‘World suffering’? What are you talking about? The USA is the LIBERATOR of the world.
Also, is it in the interest of a capitalist to ‘do you harm’? Possibly, if they are some fly-by-night outfit. That’s why reputation is so important. That’s why you seek out reputable companies. Don’t blame capitalism because some scammers exist; they’re in ANY society.
HH[/quote]
YOU have been propaganzied! Look outside the corporate medai for a real opposing point of view.
U.S. caused suffering:
Vietnam, Korea, Niceruagua, East Timor and now Iraq. Plus a smorgsboard of other countries I’ll list if you want know.
‘World suffering’? What are you talking about? The USA is the LIBERATOR of the world.
Also, is it in the interest of a capitalist to ‘do you harm’? Possibly, if they are some fly-by-night outfit. That’s why reputation is so important. That’s why you seek out reputable companies. Don’t blame capitalism because some scammers exist; they’re in ANY society.
HH
HH,
This is the good 'ol “blame America first” tactic of the extreme left. The left hates America and the economic foundation of America which is the “evil” corporations. Nevermind that they provide the jobs, do the major portion of national investment. No, nevermind that. Like Marx and his Communistic ilk, they wish to turn the U.S. into some type of beneficient socialist state where taxpayers get soaked so to support the lazy who don’t wish to work, and…
…wait a minute…they have succeeded! To a point, of course. Can you imagine, America is not socialistic enough for these people! Amazing.
America is a good and compassionate country that helped save the world in two World Wars, and is basically going it alone against worldwide terror which would not only seek to destroy us, but also any other capitalistic Western nation.
Go U.S.A. !!!
Signed,
A very proud American!
[/quote]
You are such a victim of mass propaganda and by definition you don’t know it. If you wanna stay uninformed keep listening to Limbaugh read whatever major newspaper you like and fiddle while this country burns.
Okay first there is a moral dilema with your announcement about the “beauty of capitalism”. If I knowingly sell you something that is going to do you harm - even if you want it - is there “beauty” in that transaction just because I made money from it? Or is it a defect?
That depends if I know what I am buying. If I do, yes there is beauty in it.
The alternative would be much worse.
[/quote]
You obviously subscribe to relativism. A dessicated philosophy.
So let me understand you. Before corporations came into exsistence books were never distributed and people never read?
Although a corporation is only a legal entity the courts have given it rights like a human being. It was and still is ,I believe, protected under the 14th amendment. So while not actually being a person they have the rights of a person. How many corporations are there? And what kind of person are they?
Before corporations existed there were far less books and they were very expensive.
Without corporations, which took capitalism to a new level, most people could not even read, we would barely have the means to send children to any kind of school.
The rest I don?t get.
So corporations are legal persons. This has lot of advantages and makes very complex economic operations possible. The whole idea that something is “bad” just because you decide to give it a certain legal form is strange.
If I own part of a “corporation” that sells, lets say bureau furniture, what evil masterplan would I have, beyond selling stuff?
[/quote]
I think you could quite a bit of evidence that Americans were generally more educated in the past - save for slaves.
You must know what kind of person you are dealing with if you are ever to make a competent evaluation. Know the functions of a corporation and judge on what type of “person” they are. I think you’ll be startled by the conclusion.
LBRTRN: Every viewpoint is heard?
Untrue. There is a narrow framework in which debate is framed. The only reason there seems to be a debate is that there is dissention among the elites. So those differences may be expressed. But these are THIER viewpoints not those of the public.
O f course a diverse amount of viewpoints can get published but those which do not fall in the framework of the elite all but get ignored. During the Vietnam War the right’s position was that the press lost the war and the left’s position was that it became too costly. The basic morality of the war itself was rarely if ever treated. This was not a concern of elite opinion.
First Zinn would never have given in to a demand of filtering the books contents. Secondly the corporations will do many things to make money in so far as it as it serves their interests. The corporate elites are not monolithic. They do disagree and some are against certain Republican or democratic positions. But it is used to further thier objectives not those of the public.
If the European press is privately owned it is not owned by U.S. interests so therfore are not beholden to reprocussions of u.S. intersts. It is easier to tell the truth, even if it is embarrassing to U.S. corporations and politicians.
I never said there isn’t propaganda foisted on populations in other countries.
