Corporation Watch

[Edric O]

Funny how you yourself complain about the "abusement of freedom" when people use their freedom to do something that you don't like (see the Female Discrimination topic), but you swing around 180 degrees and suddenly become a great "champion of freedom" when your own interests are at stake. Machiavelli would be proud.

A person's intentions are his own business. Freedom of thought must always be respected. But as I explained in my previous post, I'm talking about the system here, not about the people in it. Capitalism is a system in which the greedy and selfish get ahead of the hard-working and compassionate people. I don't blame the greedy and selfish for it - it's their right to be greedy and selfish. I only blame the system that rewards them for it.

Secret service? Since when are we talking about secret services? Last time I checked, this part of the discussion was about voting systems, and I was explaining that my electronic voting system is not just more practical, but also safer than the classic one.

I don't complain about the illegal financial machinations. I complain about the fact that there are plenty of legal ones.

[Caid Ivik]

Niccolo is one of my greatest teachers ;)

1. But anyway, you seem to lack your believe in unchangable moral laws, which were sent by our loving God to humanity, just because they are unfitting communism. Good way, once when you'll look back, you'll see what you've just banished. I DON'T LIKE when someone breaks the law, let it is secular or divine. I won't judge anyone, but call me like you want, accepting a sin just because it is your right to do it, that's impossible for me.

2. Like in first paragraph. It is your right to sin, or break the law, but I can say a resistant word against it as well. Freedom of thought. Whole state law is based on it, when most think something is bad, it will be bad even in social law. And society won't reward someone who only takes from it. Capitalism is a system, where you have freedom, you can do anything, think about anything. Until you won't break law. But it isn't system itself what gives you "reward": it is your own work. In fact, even in communism you can work harder and harder just because of your neverending lust for income, which will raise, altough equally for all. Others will admire my work, maybe, but still, my first intention would be still sinful!

3. Well, someone must guard the machines. Or you think they will be volunteers? Sooo, those selfish reactionists will find someone...

4. What type of evil machination is legal?

[Sneakgab]

''Niccolo is one of my greatest teachers

1. But anyway, you seem to lack your believe in unchangable moral laws, which were sent by our loving God to humanity, just because they are unfitting communism. Good way, once when you'll look back, you'll see what you've just banished. I DON'T LIKE when someone breaks the law, let it is secular or divine. I won't judge anyone, but call me like you want, accepting a sin just because it is your right to do it, that's impossible for me.

Well then why do you prefer a form of goverment where you HAVE to accept a divine sin such as greed when considering it legally? Besides, were not speaking about what we accept or not but what is rewarded and what is not

2. Like in first paragraph. It is your right to sin, or break the law, but I can say a resistant word against it as well. Freedom of thought. Whole state law is based on it, when most think something is bad, it will be bad even in social law. And society won't reward someone who only takes from it. Capitalism is a system, where you have freedom, you can do anything, think about anything. Until you won't break law. But it isn't system itself what gives you "reward": it is your own work. In fact, even in communism you can work harder and harder just because of your neverending lust for income, which will raise, altough equally for all. Others will admire my work, maybe, but still, my first intention would be still sinful!''

What help is a resistant word when an employee is forced to work for an employer or die of starvation? (If an employee refuses to ever work for an employer and does not have the right skills to be an employer he will eventually die of starvation without socialist reforms that fortunately exist...). Society won't reward someone who only takes from it? look at Michael Shumacher, he earns as much as a small country (A very very small and very very poor country that is only made up of about 535 000 people... not that bad but you get the idea)... for what? driving a car a few seconds faster than second best?... (maybe sports players aren't a good example, because they give their country pride... but you still get the idea). You're motivation for working under a communism goverment may have been a sinful one, but the methods used to gain you're money were not sinful, and you contribute more to you're society with you're hard work...

''3. Well, someone must guard the machines. Or you think they will be volunteers? Sooo, those selfish reactionists will find someone...''

Their are security problems with Edric's idea, but their are security problems of a similar nature regarding the internet and only minor effects have ensued... you could say that their is not much motivation but considering the vast amounts it is possible to make hacking into certains servers (bank servers,e.t.c) I would say that their is motivation. Comparing the classic voting system to the suggested electronic one I'd say that in the classic voting system fairly serious fraud is common and fairly simply to achieve whereas with the electronic system extremely serious (perhaps even democracy disabling) fraud is possible but would be difficult to achieve and unlikely to happen but atleast the electronic system would be more convenient and practical (not considering security issues) than the classic system. Corrupt officials and security could have an effect on both systems... although their could be more risk with the electronic system

''4. What type of evil machination is legal? ''

Many... Gossip is not nice, yet is legal

[Edric O]

Being too greedy may be a sin, but you can't jail someone for it. As you can't jail someone just for hate, adulterous thinking or nonbelieving in your moral laws.

