next »

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

more specifically i meant that, among activists who care about needless death, they seem to focus more on corporations as 'the enemy' rather than governments as 'the enemy', when both are problems. walmart for instance is probably more hated than the prison system, even though prisons do far more harm to the world than walmart does.

i do not believe that anyone has the ability to change how government works. there is some influence, but government by its nature creates war and many other problems, and no amount of good will or careful planning can prevent that. look at obama for instance; he's a good hearted man who got into gov to do good. but he still is responsible for thousands of deaths of civilians (by escalating the war in afghanistan and continuing the war in iraq), and has done little to lessen the natural evils of the state. he can't change the inherent destruction states do just by existing, nobody can, either individually or collectively. it's not his fault, the torture of prisoners for example that continues under his watch isn't his fault even though he's in charge of it, it's the system's requirement. i.e. you can't drive a car without using gas and producing CO2, and it's foolish to blame the driver for what the system of the car produces.

this health care bill (to go back to the topic) is a perfect example of that. at first, he wanted it to have a public option (he campaigned on that) but the necessities of the system forced him to go back on that and fight against a public option instead.

[Smithy]

If you feel that government is unchangeable, then maybe that justifies activists speaking out against corporations that do harm. Perhaps they feel it's less futile to talk about something they can change.

Or maybe it's the opposite. Maybe some activists see government as providing more benign or necessary services to offset some evils, and that the evils they do cause can be changed with less effort, while they see certain specific corporations providing little to offset the problems they produce, and they cannot be changed with a vote. The evil situations that are less easily changed need to be brought to the attention of everybody before progress can be made.

Or maybe they see some situations pertaining to both as evil, and some as benign, and the focus on the evil ones. Like the way some game programmers are Tim Schafer, and others are Tim Langdell--and people feel Tim Langdell needs more coverage because he's despicable.

Or maybe they feel that corporate problems don't have enough focus in the news, whereas governmental problems have plenty of coverage and widespread information, and they talk about those issues to balance things out.

Or maybe they care about all forms of injustice, and speak out against them in specific discussions specific issues.

Or maybe it's all of the above.

Or maybe blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. I could go on. Maybe you're simplifying an entire group of people and several diverse situations a little too much. Maybe, though war and taxes still exist, there is a world of difference between cultures and governments of 15,000 B.C.E and today, even though you could make a gross simplification and say they're the same with one or two simple robotic sentences (guy with the biggest club still rules, takes stuff, makes war, hordes all the attractive mates, etcetera.)
 
...

Anyways...

Forgive me, Paul Eres, but this might be the only way to end the thread.

The statement below is false.
The statement above is true.

[Craig Stern]

regarding government and corporations and which are more evil, both are obviously evil. however, governments start and carry out wars and have killed billions of civilians (if you add them all up). corporations haven't even killed millions.

Can you cite some sources for this? I, for one, am not willing to simply accept as a given that corporations haven't killed millions of people. I'm not just talking about events like industrial accidents and hired Pinkertons mowing down union protesters with gatling guns. We have to consider structural violence as well: unsafe working conditions, disease caused by pollution, disease caused by unsafe products (e.g. contaminated foods and lead-filled toys), deaths caused by denying funding for medical procedures, deaths incident to poverty caused by depressed wages and job destruction--all of these factors could easily add up to millions of deaths over the past century.

Let's just take asthma, for one example. 4,000 people around the world die every year from asthma. Assuming this figure has held steady over the past century, that would add up to 400,000 deaths. While we can't lay every single one of these deaths at the feet of corporations, we can say that exposure to airborne pollutants causes asthma, and that corporations are far and away the entity most responsible for producing these pollutants. Now think of cancer and the carcinogens corporations have exposed us to. Now think of heart disease and the corporate obsession with adding high fructose corn syrup into all of our foods. The death toll rises very quickly when you consider these factors.

In any event, I think it's a mistake to separate government violence conceptually from corporate violence. Oftentimes, it is corporations that stand to gain from government violence, and lobby for it. Just as often, the companies actually participate. In the United States, for example, large portions of state prison systems are administered by private companies hired by the government. In Iraq, roughly 30,000 employees of private security companies exist alongside government soldiers.

[Mipe]

Technically, Blackwater, now Xe, is a private company. There we have corporate people, who kill and rape for a living.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

@smithy - if you always think that other people simplify, but that you don't, you're never going to adapt your worldview to new situations. of course i'm simplifying, that's the point of words at all, they simplify. simplification is a natural consequence of communication and language, just as war is a natural consequence of government.

@craig - if you count 'indirect deaths' for corporations (like mining accidents, for instance, which there have been a lot of) you're going to have to count 'indirect deaths' for government as well (such as everyone who dies in the US because they didn't have free health care). i was counting only direct deaths for both of them. indirect deaths for both of them would still probably have government winning by far, though. indirect deaths are far harder to measure though, since there's disagreement about what counts and what doesn't. when you kill someone by shooting them or gassing them or firebombing them, it's clear who did it. when you kill someone by not allowing a drug that could save millions to come to market because of the fda, that's harder to measure.

[Movius]

Blackwater/Xe are mere Rent-seekers. A murderous version of the common dole-bludger or government artistic grant recipient.

[gunmaggot]

@craig - if you count 'indirect deaths' for corporations (like mining accidents, for instance, which there have been a lot of) you're going to have to count 'indirect deaths' for government as well (such as everyone who dies in the US because they didn't have free health care).

smh

Blackwater/Xe are mere Rent-seekers. A murderous version of the common dole-bludger or government artistic grant recipient.

