Discourse and Discussion - Cap/Com

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Flubber
You are being as absolutist as kid if you can't see that some shareholders will have concerns other than ONLY the bottom line. These are PEOPLE . .. . Now the bottom line matters and for most people it will be the major concern but for MOST people its NOT the only concern.

The thing is "some shareholders who have other concerns" is not sufficient. You need a majority to effect a change, and that just does not happen most of the time.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Velociryx
You mean, they will protect that which is rightfully theirs?

Rightfully? Spare me. Divine right was the old, worn out excuse that was used by aristocrats and landlords to protect themselves.

It's not like the rising up of the bourgeoisie was not violent. The Middle Class killed many people to seize power, and killed many more to retain a hold on power.

Do you choose to be Mr Pot or Mr Kettle?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
You mean, they will protect that which is rightfully theirs?

You bet they will. If your aim is to TAKE, then yes, I fear you must generally take by force. One of the lovely undertones of your "Revolution."

You do realize that we don't agree that the right to rule is rightfully yours don't you? You accuse us of murder and we accuse you of murder. That's war. If you want to talk about the moral superiority of capitalism then do it. You're getting no where just calling us murderers. Of course we will kill to set things right. It sounds like that's exactly what you would do.

[Velociryx]

Any society needs rules. Rule of law is what keeps a society from ripping itself to shreds.

Under the current rules of the society I live in, everybody has a shot. Everybody has a chance to make something of themselves and better themselves.

This HARDLY sounds like the situations Kid and UR are describing where our society are concerned.

In their universe, Capitalists are no better than the aristocrats of old.

I wonder...how many peasants "made it"?

Compare that number with the number of self made men up and coming EVERY YEAR from the society I live in.

The argument becomes a twisted joke. If that is the best selling point of Communism, then count me out.

And yes, I would fight to preserve the current rules, because they are working for me. I WAS a peasant who became more.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

And it's not a question of the right to rule.

I don't rule you, Kid. And I'll NOT have you ruling me.

It's about opportunity.

Under the system as it is, I've got plenty.

Under your utopia, I get a long bread line and a gun in my face (at best).

I know which way I'm leaning.

-=Vel=-

[Kuciwalker]

[1] Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Nice strawman. Lets see what other societal harms there are. Divorce, spam, unprotected sex. All seems to be capable of great harm to society yet legal.[/1]

Yours is the strawman. Pollution inflicts harm on others without their consent. Those other harms are entirely consentual, and only an individual can properly decide what is harmful to his or her interest.

In fact, the current state of things is a deviation from laissez-faire capitalism. In pure laissez-faire, pollution would be strictly illegal. Because that's obviously impractical, we allow people to pollute to a moderate degree.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
[1] Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Nice strawman. Lets see what other societal harms there are. Divorce, spam, unprotected sex. All seems to be capable of great harm to society yet legal.[/1]

Yours is the strawman. Pollution inflicts harm on others without their consent. Those other harms are entirely consentual, and only an individual can properly decide what is harmful to his or her interest.

In fact, the current state of things is a deviation from laissez-faire capitalism. In pure laissez-faire, pollution would be strictly illegal. Because that's obviously impractical, we allow people to pollute to a moderate degree.

No! The consent IS given by the people via the government to allow certain levels of pollution. As long as companies follow those guidelines all is peachy. It is implicitly understood that in order to support the product desires of the people pollution in a low but manageable level is a reality. The intention of incenting is to further allow companies to go beyond the letter of the law in order to further reduce emissions if that even is a societal goal. Judging from the resistance I hear it would appear that is not the case. Instead the societal goal appears to pin the woes of all pollution on companies (despite the fact that the majority of pollution arises from consumers for which companies have some culpability in the design of their products but also the small businesses which are largely unregulated that fall outside the threshold requirements to comply with regulations) rather than deal with the larger societal issues and changes required as suggested by Arrian.

By the by in my 'strawman" examples both Divorce and spam could be considered examples of noncnonsentual harm. Divorce effects on children would be without their consent as obviously is spam on the computer user. But since we aren't talking about a nonconsentual harm but moreover a consentual one the point really is moot.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Any society needs rules. Rule of law is what keeps a society from ripping itself to shreds.

Now you're saying aim against all rules? Un-****ing-believable. You will say anything to try to convince me to be your pee on.

Under the current rules of the society I live in, everybody has a shot. Everybody has a chance to make something of themselves and better themselves.

So says you. We keep telling you this isn't true, but you ignore us. You don't want to listen.

In their universe, Capitalists are no better than the aristocrats of old.

They aren't

I wonder...how many peasants "made it"?

How many of your workers don't make it?

The argument becomes a twisted joke. If that is the best selling point of Communism, then count me out.

And yes, I would fight to preserve the current rules, because they are working for me. I WAS a peasant who became more.

-=Vel=-

Personally, I'm not trying to recruit you. You wouldn't make a good communist.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
No! The consent IS given by the people via the government to allow certain levels of pollution.

Duh. Otherwise, we'd have absolute laws against it.

However, there are people harmed by pollution without their consent, because they didn't vote for the current set of regulations.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
And it's not a question of the right to rule.

I don't rule you, Kid. And I'll NOT have you ruling me.

They are your rules, and they benefit you, not me. So yes, you do rule over me.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


No! The consent IS given by the people via the government to allow certain levels of pollution.

You're missing something, obviously because of your sick bias for your corporations. Even kuciwalker can see it. No one says "ok I'll take asthma for one of those SUVs." Hell, it's usually the poor kids in the inner city who get the asthma anyway, and they don't get **** for it.

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, Kid, my point was that even if the majority decided that certain levels of pollution were acceptable (which they have, tacitly, by not passing laws against those levels), there would be people who were harmed agaisnt their will.

[Kidlicious]

Of course, but you understand though that if I do something that harms you I should be obligated to make that right, don't you?

[Arrian]

Well, technically Ogie is right about consent being given to pollute via the government.

There are regulations on emissions - which by their very existance show that emissions (pollution!) are allowed.

If you outlawed all pollution, you would essentially outlaw all production, and that wouldn't get us anywhere.

It's basically a question of societal cost/benifit. Right now, I think that we're using the wrong balance (allowing too much pollution). But in general, society decides (via its representatives in government - and yes, I'm aware that the system ain't perfect) how much we pollute.

Punishing for pollution is the stick. Some of us want to use carrots too, that's all. That doesn't mean the stick gets put away. My plan would be to gradually (but steadily) tighten regs across the board, while also using incentives to get companies to tackle the problem proactively. This helps, by the way, when the deadline looms and some companies (Big Three *coughcough*) start whining about how the government is being too harsh. Those whines will sound all the more hollow when there have been incentives available for years in advance to help them get cleaner.

I understand this sort of thing might disgust an absolutist. It's the path of compromise, and compromise is often dirty.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Arrian
Well, technically Ogie is right about consent being given to pollute via the government.

No he's not. The majority has given consent (as I clearly said, and even pointed out as blatantly obvious), but the majority does not encompess everyone. Not everyone who is harmed by pollution is harmed consentually.