4 ms·

I'm talking about historical precedent If you're talking about history, are you talking about how powerful central governments are worth all those millions of

I'm talking about historical precedent If you're talking about history, are you talking about how powerful central governments are worth all those millions of brutal murders? So far, corporations have killed far fewer people than governments have, and when corporations do kill, it's generally with the help of the state. Not an indictment of the moral character of statists, just how things work when you monopolize force. the problem is that when it comes to the application of force, competition isn't as efficient as a monopoly is. That sounds wildly unlikely. What is special about force that makes it different? And even if force is different, is it worth the cost -- the government that starts out by providing defense and law enforcement relentlessly expands into moralistic regulation, redistributive taxation, and intrusive snooping into citizens' lives. The most successful non-revolutionary conservative movements succeed in slowing this down, temporarily. The question to me is not a moral one but an engineering one. Is there any reasonable path from where we are now to a responsible, efficient and effective government? Likewise. But if we're talking about engineering good outcomes, the thing to look at his how to engineer the state away, not how to engineer around the problems that afflict all states.

nazgulnarsil 18y ago
Corporations don't kill people because they are not legally allowed to. Give them the legal ability to kill people and they will (your example actually supports this, it's when the corporations collude with the government and have a chance of getting away with murder that they do). you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am pro government. I'm not. Bad government is responsible for more death than every other problem that faces humans. But I'm also a realist, as you say even the most successful of revolutions has only ever slowed government down. If I had my way the politicians would be dragged from their beds and shot tonight, but the world is not built for people like you and I. As long as intelligent people are a minority we have to engineer around the problems of government because whether you or I like it government is here to stay.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  "Corporations don't kill people because they are not legally allowed to" That's one of the most provocative things I have heard in a while. I have to make a comment here. Please forgive the intrusion. (I haven't read the entire thread) Corporations are businesses. They provide the best service or product to people at the lowest price. How could you keep a market interested in your product if you were killing people making it? Do you think some kind of secret trade-off where corporations got to kill vast numbers of people secretly in the middle of the night to keep prices low would actually work for _any_ corporation? If you were a CEO, would you gamble the entire corporate stock on it? It's the stuff of Hollywood fantasy, not reality. Business is based on good faith, trustworthy contracts, and the moral and physical support of all concerned. You can't just start whacking people and expect any of that to stay around. That's not reality. Yes -- you could sell a dangerous product. But that's not killing people. It's a different thing entirely. As for "engineering government" to work for you, I assume that's the main part of your thread. I'd simply ask that you do a LOT of reading on engineering government to work for people. There have been a lot of people doing a lot of engineering, so we have a lot of history to read and learn about.
  - jazj 18y ago
    "That's one of the most provocative things I have heard in a while." Corporations can and have killed people when they can get away with it: see the embarrassing history of leaded gasoline (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000320/kitman/single http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000320/kitman/single is a decent start) for just one example; it is still sold today in Third World nations even though we (and especially corporations) are well aware of its highly deleterious and sometimes fatal effects on public health. The idea that corporations are happy to run roughshod over people's health remains provocative only outside the reality-based community. "Corporations are businesses. They provide the best service or product to people at the lowest price." The first statement is true. The second is not. You cannot logically infer the second from the first. "How could you keep a market interested in your product if you were killing people making it? Do you think some kind of secret trade-off where corporations got to kill vast numbers of people secretly in the middle of the night to keep prices low would actually work for _any_ corporation? If you were a CEO, would you gamble the entire corporate stock on it?" A common lolbertarian strawman. It's not as if the only people corporations risk killing are customers. Any 12-year-old can see that a guy running a store has no interest in shooting everyone who walks in through his door. But given a complex network of global transactions, where the end consumer of a product may be many steps removed from the product's manufacturer, vendor, and purchaser, there are many points where dangerously cutting corners or exerting pressure to stymie scientific investigations can pay off. And asking whether a CEO would gamble the entire corporate stock on a risky move is a question liable to backfire in your face: I can trivially point to the Enron boys, who may not've killed anyone (at least not directly) but were happy to cause far more damage than any mundane murder for short-term gain. "It's the stuff of Hollywood fantasy, not reality. Business is based on good faith, trustworthy contracts, and the moral and physical support of all concerned. You can't just start whacking people and expect any of that to stay around. That's not reality. Yes -- you could sell a dangerous product. But that's not killing people. It's a different thing entirely." Hahahahaha you talk about business being founded on good faith and trustworthy contracts, AND the "moral and physical support of all concerned", and you have the audacity to say someone ELSE is trafficking in Hollywood fantasy? You got a lot to learn, kid.
jazj 18y ago
"when corporations do kill, it's generally with the help of the state" when states do kill, it's generally with the help of corporations