Look did it ever occur to you that the viewpoint you espouse to is the propaganda that is force fed to the public by corporations. And that the viewpoint of others outside the mainstream is that which runs counter to the elites objectives?
The so called failings of this country which you say is pointed out in history books are mostly sanitized versions. They are written about in a nuetral tone and are placed to give a cloak of objectivity.
Why is it that the genocide in East Timor in the mid-70’s wasn’t front page news almost everyday? Because U.S. corporations were selling arms to Indonesia to commit the slaughter. And the payoff was absolutely gargantuan for weapons makers. The U.S. could have easily stopped selling the weapons that were used to commit the atrocity. But they didn’t! WHY? MONEY, POWER and INFLUENCE. The same reason most wars are fought!
Okay first there is a moral dilema with your announcement about the “beauty of capitalism”. If I knowingly sell you something that is going to do you harm - even if you want it - is there “beauty” in that transaction just because I made money from it? Or is it a defect?
That depends if I know what I am buying. If I do, yes there is beauty in it.
The alternative would be much worse.
You obviously subscribe to relativism. A dessicated philosophy.[/quote]
No I don?t.
The question if there are moral absolutes or not never really bothered me because I knew that there weren?t, so I never bothered to make a philosophy out of it.
I have no idea however how that is significant in that context.
Plus, people that claim to KNOW what is right or wrong in terms of moral absolutes would be the same people that tell me what I may buy or not.
So let me understand you. Before corporations came into exsistence books were never distributed and people never read?
Although a corporation is only a legal entity the courts have given it rights like a human being. It was and still is ,I believe, protected under the 14th amendment. So while not actually being a person they have the rights of a person. How many corporations are there? And what kind of person are they?
Before corporations existed there were far less books and they were very expensive.
Without corporations, which took capitalism to a new level, most people could not even read, we would barely have the means to send children to any kind of school.
The rest I don?t get.
So corporations are legal persons. This has lot of advantages and makes very complex economic operations possible. The whole idea that something is “bad” just because you decide to give it a certain legal form is strange.
If I own part of a “corporation” that sells, lets say bureau furniture, what evil masterplan would I have, beyond selling stuff?
I think you could quite a bit of evidence that Americans were generally more educated in the past - save for slaves.
You must know what kind of person you are dealing with if you are ever to make a competent evaluation. Know the functions of a corporation and judge on what type of “person” they are. I think you’ll be startled by the conclusion.[/quote]
If they were physical persons they would be rational and greedy.
So what?
PS: At least a functioning corporation is, God I hate to deal with the other kinds…
Why is it that the genocide in East Timor in the mid-70’s wasn’t front page news almost everyday? Because U.S. corporations were selling arms to Indonesia to commit the slaughter. And the payoff was absolutely gargantuan for weapons makers. The U.S. could have easily stopped selling the weapons that were used to commit the atrocity. But they didn’t! WHY? MONEY, POWER and INFLUENCE. The same reason most wars are fought![/quote]
First, the corporations selling arms were not the corporations selling news, they never had common interests. Yes they are both corporations but that forces them to be buddies much in the same way a puma and an antilope are friends because they are mammals.
The reason why US news do not cover such things is because noone in the US gives a shit.
Second, the Tutsis an the Hutus killed each other with machetes and they were surprisingly succesful. See, they do not need our weapons, they can do it with knives, sticks and stones if necessary.
‘World suffering’? What are you talking about? The USA is the LIBERATOR of the world.
Also, is it in the interest of a capitalist to ‘do you harm’? Possibly, if they are some fly-by-night outfit. That’s why reputation is so important. That’s why you seek out reputable companies. Don’t blame capitalism because some scammers exist; they’re in ANY society.
HH
YOU have been propaganzied! Look outside the corporate medai for a real opposing point of view.
U.S. caused suffering:
Vietnam, Korea, Niceruagua, East Timor and now Iraq. Plus a smorgsboard of other countries I’ll list if you want know.[/quote]
Hmmm…stopping dictatorships means you are the one causing suffering. Interesting.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
LBRTRN: Every viewpoint is heard?