But anyway, you seem to lack your believe in unchangable moral laws, which were sent by our loving God to humanity, just because they are unfitting communism. [...] accepting a sin just because it is your right to do it, that's impossible for me.

I see you've mastered the art of Doublethink... ::)

This argument of yours is completely self-contradictory, Caid. Please try to sort out the mess and make a coherent point.

My point was that the people who get ahead in capitalism are the greedy and selfish, not the hard-working and honest. I am not talking about intentions, I am talking about actions. In other words, I'm talking about the people who act greedy and selfish. They are the best at making profits. They are the "heroes" of capitalism. The idea that capitalism rewards hard work is a myth.

3. Of course someone will have to guard the machines. Just like today someone has to guard the voting urns.

Electronic voting may not be perfect, but it is immensely better than what we have now.

4. Everything that involves getting a profit from manipulating money without producing anything or making any contribution to society. Many of the greatest fortunes in the world were made by people whose sole job was to manipulate money.

I'd say those things easily qualify as "evil machinations".

[Caid Ivik]

Not exactly. I can banish something, say it is evil. But I am not a judge, that's not MY competence. No one can see to anyone's true intentions, only God, so I will leave this work for him. For me, my opinion is enough. And opinion of many is a judging too, so this is pointless.

I can use many dishonest ways to get money showing only my greed and selfishness, but just to finance the charity. Or like Chodorkovskij, I can't say he is fully honest, but yet he tries to change something for good in his country by supporting Jabloko and such. Again, you do not see other one's intention - you can have only an opinion, created by seeing his acts. I hope you understand now.

3. And you think these guards are immune to corruption? How you will compose them?

4. But states have various currencies. Even counting the new currency is a hard work, without which there can be no world-wide economy, and people who do it deserve some reward for it. Same for banks and insurances. Even here they take from you one responsibility by a reward. Maybe once all of these things will be put to few computers, but now it is too hard. Not saying there would still have to be some operator of them.

If you are pointing last sunday's evangelium, it wasn't evil that exchanging, but the fact they were doing in in Temple ::) You see a tree but miss the forest.

[Sneakgab]

I apologize for my rudeness, but I do not currently have the effort to make sense of you're post (usually you're english is pretty good considering it's not you're mother tounge, but this time around it is significantly bad, although, admittedly, I am just to lazy to read through you're post again

''4. But states have various currencies. Even counting the new currency is a hard work, without which there can be no world-wide economy, and people who do it deserve some reward for it. Same for banks and insurances. Even here they take from you one responsibility by a reward. Maybe once all of these things will be put to few computers, but now it is too hard. Not saying there would still have to be some operator of them.''

Of course these people deserve some reward, but not the immense sums of money they are receiving. Besides, when Edrico refers to manipulating money he isn't really speaking about bank workers and the like who manage the physical money but rather people who make millions simply by moving money around (if you get what I mean, that statement was vague, but I am to lazy to find a better way to describe to it)

[Caid Ivik]

I know not about how it's with you, but for me it isn't easy to formulate my slovak thoughts to english words. English is such empty language, there are many words I can create or I already have in slovak and I lack them here. I must go sometimes to english world to improve it, until I won't do so, we must try to find the nefesh.

Your view on economy is typically idealistic. Don't take it as some lowering of your words, but if there would be a law limiting wages, it would hurt their freedom. And if you know how to work with money, it is natural for you that you can make them from minimal amount. Like we can't blame cooks they might make best meals for themselves.

[Sneakgab]

''I know not about how it's with you, but for me it isn't easy to formulate my slovak thoughts to english words. English is such empty language, there are many words I can create or I already have in slovak and I lack them here. I must go sometimes to english world to improve it, until I won't do so, we must try to find the nefesh.''

I know how you feel, I have NO hope when it comes to languages... my latest Afrikaanse mark was 24% (in comparison, to say, my history mark; at 87%) although I did do better with French (Back when we were allowed to take the subject...)

''Your view on economy is typically idealistic. Don't take it as some lowering of your words, but if there would be a law limiting wages, it would hurt their freedom. And if you know how to work with money, it is natural for you that you can make them from minimal amount. Like we can't blame cooks they might make best meals for themselves. ''

I don't propose a limiting of wages, but people should be paid accordingly, if you know how to work with say, tens of thousands of dollars, you know how to work with tens of millions of dollars (The work is often similar, only with changes in the size of money being ''moved around'' by corporations) yet a person working with the millions of dollars will receive much more than the person working with the thousands of dollars despite similar knowledge,effort,e.t.c.

