7 ms·

`s/corporations/government` and this is still true

by necessity 10y ago

api 10y ago
The two blur together at the top.
- grzm 10y ago
  The objectives, roles, and responsibilities are significantly different.
  - scalio 10y ago
    In theory, yes. The problem is that many government officials act to further corporations' objectives for example by enacting laws enabling or making shady activities easier.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Yup. And that is a problem, isn't it? Because it shouldn't be that way. We should work to limit such influence, not just throw up our hands and say they're the same.
      - scalio 10y ago
        Oh of course, but do you have any practical suggestions? I fear the whole thing needs to be ripped apart to have any chance of actual change as opposed to the less-than-superficial "yeah that's a problem, gotta do something about that, don't we?" rubs nipples that politicians are spewing out when faced with criticism. Point is, corruption played such a major role in building the modern world it's impossible to get rid of while maintaining capitalism as it stands. The old school solution would be a bloody revolution. Needless to say, not something I'm in favour of. On top of that, modern surveillance makes me very pessimistic as to its outcome. (Could that be a measure to determine what's too much surveillance? When revolution becomes impossible?)
        grzm 10y ago
        There's the rub :) I feel a lot of the frustration you're expressing as well. I really don't like contemplating refreshing the tree of liberty with iron-rich, crimson, liquid manure.[-1] I don't have a history of political activism, and haven't done a lot of reading on it, either, so anyone can rightly accuse me of some level of earnest, well-meaning naïvieté. I'm also not much of a politician, so that naïvieté counts double. Any suggestions I'm putting forward are suggestions and ideas for me, first. - Continue to honestly and charitably engage as much as possible with people that may not agree with me. Refrain from speaking from emotion, taking extra time to word things as best as I can. The goal should always be to reach understanding, if not agreement. And not agreeing is okay. Remember that if I don't have an open mind to understand their point of view, it's very unlikely they'll be open to understanding mine. Keep in mind Rapoport's Rules[0] as much as possible, as well as understand how others can come to different political positions (Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind" is a great resource for this.) - Push back when possible against the idea that government is a business. There are definitely areas of overlap and skills that can be useful in both domains, but the two are not, nor should they be, the same. - Work to increase election security. It's largely non-partisan and in everyone's best interest. verifiedvoting.org looks like a great place to start. In particular, push to remove direct recording electronic voting machines. - Work to increase transparency into government. Support work like that of the Sunlight Foundation[1] (which unfortunately looks like it's shutting down[2]), and other open government organizations, both monetarily and letting people know that this type of information is available. - Actually contact my representatives to express my views on issues that are important to me. - With respect to corruption directly, recognize that this is also a largely non-partisan issue. Different types of corruption are important to different people, and that's okay. Be especially open to accusations of corruption of those you support. Learn as much as you can about the situation. If they're groundless, lay out that evidence civilly and calmly. If there is some support for them, be up front about it. After all, you want the people you support to be open and forthright, and with integrity. If they're seriously corrupt, do you really want them to represent you or support you, even if they agree with you on a lot of issues? And accept across the board that things aren't likely to change overnight, that sometimes compromises need to be made. - Learn more about how comparable issues have been resolved in the past. The first that comes to mind wrt corruption is Tammany Hall[3]. - Don't try to solve all the problems. Pick one that's important to you so you don't spread yourself too thin. Remember that for most there's more to life than just politics. Looking over this list, it does look hand-wavy. That said, the current polarization is one of the most troublesome issues we're facing. It prevents us from working together on the things we agree on. So while "listen more, understand those you disagree with" may sound Pollyannaish, I honestly think it's crucial. [0]: https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/ https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo... [1]: https://sunlightfoundation.com https://sunlightfoundation.com [2]: https://govpredict.com/blog/sunlight-foundation-gone-who-will-make-gov-data-transparent/ https://govpredict.com/blog/sunlight-foundation-gone-who-wil... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall Edit to add: [-1]: Figure out for yourself beforehand what the tipping point is for increased political action. I found Dan Carlin's most recent "Common Sense" podcast episode "Trumped" useful in thinking about this particular topic.
bertiewhykovich 10y ago
While there's a grain of truth to this, to insist on this generalization is to twist Stallman's meaning to suit your own purposes. It's quite clear that Stallman is, here, speaking /quite specifically/ about corporations -- inveighing against them, in fact. I am sure that he would agree that governments can engage in similar behavior, but the target of his criticism here is corporations alone. Forcing governments into the conversation is a way of derailing specific criticism of corporations.

