The 14 Worst Corporatations

farfromglorified · July 2006

El_Kabong wrote:

i thought you said before that would be impossible?

"Fully" as in all of the information available to the "alerter" or "informer" in Angelica's statement.

El_Kabong · July 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

Ok. This is a discussion. How happy are you about that?

i guess i'm indifferent...?

farfromglorified wrote:

It's very productive to ask questions. There are zero question marks in the article posted.

the knowledge is what would lead others to ask questions on their own. as i said (and i believe you have said before, too) 100% of the information would be impossible. also we both know no one would really read something that has every little tiny detail in it. i would rather spark some questions internally in someone and they investigate on their own rather than they just listen to me and accept

farfromglorified wrote:

Do you understand what a deficit is? Your example is missing one key element -- the credit card.

what if they don't have a credit card? and that didn't really answer my question.

farfromglorified wrote:

I dislike it too. People like you ensure that we have no choice.

ppl like me? do you ever hear yourself?

farfromglorified wrote:

Yes you would. You'd simply forget about the state regulations that shut so many of them down and drive up the costs for the rest.

well, i'm glad you're able to tell me what i'd do and think in future circumstances...any chance you could give me the lotto numbers, mr cleo?

farfromglorified wrote:

Don't even talk to me about "looting". The only reason Haliiburton even has a chance to do these things is because of the mindset of you espouse -- the mindset that says our individual choices can be overridden by something called the "public good".

If you have a problem with looting, rail against it in all its forms. You don't have a problem with looting.

again, thank you for telling me how i think...i mean why would i be in a better palce to know, it's only my brain...

farfromglorified wrote:

That's your problem. You think Halliburton fails 7 times out of 8.

no, i don't. but i think their failures override their success'

farfromglorified wrote:

Ok. Then give me back my choice to withhold my money.

i wouldn't even have the power to do this if i wanted to

farfromglorified wrote:

Ok. Then give me back my choice to withhold my money.

see above

farfromglorified wrote:

You may want to read that yourself.

i did, do you think i just copy and paste random quotes w/o reading them? i'm asking b/c you obiviously know more about me than i do

farfromglorified wrote:

You may want to read that yourself. So much that you espouse here has a gun, a warship, a rocket behind it.

a wee bti overdramatic.

farfromglorified wrote:

You do recognize the "imperative need", don't you? And you'll fire any gun, any warship, any rocket to protect it. You'll loot any man that can give it to you.

i haven't fired a gun in over a decade

farfromglorified wrote:

Who are you to discuss "misplaced power", when so much that you want can be achieved only by bullets and never by minds?

what am i calling for that can only be achieved w/ bullets? if the answer is taxes just skip the reply and the gun to head schtick

farfromglorified · July 2006

El_Kabong wrote:

i guess i'm indifferent...?

Not at all. I'm saying that if your goal is now to "start a discussion", you've succeeded.

the knowledge is what would lead others to ask questions on their own. as i said (and i believe you have said before, too) 100% of the information would be impossible. also we both know no one would really read something that has every little tiny detail in it. i would rather spark some questions internally in someone and they investigate on their own rather than they just listen to me and accept

100% of the information would be impossible. We simply do not have access to all of it. However, we also have the capacity of denial, which is the active suppression of information that we already have.

what if they don't have a credit card? and that didn't really answer my question.

Your government has the world's largest credit card. A $10T credit limit. Headstart was cut because the administration does not like it. It was not cut because the money isn't there. This administration, like so many others, cares not if the money is there or not. Money spent today simply means more looting tomorrow.

ppl like me? do you ever hear yourself?

Everytime I speak.

Yours is the philosophy of demand, not the philosophy of choice. It is those who share your philosophy that demand I give thousands of dollars per year to Halliburton for no other reason than the fact that they demand it.

well, i'm glad you're able to tell me what i'd do and think in future circumstances...any chance you could give me the lotto numbers, mr cleo?

208.106.133.182

again, thank you for telling me how i think...i mean why would i be in a better palce to know, it's only my brain...

I need not access your brain, only your words. Remember that the next time you tell me I have an obligation to you.

no, i don't. but i think their failures override their success'

But you told me that the 7 out of 8 ratio fit the Halliburton situation.

i wouldn't even have the power to do this if i wanted to

I know. You gave that up. Now we all have to take it back.

i did, do you think i just copy and paste random quotes w/o reading them? i'm asking b/c you obiviously know more about me than i do

You know much more about yourself than I do.

i haven't fired a gun in over a decade

Do you hold George Bush to that standard when you see this:

http://members.aol.com/lupinaccim/dead-iraqi-child.jpg

what am i calling for that can only be achieved w/ bullets?

You are calling for allowing other people to make my choices for me. Be it on education, in business, in life. And the only way I'm going to let you or anyone else choose my path is at the price of one bullet.

angelica · July 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

It is all just details. The "industrial military machinery of defense" is also just a detail. Sometimes details kill you.

So do guns sometimes kill people or their loved ones. Cars sometimes do, too. As well sometimes even buses run people down. However, what we focus on indicates our agendas, not necessarily the big truths.

Fighting for anything is still fighting! The gun I carry is an acceptance of that fact, not a rejection of it.

It's an acceptance of continuing the cycles, rather than using your formidable resources to create your dream world. You apparently would rather defend against what the world has created than to own your truth inner power of true creation of your life.

rightondude · July 2006

The worst corporations are all large corporations. Gigantic mindless hulks filled with numbed out zombies...

Abookamongstthemany · July 2006

angelica wrote:

It's an acceptance of continuing the cycles, rather than using your formidable resources to create your dream world. You apparently would rather defend against what the world has created than to own your truth inner power of true creation of your life.

