War is an ethical choice for mostly everyone. Bush is just the latest figurehead.cptgone wrote: War was an ethical value to the nazi's.
Adobe to buy Macromedia for $3.4 billion
-
- KVRist
- 303 posts since 23 Jun, 2004 from UK
... no time for unnecessary politeness nor a debate ...
... you might not care but some members are actually human with feelings and stuff you know ???
... you might not care but some members are actually human with feelings and stuff you know ???
-
- KVRAF
- 9064 posts since 1 Aug, 2003
Recent wars (like the recent ones in Iraq and Zaire) were set up by corporations who want control over mines etc.BONES wrote:Only in certain parts of the world. I don't think the Kurds or Rwandans would have felt much of it. Nor the people of Saudi Arabia or Palestine. And North Korea is right out. But of course, if it doesn't directly affect you, you shouldn't try to change it.cptgone wrote:The last centuries have seen a succesful struggle or more rights, democracy and social justice.
Bush wanted war on Iraq for personal reasons, the corporations (like Halli-Burton) wanted the oil, nothing to do with Saddam or weapons...
We shouldn't give away what freedom and political participation we have just cause others are even worse off...
Last edited by cptgone on Mon Apr 25, 2005 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 35506 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
cptgone quoth
Bush is elected, corporations aren't - yet they are the ones in control.
You ever thought that maybe 'elections' arent about control, then?
It's much easier to start a dictatorship (or oligarchy) then it is to get rid of it.
Nope. The latter takes precisely one bullet.
- Like I said... the corp's themselves admit they don't do any planning > 5 years ahead.
Where is this admission? What about companies who, say, design cars or aircraft or ships or power stations that take more than 5 years to come to fruition?
- Also, there are many corps, hence distributed responsibility.
That statement makes no sense.
Thirdly, they will keep employing who they can use, and that's an ever smaller part of the populace.
So an ever-smaller part of the population can afford to buy their 'stuff'. And that increases profits how?
This is like saying, Hitler doesn't want war because dead soldiers are no good to him.
Nope, it isnt.
Bush is elected, corporations aren't - yet they are the ones in control.
You ever thought that maybe 'elections' arent about control, then?
It's much easier to start a dictatorship (or oligarchy) then it is to get rid of it.
Nope. The latter takes precisely one bullet.
- Like I said... the corp's themselves admit they don't do any planning > 5 years ahead.
Where is this admission? What about companies who, say, design cars or aircraft or ships or power stations that take more than 5 years to come to fruition?
- Also, there are many corps, hence distributed responsibility.
That statement makes no sense.
Thirdly, they will keep employing who they can use, and that's an ever smaller part of the populace.
So an ever-smaller part of the population can afford to buy their 'stuff'. And that increases profits how?
This is like saying, Hitler doesn't want war because dead soldiers are no good to him.
Nope, it isnt.
An idiot on Set Theory:
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 35506 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
nocompromise quoth
As an anarchist, shouldn't you be doing any and everything to achieve anarchy? I guess it doesn't work like that?
Nope, it doesnt. If someone wants to live in a mediaevel society, as a serf, what right do I have to tell them they cant?
Perhaps you should agree with any and everything that might bring that about?
Incorrect.
With that in mind, what does it matter to you how its achieved?
False premise, based on a false assumption. It matters.
It could be cos capitalism simply implodes as every society in history has. Or it could be cos of altruism. Or whatever.
I'm not sure what 'it' is on this context.
Getting touchy about what i type isn't getting u there either mind you.
So? I have no agenda, but you do. Your failure to communicate it without your comments has nothing to do with me 'getting anywhere'. Im not trying to. And you seem to be far more inclined to make those comments than I am to respond to them, so who is it that is being touchy?
As an anarchist, shouldn't you be doing any and everything to achieve anarchy? I guess it doesn't work like that?
Nope, it doesnt. If someone wants to live in a mediaevel society, as a serf, what right do I have to tell them they cant?
Perhaps you should agree with any and everything that might bring that about?
Incorrect.
With that in mind, what does it matter to you how its achieved?
False premise, based on a false assumption. It matters.
It could be cos capitalism simply implodes as every society in history has. Or it could be cos of altruism. Or whatever.
