"Freedom" thread or something - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

The Doctor View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543

Posted: January 31 2013 at 11:07

The T wrote:

The Doctor wrote:

And you don't think that those who work to get to the top in the corporate world aren't motivated by a hunger for power?

Some. Some just want to provide better for them and their families. Like any other normal employee or person in any company or any walk of life.

Did a CEO rape you once Doc or something?

Your hate is quite unbelievable. Especially when you consider that the big CEOs you probably really dislike are a small percentage of all those people who have that title.

So the problem is mostly power. Too much power. Changing the people holding power will not do much. Lowering that amount of power would.

And shot my dog too.

There was no hate in that statement, just a statement of fact that it isn't only people in the big, bad government who might be hungry for power. I'm sure that a lot of corporate executives are as power mad as any government official. Did a politician give you the clap or something?

I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: January 31 2013 at 11:13

Well, indirectly, yes, all of us have been routinely screwed over by politicians

.

Again, CEOs exist in most companies. You shoudl specify like "Exxon CEO" or "Chase CEO" or something.

Epignosis

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32559

Posted: January 31 2013 at 11:16

The government people are greedy for power and abuse that power.

The corporation people are greedy for power and abuse that power.

The difference lies in the fact that I can choose not to do business with the corporations; I am forced to serve the government, no matter how inept, wasteful, or abusive they are. And then they take our tax money and funnel it to the big corporations in the form of government contracts, subsidies, reduced competition through regulations, and bailouts.

I don't see how someone can be so vehemently opposed to powerful corporations but worship powerful government (which is also a corporation, but a coercive one).

Edited by Epignosis - January 31 2013 at 11:23

https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

The Doctor View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543

Posted: January 31 2013 at 11:18

Epignosis wrote:

I would question why half our country still retain their faith in our bloated, overreaching government:

1. We've had federal minimum wage laws since 1938. We've also had Medicaid, SNAP, WIC, TANF, FNS, government housing, and numerous other government-sponsored programs. Presently, one in six people in the US live in poverty. I think I mostly answered this one. Minimum wage has not kept up with the rate of inflation. Further, while those programs haven't eliminated poverty, how many people in poverty have they helped get by?

2. We've had a nationwide public education system since 1870, and now spend $10,500 on average per pupil per year, yet we are ranked 17th in the world. I'm not sure how much we actually disagree on this issue. I think our rating is appalling and I'm not sure that throwing more money at it is a solution. Part of the problem is within the education system itself, but part of it comes from lack of parenting and lack of discipline on the part of the students. Not sure what the solution to this is.

3. The United States Postal Service has a statutory monopoly on mail delivery, and yet it is set to cut 150,000 jobs. I wonder if those laid off will take solace in the fact that even though they lost a job, it was one provided by a governmental entity rather than some fat-cat corporation that pays out lucrative bonuses to executives despite billions in annual losses. Oh, wait. If that happened, then that is just as wrong as if a private corporation did it, perhaps even moreso. But remember, I don't agree with everything our government does.

4. We've had a progressive income tax since 1913. The top 25% of income earners now pay 86% of the federal income tax. The bottom 50% pay 2% of the federal income tax. What is often overlooked is that most of that bottom 50% receive tax credits that give them a refund even if they paid no taxes. So while one person may pay $5,000, another person may receive $5,000, all because that person has children and earned income. So we already have a direct redistribution of wealth. I have no problem with this. If my 5000 in taxes goes to help some needy family with 5000 extra in income, I'm ok with that. In fact, I'd prefer that to it going to huge bonuses for executives that received government bailout money.

5. Ever notice that most of the owners and executives of large private corporations, which liberals tend to vehemently oppose, are not outspoken libertarians? Without a powerful government, these corporations could not use their lobbyists to impose regulations that choke competition and cement their place in the market, all the while leaving them free to pursue government contracts (again, look at the innumerable contracts between the public education system and private corporations). However, a good portion of owners and executives, while not libertarian, are in favor of deregulation. Why, because if they are allowed to regulate themselves, they won't.

++++

There's this conviction that if a program isn't producing the desired results, then it just isn't funded enough. Holders of that conviction seldom consider that a program may never work at all, or that a program changes more than one aspect of the overall system, such that previous assumptions are no longer accurate.

Edited by The Doctor - January 31 2013 at 11:20

I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: January 31 2013 at 11:35

The T wrote:

Well, indirectly, yes, all of us have been routinely screwed over by politicians

.

Again, CEOs exist in most companies. You shoudl specify like "Exxon CEO" or "Chase CEO" or something.

The obvious answer is then you can't use the word "government" you must specify specific leaders.

You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: January 31 2013 at 11:38

Again, we all are subject to government's actions; we are only subject those corporations we have business with; unless of course they have acquired power through government to impact our lives even when we don't have dorect business with them.

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: January 31 2013 at 11:56

To expand on my other point, when you get to the level of detail we have here, do broad stroke generalities like "big government" really mean much?

Cynicism and pessimism about the standard we hold for our leadership don't help. The government is supposed to be bound to the law just as much, if not more so, than the citizens. If they are not, we need to work harder to change the leadership.

The constitution is inherently a document meant to limit the degree to which you can wield power through the government. Why then is it wrong to limit the power of private entities, who you've already admitted are just as likely to abuse that power?

You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.

Finnforest View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 17364

Posted: January 31 2013 at 11:57

The Doctor wrote:

And you don't think that those who work to get to the top in the corporate world aren't motivated by a hunger for power?

