Philosophy Now Forum

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Subject header was truncated, thus shortened to comply, thus actual should read:

Are governments complicit as to the inequality amongst peoples?


Body Text:

Do you think corporations (capitalism) and/or governments (rule), are complicit in the buying and selling of people, for their monetary/power gain? If so, or not, please add what you think relevant below. Anything goes, hopefully as long as you truly believe it to be true. If not, and you actually hate the OP, please do what ever you want to do with your expressionism, just be honest about it, all are welcome.

How about the thought that money is actually a weapon in the long line of man developing them, to seek advantage in competition over resources; a less bloody means!

bobevenson wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

bobevenson wrote:The illegalization of marijuana benefits the rich at the expense of the poor? If marijuana were legal like regular cigarets, it would Improve quality and reduce price to the consumer. I think you need to come up with another example.

I'll take that as a yes!

please follow this link to continue:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12904

You would rather have poor people pay as much as possible for poor quality marijuana, right? You don't want rich people contributing to higher quality and lower prices for poor people, right? I rest my case, you poor pathetic fool.

bobevenson wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Subject header was truncated, thus shortened to comply, thus actual should read:

Are governments complicit as to the inequality amongst peoples?


Body Text:

Do you think corporations (capitalism) and/or governments (rule), are complicit in the buying and selling of people, for their monetary/power gain? If so, or not, please add what you think relevant below. Anything goes, hopefully as long as you truly believe it to be true. If not, and you actually hate the OP, please do what ever you want to do with your expressionism, just be honest about it, all are welcome.

How about the thought that money is actually a weapon in the long line of man developing them, to seek advantage in competition over resources; a less bloody means!

Oh, I get it, you want everybody to be equal, and I guess you believe it is the responsibilty of the government to achieve this. What page of the Communist Manifesto do you want to start with?

SpheresOfBalance wrote: You lack truth and history, which is that of which I speak. I spoke of why it was initially made illegal, which only speaks of the truth of history, since it was made so, quite some time ago, come on Bob keep up!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Do you think corporations (capitalism) and/or governments (rule), are complicit in the buying and selling of people, for their monetary/power gain?

How about the thought that money is actually a weapon in the long line of man developing them, to seek advantage in competition over resources; a less bloody means!

i_another wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Do you think corporations (capitalism) and/or governments (rule), are complicit in the buying and selling of people, for their monetary/power gain?

Sure. From the corporation's viewpoint, people are reducible to resources. The term "human resources," which is now commonly used to refer to the department dealing with employment, is a sufficient example. I don't think the case against the government provides as clear an example, which isn't to say the government's actions are any less nefarious. Indeed, I would argue that the government's monopoly on force, on raw power, makes it a far more dangerous entity than most profit-oriented corporations. The government may not move ordinary citizens around like chess pieces in the same way as do corporations, but it certainly has a tendency to view citizens as resources, whether for revenue (taxes) or for the continuation of power and prestige (votes).
How about the US practice of lobbying? isn't it just bribery? Do you think that it results is a bought and sold president, thus often the needs of citizens?

How about the thought that money is actually a weapon in the long line of man developing them, to seek advantage in competition over resources; a less bloody means!

Again, sure. I don't think money's original purpose was to be used as a weapon, but there's nothing unusual about the fact that its influence in our world has made it a useful instrument to be used against others.

Out of curiosity, what prompted you to ask these questions?
You probably hate my answering your question with more questions, but I assure you that your answer is further below. But if you would please answer these questions before reading it, I would appreciate it.