I'm not sure what 'it' is on this context.
Getting touchy about what i type isn't getting u there either mind you.
So? I have no agenda, but you do. Your failure to communicate it without your comments has nothing to do with me 'getting anywhere'. Im not trying to. And you seem to be far more inclined to make those comments than I am to respond to them, so who is it that is being touchy?
An idiot on Set Theory:
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
-
- KVRAF
- 5703 posts since 8 Dec, 2004 from The Twin Cities
-
- KVRAF
- 9064 posts since 1 Aug, 2003
Now I know you're an anarchist I understand your position. I don't agree though. Democracies aren't perfect but they aren't meaningless charades either (except maybe in the US nowadays...)whyterabbyt wrote:cptgone quoth
Bush is elected, corporations aren't - yet they are the ones in control.
You ever thought that maybe 'elections' arent about control, then?
A big European (or worldwide?) study made the papers about a year ago - corps and governments were asked how far they planned...whyterabbyt wrote:Where is this admission? What about companies who, say, design cars or aircraft or ships or power stations that take more than 5 years to come to fruition?
whyterabbyt wrote:That statement makes no sense.cptgone wrote:- Also, there are many corps, hence distributed responsibility.
What I meant was, even if all corps together have an intrest in people earning money, an individual corp is not gonna give money to people they don't need as employees.
It doesn't.whyterabbyt wrote:So an ever-smaller part of the population can afford to buy their 'stuff'. And that increases profits how?cptgone wrote:they will keep employing who they can use, and that's an ever smaller part of the populace.
Tobacco companies make healthy cigarettes because they have no use for dead customers. Yeah, right...
Last edited by cptgone on Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:51 pm, edited 3 times in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 3617 posts since 26 Sep, 2003 from Bradford - The Armpit of Britain
The interesting thing about corporations is there strange legal status. Historically a corporation was a group of individuals who were 'incorporated' to perform a specific task (for instance build a bridge). The corporation was then treated like a single person legally (again very simplified). once the task was finished the corporation broke up into it's constituent parts (the individuals who formed went their seperate ways etc.), as it's job was finished.
It's a very complex subject, but in a nutshell corporations were given 'extensions' so to speak - they now exist in perpetuity (-ish). they have the legal rights of individuals, yet few of the responsibilities & massive economic & often political power (or leverage) & tend to 'think' very short term - their sole motive (pretty much) being profit (with notable exceptions, such as environmentally friendly policies - although there has been some excellent research done on this subject & on how various corporations have infiltrated & co-opted various environmental movements etc. & used the mass media to portray themselves as mote environmentally friendly etc. - whilst often still causing huge pollution problems in areas of the world that just don't get reported in mainstream media (who often are at least part owned by these same coporations - or at least earn their advertising revenue etc. from them) - think coca-cola poluting the water table in various parts of india.)
The thing about corporate 'crime' & melfeasiance etc. is that it's very hard to prosecute, the corp is legally a person, yet can't be sent to prison etc. - so they are usually fined (often paltry sums compared to what they are worth). and unlike a normal person they have almost unlimited funds available to pay lawyers etc. (example - the mcdonald case against those protesters - I think that case is finally finished?).
You all know the social-psychology theories about normal people doing evil things - the nazi war machine & all that? Well corps - these legal individuals suffer from this problem also - they aren't indivduals, some pretty bad things are done by them (or in their name) & blame is very hard to apportion, as in reality many people may have been involved in various decisions leading to the negative outcome, possibly with no idea about the effect it was going to have. It is too simplistic to just say that their evil - what they are is complicated & pathologically focused on profit above all else - the many individuals who help a corporate decision be reached that negatively impacts people aren't thinking about the outcome - they are thinking about how to maximise profit, minmize loss & do their particular job staisfactorily, well oiled little (& large) cogs. It puts me in mind of the film 'cube', where one of the characters helped design part of the cube, but he had no idea of what it was going to be used for, he was just contracted to do a job to the best of his ability.
a good starting point for researching corporations is the documentary - i think it's called corporations, can't remember who made it, but it's a decent intro.
anyway i'll shut up now, because to be honest this subject is one for writing volumes about, not short messages on a board, too much room for misconception etc. - very interesting topic, would be great to sit down with knowledgeable people & discuss it face to face (damn I miss university).