I agree...if effort and time spent on this board has anything to say about it. And I find it contradictory...he says if you don't agree with these corporations then boycott, don't support them, speak out... but then when we try to do just that he defends them over and over again and ignores/justifies the wrongs they commit when it's obvious the good they have done aren't enough to excuse such acts. He can easily make threads expressing his vision and trying to ignite a following from those who may agree....but instead he defends Halliburton and Pfizer when their practices clearly are flawed and wasteful. I would much rather hear more about this 'dream world' he alludes to and how it can actually be realized.

farfromglorified · July 2006

angelica wrote:

So do guns sometimes kill people or their loved ones. Cars sometimes do, too. As well sometimes even buses run people down. However, what we focus on indicates our agendas, not necessarily the big truths.

But you just stated a good part of the big truth. All of those things are true.

It's an acceptance of continuing the cycles, rather than using your formidable resources to create your dream world.

Really? Why?

You apparently would rather defend against what the world has created than to own your truth inner power of true creation of your life.

Check your premises Angelica. My gun is part of my "inner power". Before you protest, ask yourself what you have not considered.

farfromglorified · July 2006

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I agree...if effort and time spent on this board has anything to say about it. And I find it contradictory...he says if you don't agree with these corporations then boycott, don't support them, speak out... but then when we try to do just that he defends them over and over again and ignores/justifies the wrongs they commit when it's obvious the good they have done aren't enough to excuse such acts.

It is not contradictory abook. I do say "if you don't agree with these corporations, then boycott". However, thanks to your tax machine none of us have that option. I do say "speak out" such that you can educate. However, a voice with a one-sided viewpoint does not an education make. You say I "ignore/justify" the wrongs they commit. I do not. That's why I've referred to Halliburton as a shit company here. That's why I encourage people not to shop at Wal-Mart and I don't shop there myself. That's why I've spoken out on this board against numerous corporations. That's why I made this post:

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?p=3481685#post3481685

To suggest that a company does both good and bad is not to "ignore/justify" the bad. Time after time I've said that we should punish the bad actions of corporations. You choose to ignore those statements because you want to pigeonhole me as someone who supports corporations blindly. I do not.

He can easily make threads expressing his vision and trying to ignite a following from those who may agree....but instead he defends Halliburton and Pfizer when their practices clearly are flawed and wasteful.

I will defend those corporations when they are "flawed and wasteful" for the exact same reasons I would defend a man who is "flawed and wasteful". The flaws and wastes of another do not give you the right to destroy them. They flaws and wastes of another give you the right to not participate in those flaws and not participate in those wastes. Yet the system you support forces each one of us to do so.

I would much rather hear more about this 'dream world' he alludes to and how it can actually be realized.

What would you care to know?

Abookamongstthemany · July 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

It is not contradictory abook. I do say "if you don't agree with these corporations, then boycott". However, thanks to your tax machine none of us have that option. I do say "speak out" such that you can educate. However, a voice with a one-sided viewpoint does not an education make. You say I "ignore/justify" the wrongs they commit. I do not. That's why I've referred to Halliburton as a shit company here. That's why I encourage people not to shop at Wal-Mart and I don't shop there myself. That's why I've spoken out on this board against numerous corporations. That's why I made this post:

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?p=3481685#post3481685

To suggest that a company does both good and bad is not to "ignore/justify" the bad. Time after time I've said that we should punish the bad actions of corporations. You choose to ignore those statements because you want to pigeonhole me as someone who supports corporations blindly. I do not.

Just as you want to pigeonhole me as one who blindly rejects them. I'm only replying to the way you choose to go about things. Don't act surprised when I play in your game. I think my reasons are good enough to speak out against these corporations and that's what I do. I don't feel the need to post one negative article and then one positve one right under it. That's ridiculous and no one is gonna do it. People are different and the other side will be represented by those who have that view. I have read and had discussions about many of these corporations with my conservative sister and her Lockheed Martin employee boyfriend regularly so I hear the other side often.

farfromglorified wrote:

I will defend those corporations when they are "flawed and wasteful" for the exact same reasons I would defend a man who is "flawed and wasteful". The flaws and wastes of another do not give you the right to destroy them. They flaws and wastes of another give you the right to not participate in those flaws and not participate in those wastes. Yet the system you support forces each one of us to do so.

I'm not destroying anything. Everyone can make up their own minds and they will. I have no control over them. If the company is destroyed it will be because the people have had enough. I support the tax system but not how it is being currently ran/spent. In a true democracy it would be far less flawed and wasteful (imo) I know you don't agree but that's life, people have different ideas of what will work and what won't.

farfromglorified wrote:

What would you care to know?

How could a world possibly work where 6 billion people are all moving in different individual directions without considering their impact on the other 5,999,999,999? Why is compromise a bad thing?

farfromglorified · July 2006

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Just as you want to pigeonhole me as one who blindly rejects them. I'm only replying to the way you choose to go about things. Don't act surprised when I play in your game. I think my reasons are good enough to speak out against these corporations and that's what I do. I don't feel the need to post one negative article and then one positve one right under it. That's ridiculous and no one is gonna do it. People are different and the other side will be represented by those who have that view. I have read and had discussions about many of these corporations with my conservative sister and her Lockheed Martin employee boyfriend regularly so I hear the other side often.

Abook, I don't pigeonhole you as one who blindy rejects them. You do something much different. Blindly celebrating or damning corporations makes someone a fool. You are not a fool.

I would never reject your right to speak out against these corporations. You're free to do so and you have good reason. Please remember that I came into this thread to defend myself, not to reject your right to speak out.

All I'm asking for is honesty. If you want to damn a corporation, do it. If you want to educate people about corporations, present information that covers numerous sides of the issue. I don't see the latter here from you, so I question the "education" label.

