Bizness is morally neuter, ethically impoverished.

Post #28,312 by Ashton 2/13/02 10:58:17 PM Reply	Bizness is morally neuter, ethically impoverished. (Prolly just as well, given the impossibility of ever using the word 'moral' to any purpose, in a theologically besotted citizenry) BeeP may sprinkle the adj. decent modifying [profit], in his characterization of a Corp's sole raison d'etre, and perenially fuzz-up (or down) the proliferation of Bastards in er 'decisionmaking' slots within (now, so many.. of) Our Corps: Gosh.. they aren't ALL* slime, but yes well, sure maybe there are a FEW slime, but you see..* zzzzzz Apologies R'Us? They aren't THAT.. BAD.. BeeP, face it: You Are an Unconditional Apologist\ufffd - it's a history of posts Thing. As for finding amongst Murican Corps du jour (plotted vs size and wealth, perhaps?) some common factor which: Recognizes the society; its needs, its provided infrastructure, etc.? Finding evidence that there has been a reversal of the trend to commodify workers as liabilities; reversal of the trend to out-sourcing to Manpower-type Temps..? Trends towards actual 'vacations', comparable to other places in the civilized world (lots more that Two weeks/yr.!), return of the 40 hour week sans unpaid overtime and 'page me at home'..? Trend against forced 'arbitration' / denial of access to courts: to get the job in the first place? And __so many more items__. Nope, mine is a qualitative assessment of the Murican Bizness mentality in Millennium #2: Show me some of these trends <<< I see no evidence that any of the important ones are.. other than declining further. Ashton
Post #28,323 by bepatient 2/14/02 12:51:38 AM Reply	I expected you here sooner ;-) And while I couldn't have written your response word for word...I certainly could've given a pretty accurate summary in advance. Short of inventing a "new way" Ash...(and I would support that in many areas)...you never seem to be able to do anything except rail against. I am in corp America...have been for a very long time and have alot of experience with many different companies and have met large numbers of C*s (CEO, CIO, CFO, COO, et al). There are just as many good and bad people in corps as there are outside of them. If >not< chanting the mantra of "big bad corps and evil rich people are out to get us" makes me an apologist...so be it. I'm just not that paranoid...and I worry much more about the government screwing things up than I do "big bad business" I think its more along the lines of someone here who happens to disagree with you and happens to thing the "system" that is the Merkin Way is better than any other proposed so far....and I don't see alot of alternatives being proposed...just a large amount of yelling and chest beating. Please offer up the alternatives. I've asked before...I'm asking again. Keep us free...but keep us >safe< :/ You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson}* [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #28,367 by mmoffitt 2/14/02 11:52:31 AM Reply	I will never understand this. >> I worry much more about the government screwing things up than I do >> "big bad business" This has/will never make any sense to me at all. I do not understand this in the least. This is only a watered down version of Timothy McVeigh's attitude. We have agreed, more or less, that the sole raison d'etre for bizness is to make money for the shareholders. What is equally clear is that the primary purpose of government, at its core, is to protect its citizenry. We can argue about how effectively each one accomplishes its task, but at their base the goal of each is as different as it could possibly be. Government's role is to serve >YOU<. A corporation's role is to serve >THEIR OWN<. At their core, corporations care not a tinker's damn about you except for how much of your money they can get you talked out of. Of course, the corrupting influence of bizness on government has perhaps irreparably damaged government to the point that it is incapable of fulfilling its duties to its citizenry, but the fix is less corporate influence, not more! And if you don't think fundamentals matter, consider the healthcare industry. Remember HMO's? I worked in the HMO industry for more than 5 years. I could see after my first that it was destined to fail because the delivery of healthcare is at its core an altruistic activity, bizness at its core is a somewhat regulated greed activity. Applying bizness rules to an altruistic activity simply won't work.