It's a very complex subject, but in a nutshell corporations were given 'extensions' so to speak - they now exist in perpetuity (-ish). they have the legal rights of individuals, yet few of the responsibilities & massive economic & often political power (or leverage) & tend to 'think' very short term - their sole motive (pretty much) being profit (with notable exceptions, such as environmentally friendly policies - although there has been some excellent research done on this subject & on how various corporations have infiltrated & co-opted various environmental movements etc. & used the mass media to portray themselves as mote environmentally friendly etc. - whilst often still causing huge pollution problems in areas of the world that just don't get reported in mainstream media (who often are at least part owned by these same coporations - or at least earn their advertising revenue etc. from them) - think coca-cola poluting the water table in various parts of india.)
The thing about corporate 'crime' & melfeasiance etc. is that it's very hard to prosecute, the corp is legally a person, yet can't be sent to prison etc. - so they are usually fined (often paltry sums compared to what they are worth). and unlike a normal person they have almost unlimited funds available to pay lawyers etc. (example - the mcdonald case against those protesters - I think that case is finally finished?).
You all know the social-psychology theories about normal people doing evil things - the nazi war machine & all that? Well corps - these legal individuals suffer from this problem also - they aren't indivduals, some pretty bad things are done by them (or in their name) & blame is very hard to apportion, as in reality many people may have been involved in various decisions leading to the negative outcome, possibly with no idea about the effect it was going to have. It is too simplistic to just say that their evil - what they are is complicated & pathologically focused on profit above all else - the many individuals who help a corporate decision be reached that negatively impacts people aren't thinking about the outcome - they are thinking about how to maximise profit, minmize loss & do their particular job staisfactorily, well oiled little (& large) cogs. It puts me in mind of the film 'cube', where one of the characters helped design part of the cube, but he had no idea of what it was going to be used for, he was just contracted to do a job to the best of his ability.
a good starting point for researching corporations is the documentary - i think it's called corporations, can't remember who made it, but it's a decent intro.
anyway i'll shut up now, because to be honest this subject is one for writing volumes about, not short messages on a board, too much room for misconception etc. - very interesting topic, would be great to sit down with knowledgeable people & discuss it face to face (damn I miss university).
-
- KVRAF
- 7489 posts since 6 Jul, 2004
-
- KVRist
- 118 posts since 9 Sep, 2002
It's called "The Corporation" by Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott and Joel Bakan. It's based on a book (same title) by Joel Bakan. The book is an even better starting point for that kind of research.diverdee wrote:a good starting point for researching corporations is the documentary - i think it's called corporations, can't remember who made it, but it's a decent intro.
-
- KVRAF
- 3617 posts since 26 Sep, 2003 from Bradford - The Armpit of Britain
An interesting side note reagarding corporae responsibility etc.
first, I can't find the original article where I gained this information, but I'll try & precis it.
british law - if you are injured at work & it can be proved to be negligence on the part of your company you can claim compensation etc, all part of british safety standards & workplace safety regulations etc.
Proposed change to british law: If the company you are working for is a foreign company (I believe this would even stand if it is a foreign subsidiary of a british company etc.) then you would have to take the case to court in the offending companies nation AND would be subject to their own national safety regulations (in the case of many east european & ex soviet block countries these are far more lax/less rigorous).
So - you are doing building/construction work for an agency - the agencies head office etc. is in some foreign country with poor safety laws (even though it is a subsidiary of a british company). You are injured due to poor safety standards. You try to pursue a claim, but fail as the laws of the 'host' country are lacking in this department.
I've simplified it a great deal, but this proposed law (obviously) has the backing of a large number of large corporations with many subsidiaries in said countries etc. I believe it has been rejected once, but an attempt is going to be made to 'piggyback' it in. A thing to remember is that many politicians/ex-politicians serve as directors etc. on the boards of/& or as advisors to said large corporations.
This is an example of the 'profit before all else' mentality, paying out compensation to workers who have been injured due to malpractice & lax safety standards erodes profits, therefore cut the problem off at the root through legislation.
By the way, as far as I know this was reported in no major newspaper.