I'm not destroying anything. Everyone can make up their own minds and they will. I have no control over them. If the company is destroyed it will be because the people have had enough. I support the tax system but not how it is being currently ran/spent. In a true democracy it would be far less flawed and wasteful (imo) I know you don't agree but that's life, people have different ideas of what will work and what won't.

Certainly. And that's what I'm fighting for -- a world where people may act directly on what will work for them and what won't work for them.

How could a world possibly work where 6 billion people are all moving in different individual directions without considering their impact on the other 5,999,999,999? Why is compromise a bad thing?

An excellent question. A world of 6 billion people could never work without compromise. My own house of 2 people doesn't work without compromise. But do you understand what a compromise is? A compromise is when two people willingly agree to something based on mutual benefit. Here's a silly example. My roommate is a sucker for romantic period pieces (Pride & Prejudice, the English Patient, etc, etc). I'm more of a Fight Club/12 Monkeys/Matrix kind of guy. But when we decide to watch a movie together, we compromise because experiencing a film we only kind of like together is better than experiencing a film only one of us likes together. Make sense? That's a compromise because we both benefit.

Similarly, I don't shop at Wal-Mart. Why? Because I don't like their business practices. So I compromise with Wal-Mart. I pay a little bit more or I go without. What does Wal-Mart get out of the deal? They get consumer feedback delivered to them in the form of their competitor's revenue figures. If the compromise succeeds, Wal-Mart will eventually do something to attract my business. If it fails, we both go our separate ways.

A compromise is not a situation where either side sacrifices. Both sides in a compromise gain, because the end results of the compromise is preferable to both. Here's a similar example:

Let's say that you and I were married (try not to have a heart attack). And let's say I inform you, on our wedding day, that the correct place for a woman is in the kitchen and in the delivery room. When you protest I threaten to beat the shit out of you if you leave me. So you live in fear for the rest of your life and do what I say. That is not a compromise. I benefit, you suffer. That "compromise" is the foundation of the state.

When the state tells us that we can't smoke pot lest we be beaten or imprisoned, the state is telling us that it is a "compromise" because the "majority" doesn't want us smoking pot. When the state tells us that we can't keep the price of our own labor, the state is telling us that it is a "compromise" because the "majority" wants that part of that price. Whenever the state tells you something in the form of a law, it is telling you that your will does not matter. And you cannot have a compromise without the will of both sides. That is the essence of slavery -- stolen benefit for one, forced suffering for another.

The "great" Western political thinkers have struggled with this since the Greeks. And they gave rise to constructs such as the "social contract" and "implied consent". But no such thing exists. A contract, again, requires will. Consent, again, requires will. Compromise, again, requires will. Cooperation, again, requires will.

The foundation of nearly every argument I make here is the celebration of the individual will. And the "dream world" I see is where no man believes that his will overrides the will of another.

Abookamongstthemany · July 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

Abook, I don't pigeonhole you as one who blindy rejects them. You do something much different. Blindly celebrating or damning corporations makes someone a fool. You are not a fool.

I would never reject your right to speak out against these corporations. You're free to do so and you have good reason. Please remember that I came into this thread to defend myself, not to reject your right to speak out.

All I'm asking for is honesty. If you want to damn a corporation, do it. If you want to educate people about corporations, present information that covers numerous sides of the issue. I don't see the latter here from you, so I question the "education" label.

I try to spread the information that I think needs to be heard. For every article I post there is equal opportunity for another to post their differing feelings and facts on the subject. I can not prevent the other side from being represented nor would I want to. You don't talk about the good things that can come from a tax system because you feel the negative outweighs the positives.

farfromglorified wrote:

Certainly. And that's what I'm fighting for -- a world where people may act directly on what will work for them and what won't work for them.

An excellent question. A world of 6 billion people could never work without compromise. My own house of 2 people doesn't work without compromise. But do you understand what a compromise is? A compromise is when two people willingly agree to something based on mutual benefit. Here's a silly example. My roommate is a sucker for romantic period pieces (Pride & Prejudice, the English Patient, etc, etc). I'm more of a Fight Club/12 Monkeys/Matrix kind of guy. But when we decide to watch a movie together, we compromise because experiencing a film we only kind of like together is better than experiencing a film only one of us likes together. Make sense? That's a compromise because we both benefit.

Similarly, I don't shop at Wal-Mart. Why? Because I don't like their business practices. So I compromise with Wal-Mart. I pay a little bit more or I go without. What does Wal-Mart get out of the deal? They get consumer feedback delivered to them in the form of their competitor's revenue figures. If the compromise succeeds, Wal-Mart will eventually do something to attract my business. If it fails, we both go our separate ways.

When you are addressing a compromise between 2 people it is much easier to work something out where both will benefit. When you are talking billions, I feel you have to go with the majority. I find that the more people you have picking the movie to watch, the greater the chance is that someone isn't going to be watching what they like at all. And what happens when the other party fails to live up to their end of the compromise? What if your roommate demands to watch the English Patient? You quit seeing movies with that person, right?

farfromglorified wrote:

A compromise is not a situation where either side sacrifices. Both sides in a compromise gain, because the end results of the compromise is preferable to both. Here's a similar example:

Let's say that you and I were married (try not to have a heart attack). And let's say I inform you, on our wedding day, that the correct place for a woman is in the kitchen and in the delivery room. When you protest I threaten to beat the shit out of you if you leave me. So you live in fear for the rest of your life and do what I say. That is not a compromise. I benefit, you suffer. That "compromise" is the foundation of the state.