Not necessarily. To what extent I am climbing and working to move up, it has nothing whatsoever to do with power. I don't care about power. Not my thing. I'm working quite simply to amass what I can for the sole purpose of exiting the rat race as soon as is possible. So I can have my time back, to take hikes, read books, cook, things I enjoy.

Power means zero to me. I imagine there are more than a few people, even "greedy CEOs", who have similar feelings as mine. It's far too easy to generalize people's motives as always being this, or always that.

...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell"

The Doctor View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543

Posted: January 31 2013 at 12:04

The T wrote:

Again, we all are subject to government's actions; we are only subject those corporations we have business with; unless of course they have acquired power through government to impact our lives even when we don't have dorect business with them.

But we are subject to those corporations we do have business with, and sometimes we don't have a real (economic) choice as to whether or not to do business with them.

One thing that I don't think I've brought up before, but has been wrangling around in my head for a long time, and now's as good a time as any to bring it up. Let's say A and B get into a physical fight (this is the easiest analogy I can come up with) and there are no rules in the fight. However, B being the ethical person he is, fights a good, fair fight. A, on the other hand does not, he bites, he hits and kicks below the belt, pulls a kinfe and so forth. A and B are equally skilled at fighting and are of equal size. Who will win? I think it's pretty obvious that A will take the fight. Now, let's apply that analogy to the business world without rules. Who do you think is going to come out on top? The nice guys who treats people fairly, or the bad one who has zero scruples and will do anything and everything to win? My point is, without rules, eventually the scum will rise to the top and while there are ethical and decent people in the business world now, those people will not be able to survive without the rule of law. And so, in the long run, the only people you will be able to do business with are the evil ones. Does government sometimes prop up the bad guys? Yes, of course. Can the good guys survive in the business world without the government there to set the rules? I don't think so.

I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: January 31 2013 at 12:05

Finnforest wrote:

The Doctor wrote:

And you don't think that those who work to get to the top in the corporate world aren't motivated by a hunger for power?

Well said Jim. I know there also are honest politicians. But remember, politics is in itself ALL about power, it's the essence of it.

I would also love to climb the ladder and become a CEO not for power but to give a better life to myself and my family, retire earlier and enjoy live. What's so wrong with that?

The Doctor View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543

Posted: January 31 2013 at 12:10

I would just like to reiterate: "I'm sure that a lot of corporate executives are as power mad as any government official."

I never said "all".

I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: January 31 2013 at 12:11

I would like to go on the record as saying that many of them are and a good number of them are probably more so than the average politician.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

The Doctor View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543

Posted: January 31 2013 at 12:13

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I would like to go on the record as saying that many of them are and a good number of them are probably more so than the average politician.

Did you just agree with me Pat? What's this place coming to?

I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: January 31 2013 at 12:25

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I would like to go on the record as saying that many of them are and a good number of them are probably more so than the average politician.

That's a pretty broad generalization that can't be verified because it's so vague.

This argument of "Who's worse, CEO or Senator?" is pointless.

I suspect in both cases it becomes an issue of scale. A small business owner with 12 employees usually has direct contact with those employees regularly, has a better sense of who they are and what they do within the company. You can apply rewards and punishments more appropriately that way. When scales get large, the top parts of leadership get very detached and make decisions based on reports and spreadsheets. Their world is other high level managers and their representatives. In the case of both government and business, this loss of perspective leads to bad decisions even if there is no malice.

You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: January 31 2013 at 12:27

The Doctor wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I would like to go on the record as saying that many of them are and a good number of them are probably more so than the average politician.

Did you just agree with me Pat? What's this place coming to?

I do have a cold so it could be a sign of a fever roasting my cerebral cortex.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: January 31 2013 at 12:30

Negoba wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I would like to go on the record as saying that many of them are and a good number of them are probably more so than the average politician.

That's a pretty broad generalization that can't be verified because it's so vague.

Of course it cannot be. I believe the statement carries an implicit partiality that we all understand.

Negoba wrote:

A lack of empathy causes both to some degree. We happen to live in a society which teaches that empathy is either naive or unpatriotic or both.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: January 31 2013 at 12:37

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

A lack of empathy causes both to some degree. We happen to live in a society which teaches that empathy is either naive or unpatriotic or both.

I sense a change in you during my absence.

You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: January 31 2013 at 12:38

Negoba wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I would like to go on the record as saying that many of them are and a good number of them are probably more so than the average politician.

That's a pretty broad generalization that can't be verified because it's so vague.

This argument of "Who's worse, CEO or Senator?" is pointless.

I think a clarification of terms is needed - I wouldn't call a small business owner with 12 employees a CEO since it is unlikely that the business of that scale would have a teir of executive management for the CEO to be in charge of or board of directors or shareholders for the CEO to report to. This isn't a question of scale but of job function - the head of a small business is more likely to be the owner and therefore more likely to be fully involved in what the business does, rather than in charge of those who are involved in what the business does. This is the point I was trying to make a million pages back. The owner of a small business is not a CEO.

What?

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: January 31 2013 at 12:41

Negoba wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

A lack of empathy causes both to some degree. We happen to live in a society which teaches that empathy is either naive or unpatriotic or both.

I sense a change in you during my absence.

I would be a pretty boring individual if I was the same wouldn't I?

I have a different focus now than before I would say although my beliefs remain largely unchanged.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: January 31 2013 at 12:58

Dean wrote:

Negoba wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I would like to go on the record as saying that many of them are and a good number of them are probably more so than the average politician.

That's a pretty broad generalization that can't be verified because it's so vague.

This argument of "Who's worse, CEO or Senator?" is pointless.

This is a good point. There are qualitative differences in the jobs. But there are also quantitative factors in terms of degrees of separation.

You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.