Intelligent Design?

[Raithere]

I think a problem here is that both of you have a simplistic view on nature.

Beg pardon, but aren't you the one suggesting that human behavior is hard-wired?

Actually, I find the assertion irrelevant except that it seems to also defeat any ethical objection. There is no model of human organization or social interaction that remains free of politics they're all susceptible to abuse. Whether the currency is money, political clout, social influence, religious authority, what have you... whether it's hard-wired into our genetic makeup or whether it's due to a combination of factors, the problem remains.

~Raithere

 

[mouse]

The personal lesson to take away is never to ignore the downside. In fact, one should always count on a worst case scenario. There are no safe investments, not even the government. Just look at social security and bond returns. Prepare for the worst, hope and work for the best.

Safe bets, there are indeed none, but when it comes the most secure bet, I'll trust the government over any other large organisation. It may not be very efficient, but at least it's democratically elected and bound by a rather static document that grants impartiality. It may not be eternal and policies will change, but at least it moves about in a, to some degree, controlable manner. Then again, I may have changed my view in ten years down the line if the European experiment failed to work out properly.

It's not just that the system is flawed. The ideal simply does not work except on a small scale. The larger the governing body the more room there is for corruption and the less chance of discovering it.

I'm not convinced that there is a direct relationship between the size of a government and its level of corruption. To give a counter example, it wouldn't surprise me at all if in a little village with an us-knows-us mentality, government contracts are more likely to be signed with acquaintances and friends of municipal civil servants, than in a capital city where auditors, with no direct relation to suppliers, supervise the budgets.

Yes. Government and politics are about power. Period. Power attracts pathological personalities, people who will abuse it. The only remedy I have ever come up with is that power should only be given to those who don't want it. By those who have a true understanding of the scope of the responsibility and thus are reluctant to take the reigns into their own hands.

I can twist that around: those who have a true understanding of the scope of the responsibility, are poised to act to not let the reigns of government fall in the hands who'd abuse it.

My opinion on the matter is that we need as many diverse factors participating as possible and we need to try to equalize the power as best we can so that no one entity can operate in exclusion of the others.

I agree.

Mostly we need to understand that every organization has the same flaw. That no organization can take into account the needs and desires of every individual.

I agree.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Beg pardon, but aren't you the one suggesting that human behavior is hard-wired?

No I am not.

 

[Raithere]

No I am not.

Yes, you did.

Many mothers do not crave for power. They just want to take care of their family. That's not because they are stupid or brought up this way. It's in their 'nature'. Hardwired into their biological constitution. (emphasis mine)

It seems to me that you just disagree. You don't seem to have any supporting arguments or better alternatives.

~Raithere

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Never mind. You will never get it.

 

[wesmorris]

Never mind. You will never get it.

Impressive rebuttal.

The farce is strong in this one.

 

[Raithere]

Safe bets, there are indeed none, but when it comes the most secure bet, I'll trust the government over any other large organisation. It may not be very efficient, but at least it's democratically elected and bound by a rather static document that grants impartiality. It may not be eternal and policies will change, but at least it moves about in a, to some degree, controlable manner.

Again, I think the best situation is where there is a balance of several or even many "opposing" forces. Of course the articles of government will determine what those forces are and their relative strengths so yes, at some point trust must be in the government. All authority is ultimately derived from threat of violence, democracy at its root is merely civilized warfare.

I'm not convinced that there is a direct relationship between the size of a government and its level of corruption. To give a counter example, it wouldn't surprise me at all if in a little village with an us-knows-us mentality, government contracts are more likely to be signed with acquaintances and friends of municipal civil servants, than in a capital city where auditors, with no direct relation to suppliers, supervise the budgets.

I agree. I was stating that, all else being equal, a larger government affords more opportunity and less risk of exposure.

I can twist that around: those who have a true understanding of the scope of the responsibility, are poised to act to not let the reigns of government fall in the hands who'd abuse it.

This too, is true.

~Raithere

 

[wesmorris]

"democracy at its root is merely civilized warfare"

Hmmm.

Excellent observation.

What about governments other than democracies?

Did you ever peruse War, what is it good for?.

It's a fit I think.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Yes, you did.

It seems to me that you just disagree. You don't seem to have any supporting arguments or better alternatives.

~Raithere

And this is a good rebuttal Wesmorris????

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Let me put this more precisely then; businesses need to have a positive cash flow. Otherwise they go broke and no one gets paid. Publicly traded companies do need to make a profit, otherwise they loose their investors along with the capital they need. Unlike governments and their beneficiaries corporations are not allowed to simply take money from people by force.