If I'm not happy, I will leave that relationship and find one that better fits my preferences.

farfromglorified wrote:

When the state tells us that we can't smoke pot lest we be beaten or imprisoned, the state is telling us that it is a "compromise" because the "majority" doesn't want us smoking pot. When the state tells us that we can't keep the price of our own labor, the state is telling us that it is a "compromise" because the "majority" wants that part of that price. Whenever the state tells you something in the form of a law, it is telling you that your will does not matter. And you cannot have a compromise without the will of both sides. That is the essence of slavery -- stolen benefit for one, forced suffering for another.

First, I speak out against senseless laws that I don't think effect another person negatively. Second, people should not have the free will to do whatever they please...what about child abusers, rapists, murders? Those people are rare but can cause chaos.

farfromglorified wrote:

The "great" Western political thinkers have struggled with this since the Greeks. And they gave rise to constructs such as the "social contract" and "implied consent". But no such thing exists. A contract, again, requires will. Consent, again, requires will. Compromise, again, requires will. Cooperation, again, requires will.

The foundation of nearly every argument I make here is the celebration of the individual will. And the "dream world" I see is where no man believes that his will overrides the will of another.

I think the consent does exist if one chooses to live within society. I want people to be as free as they possibly can be without negatively effecting another. If your goal is hindering another's pursuit of happiness then you have to change your goal, be punished for your action or find somewhere where that this kind of goal is accepted.

Skitch Patterson · July 2006

this thread is quote-acular.

ryan198 · July 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

All I'm asking for is honesty. If you want to damn a corporation, do it. If you want to educate people about corporations, present information that covers numerous sides of the issue. I don't see the latter here from you, so I question the "education" label.

Farfrom what exactly is education? According to the dictionary it is:
Main Entry: ed·u·cate
Pronunciation: 'e-j&-"kAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -cat·ed; -cat·ing
Etymology: Middle English, to rear, from Latin educatus, past participle of educare to rear, educate, from educere to lead forth -- more at EDUCE
transitive verb
1 a : to provide schooling for <chose to educate their children at home> b : to train by formal instruction and supervised practice especially in a skill, trade, or profession
2 a : to develop mentally, morally, or aesthetically especially by instruction b : to provide with information : INFORM <educating themselves about changes in the industry>
3 : to persuade or condition to feel, believe, or act in a desired way <educate the public to support our position>
intransitive verb : to educate a person or thing

None of this implies the balance that you desire. Even according to the dictionary Education is necessarily a political act.

farfromglorified wrote:

Certainly. And that's what I'm fighting for -- a world where people may act directly on what will work for them and what won't work for them.

But couldn't some things work for some people and not for others? Like didn't slavery work for rich white people? Since all the power was in their possession no one could argue it. As such wouldn't you need a government of some sort to maintain these laws. But then using your argument this would impinge on an a world where people may act directly. How would this work? I am honestly interested (not sarcastic).

farfromglorified wrote:

An excellent question. A world of 6 billion people could never work without compromise. My own house of 2 people doesn't work without compromise. But do you understand what a compromise is? A compromise is when two people willingly agree to something based on mutual benefit. Here's a silly example. My roommate is a sucker for romantic period pieces (Pride & Prejudice, the English Patient, etc, etc). I'm more of a Fight Club/12 Monkeys/Matrix kind of guy. But when we decide to watch a movie together, we compromise because experiencing a film we only kind of like together is better than experiencing a film only one of us likes 0
0.together. Make sense? That's a compromise because we both benefit.

So then you really believe that in an individualist world people will act for the betterment of the whole? Isn't that what privatization is moving toward, and hasn't it lead us to a world where the power imbalance is decidedly worse than it has ever been?

farfromglorified wrote:

The foundation of nearly every argument I make here is the celebration of the individual will. And the "dream world" I see is where no man believes that his will overrides the will of another.

First of all that's quite a sexist statement (do women count in this dreamworld?). Has this ever proven to be true? How do we get to such a point with a world that has historically worked on opression and domination? How did we get to this point in the first place? At some point didn't everyone have individual will that eventuated in the current world we live in? I guess I'm not sure that I believe that in a world in which every person acted in their self-interest that they would compromise in the way that you think they could. Not in a world where power and capital has run our very existence for thousands of years.

farfromglorified · July 2006

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I try to spread the information that I think needs to be heard. For every article I post there is equal opportunity for another to post their differing feelings and facts on the subject. I can not prevent the other side from being represented nor would I want to. You don't talk about the good things that can come from a tax system because you feel the negative outweighs the positives.

But I also don't really claim to be educating people on the tax system. I'm simply presenting my view for my purposes. If people learn from that, cool. But I'm hear to excercise my right to speak in an effort to affect a little change in this world and to measure my voice against that of others.

When you are addressing a compromise between 2 people it is much easier to work something out where both will benefit. When you are talking billions, I feel you have to go with the majority. I find that the more people you have picking the movie to watch, the greater the chance is that someone isn't going to be watching what they like at all. And what happens when the other party fails to live up to their end of the compromise? What if your roommate demands to watch the English Patient? You quit seeing movies with that person, right?

It is much easier to work something out with 2 people as opposed to 100. But the goal of our political system isn't about what is easiest or hardest. It is about what is right and what is wrong. That's why slavery is wrong, even if the majority in a nation want it. That's what makes gang rape wrong, even if a majority in a room want it. That's what makes the Iraq war wrong, even if a majority want it. For all of the talk about "majority" or "minority", you cannot escape the reality of individuals. Human rights are not measured in any number other than one. The ethnic cleansing of a villiage is not better or less worse than the ethnic cleansing of a nation. The enslavement of a single man is not better or less worse than the enslavement of a race. It is only a difference of scale. A slave-driver enslaves individuals, not a race. A war-monger slaughters individuals, not nations.