As I said I can't find the original links, but I will try to find them as this story piqued my interest.
This law will hopefully never get passed, but you never know do you?
Anyway back to noodling about with muzak now.
first, I can't find the original article where I gained this information, but I'll try & precis it.
british law - if you are injured at work & it can be proved to be negligence on the part of your company you can claim compensation etc, all part of british safety standards & workplace safety regulations etc.
Proposed change to british law: If the company you are working for is a foreign company (I believe this would even stand if it is a foreign subsidiary of a british company etc.) then you would have to take the case to court in the offending companies nation AND would be subject to their own national safety regulations (in the case of many east european & ex soviet block countries these are far more lax/less rigorous).
So - you are doing building/construction work for an agency - the agencies head office etc. is in some foreign country with poor safety laws (even though it is a subsidiary of a british company). You are injured due to poor safety standards. You try to pursue a claim, but fail as the laws of the 'host' country are lacking in this department.
I've simplified it a great deal, but this proposed law (obviously) has the backing of a large number of large corporations with many subsidiaries in said countries etc. I believe it has been rejected once, but an attempt is going to be made to 'piggyback' it in. A thing to remember is that many politicians/ex-politicians serve as directors etc. on the boards of/& or as advisors to said large corporations.
This is an example of the 'profit before all else' mentality, paying out compensation to workers who have been injured due to malpractice & lax safety standards erodes profits, therefore cut the problem off at the root through legislation.
By the way, as far as I know this was reported in no major newspaper.
As I said I can't find the original links, but I will try to find them as this story piqued my interest.
This law will hopefully never get passed, but you never know do you?
Anyway back to noodling about with muzak now.
-
- KVRAF
- 9064 posts since 1 Aug, 2003
- I wasn't talking Adobe (I just reacted to a Whyterabbyt quoth)headquest wrote:I'm glad I bought Adobe Audition in that case.
When Adobe's private army take over the world and deprive us all of our civil rights, democracy and social justice, I for one don't want to have my genitals wired up to electrodes as a punishment for buying WaveLab.
- multinationals don't need armies. He who controls politics and economy is in charge of the armies anyway.
multinationals do have private armies in places like West Africa (remember that executed Ogoni author? Ken Saro-Wiwa? He won't be challenging Shell's private Ogoni state anymore...)
- multinationals spend billions to influence politics so they get more money and their workers get less real protection.
Multinationals pay less and less taxes, people pay an ever greater share of what is needed for social security and education. Man, you should see the stats, it's going pretty fast the last 30 years.
Remember the Bush tax reform, anyone? How many middle class US citizens will remain in 50 years?
-
- KVRAF
- 19156 posts since 13 Feb, 2003 from Vancouver, Canada
Man...why not explain it, instead of calling him names if he doesn't see it your way? You can't assume people are going to "get" your views, especially if you're being aggresive and dismissing the notion of debate. Why invite a flaming session instead of friendly conversation?nocompromise wrote:I seriously doubt if you are stupid enough to need me to explain the parallel here.whyterabbyt wrote:Explain how selling professional graphics software is 'screwing you and me' please; Im dying to know.
You strike me as better than that man.
-
- KVRAF
- 7489 posts since 6 Jul, 2004
Wow - that really sucks. Thanks for the heads up (as I'm a fellow brit).diverdee wrote:An interesting side note reagarding corporae responsibility etc. ...
... This law will hopefully never get passed, but you never know do you?
Anyway back to noodling about with muzak now.
Bradford...the armpit
I'm in MK - the bum crack? -
- KVRAF
- 7489 posts since 6 Jul, 2004
I was being ironic againcptgone wrote: - I wasn't talking Adobe (I just reacted to a Whyterabbyt quoth)
- multinationals don't need armies. He who controls politics and economy is in charge of the armies anyway.
I know I shouldn't make light of serious political issues. In the UK we have a pointless "election" going on right now, though, which will probably result in a man who is known to have lied to us all getting re-elected as Prime Minister.
Democracy only really works when you have two or more credible alternatives with the right amount of momentum behind them. I don't think that corporations have quite the same impact here as they perhaps do in the US, but I guess we'll catch up, too. Very depressing.
