said. Who needs substance?

(Quote: Kevin Kennedy)

"The only obligation any corporation has is to its customers, geography notwithstanding."

(Close quote)

In terms of legal obligations you are for the most part correct. But the only reason many corporations are able to circumvent their tax obligation (by sheltering income offshore) is their lobbied influence (bribery) on the Congress to adjust the IRS Code in ways which accommodate corporate interests.

Considering that all money earned by American corporations is the result of exploiting this Nation's natural, material, administrative, and human resources, along with the fact that these corporations could not have achieved the same success anywhere else in the world, it seems pretty clear they are substantially obligated to the U.S. and should be paying quite a bit more in taxes than they presently are getting away with.

This notion Libertarians have that no one, neither individuals nor corporations, owe this Nation anything is part of that party's philosophy that turns me and many other Americans away from it. I agree with you Libertarians on many issues but we part company when it comes to the knee-jerk anti-government, anti-socialist mindset.

So you might wish to modify your comment to specify legal obligation -- and then add some commentary on a corporation's moral obligation to the Nation that fostered it.

There is no moral obligation to the nation because the "nation" is a fiction. There is no such entity. Nor did they "exploit" the "nation's" resources. They used their legally acquired property as they saw fit to turn a profit, which was only possible because their customers were made better off by their product.

So, there's no validity to the notion that citizens have a duty to society and other citizens, beyond simply not breaking the law, to act to try and make life better for all? All that JFK, stuff.

To me there is, and that is why Citizens United is so .... cynical and frankly detrimental to the notion of republic. A corp's duty only extends to its shareholders. That's fine, no argument from me, i'm an ardent capitalist. But let's not pretend a corporation is a citizen or human being with a capacity for morals or telling right from wrong.

That said, corp tax rates should be lowered and offshore advantages lessened. The less govt is involved as an econ factor of how captial is alloted, the better.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

(Quote: Kevin Kennedy)

"The only obligation any corporation has is to its customers, geography notwithstanding."

(Close quote)

In terms of legal obligations you are for the most part correct. But the only reason many corporations are able to circumvent their tax obligation (by sheltering income offshore) is their lobbied influence (bribery) on the Congress to adjust the IRS Code in ways which accommodate corporate interests.

Considering that all money earned by American corporations is the result of exploiting this Nation's natural, material, administrative, and human resources, along with the fact that these corporations could not have achieved the same success anywhere else in the world, it seems pretty clear they are substantially obligated to the U.S. and should be paying quite a bit more in taxes than they presently are getting away with.

This notion Libertarians have that no one, neither individuals nor corporations, owe this Nation anything is part of that party's philosophy that turns me and many other Americans away from it. I agree with you Libertarians on many issues but we part company when it comes to the knee-jerk anti-government, anti-socialist mindset.

So you might wish to modify your comment to specify legal obligation -- and then add some commentary on a corporation's moral obligation to the Nation that fostered it.

There is no moral obligation to the nation because the "nation" is a fiction. There is no such entity. Nor did they "exploit" the "nation's" resources. They used their legally acquired property as they saw fit to turn a profit, which was only possible because their customers were made better off by their product.

So, there's no validity to the notion that citizens have a duty to society and other citizens, beyond simply not breaking the law, to act to try and make life better for all? All that JFK, stuff.

To me there is, and that is why Citizens United is so .... cynical and frankly detrimental to the notion of republic. A corp's duty only extends to its shareholders. That's fine, no argument from me, i'm an ardent capitalist. But let's not pretend a corporation is a citizen or human being with a capacity for morals or telling right from wrong.

Individuals have a duty to respect the rights (property) of others. It's only when this is done that society is even possible. However, it's when you start thinking of society as a unit, as opposed to a collection of individuals, that the individuals, the basis of society, become expendable. So no, you don't owe anything to "society," or the "nation," per se. Merely the respect of the rights of the individuals making up that society.

 

[Snookie]

I think everybody here deserves a pay raise.

 

[bendog]

There is no moral obligation to the nation because the "nation" is a fiction. There is no such entity. Nor did they "exploit" the "nation's" resources. They used their legally acquired property as they saw fit to turn a profit, which was only possible because their customers were made better off by their product.

So, there's no validity to the notion that citizens have a duty to society and other citizens, beyond simply not breaking the law, to act to try and make life better for all? All that JFK, stuff.

To me there is, and that is why Citizens United is so .... cynical and frankly detrimental to the notion of republic. A corp's duty only extends to its shareholders. That's fine, no argument from me, i'm an ardent capitalist. But let's not pretend a corporation is a citizen or human being with a capacity for morals or telling right from wrong.

Individuals have a duty to respect the rights (property) of others. It's only when this is done that society is even possible. However, it's when you start thinking of society as a unit, as opposed to a collection of individuals, that the individuals, the basis of society, become expendable. So no, you don't owe anything to "society," or the "nation," per se. Merely the respect of the rights of the individuals making up that society.

No diss intended and Maggie Thatcher would agree, but the Kennedys and Reagan would not, imo. And neither do I.