If a person fails to live up to their end of the argument, you enter justice. Justice is the process of balancing out the scales such that whatever you lost is returned to you. If my roommate and I agree to watch something and she turns around and watches the English Patient, I have lost nothing other than the idea that this is a person who wishes to compromise on movies. Justice is delivered when my roommate either acts to restore that idea or I eventually realize that I was wrong all along about her. Justice is the process of dealing with people as they are. For example, to treat Halliburton as if they are a nothing but a shining example of corporate perfection is to abdicate justice. Similarly, to treat Halliburton as if they are nothing but a failure is to abdicate justice. Halliburton has succeeded in certain respects and failed in certain other respects. It is just to punish their failures and reward their successes.

Similarly, if a man robs you he must be treated as a robber. But that does not mean he must be treated as some kind of imaginary animal and put in a zoo. His being a robber does not eliminate the fact that he is still a man with inherent rights. It is just to expect a return of equal value from the robber. It is unjust to expect a greater value in return from the robber. It is also unjust to shoot the robber or hang him from a tree. Finally, it is also unjust to ask the rest of society to "reform" the robber against their will -- to do so is to commit a second crime on top of the first.

If I'm not happy, I will leave that relationship and find one that better fits my preferences.

I would certainly hope so. And that would be a product of your will in response to injustice.

First, I speak out against senseless laws that I don't think effect another person negatively. Second, people should not have the free will to do whatever they please...what about child abusers, rapists, murders? Those people are rare but can cause chaos.

You're exactly right -- those people are rare but can cause a lot of chaos. My "dream world" isn't going to mean an end to child abusers, rapists, or murderers (though I believe it would lead to fewer of them). The only "dream world" without child abusers, rapists or murderers is the one without people.

Again, justice is the process of dealing with people for what they are. Even though an aggressor or murderer is about as close to non-man as a man can get, he is still a man. However, he is a man who has committed one of the worst acts a man can and those acts must be dealt with severely. This does not mean the death penalty -- you have no right to kill a man for any reason unless that is a consequence of the direct action to save your own life. This does not mean imprisonment -- you have no right to imprison a man against his will unless such imprisonment is necessary to directly save a life. Sound a little strange? Stick with me for a second.

In my world, you have no inherent obligation to that man. Understand what this means? You have no inherent obligation to feed him, to house him, to grant to him his happiness. This means that you may deal with your murderers, your molesters, your abusers in exactly the way those people should be dealt with: painful indifference. A murderer has told society that he does not care if others live. It is just to return that sentiment. An aggressor has told society that he does not care if people are physically harmed. It is just to return that sentiment. Murderers, abusers, rapists...these are people to whom you should provide no service, no benefit.

How many rapists would there be in this world if the punishment to a rapist was no food, no electricity, no roads, no tv, no books, no home? A prison sentence still grants all of those things at the price of the society that man attacked. And that is a double crime.

Often the following argument has been thrown at me on this board:

"But humans are social creatures -- we need each other to survive"

And that argument is valid (if not always logically linked to the poster's point). And those that will learn the validity of such a statement will be society's murderers and aggressors. They are the ones that will be left without the benefit of other men because they will no longer be able to force such benefits based on guilt or force.

I think the consent does exist if one chooses to live within society.

Being born is not a choice. Remember my comment about Original Sin? That's what this statement amounts to -- Catholic guilt. When I participate in society, I am giving consent to my own actions and expectations. Furthermore, I am giving consent to the existence of that society. But I am not giving consent to the society to sacrifice me to their good.

Consent requires terms. If I tell you to sign something, you're probably going to read it first, right? You can't tell me I've consented to something that has not been defined. By being born I did not consent to be taxed, to be imprisoned, to be drafted, to sacrifice myself to anything.

I want people to be as free as they possibly can be without negatively effecting another. If your goal is hindering another's pursuit of happiness then you have to change your goal, be punished for your action or find somewhere where that this kind of goal is accepted.

Agreed! No one has a right to prevent another from being happy. But this goes both ways. Just like the a Walton has no right to demand his own happiness at the cost of his employees, the workers have no right to demand Walton to provide their happiness at the cost of his will. Understand that? To say that no one has a right to hinder another's pursuit of happiness is to say that every man owns the right to his or her own happiness and no one else's. This means that I do not owe you your happiness nor do you owe me mine. We simply owe to each other the recognition that we cannot steal one another's happiness.

farfromglorified · July 2006

ryan198 wrote:

Farfrom what exactly is education? According to the dictionary it is:
Main Entry: ed·u·cate
Pronunciation: 'e-j&-"kAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -cat·ed; -cat·ing
Etymology: Middle English, to rear, from Latin educatus, past participle of educare to rear, educate, from educere to lead forth -- more at EDUCE
transitive verb
1 a : to provide schooling for <chose to educate their children at home> b : to train by formal instruction and supervised practice especially in a skill, trade, or profession
2 a : to develop mentally, morally, or aesthetically especially by instruction b : to provide with information : INFORM <educating themselves about changes in the industry>
3 : to persuade or condition to feel, believe, or act in a desired way <educate the public to support our position>
intransitive verb : to educate a person or thing

None of this implies the balance that you desire. Even according to the dictionary Education is necessarily a political act.

Let me ask you this: if our public history classes taught kids all about white history and ignored all of black history, would you call that "delivering an education", or would you call that "delivering a conclusion"?

The purpose of education is to teach people how to decide, not to give them decisions.

But couldn't some things work for some people and not for others?

Of course.

Like didn't slavery work for rich white people?

I guess that depends on what you mean. Slavery did "work" for some people. It unjustly punished others. That's why it was wrong. Slavery wasn't right then and wrong now. It has always been wrong. But that doesn't mean that it didn't work for some rich white people (and some rich black people elsewhere).

Since all the power was in their possession no one could argue it.