Why do you ask?
After answering, did you feel somewhat uneasy about answering, somehow vulnerable?
Do you have preconceived notions as to the type of person that would ask such questions?
Do you think my mind/goals possibly nefarious?

i_another wrote:I don’t think all lobbying is necessarily equivalent with bribery. In a popular government like that of the U.S., it’s natural for different groups to pressure leaders to enact policies favorable to their interests. And whether it’s the wealthy or the poor, all Americans are equally citizens of the United States. I know many tend to view the so-called privileged through a tinted lens, but the fact is, the privileged are no less entitled to petition the government than are the poor. (Soapbox tangent: Personally, I would like to see less lobbying of the federal government from all parties; but the process of nationalization—a consequence of a century of progressive activity—has pretty much ensured a never-ending lobbying campaign for favors from Washington, D.C.)
I admit that I had campaign contributions in mind when I asked that question. And that, that is were the buying and selling comes in, at least in my mind, as often lobbyists goals are not what the people really need, quite the contrary.

Does lobbying result in “bought” politicians? Probably, at least in some instances. It’s difficult, however, to say whether someone like President Obama has been bought through lobbying efforts. I imagine he would have arrived at the White House with certain partialities toward certain policies—and therefore toward certain groups—regardless of whether or not he was heavily lobbied.
Yes, but my concern is that the very practice lends to lobbyists paying for support, of things not always beneficial to the people as a whole, and that the recipient of such funds would usually feel inclined to support the lobby. Personally I think they should make the exchange of monies to government officials for future favors illegal, as I see it as bribery, pure and simple!

As to this below, you were the first ever here, to ask me why I asked, such that I wondered what prompted such a question. I thought maybe you had some concerns as to the topic, that somehow made you uneasy, and wondered why someone in this type forum would be so. "But, now I understand," he said, as he lowered his arm, while slyly affixing his gum to the bottom of the desk.

Questions in response to a question? Whoever heard of such a thing in philosophical discourse!

1. Why do you ask?

Curiosity, plain and simple. You began this thread with some questions, and those questions centered on a particular topic. My assumption is that you’re interested in this topic for a reason; I just couldn’t discern what that reason is from your O.P.

2. After answering, do you feel somewhat uneasy about answering, somehow vulnerable?

Not at all. I’m a teacher, so I’m used to being asked questions all of the time. I like questions.

3. Do you have preconceived notions as to the type of person that would ask such questions?

Sure, but those preconceived notions—like so much else—are based largely on my personal interactions with other people. Generally, it’s been the case that someone who asks the questions you did, and in the way that you did, is prepared to take a critical stance on the matter at hand. There’s nothing wrong with that, in my view. It’s just an observation.

4. Do you think my mind/goals possibly nefarious?

Goodness, no. Nefarious is a powerful word and too strong to use in this discussion, even if we do end up disagreeing about policies concerning relationships of power, lobbying, etc. Then again, I’ve yet to hear your full view of anything related to these matters; so it’s possible that your goals are nefarious. I just can’t make that determination now.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Watch the film 'The Corporation'. Corporations are psychopathic. They are anti-business, anti-competition, anti-creativity, anti-originality. They are bloated parasites. Corporates are not business people, they are corporates. Corporates have a formula that they stick to rigidly, even if they are fucking up a business in the meantime. Heck, those arseholes even have their own meaningless language called corporate-speak.

bobevenson wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Watch the film 'The Corporation'. Corporations are psychopathic. They are anti-business, anti-competition, anti-creativity, anti-originality. They are bloated parasites. Corporates are not business people, they are corporates. Corporates have a formula that they stick to rigidly, even if they are fucking up a business in the meantime. Heck, those arseholes even have their own meaningless language called corporate-speak.

You get your knowledge from movies instead of books, huh?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Corporations are anti-creativity, anti-originality.

bobevenson wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Watch the film 'The Corporation'. Corporations are psychopathic. They are anti-business, anti-competition, anti-creativity, anti-originality. They are bloated parasites. Corporates are not business people, they are corporates. Corporates have a formula that they stick to rigidly, even if they are fucking up a business in the meantime. Heck, those arseholes even have their own meaningless language called corporate-speak.

You get your knowledge from movies instead of books, huh?

bobevenson wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Corporations are anti-creativity, anti-originality.

Tell that to the ghost of Steve Jobs.