Untrue. There is a narrow framework in which debate is framed. The only reason there seems to be a debate is that there is dissention among the elites. So those differences may be expressed. But these are THIER viewpoints not those of the public.[/quote]
Question: if every viewpoint is not heard, from where do you get your information? This is really quite silly. Mainstream debate is narrowly framed because, for lack of a better phrase, it has inherent checks and balances.
Many of the views you and I hold, while very different from eachother, are not held in the mainstream. Why? Well, simply put, too many people disagree, not because they are corporate lackeys, but because the facts, at this point, are unclear.
I’ll use myself as an example: One of my firmly held beliefs is that the Great Depression was, contrary to popular belief, largely a product of Government intervention. I agree with Murray Rothbard’s assesment that,
“The guilt for the Great Depression must, at long last, be lifted from the shoulders of the free-market economy, and placed where it properly belongs: at the doors of politicians, bureaucrats, and the mass of “enlightened” economists. And in any other depression, past or future, the story will be the same.”
I suspect you disagree with that premise and so does the “corporate media.” The belief that the New Deal saved this country from the pitfalls of capitalism is a sacred cow amongst the political elite and I could easilly argue that that is the reason my view is not held in the mainstream, but, again, I suspect you would disagree. In rebuttal to my view you would probably point me towards the plethora of historical works that point the finger at laissez-faire capitalism; including every single history textbook in the country. At which point, I could very easilly claim you have been propagandized by the “political elite” and by definition, don’t even know it. Do you see my point?
It’s not that they “can” get published, they do get published. And who would ignore them? The public?
Earlier you wrote, “but these are THIER [the corporate elite’s] viewpoints not those of the public.” You seem to be implying that the corporations are willing to publish but the people just aren’t buying it? In any case, maybe you should spend more time watching c-span’s book tv because I see more of your viewpoint expressed than I do mine.
You clearly don’t understand the position of the “Right” or “Left” durring the time as niether view was as simple as that. The moral aspects of the war were discussed, quite openly in fact. Regardless, I don’t see what that has to do with the corporate media.
So let me get this straight. Corporations have vested interests that run counter to the Truth and they will do everything in their power to prevent that Truth from comming out; however, along comes Howard Zinn, steadfast in his beliefs, a nationally known figure with far reaching influence, and the media says, “fuck it, lets hear what the guy has to say!” Is that about right?
Now you are just being redundant. A corporation’s only interest is making money, and there in lies the beauty. If your position, regardless of politics, makes them money, they will publish it. I guess now I’m being redundant because I think I’ve already pointed that out.
No shit. What you are missing, and I don’t know why, is that the public’s interests are not monolithic either. You seem to be confusing your interests with our interests. It’s all very simple: Corporations are entities concerned with making money; the public has the money, and the corporations want it. In order to get it, they produce goods and services that the public want’s. It goes no deeper than that; yes, sometimes corporations, as entities controlled by men, rip off the public, but, contrary to popular opinion, there is no conspiracy to rip anyone off, or take over the world, or any other such nonsense. The tools that allow you to have this discussion and access the very information you use to discredit the corporate media, is, ironically provided by the corporate media.
I see. So then what’s your problem? Assuming America’s corporate elite have a vested interest in fooling the American public, we still have plenty of access to information from outside the country. Your information is still being provided to you by the “corporate elite.” Just someone elses.
Of course it has occurred to me. I have already pointed out one of my beliefs that runs counter to the popular narrative. What you seem to be missing, again, is that those “outside the mainstream” do not speak with one voice; where as the mainstream, by definition, does. The mainstream is a sort of consensus, sometimes I agree, some times I don’t. When I hear something said in the mainstream that interests me, I research it, and form my own opinions. If I find myself in agreement with the mainstream, it is because my interpretation of the facts coincides with the mainstream interpretation. I imagine that is what most people do…
You agree with what’s in a history book and it snuck through (as in the case of Zinn’s book), you don’t agree and it’s because its been sanatized. Do you see the problem in that?
First, the US wasn’t “selling arms to Indonesia to commit the slaughter.” Indonesia was an ally against communism and as such, we sold them arms. Again, you are ignoring the threat possed by communism. Rightly or wronlgy, there was a profound belief in this country, and others, that the “domino effect” was a real problem.
It is easy for us to sit back post 1990 and scoff at the notion, but for them, it was a very real threat. When Ford let Indonsesia know he wouldn’t put pressure on them if they invaded East Timor, he did it because he believed, rightly or wrongly, that he was helping to prevent the spread of communism–not so he could make some corporation money.