Yet someone did. And won.

As such wouldn't you need a government of some sort to maintain these laws.

No, though you do need a government to uphold a system of slavery.

But then using your argument this would impinge on an a world where people may act directly. How would this work? I am honestly interested (not sarcastic).

I'm more than happy to answer your questions, but please don't ask me "how would this work". That's like a parent asking his kid "how's your life". Ask me specifically.

So then you really believe that in an individualist world people will act for the betterment of the whole?

God no. I think people will act for the betterment of themselves and that will create the betterment of the whole.

Isn't that what privatization is moving toward, and hasn't it lead us to a world where the power imbalance is decidedly worse than it has ever been?

:eek:

God no!!! Look, no one owes you water. But no one has an inherent right to prevent you from buying water or finding it yourself.

We have two competing and incorrect ideas in our society. Either a natural resource is owned by someone or owned by everyone. Both of those things are incredibly stupid. A natural resource is owned by no one. The only thing that can be owned is the direct product of a person's mind or labor. If you make some water, it's yours. If you find some water, it's not. You have the right to access water. And you have the right to defend that water from aggressive polluters. But you do not have the right to steal the desalinisation equipment that someone else built and use it as your own. Understand what this means?

Societies are wise to setup a means such that people have a form of agreement they can use to access natural resources for the purposes of the people in that society. This typically means deeds and abstract property rights. But a deed and an abstract property right are simply abstract means to enhance life, not destroy it.

First of all that's quite a sexist statement (do women count in this dreamworld?).

Forgive me. I use the term "man" as a universal term simply because it's shorter. It's a bad habit, but I'd appreciate it if you'd simply take the intention rather than the literal.

Women not only count in this world, they count equally in every respect other than gender. A man and a woman are of different genders but equally human.

Has this ever proven to be true?

Does it matter? Civilization had never proven to be true until people made it. The engine had never proven to be true until people built it. The truth had never been proven to be true until someone proved it!

How do we get to such a point with a world that has historically worked on opression and domination?

Perhaps by not oppressing and dominating each other?

How did we get to this point in the first place?

By accepting the altruistic "truths" of first the chief, then the shaman, then the priest, then the state, then the corporation. The history of civilization is dominated by stories of men sacrificing each other to their neighbors. I'm proposing an end to that.

At some point didn't everyone have individual will that eventuated in the current world we live in?

Not everyone. The wills that eventuated in the current world we live in are the wills of those with gods and guns, and the wills of those who accepted those gods and those guns.

I guess I'm not sure that I believe that in a world in which every person acted in their self-interest that they would compromise in the way that you think they could. Not in a world where power and capital has run our very existence for thousands of years.

I never said it was easy or even something that could happen overnight. But it's been going on for some time, and it continues in my life.

ryan198 · July 2006

Firstly, most history classes do teach white history, at least in the schools I went to. Secondly how can you say education doesn't teach from a point of view or is persuasive? For example, isn't history an account of something that we never actually experienced? Doesn't that suggest that we are privy only to the information that someone else tells us? And in the past wasn't most of the information left behind from the perspective of those in power (white men). Thus even if we tried to be unbiased wouldn't our education necessarily be told from the eyes of white men?

Farfrom after arguing with you and watching you argue for awhile I actually don't think that our beliefs are all that different. You just have far more belief in the individual good of human beings than I do. You also seem to be far less critically minded, unless you are arguing a point that goes against corporations (though you cite them as a source of inequitous power in your previous post). Just an observation that's all.

farfromglorified · July 2006

ryan198 wrote:

Firstly, most history classes do teach white history, at least in the schools I went to. Secondly how can you say education doesn't teach from a point of view or is persuasive?

By not assigning the label "education" to that which puts conclusion over fact.

For example, isn't history an account of something that we never actually experienced?

Directly experience? Yes.

Doesn't that suggest that we are privy only to the information that someone else tells us?

Or the information we find for ourselves.

Just because history comes from outside ourselves doesn't mean we can't get a good approximation of it.

And in the past wasn't most of the information left behind from the perspective of those in power (white men).

How do you know they were white?

Thus even if we tried to be unbiased wouldn't our education necessarily be told from the eyes of white men?

Not necessarily. Practically, it is a massive hurdle to overcome. But that means looking for historical voices in non-traditional means. We can cull a lot of white history from old history books and formal writings. But we can also cull a lot of black history from oral traditions, letters and song.

The process of uncovering history is simply about finding the trails. And all people leave trails. You simply have to find them.

Farfrom after arguing with you and watching you argue for awhile I actually don't think that our beliefs are all that different. You just have far more belief in the individual good of human beings than I do. You also seem to be far less critically minded, unless you are arguing a point that goes against corporations (though you cite them as a source of inequitous power in your previous post). Just an observation that's all.

A corporation has no inherent evil, but neither does a government or a religion. They must be made evil through the abdication of reason. Understand?

I don't value the corporation any more than I value a government. A government, at root, is nothing more than a corporation.

I value the individual will. And corporations, even in their current form, are more consistent with individual will than force-based governments. That is why I defend them. I see people who want to trade will-based structures for force-based structures, and that is a step in the wrong direction.

Abookamongstthemany · July 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

But I also don't really claim to be educating people on the tax system. I'm simply presenting my view for my purposes. If people learn from that, cool. But I'm hear to excercise my right to speak in an effort to affect a little change in this world and to measure my voice against that of others.

