PDA

View Full Version : The two choices for the world



David G
12-19-2015, 12:36 AM
The END of human civilization?

Dire? Yes. Unlikely? Probably. Impossible? No. The natural consequence of allowing things to continue in the same vein? Undoubtedly.

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/12347598_10154434498618327_2079663834626614650_n.j pg?oh=36d0590cbab0b9c4d932dfe58f18e05f&oe=5722561E

skuthorp
12-19-2015, 12:40 AM
Your'e dreamin…………. The Pirates are always in charge of the treasury.

David G
12-19-2015, 12:44 AM
https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfl1/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/12341465_10154420621883327_5958322289214232914_n.j pg?oh=cfb4982098db0fa531ea5d0e1aee36ea&oe=57141CCD

David G
12-19-2015, 12:49 AM
https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/12359846_1239186386108374_1947200871827579499_n.jp g?oh=2c55f893f87df80408f1ce318f2eb877&oe=56DEA6A6

The Bigfella
12-19-2015, 02:42 AM
Still check under the bed at night for the boogeyman?

David G
12-19-2015, 09:33 AM
Your'e dreamin…………. The Pirates are always in charge of the treasury.

There will never be an entirely egalitarian society. It's not desirable, and not workable. We're just not wired that way. Leadership, competence, and excellence are all real things. Capitalism is a mechanism for harnessing the ceaseless dynamo of human need and human greed to direct them toward innovation and improvement. And it works. Mostly. It's messy. We're humans.

However - if capitalism is allowed too long a leash... it tends to become perverse. Overheated with too much speculation. Oscillations. Crashes. Concentrations of wealth and power so extreme as to threaten our representative democracy. But it doesn't have to be that way. We've actually learned how to avoid the worst of it. For all the grief that economist take... we have economists largely to thank for that learning.

Variations in wealth and power based upon merit work. Even some nepotism sprinkled in isn't too harmful. And those in power will always run things for their own benefit. The best of them also keep an eye on the larger picture. Noblesse Oblige actually works. A class that builds wealth in the younger years, then moves on to non-profits or politics as a way to do public service works. When politics becomes strictly a means to further the accumulation... it becomes dysfunctional for society.

But sometimes we ignore or forget the lessons. Like now. And we pay the price. The longer we wait to correct things... the larger the price.

CWSmith
12-19-2015, 10:04 AM
There are 3 views to the future you find in science fiction:

1) The Star Wars view where a corrupt government controls the people.
2) The Alien view where corporations have all the real power.
3) The Star Trek view where individuals have the opportunity to reach their potential.

I know which one I prefer.

Keith Wilson
12-19-2015, 10:10 AM
Your'e dreamin…………. The Pirates are always in charge of the treasury.To some degree, perhaps. But there are greater and lesser degrees, and if you look at history and take the long view, the pirates are losing. Not as fast as any of us would like, but they're definitely losing.

L.W. Baxter
12-19-2015, 10:13 AM
The goal of "ending corporate power" makes no sense. Corporate power makes the modern world go 'round. Unless it is possible to replace all the mechanisms of production and distribution with nationalized industry, the first choice is the one that would actually lead to the "end of civilization".

I think it's pretty clear that a government stranglehold on the means and methods of production is worse than the corporate domination we supposedly experience now.

LeeG
12-19-2015, 10:14 AM
There are 3 views to the future you find in science fiction:

1) The Star Wars view where a corrupt government controls the people.
2) The Alien view where corporations have all the real power.
3) The Star Trek view where individuals have the opportunity to reach their potential.

I know which one I prefer.

The one with Deana Troy

David G
12-19-2015, 10:50 AM
The goal of "ending corporate power" makes no sense. Corporate power makes the modern world go 'round. Unless it is possible to replace all the mechanisms of production and distribution with nationalized industry, the first choice is the one that would actually lead to the "end of civilization".

I think it's pretty clear that a government stranglehold on the means and methods of production is worse than the corporate domination we supposedly experience now.

Don't be so danged literal. It's a poster - not an article for the American Journal of Political Science.

Did someone suggest that "... a government stranglehold on the means and methods of production..." is the solution? No one I saw. But to address that end of the spectrum: it would indeed be bad. Allowing the pendulum to swing too far toward EITHER end of the spectrum causes problems. As noted in #6... pure socialism is unworkable for humans in their present state of evolution. Arguably as bad as pure capitalism. Neither should be aimed for, nor allowed.

But venturing too near pure socialism is not our problem at the moment. Presently - we are swinging too far toward the laissez-faire, pure, unregulated capitalism end. And it's costing us.

And if we ever swing anywhere near this close to the socialism end of the spectrum, you'll likely hear me squawking just as hard about THAT version of koyaanisqatsi.

L.W. Baxter
12-19-2015, 11:01 AM
A world without corporate power is a world without personal computers.

A world without personal computers is a world without internet memes. That would be devastating to your lifestyle, David.

L.W. Baxter
12-19-2015, 11:02 AM
G, it sounds like you are philosophically opposed diametrically to your own o.p..

Do we have two choices, or not?

David G
12-19-2015, 11:08 AM
G, it sounds like you are philosophically opposed diametrically to your own o.p..