Should we have banned arms sales to Indonesia? yep. As I’ve already said, America has done a lot of bad–just like every other country on the planet (that is, after all, the nature of big government). I don’t know why the violence wasn’t widely reported in the American media. But it wasn’t exactly headline news in Europe either, so I don’t know what that has to do with American “corporate elite.”
(sorry for all the spelling errors I’m sure I’ve made, I hope what I have written is at least legible. I haven’t the energy to proof read right now…)
Okay first there is a moral dilema with your announcement about the “beauty of capitalism”. If I knowingly sell you something that is going to do you harm - even if you want it - is there “beauty” in that transaction just because I made money from it? Or is it a defect?
That depends if I know what I am buying. If I do, yes there is beauty in it.
The alternative would be much worse.
You obviously subscribe to relativism. A dessicated philosophy.
No I don?t.
The question if there are moral absolutes or not never really bothered me because I knew that there weren?t, so I never bothered to make a philosophy out of it.
I have no idea however how that is significant in that context.
Plus, people that claim to KNOW what is right or wrong in terms of moral absolutes would be the same people that tell me what I may buy or not. [/quote]
Is it moral or ethical to sell a junkie drugs just because you can make money from it?
People who belive in absolutes may tell you that what you buy can/will do you harm but they should give you the right to choose. Did Christ force anyone to accept him? Yes there are consequences for denying him but YOU are free to choose.
If you are not a relativist then what do you call denying absolutes?
‘World suffering’? What are you talking about? The USA is the LIBERATOR of the world.
Also, is it in the interest of a capitalist to ‘do you harm’? Possibly, if they are some fly-by-night outfit. That’s why reputation is so important. That’s why you seek out reputable companies. Don’t blame capitalism because some scammers exist; they’re in ANY society.
HH
YOU have been propaganzied! Look outside the corporate medai for a real opposing point of view.
U.S. caused suffering:
Vietnam, Korea, Niceruagua, East Timor and now Iraq. Plus a smorgsboard of other countries I’ll list if you want know.
Hmmm…stopping dictatorships means you are the one causing suffering. Interesting.
Almost fascinating.
HH[/quote]
It’s far more complicated than that. This is what you are fed by the elites in order to justify intervention - Iraq being the msot recent.
Take a look at U.S. intervention into countries and they overwhelmingly do worse.
What happened to the story that if Vietnam fell to the communists there would be a domino effect and eventually the Red Menace would take over the world? It never happened. In fact Southeast Asia has a pretty vibrant economy considering the amount of devastation that came from the U.S.
Also the people of Vietnam voted for the communists. But the U.S. couldn’t have it. They couldn’t have foreign people voting for the wrong guy instead of a U.S. puppet. Just like the situation today when the population of Palestines voted for Hamas. The U.S. couldn’t let an indegious population vote for the wrong guy. Talk about spreading democracy!
LBRTRN: To boil this down to the basics - you believe that all viewpoints are heard and given fair treatment, correct? I, on the other hand, believe thier is a concerted effort by the corporate media and politicians that certain viewpoints aren’t heard and are marginalized.
The info on East Timor from you is seriously lacking.
Here is a paired example of the mass media in it’s function to select topics, frame issues, filter information, determine, select, control and restrict info.
Now one example is an atrocity committed by an enemy of the U.S. And another by us or our allies. Question; does the media ask the same questions, use the same criteria when dealing with 2 cases as any honest obsever would do?
Pol Pot, leader of the Khmer Rouge committed great acts of genocide from 75’ through 78’. There was such an outrage and outpouring of fury and sympathy for those being systematically murdered. It would be hard to find anything comparable.
So that is one atrocity. Now it just so happens that at the same time there was another atrocity, similar in character, but differing in one respect - the U.S. was to a great deal responsible.
I’m talking about East Timor who was invaded by Indonesia in 1975. The U.S., Canada and other nations have consistenly voted aganist U.N. resolutions to end the occupation of East Timor(East Timor has large oil reserves by the way).