As I have never claimed to give one the full education on any subject. I wouldn't expect a person to think they know all there is to know about a topic just because they read an article I posted.

farfromglorified wrote:

It is much easier to work something out with 2 people as opposed to 100. But the goal of our political system isn't about what is easiest or hardest. It is about what is right and what is wrong. That's why slavery is wrong, even if the majority in a nation want it. That's what makes gang rape wrong, even if a majority in a room want it. That's what makes the Iraq war wrong, even if a majority want it. For all of the talk about "majority" or "minority", you cannot escape the reality of individuals. Human rights are not measured in any number other than one. The ethnic cleansing of a villiage is not better or less worse than the ethnic cleansing of a nation. The enslavement of a single man is not better or less worse than the enslavement of a race. It is only a difference of scale. A slave-driver enslaves individuals, not a race. A war-monger slaughters individuals, not nations.

It's about accomplishing a standard and putting needed laws into place. I know that the majority of people do not believe in harming another or oppressing them, such ideas have always met fierce resistance. Human rights are rights one needs to live and have the chance to prosper. If one person believes in enslaving a person then that person is going against anothers human rights. If that same person frees himself he is not going against the slave owner's human rights.

farfromglorified wrote:

If a person fails to live up to their end of the argument, you enter justice. Justice is the process of balancing out the scales such that whatever you lost is returned to you. If my roommate and I agree to watch something and she turns around and watches the English Patient, I have lost nothing other than the idea that this is a person who wishes to compromise on movies. Justice is delivered when my roommate either acts to restore that idea or I eventually realize that I was wrong all along about her. Justice is the process of dealing with people as they are. For example, to treat Halliburton as if they are a nothing but a shining example of corporate perfection is to abdicate justice. Similarly, to treat Halliburton as if they are nothing but a failure is to abdicate justice. Halliburton has succeeded in certain respects and failed in certain other respects. It is just to punish their failures and reward their successes.

You can not receive time back, change memories or undo personal injury. In Halliburton's case, our government should allow another company with a better performance record to do the job not stick with the half assed performance from the cronies. If I am a great teacher but I also like to sleep with my 14 year old students then my good job is negated.

farfromglorified wrote:

Similarly, if a man robs you he must be treated as a robber. But that does not mean he must be treated as some kind of imaginary animal and put in a zoo. His being a robber does not eliminate the fact that he is still a man with inherent rights. It is just to expect a return of equal value from the robber. It is unjust to expect a greater value in return from the robber. It is also unjust to shoot the robber or hang him from a tree. Finally, it is also unjust to ask the rest of society to "reform" the robber against their will -- to do so is to commit a second crime on top of the first.

And what happens if the equal value can not be returned or replaced? Just slap the guys wrist? Sounds like chaos to me.

farfromglorified wrote:

I would certainly hope so. And that would be a product of your will in response to injustice.

The same applies to your free will to live here where you feel a gun is against your head.

farfromglorified wrote:

You're exactly right -- those people are rare but can cause a lot of chaos. My "dream world" isn't going to mean an end to child abusers, rapists, or murderers (though I believe it would lead to fewer of them). The only "dream world" without child abusers, rapists or murderers is the one without people.

Again, justice is the process of dealing with people for what they are. Even though an aggressor or murderer is about as close to non-man as a man can get, he is still a man. However, he is a man who has committed one of the worst acts a man can and those acts must be dealt with severely. This does not mean the death penalty -- you have no right to kill a man for any reason unless that is a consequence of the direct action to save your own life. This does not mean imprisonment -- you have no right to imprison a man against his will unless such imprisonment is necessary to directly save a life. Sound a little strange? Stick with me for a second.

I know your system won't end it...to the contrary I feel it will encourage it indirectly. I am against the death penalty however I believe in imprisoning those who wish to do harm on others.

farfromglorified wrote:

In my world, you have no inherent obligation to that man. Understand what this means? You have no inherent obligation to feed him, to house him, to grant to him his happiness. This means that you may deal with your murderers, your molesters, your abusers in exactly the way those people should be dealt with: painful indifference. A murderer has told society that he does not care if others live. It is just to return that sentiment. An aggressor has told society that he does not care if people are physically harmed. It is just to return that sentiment. Murderers, abusers, rapists...these are people to whom you should provide no service, no benefit.

For the right price people DO give these people these things everyday. That's that problem. Money corrupts people, corrupt people cause harm to other people thus the need for laws and imprisonment.

farfromglorified wrote:

How many rapists would there be in this world if the punishment to a rapist was no food, no electricity, no roads, no tv, no books, no home? A prison sentence still grants all of those things at the price of the society that man attacked. And that is a double crime.

Often the following argument has been thrown at me on this board:

"But humans are social creatures -- we need each other to survive"

And that argument is valid (if not always logically linked to the poster's point). And those that will learn the validity of such a statement will be society's murderers and aggressors. They are the ones that will be left without the benefit of other men because they will no longer be able to force such benefits based on guilt or force.

Funny, I bet if you asked a man to choose between prison or the chance to get over on another victim elsewhere, we all know what his answer would be.

farfromglorified wrote:

Being born is not a choice. Remember my comment about Original Sin? That's what this statement amounts to -- Catholic guilt. When I participate in society, I am giving consent to my own actions and expectations. Furthermore, I am giving consent to the existence of that society. But I am not giving consent to the society to sacrifice me to their good.

Consent requires terms. If I tell you to sign something, you're probably going to read it first, right? You can't tell me I've consented to something that has not been defined. By being born I did not consent to be taxed, to be imprisoned, to be drafted, to sacrifice myself to anything.

I never implied being born was a choice, however there is a choice in residency. The laws of this land are all on paper for all to see.

farfromglorified wrote:

Agreed! No one has a right to prevent another from being happy. But this goes both ways. Just like the a Walton has no right to demand his own happiness at the cost of his employees, the workers have no right to demand Walton to provide their happiness at the cost of his will. Understand that? To say that no one has a right to hinder another's pursuit of happiness is to say that every man owns the right to his or her own happiness and no one else's. This means that I do not owe you your happiness nor do you owe me mine. We simply owe to each other the recognition that we cannot steal one another's happiness.