Post #28,495 by screamer 2/15/02 11:17:49 AM Reply	Knock, knock... You write: "Of course, the corrupting influence of bizness on government has perhaps irreparably damaged government to the point that it is incapable of fulfilling its duties to its citizenry, but the fix is less corporate influence, not more!" I find this a bit redundant... seeing as how this government is the fucking citizenry... Oh, and who are the fucking stockholders of these companies? I love how it's so much easier to blame "politicians" and "big business" at the same time we consistently elect cookie cutter Ivy League milktoasts while swilling down our McDonalds shakes in our GM's, waiting to get home to our Sonies and be outraged some more... ad nauseum. You and I my friend are the fucking problem. Beep is only explaining Bus 101 to you. The government does an absolutely terrible job distributing money, 'cause they're only accountable to you and me (and we have rewarded them time and time again with reelection). Business is about making money. That '50's happy horseshit about trust and loyality to a "company" has taken a place beside Elvis and Jello molds. So I guess I have to ask why "you will never understand this"? Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #28,498 by mmoffitt 2/15/02 11:27:50 AM Reply	Simpler explanation. Premise 1: Government's role is to protect me. Premise 2: Bizness' role is to exploit me. Conclusion: Government is bad, Bizness is good. I still don't get it ;-) bcnu, Mikem
Post #28,502 by screamer 2/15/02 11:47:26 AM Reply	Fair enough... Now I understand... Just so I don't forget... Government - bad, Business - good... Four legs - good, two legs - bad... And speaking of Orwell, I'm affraid if we muck about too much with the constitution, we'll be seeing the situation where "some animals are created more equal than others" (again)... Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #28,393 by Ashton 2/14/02 3:01:24 PM Reply	My solution? has always been: actual OPERATING checks & balances = via the 'government' you imagine to be as corrupt as your Corporate (and current substitute-Government). NOT the emasculated, current Corp-lawyer tissue of loopholes. (Today.. M$ is able to outspend even the USDOJ in its permanent floating crap game of of congenital disinformation. M$ is not alone, merely the most visibly corrupt daily example) I'll go along ~ with Moffitt's sketch below. And second the McVeigh doggerel as seems just beneath the surface - in your implicit disdain for all things Governmental. Why your POV is unMurican at the core: does that make you a non-pinko Commie dupe? puce perhaps? And if.. 'our government' were as screwed up as is the current Corporate-purchased "government" [???]. Why, if it were that bad in Murica 2000: Again the Constitution holds the remedy: under such a condition fucking revolution is not merely 'permissible' (Hah as if a Patriot needs permission ;-) -- it is a mandatory explicitly stated remedy within that document !! It ain't either/or, Corporate rule/People rule, -- Government IS all 'we' have against the exclusively self-serving greed of especially the Modrin Billy n'Bally Lying-type Corporate model. Sorry you missed my Rx so far, and so often.. Ashton
Post #28,396 by a6l6e6x 2/14/02 3:17:03 PM Reply	Re: govt. "That government is best which governs least" is a motto with which Henry David Thoreau opens his pamphlet, Civil Disobedience. That's what I think Beep means as well. Alex "Of course, you realize this means war." -B. Bunny
Post #28,402 by Ashton 2/14/02 4:09:42 PM Reply	Yes but.. in concentrating on that 'least' - such a government can be, must be - effective. There is no contradiction in reserving for govt. precisely those areas where no private or private-group 'interest' can suffice. And so long as 'we' (any large enough plurality) doubt our ability to construct, refine, oversee: a government sufficiently honorable, restrained but not.. impotent to act! [??] What we are really saying is some approximation, corollary of - A) We don't really believe that the Constitution can be delivered upon. B) Maybe because we don't trust [myself! and all those like me]. (No, of course it isn't as simplistic as Any 2 ideas - but it IS about earnestness +/- hypocrisy, in our collective actual attitude towards governing ourselves.) And if we AREN'T earnest: then we are saying that, we are not ready for self-government. There's an either/or! for the digitally obsessed too ;-) Ashton Tom Paine Leibnitz Carlin