`s/corporations/government` and this is still true

api 10y ago

The two blur together at the top.

grzm 10y ago
The objectives, roles, and responsibilities are significantly different.
- scalio 10y ago
  In theory, yes. The problem is that many government officials act to further corporations' objectives for example by enacting laws enabling or making shady activities easier.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Yup. And that is a problem, isn't it? Because it shouldn't be that way. We should work to limit such influence, not just throw up our hands and say they're the same.
    - scalio 10y ago
      Oh of course, but do you have any practical suggestions? I fear the whole thing needs to be ripped apart to have any chance of actual change as opposed to the less-than-superficial "yeah that's a problem, gotta do something about that, don't we?" rubs nipples that politicians are spewing out when faced with criticism. Point is, corruption played such a major role in building the modern world it's impossible to get rid of while maintaining capitalism as it stands. The old school solution would be a bloody revolution. Needless to say, not something I'm in favour of. On top of that, modern surveillance makes me very pessimistic as to its outcome. (Could that be a measure to determine what's too much surveillance? When revolution becomes impossible?)
      - grzm 10y ago
        There's the rub :) I feel a lot of the frustration you're expressing as well. I really don't like contemplating refreshing the tree of liberty with iron-rich, crimson, liquid manure.[-1] I don't have a history of political activism, and haven't done a lot of reading on it, either, so anyone can rightly accuse me of some level of earnest, well-meaning naïvieté. I'm also not much of a politician, so that naïvieté counts double. Any suggestions I'm putting forward are suggestions and ideas for me, first. - Continue to honestly and charitably engage as much as possible with people that may not agree with me. Refrain from speaking from emotion, taking extra time to word things as best as I can. The goal should always be to reach understanding, if not agreement. And not agreeing is okay. Remember that if I don't have an open mind to understand their point of view, it's very unlikely they'll be open to understanding mine. Keep in mind Rapoport's Rules[0] as much as possible, as well as understand how others can come to different political positions (Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind" is a great resource for this.) - Push back when possible against the idea that government is a business. There are definitely areas of overlap and skills that can be useful in both domains, but the two are not, nor should they be, the same. - Work to increase election security. It's largely non-partisan and in everyone's best interest. verifiedvoting.org looks like a great place to start. In particular, push to remove direct recording electronic voting machines. - Work to increase transparency into government. Support work like that of the Sunlight Foundation[1] (which unfortunately looks like it's shutting down[2]), and other open government organizations, both monetarily and letting people know that this type of information is available. - Actually contact my representatives to express my views on issues that are important to me. - With respect to corruption directly, recognize that this is also a largely non-partisan issue. Different types of corruption are important to different people, and that's okay. Be especially open to accusations of corruption of those you support. Learn as much as you can about the situation. If they're groundless, lay out that evidence civilly and calmly. If there is some support for them, be up front about it. After all, you want the people you support to be open and forthright, and with integrity. If they're seriously corrupt, do you really want them to represent you or support you, even if they agree with you on a lot of issues? And accept across the board that things aren't likely to change overnight, that sometimes compromises need to be made. - Learn more about how comparable issues have been resolved in the past. The first that comes to mind wrt corruption is Tammany Hall[3]. - Don't try to solve all the problems. Pick one that's important to you so you don't spread yourself too thin. Remember that for most there's more to life than just politics. Looking over this list, it does look hand-wavy. That said, the current polarization is one of the most troublesome issues we're facing. It prevents us from working together on the things we agree on. So while "listen more, understand those you disagree with" may sound Pollyannaish, I honestly think it's crucial. [0]: https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/ https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo... [1]: https://sunlightfoundation.com https://sunlightfoundation.com [2]: https://govpredict.com/blog/sunlight-foundation-gone-who-will-make-gov-data-transparent/ https://govpredict.com/blog/sunlight-foundation-gone-who-wil... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall Edit to add: [-1]: Figure out for yourself beforehand what the tipping point is for increased political action. I found Dan Carlin's most recent "Common Sense" podcast episode "Trumped" useful in thinking about this particular topic.

bertiewhykovich 10y ago

While there's a grain of truth to this, to insist on this generalization is to twist Stallman's meaning to suit your own purposes. It's quite clear that Stallman is, here, speaking /quite specifically/ about corporations -- inveighing against them, in fact. I am sure that he would agree that governments can engage in similar behavior, but the target of his criticism here is corporations alone. Forcing governments into the conversation is a way of derailing specific criticism of corporations.