Do we have two choices, or not?

At This Moment In Time... the poster is correct.

Keith Wilson
12-19-2015, 11:08 AM
Beware bipolar thinking.

L.W. Baxter
12-19-2015, 11:42 AM
At This Moment In Time... the poster is correct.

Doubling down, eh? So, you see no fundamental conflict between your posts #1 and #11? From here, it looks likes a textbook case of cognitive dissonance.

The poster in the o.p. isn't just not correct, it is, as the fashionable say, "not even wrong".

What does it mean to "end corporate power"? Corporate law and the corporate model make the modern life of relative leisure and health possible. Modern life is corporate. You have to go back before the industrial revolution to find a way of life that is not corporate. Or visit Somalia, or North Korea.

What is the "end of civilization"? Is it anarchy? A return to fractured, localized, inefficient tribalism? Is that really where corporate hegemony is headed? Not even close.

David G
12-19-2015, 12:01 PM
Doubling down, eh? So, you see no fundamental conflict between your posts #1 and #11? From here, it looks likes a textbook case of cognitive dissonance.

The poster in the o.p. isn't just not correct, it is, as the fashionable say, "not even wrong".

What does it mean to "end corporate power"? Corporate law and the corporate model make the modern life of relative leisure and health possible. Modern life is corporate. You have to go back before the industrial revolution to find a way of life that is not corporate. Or visit Somalia, or North Korea.

What is the "end of civilization"? Is it anarchy? A return to fractured, localized, inefficient tribalism? Is that really where corporate hegemony is headed? Not even close.

Sure. We can call it doubling down.

"End corporate power" is short-hand, at least to my mind, for reeling in the excesses... as mentioned in #11. And yes, it IS the overarching political, economic, and moral issue of our times.

As for the end of civilization - don't ask me to define it precisely. I'm no Oracle... nor Cassandra. I will refer you instead to the wildest rantings of rabid environmentalists... and the works of Orwell, Huxley, Bradbury, Atwood, Brin, and all the more modern writers of 'dystopian' fiction for potential models.

L.W. Baxter
12-19-2015, 12:57 PM
"End corporate power" is short-hand, at least to my mind, for reeling in the excesses... as mentioned in #11. And yes, it IS the overarching political, economic, and moral issue of our times.



Wow. You have a much different idea of morality than I do.

The relative influence of corporations is an administrative issue.

The overarching political, economic, and moral issue of our times is the same as it ever was. How do we organize ourselves, how do we get ahead, and how do we treat our neighbors?

Corporate power is intertwined in those question of course, but in a value-neutral way. The question is, how much local authority and control are we willing to cede to global commerce and concerted government (corporate!) action? Considering that such cooperation is ultimately the best news for many of the world's poorest nations, the moral component becomes, are we willing to live in a more egalitarian world?

Gerarddm
12-19-2015, 01:03 PM
Ever see the Canadian documentary The Corporation? It says that the cooperation typically acts in a way that meets clinical definitions of sociopathic behavior. Which means an appropriate about of regulation is certainly called for.

One fabulous start would be to eliminate the legal fiction that corporations are people too, to use Mitt Romney's immortal words.

CWSmith
12-19-2015, 01:05 PM
The one with Deana Troy

Well, there's also that.

AndyG
12-19-2015, 01:52 PM
Leadership, competence, and excellence are all real things.

And almost never all found in one person.

Andy

skuthorp
12-19-2015, 02:33 PM
With the example of Wall St. banks in mind, when they are close to failing who picks up the pieces? Not the corporation, that's already technically bankrupt. And seemingly the behaviour that caused the problem is rewarded, and the taxpayer after paying out big time still has no ownership of the asset?
And the pirates are still in charge of the treasury.

And as for
Originally Posted by David G http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=4742601#post4742601)
Leadership, competence, and excellence are all real things.

I give you the GOP candidates.

David G
12-19-2015, 03:06 PM
Wow. You have a much different idea of morality than I do.

The relative influence of corporations is an administrative issue.

The overarching political, economic, and moral issue of our times is the same as it ever was. How do we organize ourselves, how do we get ahead, and how do we treat our neighbors?

Corporate power is intertwined in those question of course, but in a value-neutral way. The question is, how much local authority and control are we willing to cede to global commerce and concerted government (corporate!) action? Considering that such cooperation is ultimately the best news for many of the world's poorest nations, the moral component becomes, are we willing to live in a more egalitarian world?

Maybe so. Or perhaps you're missing the topical nature and direct link to those issues you mention.

"When there is an accumulation of money and power into fewer and fewer hands, people with the mentality of gangsters come to the fore. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" -- Lord Acton

And... at this point in time... we have fallen into this old trap. And, "How do we organize ourselves, how do we get ahead, and how do we treat our neighbors?" is either colored or driven by Acton's dictum.

The Bigfella
12-19-2015, 03:21 PM
https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/1479093_1042953082429050_2382224580336363586_n.jpg ?oh=7e01db8c7ca7ff8cf916b7ae3995b4fc&oe=570C3FF5

David G
12-19-2015, 03:33 PM
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-12-14/how-spread-wealth