ideal capitalism

[emprworm]

""There can be no certain knowledge." Which of course is an attempt at certain knowledge. *Shrugs* If you want to go that route then we just enter uncertainties and meaningless nothings"

My point exactly.  Having that position is precisely meaningless.

On the other hand, there is no paradox in the position "There is certain knowledge".  Since making that claim IS certain knowledge, it therefore MUST be true.  It is more logical to affirm an absolute than to deny

[nemafakei]

"If the entire world were a bunch of atheists"

Don't confuse your terms. Moral relativism is what you were discussing, not atheism.

"Jack and Harry are both making ABSOLUTE CLAIMS"

Then that's not an example of moral relativism. When I say the moon looks green, and you say it looks orange, if there is an absolute, then one or none of us may be right. Moral relativism says the moon has no one colour. As far as you're concerned, it's orange, as far as I am, it's green. We're both right in stating what we observe, and there is no true answer. In the case of the moon, there is an absolute. What is, I think, being questioned is why this is the case for morality. Personally, I can see a way for absolute morality to work, but I don't want to get sidetracked.

"As opposed to a BIG SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT where a citizen has no where to go (but out of the country) if he resents the government"

Socialism and local government are by no means exclusive. But this isn't your main point, it's just an opportunity to bash socialism, so it's not really worth explaining.

Thankyou for your answer...

Firstly: What's to stop businesses sponsoring 'democratic' campaigns, outrunning local businesses at the media and ballot box instead?

Secondly: What's to stop existing businesses who happen to gain monopolies or near monopolies on the local economy exerting blackmail over the region?

Thirdly: What's to stop greedy county councils sanctioning, say, a company piling some toxic effluent into the water downstream of most of the county, such that a next-door county suffers, but has no say over the matter?

Oh, and "i use it because I enjoy it.  A little ad-hominem here and there spices up a converstation"

I'm sure the dungeon will appreciate more condiments, should you wish to insult people further for your own pleasure.

[emprworm]

"Firstly: What's to stop businesses sponsoring 'democratic' campaigns, outrunning local businesses at the media and ballot box instead?"

Currently in the US, big business cannot contribute directly to a political campaign more than 5000.00 (i think thats the limit, but i'd have to check).

[nemafakei]

I've always made it clear that attacking people is wrong, and the 'threat' is open to anyone. That you think it adds flavour to the discussion demonstrates why you need to be reminded that there is a place for offensive posts, and that place is the dungeon.

"I think that it should be flatline illegal for ANY business to do this.  MOVEON.ORG and Veteransfortruth in the ideal capitalist society would not be allowed to air ads or campaign at all"

Good.

Further to this, though, how do you stop the inordinately rich funding their own campaigns and producing an aristocracy?

"Voters"

Let us imagine a situation where most of an area's economy depends on mining cows for export. If Cow-Mine Corporation already employs about 80% of the population (and all the land and equipment), and it unfairly reduces wages, then the population aren't going to be best pleased. They can't vote for a party who wants to get rid of Cow-Mine Corporation, since they'll all lose their jobs - and they don't have the skills to do much other than cow-mining, which they've been doing all their life.

"Federal laws.  Remember there *are* federal laws.  Environment, civil rights, immigration, for example"

Next: What's to stop greedy country governments sanctioning, say, a company piling some toxic effluent into the water downstream of most of the country, such that a next-door country suffers, but has no say over the matter?

[Dante]

My point exactly.  Having that position is precisely meaningless.

Only if you take it to that extreme. Which, in case you haven't noticed, I did not.

On the other hand, there is no paradox in the position "There is certain knowledge".  Since making that claim IS certain knowledge, it therefore MUST be true.  It is more logical to affirm an absolute than to deny

Saying 'there is certain knowledge' does not prove the existence of certainty, it only expresses an opinion. And it is not more logical to follow an absolute, especially in the case of knowledge and morals, because it is following the nonexistant.

As for the sceptical paradox, I don't use it, myself. Not in the context of knowledge, anyway; morals are different. But in the case of knowledge at least it can be added to:

"There can never be certain knowledge, but some things are more certain than others."

Which is good enough for me.

[emprworm]

"They can't vote for a party who wants to get rid of Cow-Mine Corporation, since they'll all lose their jobs - and they don't have the skills to do much other than cow-mining, which they've been doing all their life."

this doesn't happen in capitalism.  This is what happens in socialism!  The government owns all the land and the cows and the people have one BIG entity to work for.  This is how Canada runs its auto-insurance.  One company...and one company only...must EVERYONE in BC use for insurance.  Capitalism will always find a way around the "one guy owns everything" crap so long as monopoly laws are in place.  There will always be some guy that finds a better way to do something.  Besides, if the people WANT to sit around and work for Cow-Mine corporation, then let them! If they don't then they will take a risk and get rid of them.  There is no possible way Cow-Mine could ever own 80% of an economy.  Anti-monopoly laws would forbid it.  That is the kind of thing that happens in socialism.

[nemafakei]

"This is what happens in socialism!"

Incidentally, when that does happen in socialism, the company itself is run democratically; wages won't get reduced for profit, because the company has a duty to its people.

"Besides, if the people WANT to sit around and work for Cow-Mine corporation, then let them! If they don't then they will take a risk and get rid of them"

The point is, they will lose their jobs and won't be paid. They don't WANT to work for them for that little, but the only option they're offered is not being paid.

So surely anti-monpoly laws will force the corporation to hire no more than a handful of workers from the local area at any time, so as not to gain a near-monopoly on employment? When there are people willing (initially) to become cow-miners in a village next door to the cow mine, the company must find people willing to travel much further to the cow-mine?

----- Unanswered -----

Further to this, though, how do you stop the inordinately rich funding their own campaigns and producing an aristocracy?

"Federal laws.  Remember there *are* federal laws.  Environment, civil rights, immigration, for example"

Next: What's to stop greedy country governments sanctioning, say, a company piling some toxic effluent into the water downstream of most of the country, such that a next-door country suffers, but has no say over the matter?

[Dude_Doc]

Next: What's to stop greedy country governments sanctioning, say, a company piling some toxic effluent into the water downstream of most of the country, such that a next-door country suffers, but has no say over the matter?

Or stuff like this:

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/26/vietnam.tigers.reut/index.html