The cook analogy does not properly represent what you're trying to say. A cook can made good food for himself, but the quality of his food depends on the quality of his work, therefore his gains are equal and fair... (although he gets more out of something than somebody else, that is a reward of his work). ''Money movers'' are also partially rewarded according to the quality of their work, but two people with such jobs earn different amounts of money depending on how much money they were lucky enough to be responsible over in the first place

BTW; it is true that I usually consider things ideologically, but this is because I think it is probably better that we find out what we/people want (ideology) and then try to find ways to achieve it/ work towards it (practicality)

[Atomic Mitten]

English is such empty language, there are many words I can create or I already have in slovak and I lack them here. I must go sometimes to english world to improve it, until I won't do so, we must try to find the nefesh.''

English is not an empty language , in fact it is a very expressive language if you learn how to use it ! ;)

[Edric O]

Caid:

Not exactly. I can banish something, say it is evil. But I am not a judge, that's not MY competence. No one can see to anyone's true intentions, only God, so I will leave this work for him. For me, my opinion is enough. And opinion of many is a judging too, so this is pointless.

So the state should not try to regulate morality, and people have the freedom to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt others, correct? This is exactly what I support.

I can use many dishonest ways to get money showing only my greed and selfishness, but just to finance the charity. Or like Chodorkovskij, I can't say he is fully honest, but yet he tries to change something for good in his country by supporting Jabloko and such. Again, you do not see other one's intention - you can have only an opinion, created by seeing his acts. I hope you understand now.

Yes, yes, but my point was NOT about people's intentions. I did not judge their intentions, I only judged their acts.

Okay, let me put it another way: In capitalism, it is the opportunistic and speculative people who get ahead, not those who work hard. Capitalism is not a meritocracy. It does not reward hard work. It rewards opportunism and sheer dumb luck.

Do you see my point now?

And you think these guards are immune to corruption? How you will compose them?

You seem to be demanding absolute perfection from my ideas for a new voting system, even though the current voting system is far from the standards you demand from me. In brief, my system may not be perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now. You think the commissions who supervise ballot boxes are uncorruptible?

The electronic voting system doesn't depend on a single guard, just like the current voting system doesn't depend on one ballot box. Corruption cannot be eliminated, but it can be reduced to an absolute minimum by introducing severe punishment (large fines or even prison terms) for those who are found to be corrupt.

But states have various currencies. Even counting the new currency is a hard work, without which there can be no world-wide economy, and people who do it deserve some reward for it. Same for banks and insurances. Even here they take from you one responsibility by a reward. Maybe once all of these things will be put to few computers, but now it is too hard. Not saying there would still have to be some operator of them.

True. People who manipulate money are needed in every modern economy. But does it sound logical to you that they earn more than the people who actually made that money in the first place?

As I said before, success and wealth in capitalism has nothing to do with merit.

[Caid Ivik]

First of all, state should not controll thinking, your conscience cannot be seen and judged by other humans. We can judge only effects, whether we had good or bad intention, that doesn't matter - for state. Setting limits is needed, seeing where are people hurt and why. But do not limit very thoughts, even if they might cause something unacceptable. Again, no one can see to anyone's true intentions, only God, so I will leave this work for him.

Even hard work can bring you a big wealth. See pioneers of Siberia and Klondike, which which were searching for half of their life to mine gold. In Russia this trend was stopped by commies, which thought it is a "theft of state's property". In America, these miners made success and quickly hired others for mining it, so they shared fruit of their work.

Opportunism isn't evil in its core. It just seems sometimes as something dishonest. Some people don't like when others change, when they don't fit their scales. You know what I'm talking about...

Corruption is considered as main part of, we may call it, today's capitalism. I would say it is a main problem of today's society. If classic communism or its russian form are unable to cease it, altough they call themselves as worthy replacement of capitalism, why not try something else? In an extreme form of capitalism, let's call it oligarchy, corruption will cease as it is obsolete. Private intentions will be fulfilled. I see only other, or better, vice-versa way in an extreme socialism - state (which also may be an oligarchy) corrupts voters by giving them perfect welfare. If state would, theoretically, care for them by scale, which will overflow their lust, that will really cease corruption. This system is a perfect one, you will agree, anyone would. It has only little problem; we need infinite resources for it.

About money problem, I see a perfect logic in it. You can be a perfect car racer, but also you haven't to construct that car. While one is skilled in making the device itself, others can find out perfectly how to handle it. He simply has more time for it, because he don't have to create it.