Post #28,488 by bepatient 2/15/02 10:44:17 AM Reply	Federal I think the constitution can be delivered upon. I don't think the Fed can do it. I think we can establish government sufficiently honorable to act. I don't think the Fed is it. Roll of different leves of government has flipped over time. More emphasis has been placed at the federal level for things that should not be handled at that level. The fed is sufficiently removed from the people to shield it from adequate review. This is how the "evil influence" and corruption occurs. The Fed, for the most part, is above the law. At least business has to answer to the law at some point. The list that was posted before og the "Evil 100" businesses. Add up the fines levied against those companies. Quite a tidy sum of cash. Now add up the fines levied against Congressmen for illegal behavior. Hell...throw in the Executive and Judicial Branch as well. Y'all are bitching about Clinton/Nixon/GW. Guess what. They are salaried for life. The Secret Service is paying for Hillary to qualify for a Congessional seat in New York. (rent on house next door...bought by Clintons for the sec detail...pays mortgage on both houses). I guess my point is...I'm saying government...and meaning the Fed level. I know the mayor...and could probably get an audience with the governor. I'd be lucky to get within 100 yards of the Pres (even b4 9/11) I have NEVER argued against a need for Federal Government. There is need. However, what we need it for and what it has developed into are light years apart from each other. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #28,499 by mmoffitt 2/15/02 11:35:49 AM Reply	Missed point, I think. >> More emphasis has been placed at the federal level for things that should not >> be handled at that level. The federal government has gotten into a lot of territory that was not originally within its scope. It has been, I would argue, loathe to do so. However, when the States for whatever reason, fail to uphold the ideals expressed in the Constitution or fail to faithfully execute the responsibilities they are charged with, the federal government has stepped in. Perhaps you would argue that federal marshalls escorting civil rights marchers in the 1960's was a bad idea? Perhaps, in the great tradition of capitalism, we should sentence children without means to a lessor sort of life than give them a hand with HeadStart? If the States want to bitch about federal encroachment, they have no one to blame but themselves. Aside: Although with the current crop in the federal government, I think its pretty much open season on the less fortunate and dissentors. bcnu, Mikem
Post #28,510 by bepatient 2/15/02 12:42:25 PM Reply	You can't believe that "Loathe to do so"? We might as well stop now. If that is indeed what you believe...we'll not be able to sort this out without right shift to China. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #28,500 by screamer 2/15/02 11:41:14 AM Reply	Bravo! I think you have hit the nail on the head. I want the Federal Gov to provide for the national defense, etc... See the original Constitution plus 10 (and a few more)... The squishy "ensure domestic tranquility" thing should most probably be rewritten and clearly defined. I too have met many in corp America (C*'s) that I found very caring and intelligent (a couple of true losers as well :-) ). The problem with stereotyping is well... you know. I kept waiting for you to explain who these "shareholders" are (demographic breakout - institutional verses private, etc...) and you let me down. Because this was getting to the right edge on my 21" monitor I posted the congressional 2000 Tax Liabilities in a post to Norm as a new thread. Unfortunately, you didn't do this either so the "rich don't pay their fair share" bs kept going on... What is amazing to me is, the rich proportianately pay a shit load of taxes. I wish people would say what they really mean - "the distribution of wealth in this country bothers me". That would be hard to argue against? I'm not ready to give up on democracy yet, either. Hitler said, " I would rather a million fools be led by one brilliant man than one brilliant man be led by a million fools"... Hitler said... And therein lies the rub. Kings provide absolute decisions. There's no "debate" and therefore no waiting around for important decisions to be made. That's a plus? The problem is, what happens if the king is f&^% looney tunes? I have to side with you on this one Be... To quote a great "American"; "you say you want a revolution, well you know, we'd all love to see the plan". Just a few thoughts, Screamer "You better free your mind instead" John Lennon "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #28,588 by Ashton 2/15/02 11:50:09 PM Reply	That delicate balance.. Our (ideas of our government) are a tissue of such balances: Individual protected (?) from some aspects of "the tyranny of the majority" aka homogenization. Three branches intended to cross-check and sometimes confound each other. Fed / State / County / ... arbitrary hierarchies all. Ideally the Fed usurps any lesser org. when (and only when?) that org. has proven incapable of meeting basic Constitutional obligations. Freedom Riders as good an example as any; even than - Fed came to the fray only after decades of indifference. Timing. Courage? or Expediency? IMhO.. the genius of our base rules IS these overlapping and necessarily vague boundaries. The vagueness is not imprecision - but prescience! Recognition of the unpredictability of the perennial battles