The problem today is some see the dems as advancing others interests against thier's, and some see the same as the gop advancing others interests against them. Of course there's no perfect consensus. But, there's still a general consensus that all should have access to an affordable education, to better themselves, and pay more taxes, so others can better themselves as well. stuff like that.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So, there's no validity to the notion that citizens have a duty to society and other citizens, beyond simply not breaking the law, to act to try and make life better for all? All that JFK, stuff.

To me there is, and that is why Citizens United is so .... cynical and frankly detrimental to the notion of republic. A corp's duty only extends to its shareholders. That's fine, no argument from me, i'm an ardent capitalist. But let's not pretend a corporation is a citizen or human being with a capacity for morals or telling right from wrong.

Individuals have a duty to respect the rights (property) of others. It's only when this is done that society is even possible. However, it's when you start thinking of society as a unit, as opposed to a collection of individuals, that the individuals, the basis of society, become expendable. So no, you don't owe anything to "society," or the "nation," per se. Merely the respect of the rights of the individuals making up that society.

No diss intended and Maggie Thatcher would agree, but the Kennedys and Reagan would not, imo. And neither do I.

The problem today is some see the dems as advancing others interests against thier's, and some see the same as the gop advancing others interests against them. Of course there's no perfect consensus. But, there's still a general consensus that all should have access to an affordable education, to better themselves, and pay more taxes, so others can better themselves as well. stuff like that.

Does consensus mean something is right?

 

[The Rabbi]

It sounds like in your world, the people who work long hours in hazardous sweatshops for a pittance aren't wage slaves because they agreed to work under those conditions. Have I got that right?

It sounds like in your world those people would somehow be better off unemployed, have I got that right?

Yeah. Because it obviously beats their alternatives in life. Like starving to death. You'd rather people starve to death than have the choice. That's the difference.
But that is irrelevant to the ass-pounding I just gave your post. You did not refute a single thing I wrote, just changed the subject.

And this is the system that you expect people to gravitate towards, huh?

You two are beyond my help. If only I could, I would elevate you above spriritual cripple status and turn you into thinking feeling human beings complete with souls. Unfortunately, I don't think even Jesus could do that.

Translation: I am plum out of arguments.

Yeah, I prefer a system where people are free to seek out their best alternatives and be self sufficient. You obviously prefer one where Big Daddy Gov't takes care of people so they can sit around quaffing Olde English 40s and beating up women.

 

[Snookie]

Individuals have a duty to respect the rights (property) of others. It's only when this is done that society is even possible. However, it's when you start thinking of society as a unit, as opposed to a collection of individuals, that the individuals, the basis of society, become expendable. So no, you don't owe anything to "society," or the "nation," per se. Merely the respect of the rights of the individuals making up that society.

No diss intended and Maggie Thatcher would agree, but the Kennedys and Reagan would not, imo. And neither do I.

The problem today is some see the dems as advancing others interests against thier's, and some see the same as the gop advancing others interests against them. Of course there's no perfect consensus. But, there's still a general consensus that all should have access to an affordable education, to better themselves, and pay more taxes, so others can better themselves as well. stuff like that.

Does consensus mean something is right?

It enough to give someone the death penalty if you are on a jury. Just saying.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No diss intended and Maggie Thatcher would agree, but the Kennedys and Reagan would not, imo. And neither do I.

The problem today is some see the dems as advancing others interests against thier's, and some see the same as the gop advancing others interests against them. Of course there's no perfect consensus. But, there's still a general consensus that all should have access to an affordable education, to better themselves, and pay more taxes, so others can better themselves as well. stuff like that.

Does consensus mean something is right?

It enough to give someone the death penalty if you are on a jury. Just saying.

And juries are wrong more times than they ought to be.

 

[JoeNormal]

It sounds like in your world those people would somehow be better off unemployed, have I got that right?

And this is the system that you expect people to gravitate towards, huh?

You two are beyond my help. If only I could, I would elevate you above spriritual cripple status and turn you into thinking feeling human beings complete with souls. Unfortunately, I don't think even Jesus could do that.

Translation: I am plum out of arguments.

Yeah, I prefer a system where people are free to seek out their best alternatives and be self sufficient. You obviously prefer one where Big Daddy Gov't takes care of people so they can sit around quaffing Olde English 40s and beating up women.

Well, yeah. I mean there couldn't be anything in between those two extemes, could there. What is it you do again? Sell Chiclets to the tourists?

 

[Snookie]

Does consensus mean something is right?

It enough to give someone the death penalty if you are on a jury. Just saying.

And juries are wrong more times than they ought to be.

That does not make the injection less lethal.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It enough to give someone the death penalty if you are on a jury. Just saying.

And juries are wrong more times than they ought to be.

That does not make the injection less lethal.

That's kind of my point. Consensus is not good in and of itself.

 

[The Rabbi]

Translation: I am plum out of arguments.

Yeah, I prefer a system where people are free to seek out their best alternatives and be self sufficient. You obviously prefer one where Big Daddy Gov't takes care of people so they can sit around quaffing Olde English 40s and beating up women.

Well, yeah. I mean there couldn't be anything in between those two extemes, could there. What is it you do again? Sell Chiclets to the tourists?

Not really. What would you propose? If you set a floor on wages then a bunch of people will be unemployed and unable to work and get on the job ladder.

I'd ask what you do but you're so obviously incompetent at simple tasks any answer is suspect.