But your happiness can not require the loss of anothers. I'm talking about basic rights here, not greed. There has to be laws for that because there is a difference. You can't let a person continue to rape you because it is his will. If you're helpless and he's taking advantage, the law must stop him.

*****I just now realized that 'Corporations' is misspelled in the title. As much as I typo and misspell, this one was actually copied and pasted******

farfromglorified · July 2006

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

As I have never claimed to give one the full education on any subject. I wouldn't expect a person to think they know all there is to know about a topic just because they read an article I posted.

Fair enough.

It's about accomplishing a standard and putting needed laws into place. I know that the majority of people do not believe in harming another or oppressing them, such ideas have always met fierce resistance. Human rights are rights one needs to live and have the chance to prosper. If one person believes in enslaving a person then that person is going against anothers human rights. If that same person frees himself he is not going against the slave owner's human rights.

Completely agreed!

You can not receive time back, change memories or undo personal injury. In Halliburton's case, our government should allow another company with a better performance record to do the job not stick with the half assed performance from the cronies. If I am a great teacher but I also like to sleep with my 14 year old students then my good job is negated.

You cannot receive time back, change memories or undo personal injury!! But our justice system pretends that you can.

Our government could allow another company with a better performance record to the the job. I wouldn't be opposed to that. But if, in the process, Halliburton goes unpaid for the services they did provide, I would be opposed to that.

The "good job" of a teacher who sleeps with his students is not negated. Don't you understand that? The increased knowledge of his students demostrates that. That knowledge does not disappear just because of the teacher's error. That does not justify the behavior, however. Such a teacher can no longer be trusted, and in most situations should no longer be entrusted with students.

And what happens if the equal value can not be returned or replaced? Just slap the guys wrist? Sounds like chaos to me.

A system of placing men in concrete zoos is not chaotic???

Equal value can almost always be returned. But it cannot be returned by simply harming the perpetrator. The death penalty cannot bring back the dead, it can only kill another. A life sentence cannot erase the rape, it can only rape another. Eye-for-eye "justice" is a system of double crimes, not a system of treating men as they are.

The same applies to your free will to live here where you feel a gun is against your head.

No it does not. You said so yourself above:

"If that same person frees himself he is not going against the slave owner's human rights"

I know your system won't end it...to the contrary I feel it will encourage it indirectly. I am against the death penalty however I believe in imprisoning those who wish to do harm on others.

Ok, and you force those of us who are against such methods to pay for them, even though we feel it is a direct violation of human rights. Just keep that in mind.

For the right price people DO give these people these things everyday. That's that problem. Money corrupts people, corrupt people cause harm to other people thus the need for laws and imprisonment.

First, that's like suggesting we can't do away with the death penalty because we DO enforce the death penalty today.

Second, it is an individual's right to deal with murderers. And it is your right to punish that individual for such an action just as you're punishing the murderer.

These are not easy issues. But justice is not supposed to be easy. Simply killing every criminal is easier than imprisoning them, but it doesn't make either right.

Funny, I bet if you asked a man to choose between prison or the chance to get over on another victim elsewhere, we all know what his answer would be.

Of course! But if you ask a man to choose between prison or the death penalty, we all know what his answer would be. That does not justify the death penalty.

I never implied being born was a choice, however there is a choice in residency.

Yes. But there is also a choice in your residency as well and the actions you make. A rape victim did not choose to be raped by attending a party where she is then raped.

If you tell me "hey, you can always move elsewhere", I can simply throw that statement right back at you. You have no inherent right to rule me just because I'm here. You can take your laws to another country, just as I can take myself to another country.

The laws of this land are all on paper for all to see.

Not really. We have many subjective laws that are only in the minds of those who enforce them.

But your happiness can not require the loss of anothers. I'm talking about basic rights here, not greed. There has to be laws for that because there is a difference. You can't let a person continue to rape you because it is his will. If you're helpless and he's taking advantage, the law must stop him.

I'm not suggesting that you let a person continue to rape because it is his will. I'm suggesting no one is helpless. A rapist should be expelled from society because he has demonstrated his inability to coexist with it, but not at the cost of his life or his freedom.

Rapists now often continue to rape in the zoos you put them in. Is it ok because it's just other prisoners?

El_Kabong · July 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

Our government could allow another company with a better performance record to the the job. I wouldn't be opposed to that. But if, in the process, Halliburton goes unpaid for the services they did provide, I would be opposed to that.

i would like to point out a big part of my problem is the bonus they received when their 'billing mistakes' total to potentially over a billion $. i could care less how many bills were correct or how small a % that is out of their overall contract. if someone steals that much they do no deserve a bonus. and the fact that it seems company policy instead of just a few ppl further negates their correct bills at least to the point of NO BONUS IS DESERVED.

if your kid told you he cut the grass and it turns out he only cut 1/2 the yard, would you pay him for the whole yard as well as give him more? but what of the grass he DID cut?

i never once said or implied not to pay them for work they actually did do. my issues have consistently been the bonus and the NO-BID contracts they received.

also, you have failed to answer this question for me and i'm hoping maybe this time you can find the time:
you accuse me of being manipulative b/c i said things like 'coke privatizes water' but left out things like 'millions of ppl drink and enjoy their products'

so,
1- do you really think it is necessary for someone to post EVERY SINGLE minut detail about the company?

2- if i posted EVERY SINGLE minut detail do you think ppl would actually read it all? obvioulsy it would be a pretty big post, possibly even mulitple posts to insert every single thing, good and bad, one knows of a company. no one posts in this manner, including you.

The 14 Worst Corporatations

Comments

Categories