between personal greed / community health and all the other dichotomies. "Fed removed from the people", you say. Sometimes such buffers are necessary. Corrective mechanisms do work - but not any of them 100%. Always there is the trade between - say, thousands of petty city machines VS the warts in the largest machine. Inescapable. Seems I have more 'faith' in the wisdom of "all that is not explicitly stated" within our ground rules - than you have (?) Your faith in the mere 'economic model' OTOH appears almost limitless. I find both the econ. vision and its daily practical results patently fraudulent, rigged to favor the momentum of initial control of (some bias level) of capital.. against all without (a lot of) capital. I guess it all depends upon.. from which comfortable sinecure one views it all ;-) Then select the data to justify, since no one warehouses It All.. just pieces. Ashton
Post #28,665 by mmoffitt 2/16/02 3:45:40 PM Reply	I hope this isn't lost. I have a question. Is a benevolent dictatorship of the people more in their interest than democracy? You seem to suggest so in this post when you write: >> "Fed removed from the people", you say. Sometimes such buffers are necessary. I am not at all comfortable with the position that better results will come from less democracy. However, as time passes and I grow older, I am left with little else to conclude. My concern is that we will never find this "benevolent dictator" to rule us. bcnu, Mikem
Post #28,682 by boxley 2/16/02 7:22:52 PM Reply	anarchy and chaos is much preferable to a benevolent dictatorship. That however is my personal opinion and not applicable to sheep, the afeared and the scrotes that want to make it happen. However it is a good description of a corporation, a dictatorship benevolent or no that one voluntarily joins for creature comforts. thanx, bill Mike Doogan "Then there's figure skating and ice dancing and snowboarding. The winners are all chosen by judges. That's not sports. That's politics. And curling? If curling is a sport, pork rinds are a health food."
Post #28,704 by Ashton 2/16/02 10:42:17 PM Reply	I can't imagine such a construct as, a benevolent dictatorship of the people. The usual argument(s) re 'democracy' - have to do with some version of the idea, Folie de deux; folie des millions. Just because large numbers of people 'believe' something... etc. 'Benevolent' begs the fundamental Question: for Whom? for (largely) Which? sub-group. Since manifestly.. no one is wise enough to orchestrate all decisions affecting all people - we are stuck with variants of the controlled chaos du jour. I deem that a "benevolent dictatorship" is the fantasy of the mind which will trade simplistic for the difficult 'actual' (maybe same mind as trades a little security for a little freedom, etc.) ? I found lots of pithy angles in the little book, Science Fiction and the New dark Age (Harold J. Berger, 1976) - especially in his exhaustive comparisons of various dystopias. It seems that all our grandiose simplistic recipes ARE or become dystopias. (Only real hope I see: increasing levels of consciousness - the only antidote to sheepish rote behavior - from within. Since that requires individual and difficult work: those are the odds IMhO. Still, there's always a chance.. ) A.
Post #28,734 by a6l6e6x 2/17/02 1:03:04 PM Reply	But then, Plato's philosopher king, comes to mind. Alex "Of course, you realize this means war." -B. Bunny
Post #28,716 by Silverlock 2/17/02 2:04:13 AM Reply	Benevolent dictatorship? Funny. I'd always thought that was an oxymoron. But seriously, it seems to me the only way a dictatorship could be benevolent is when the dictator in question is benevelont. How often has that happened? I would wager that those dicatators who were considered beneveloent (can anybody name three?) were those who were dethroned in favor of the jackboot crowd. Just a guess, probably no accuraccy in that estimation, but what the hell. With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere.
Post #28,747 by nking 2/17/02 3:08:56 PM Reply	The King is coming that will solve all of our problems, and everyone will have food, drink, houses, world peace, etc. His name is Jesus and he promised to return to become our new King. He is the only one that can set things right, all else are false leaders. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #28,751 by Ashton 2/17/02 3:46:30 PM Reply	Indulge your fantasy. But if that is all you do.. while Waiting for Godot (It's a play by Beckett) -- it's just an excuse to rationalize doing nothing at all. Why bother - when Something will swoop down and Make it All Well? Y'know?
Post #28,763 by nking 2/17/02 6:00:25 PM Reply	It is a question of when as in when will it happen? It could be tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, next decade, next century, next thousand years, etc. We will never know when. So we just live the best we can for now and hope for a better tomorrow. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."

Welcome to IWETHEY!