[Edric O]

First of all, state should not controll thinking, your conscience cannot be seen and judged by other humans. We can judge only effects, whether we had good or bad intention, that doesn't matter - for state. Setting limits is needed, seeing where are people hurt and why. But do not limit very thoughts, even if they might cause something unacceptable. Again, no one can see to anyone's true intentions, only God, so I will leave this work for him.

YES, Caid, this is exactly what I said. People cannot be judged by their intentions - they can only be judged by their acts. Their intentions are their own business. ALL their thoughts are their own business. It's called freedom of thought. It is one of the most fundamental human freedoms.

And I'm glad to see you're finally starting to agree with me about it.

I'm glad you brought up the pioneers of Siberia and Klondike. They are the perfect example to illustrate my point: That success in capitalism has nothing to do with merit. Let's look at the pioneers. Some of them toiled for years in search of gold. They lived in the harshest conditions, suffered from cold and hunger and countless diseases, and didn't find any gold. Eventually, they died in poverty. But at the same time, others who were simply more lucky found gold within a few short months of their arrival in Klondike. They got rich overnight and saw their dreams come true.

That is the randomness of capitalism in its purest form.

I don't think you're using the right word when you're talking about that "corruption" - you seem to be referring more to people's desires. Which, by the way, are different from their needs. Needs are finite. Desires, just as you pointed out, can be infinite. But what does this have to do with anything of what we were talking about..?

To continue your money/car analogy, the question is how much should that driver be paid for just using the car. Of course a car needs a driver, just as money needs various people to manipulate it in a modern economy. But should those people really be billionaires while others who are doing something much more useful (like making that money / building that car in the first place) can barely make a decent living?

(This is just another example I'm trying to give about the randomness of capitalism - the fact that capitalism does not reward hard work or merit)

[Caid Ivik]

But it is you, who judges intentions of so called bourgeoise class. It is nice you support freedom of thinking, but you must set it into practice. Only place where you did it now was your view on corruption - of course it is just a way to please our needs. If someone gives you something, it may be for his love, from pure good will, or by calm logical conclusion. State isn't capable of love, that's for true. So government simply concludes it would be helpful to 'buy' people trough increased welfare and by it increase public support. Effects and other characteristics of this phenomenon where pointed in the last post.

In russian socialism, there were simply sent thousands of nonconform people to search it for state. On Klondike, people were there by their decision. Some may say insanity, others lust for wealth or adventure. But it was their own, free decision. Commies wouldn't let them.

We value fun greatly. If it is...moral, or not, I can't say. But you know, this trend lasts for six centuries now. Before that, clowns were usually beggars who went from one town to another using hide in trade convoys. With spread of paper and education in late middle ages people started to write more often and trough it create a new form of culture. In fact, we can't say this trend wasn't before, just most culture of medieval times glorified more heroes of epics themselves, not authors. Then came popular literature: Dante, Petrarca, Boccaccio and many else. There is the start. Trough schisma and Vatican's decay in 16th century many people lost their piety and replaced it with secular culture. This tren went further and became a simple adoration of fun. Thus we can see very simple forms of culture, new-era clowns: fresh, primitive popular music, effect-based movies, mass sports and life based literature. Thinking is silghtly pushed out and pure fun is glorified. And what we glorify is usually the best paid. In early middle ages those were brave warriors, then clergy and now clowns.

[Edric O]

I think we have a bit of a communication problem here...

I do not judge the bourgeois by their intentions. I judge them by their acts. I don't care if they have selfish or greedy intentions, because it's none of my business. But I DO care if they act selfish and greedy.

And anyway, why do you keep trying to divert attention away from the original point? I said that selfish and greedy people (and I meant those who ACT that way) are the ones who make it to the top and get rich in capitalism. But instead of replying to my argument, you started debating the technicalities of being "selfish and greedy".

A democratic government does not "buy" people off with its welfare programs. A democratic government is supposed to be a tool of the people, and to represent their interests. If it is an organization with a separate agenda which tries to fool the people and buy them off, then I have some news for you: That government is not a democratic one.

"Russian socialism" was in fact stalinism, not socialism, as we both know all too well. And I have always expressed my hatred for stalinism and its oppressive nature, so I don't see your point in trying to tell me something I already know.

Now, as for the Klondike, answer me this question: Who got rich after going there? The people who worked really hard, or those who were simply lucky?

We may value fun greatly, but somehow I think that our food, our health and our safety are more important. Yet farmers, doctors, policemen and firemen are not paid more than actors.

[Caid Ivik]

I don't think that sparing some financial product as capital is an act of selfishness or greed. I would say it is otherwise!

Russian socialism was a socialism tightened by ways you don't accept now. It was one of many possible ways, as you said. Just you said it was perverted and lost the value of democracy. But still, dictature of proletariate was an unignorable vector of worldwide communist movement.