I think you lost it a bit here. Governments do not take money from people by force. You elected your government which decides on your behalf that some of your money and your neighbours should be used for common good. Don't give us that rightwing propaganda please. Nobody is falling for that bullshit.

Sounds more like a racial issue then. Or perhaps it's simply his problem. I've done the scut work too. Did janitorial service in a hotel, bussed tables, ran room service. Used to work in a warehouse too... 110 degree summers pulling crates of steel and aluminum parts out of semi-trailers. I never had a problem talking to the executives or the CEO. In fact I used the opportunity to begin my career. Ducking your head and hoping no one notices you is certain to lead nowhere. You have to take the risk.

No it is not a racial issue. you don't understand because either you like sticking your head in the sand or else you just aren't part of the bottom dwellers. My impression is you are a desperate middle class person.

Sometimes I've been treated nice. Sometimes I've been treated badly. Have you come up with some system where people always treat each other nice, all the time? Where politics, prejudice, and personality never conflict? Please, do tell us of this wonderful system.

Oh so now suddenly you agree that businesses aren't there to treat you nice? Well, I gues I should actually read your posts.

Where did I say this is a grand society? We have all sorts of problems. What I jumped on was this ill-informed, propagandist notion that all corporations are evil and responsible for all the world's ills.

~Raithere

Well, they are responsible for almost all world's ills at the moment.

REFERENCE:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...9622/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_10_2/202-0500390-6323863


ok..everybody fucking happy now? I bothered to respond to your crap.

 

[Raithere]

Never mind. You will never get it.

Yeah, I know.

It's because I'm such a dim bulb and have trouble comprehending anything. Not because the argument you have presented consists of nothing more than ideological platitudes.

And this is a good rebuttal Wesmorris????

Please.

I didn't need to rebut your statement; all I had to do was point out that it was a lie. You stated on two occasions that people were hard-wired for sheep-like behavior. Then you denied that you stated it. Then when I pointed out that you were lying you respond that I'll "never get it". Get what? You have yet to expound upon anything. All you've done is make unsupported assertions. Your defense consists purely of the implication that you possess some vast understanding beyond my comprehension.

You sir, are full of it.

~Raithere

 

[spuriousmonkey]

So, the main point that corporate life is evil is a lie?

You pick a detail, find another one somewhere. And then the main point is suddenly argumentated in your favour.

Is that how we proof things nowadays. Keep nitpicking until a discrepancy occurs. And then we are suddenly right.

My bad...(as you folks say)

 

[Raithere]

I think you lost it a bit here. Governments do not take money from people by force.

This is just funny. I ask you sir. What would happen to you if you refused to pay taxes?

You elected your government which decides on your behalf that some of your money and your neighbours should be used for common good.

Did I state that I had no representation? No, I did not. Am I free? No, I am not. I am bound by the laws if

No it is not a racial issue.

A black man afraid to talk to anyone where he works sounds like a racial issue to me. If not then maybe it's merely a personal issue or perhaps its a really nasty working environment. But from personal experience on both sides of the coin I know that there is nothing intrinsic that would prevent someone at the "low end" of the totem pole from speaking to anyone.

Oh so now suddenly you agree that businesses aren't there to treat you nice? Well, I gues I should actually read your posts.

Yes, reading my posts would help. I never said that corporations have to or will always treat you nicely. The question was whether it was "fair". And I even admitted that it isn't always fair.

Well, they are responsible for almost all world's ills at the moment.

Sounds like an interesting book. Maybe I'll read it. But I do notice that in the reviews that governments seem to get mentioned as often as corporations as sources of these ills.

~Raithere

 

[spuriousmonkey]

This is just funny. I ask you sir. What would happen to you if you refused to pay taxes?

I'm not going to reply to replies based on single sentences janked out of paragraphs. Obviously the above is a clear example of taking something out of its context after which loses its meaning. I explained already why we pay taxes. It is not of my concern if you want to pay them or not. And if you want an answer it is exaclty the same as before: We as a community have chosen to punish people who do not want to follow the rules of our community. We pay taxes because we have chosen to do so.

 

[wesmorris]

And this is a good rebuttal Wesmorris????

It's on point and correct. It certainly beats "you'll never get it", which is a completely assenine thing to say. I don't think you're being reasonable/rational in this thread at all. Actually you're being an ASS. You're all "blah blah raithere/wes you're cheating, you belittle people as your argument blah blah when doing exactly that yourself. "you'll never get it". What the fuck is that? Are you even payign attention to your behavior or what you've written?

 

[Cris]

Time to close this thread. Pretty much nothing on ID for the past few pages.