nazgulnarsil 18y ago

Corporations don't kill people because they are not legally allowed to. Give them the legal ability to kill people and they will (your example actually supports this, it's when the corporations collude with the government and have a chance of getting away with murder that they do). you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am pro government. I'm not. Bad government is responsible for more death than every other problem that faces humans. But I'm also a realist, as you say even the most successful of revolutions has only ever slowed government down. If I had my way the politicians would be dragged from their beds and shot tonight, but the world is not built for people like you and I. As long as intelligent people are a minority we have to engineer around the problems of government because whether you or I like it government is here to stay.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago
"Corporations don't kill people because they are not legally allowed to" That's one of the most provocative things I have heard in a while. I have to make a comment here. Please forgive the intrusion. (I haven't read the entire thread) Corporations are businesses. They provide the best service or product to people at the lowest price. How could you keep a market interested in your product if you were killing people making it? Do you think some kind of secret trade-off where corporations got to kill vast numbers of people secretly in the middle of the night to keep prices low would actually work for _any_ corporation? If you were a CEO, would you gamble the entire corporate stock on it? It's the stuff of Hollywood fantasy, not reality. Business is based on good faith, trustworthy contracts, and the moral and physical support of all concerned. You can't just start whacking people and expect any of that to stay around. That's not reality. Yes -- you could sell a dangerous product. But that's not killing people. It's a different thing entirely. As for "engineering government" to work for you, I assume that's the main part of your thread. I'd simply ask that you do a LOT of reading on engineering government to work for people. There have been a lot of people doing a lot of engineering, so we have a lot of history to read and learn about.
- jazj 18y ago
  "That's one of the most provocative things I have heard in a while." Corporations can and have killed people when they can get away with it: see the embarrassing history of leaded gasoline (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000320/kitman/single http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000320/kitman/single is a decent start) for just one example; it is still sold today in Third World nations even though we (and especially corporations) are well aware of its highly deleterious and sometimes fatal effects on public health. The idea that corporations are happy to run roughshod over people's health remains provocative only outside the reality-based community. "Corporations are businesses. They provide the best service or product to people at the lowest price." The first statement is true. The second is not. You cannot logically infer the second from the first. "How could you keep a market interested in your product if you were killing people making it? Do you think some kind of secret trade-off where corporations got to kill vast numbers of people secretly in the middle of the night to keep prices low would actually work for _any_ corporation? If you were a CEO, would you gamble the entire corporate stock on it?" A common lolbertarian strawman. It's not as if the only people corporations risk killing are customers. Any 12-year-old can see that a guy running a store has no interest in shooting everyone who walks in through his door. But given a complex network of global transactions, where the end consumer of a product may be many steps removed from the product's manufacturer, vendor, and purchaser, there are many points where dangerously cutting corners or exerting pressure to stymie scientific investigations can pay off. And asking whether a CEO would gamble the entire corporate stock on a risky move is a question liable to backfire in your face: I can trivially point to the Enron boys, who may not've killed anyone (at least not directly) but were happy to cause far more damage than any mundane murder for short-term gain. "It's the stuff of Hollywood fantasy, not reality. Business is based on good faith, trustworthy contracts, and the moral and physical support of all concerned. You can't just start whacking people and expect any of that to stay around. That's not reality. Yes -- you could sell a dangerous product. But that's not killing people. It's a different thing entirely." Hahahahaha you talk about business being founded on good faith and trustworthy contracts, AND the "moral and physical support of all concerned", and you have the audacity to say someone ELSE is trafficking in Hollywood fantasy? You got a lot to learn, kid.

jazj 18y ago

"when corporations do kill, it's generally with the help of the state" when states do kill, it's generally with the help of corporations