Fair enough, actually - Blackwater are (over)paid for by the government, and most of them are ex-army/police anyway.

There are examples of PMCs getting mixed up in bloody coups etc. though. Look up Sandline.

Rad book for further reading: Licensed to Kill, Hired Guns in the War on Terror by Robert Young Pelton

[Movius]

Sandline worked for governments or people that wanted to be governments.

[gunmaggot]

Isn't that what I just said?

[shig]

regarding government and corporations and which are more evil, both are obviously evil.

jesus what.
No, they aren't evil. Atleast, not "obviously" evil, otherwise, noone would ever want to have a government. Cause, y'know, it's obviously evil.

 People die because they don't have free healthcare, but without a government there would be no such thing as a healthcare system. Most of the examples people use to say governments are evil usually end up like this: What the government does is bad, but it would be even worse without it.

I guess the only exception would(POSSIBLY) be war... But then if that's the case, you should affirm war is evil, not every form of governmet and corporation.

[Mipe]

Is the gun evil or the human holding it?

Is the government evil or the people that form it?

[shig]

Is the government evil or the people that form it?

Oh this is something I also don't like on internet discussions. I always get this feeling that averyone that works for THE GOVERNMENT or for a BIG CORPORATION is simply evil. CEOs are mostly normal people like you and me, and we'd probably make the same decisions if we were in their places.
( I am aware that was possibly not what you intended to imply.)

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

that's exactly what i stated earlier: that the system itself is evil, not the people in it. ceos and presidents are usually nice folk. but the systems involved force them to act in ways which hurt people.

also the idea that we'd have no health care system without government is ridiculous. that's like saying we'd have no way to deal with criminals without a police force, or no way to deal with invasions without an army.

[Zenorf]

or no way to deal with invasions without an army.

That's your cue for pimping a system of national defense that utilizes a large number of defensive turrets and trying to force the enemy through choke points.

[Smithy]

Is the government evil or the people that form it?

Oh this is something I also don't like on internet discussions. I always get this feeling that averyone that works for THE GOVERNMENT or for a BIG CORPORATION is simply evil. CEOs are mostly normal people like you and me, and we'd probably make the same decisions if we were in their places.
( I am aware that was possibly not what you intended to imply.)

You're not simplifying enough. Corporations have never had a purpose other than evil, there is no difference between Blackwater and SaveThePuppies Incorporated. Also, all governmental systems are inherently evil and they have never been changed, ever--historical revolutions are myths.

Simplify your worldview, for the good of adaptation.

All corporations are evil and none have provided anything to society. There is no good corporation. There are only bad ones.

All governments are evil for starting wars, especially that of those scheming, shifty-eyed Swiss.

People have no say in their government.

The FDA has never saved lives or provided any valuable service at all. Also, it has never been reformed to release life saving drugs.

Activists do not care about the government.

Women are for making babies.

Black people are for picking cotton.

World without end, Amen.

[shig]

also the idea that we'd have no health care system without government is ridiculous. that's like saying we'd have no way to deal with criminals without a police force, or no way to deal with invasions without an army.

There is a HUGE difference between "dealing with criminals" and having a proper, well trained, organized police force backed by an institution that has all sorts of data and statistics and trained criminalists and etc. I doubt anything beyond an unorganized, local and unneficient milita would be possible without a government or big corporation backing it up.

Same thing with healthcare. Except it gets even worse, because of how hard it is to train someone to be a medic, compared to a cop and that alone requires huge ammounts of investments from the government and/or big corporations.

...Also, seriously, how would you deal with an invading army without an army for yourself? Throw a bunch of civillians at'em?

[Craig Stern]

that's exactly what i stated earlier: that the system itself is evil, not the people in it. ceos and presidents are usually nice folk. but the systems involved force them to act in ways which hurt people.

I don't know about that. Based on extensive research (i.e. watching an episode of Undercover Boss), it's clear to me that CEOs are huge jerks.

[Smithy]

Listen, shig--he's playing the disingenuous simplify game.

"There is no difference between government of today and government of the nomadic cave man because they both had war." "There is no difference between stringing up accused criminals and the puritan's witch hunt and dealing with criminals with a police force."

It's a sophistic thing.

If a police force deals with criminals
And witch hunters burning people at the stake was a way of dealing with criminals
Then witch hunters are police.

If A=B
And B=C
Then A=C

Just let the thread die.

[Mipe]

About the invasion without defending army - as I recall, there were quite a few cases in the history where invaded countries may as well have been without armies. They were simply overpowered.

As far as I know, majority of those countries are fully independent nowadays. Well, one has long since fragmented into smaller countries, but still. There are other ways to resist the invasion than by force.

Tangent brought to you by yours truly Mipey.

P.S.: I hear that tasing pregnant women is the next national sport. The judge DID okay it, after all.

[shig]

@Smithy:  B-But it's an internet discussion! I can't just let it go like this !!!

@Mipey: Just a note: There's a difference between randomly throwing civillians at the enemy army and making an army out of the civillians and then employing guerrilla tactics.

@Paul:

that's exactly what i stated earlier: that the system itself is evil, not the people in it. ceos and presidents are usually nice folk. but the systems involved force them to act in ways which hurt people.

the system itself is evil

i disagree.