In Aug.75’ a civil war broke out w/ Fretelin winning. Described as Catholic in character w/ typial leftist redderick. Indonesia at once started intervening. Indonesian forces slain journalists, most were from Australia. Gene Shacklton, Gary Cunningham, Malcolm Rennie, Brian Peters and Tony Stewart.
Ford and Kissenger were in Jakarta on Dec.5th and asked Indonesia to hold off invading until they left as it would be too embarrasing. On dec.7th the invasion began. For weeks they just indscrimiately slaughtered people.
Jose Ramos-Horta was East-Timors U.N. representative. He told them what was going on. The U.N. reponded - like it always does - w/ condemnation and sanctions.
There were various watered down resolutions passed but the U.S. was clearly not going to let anything work.
In fact Daniel Patrick Moynihan bragged about stopping the resolutions in an auto-biography. He said, " The Dept. of State desired that the U.N. prove utterly useless and ineffective in whatever measures it took. This task was given to me and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success".
The Timorese fleed into the jungle by the thousands and the Indonesians set-up recieving camps for those who were thoguht to be more educated or suspected to belonging to other opposition parties. They were immediately killed. They took some of the women aside and flew them off to be used by the Indonesian soldiers. They killed children and babies. However, there main stratedgy was by starvation. By 78’ the church and other sources estimated 200,000 dead. The U.S. backed it all the way. We provided about 90% of the arms. Right after the invasion the arms shippment was stepped up. In 78’ they actually began to run out of arms so the Carter Admin. moved in and increased arms sales. Canada, England and Holland did the same. Anyone who could make a buck was in there making sure more Timorese were being killed.
There is no concern for western atrocities, human rights abuses or aggression as long as there is a profit to be made. This example couldn’t show it more clearly.
Now there was plenty of reporting going on about Timor before the invasion took place so it wasn’t like no one ever heard of it. After, the invasion the coverage dropped almost to nothing except for a few articles that were strictly from the viewpoints of the State Dept. or Indonesian Generals. Never from a Timorese refugee.
When the murdering reached genocidal levels in 78’ the coverage droped to zero!
All of this was going on at the exact same time as the great outrage over Cambodia and Pol Pot’s genocide. The levels of the atrocites were comparable in relative terms. It actually was probably higher on the Timorese side. The coverage of Pol Pot’s genocide was constantly being written about and discussed. Timor wasn’t.
Is it moral or ethical to sell a junkie drugs just because you can make money from it?
People who belive in absolutes may tell you that what you buy can/will do you harm but they should give you the right to choose. Did Christ force anyone to accept him? Yes there are consequences for denying him but YOU are free to choose.
If you are not a relativist then what do you call denying absolutes?[/quote]
I do not call it anything, I just never met people that really believe in moral absolutes, just people that have convinced themselves they do.
Why would I want to join a delusional crowd?
Is it moral or ethical to sell a junkie drugs, no, is it moral or ethical to have a government agency (that will soon be overrun by special interests) tell us what is moral and ethical, no…
Since these are the alternatives I?d rather err on the side of freedom, even if that means the freedom of a junkie to slowly kill himself. After all it is his live, not mine, and I have no business ordering him around…
You seem to have a basic problem with the fact that live sucks sometimes and you lay that at the feet of the current system, however neither capitalism nor corporations are responsible for all that suffering, on the contrary, life without them would be infinitely worse…
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
…
If I own part of a “corporation” that sells, lets say bureau furniture, what evil masterplan would I have, beyond selling stuff?
Cornering the bureau market and then world domination.[/quote]
I’ll use myself as an example: One of my firmly held beliefs is that the Great Depression was, contrary to popular belief, largely a product of Government intervention. I agree with Murray Rothbard’s assesment that,
“The guilt for the Great Depression must, at long last, be lifted from the shoulders of the free-market economy, and placed where it properly belongs: at the doors of politicians, bureaucrats, and the mass of “enlightened” economists. And in any other depression, past or future, the story will be the same.”
Libertarians are funny. Where did you get this “firm” belief? From a two-page article you read on lewrockwell?
[quote]Patrick Williams wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
…
If I own part of a “corporation” that sells, lets say bureau furniture, what evil masterplan would I have, beyond selling stuff?
Cornering the bureau market and then world domination.
Didn’t work out too well on Pinky and the Brain.
[/quote]
Success flourishes only in perseverance – ceaseless, restless perseverance."