6 ms·

I didn't say western people don't own our brethren anything. I said that coporations are not the problem. And that our coporations don't own anybody anything, b

I didn't say western people don't own our brethren anything. I said that coporations are not the problem. And that our coporations don't own anybody anything, beyond respecting the law and paying taxes that is. Also one would expect (and that is what I am hinting at) that the rest of the world will smart up and stop acting as if we know what is the best for them. They are independent people and are not our children. Regarding history, maybe we should demand something from the Scandinavians, since their current welfare is obviously hugely dependent on the Viking's rape and pillage? p.s.: And I would advise you to read on Eastern hisotry and learn how Eastern people were more than capable of producing mass genocides on their own. Also I am not denying anything you are saying. However do you somehow believe that if West said today: "We did you wrong, here take everything that is ours and let us pay our debt in blood". It would make the world a better place? The crux of my argument is that it is upon third world to improve their situation, with or without our help. The biggest help we already gave them is the massive investments into side tracks. If they want to produce medicine they can just rip off our tech. No need to start from square one. etc.

jacquesm 14y ago
Except corporations dodge tax in ways no individual ever could. Oh, it's all perfectly legal, it is called 'tax avoidance'. And corporations as a rule are part and parcel of the societies they're engendered in and quite a few can trace their opportunity and starting capital right back to some crime against humanity, or are in the process of committing some of those during their life-cycle. The countries we plundered are independent people in the same way that the old lady that was just hit over the head and robbed of her capital is independent and knows what's best for her. She's also clearly not our child. But we as the robbers probably carry a good bit of responsibility for how the rest plays out past the point where the business end of our club contacted the back of her head. I fail to see the link between the Scandinavians and their current state of welfare and the Vikings, as far as I know the Vikings were no better or worse than what the rest of Europe was up to at the time and they definitely did not lay the foundation for the current welfare system there.
- JanezStupar 14y ago
  All I am saying is that go ahead and do something about it. Stop preaching to the people who don't believe you and don't agree with your outlook. If your way is truly better then it should give better results. If it gives better results then you will do more good via paying more taxes and helping people out. Lead by an example. Don't lament old ways, make us want to follow in your path. That is all I am proposing and all my other arguments are just that arguments for the sake of truth as I personally see it.
  - distal 14y ago
    > If your way is truly better then it should give better results. How does this logically follow? When speaking of ethics, ideas that are better are not necessarily more profitable. For example, a plantation with slaves would be more profitable than a plantation with unionized workers.
    - JanezStupar 14y ago
      I am not talking about distribution of property. I am talking about the whole sum. If the whole sum of well being doesn't increase then why help people at all? Thus the ideas that do not increase whole sum of well being are not ethical at all.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    > arguments for the sake of truth as I personally see it. That's called an opinion, not the truth. And in this case it is a misguided opinion. Attitudes like yours directly result in mass pollution, overfishing, enslavement - direct or indirect and so on. Profits aren't holy, and the so called efficient market model isn't. It only works for a subset of problems and quite possibly not optimal at that, especially when looking over the longer term. Do we pollute this river and kill all the fish or do we spend an extra half million to scrub the exhaust. That's an easy decision when translated into money, if you're not looking at that river as anything but an exhaust it is an absolute no-brainer. With shit as this as the result: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/11/world/europe/netherlands-nigeria-shell-oil/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/11/world/europe/netherlands-n... I'm not preaching to you, I'm trying to make you see that your love affair with corporations isn't the totality of the world and that there is a lot of history - and a lot of stuff happening in the present - that you are wilfully ignoring.

jacquesm 14y ago

Except corporations dodge tax in ways no individual ever could. Oh, it's all perfectly legal, it is called 'tax avoidance'. And corporations as a rule are part and parcel of the societies they're engendered in and quite a few can trace their opportunity and starting capital right back to some crime against humanity, or are in the process of committing some of those during their life-cycle. The countries we plundered are independent people in the same way that the old lady that was just hit over the head and robbed of her capital is independent and knows what's best for her. She's also clearly not our child. But we as the robbers probably carry a good bit of responsibility for how the rest plays out past the point where the business end of our club contacted the back of her head. I fail to see the link between the Scandinavians and their current state of welfare and the Vikings, as far as I know the Vikings were no better or worse than what the rest of Europe was up to at the time and they definitely did not lay the foundation for the current welfare system there.

JanezStupar 14y ago
All I am saying is that go ahead and do something about it. Stop preaching to the people who don't believe you and don't agree with your outlook. If your way is truly better then it should give better results. If it gives better results then you will do more good via paying more taxes and helping people out. Lead by an example. Don't lament old ways, make us want to follow in your path. That is all I am proposing and all my other arguments are just that arguments for the sake of truth as I personally see it.
- distal 14y ago
  > If your way is truly better then it should give better results. How does this logically follow? When speaking of ethics, ideas that are better are not necessarily more profitable. For example, a plantation with slaves would be more profitable than a plantation with unionized workers.
  - JanezStupar 14y ago
    I am not talking about distribution of property. I am talking about the whole sum. If the whole sum of well being doesn't increase then why help people at all? Thus the ideas that do not increase whole sum of well being are not ethical at all.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  > arguments for the sake of truth as I personally see it. That's called an opinion, not the truth. And in this case it is a misguided opinion. Attitudes like yours directly result in mass pollution, overfishing, enslavement - direct or indirect and so on. Profits aren't holy, and the so called efficient market model isn't. It only works for a subset of problems and quite possibly not optimal at that, especially when looking over the longer term. Do we pollute this river and kill all the fish or do we spend an extra half million to scrub the exhaust. That's an easy decision when translated into money, if you're not looking at that river as anything but an exhaust it is an absolute no-brainer. With shit as this as the result: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/11/world/europe/netherlands-nigeria-shell-oil/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/11/world/europe/netherlands-n... I'm not preaching to you, I'm trying to make you see that your love affair with corporations isn't the totality of the world and that there is a lot of history - and a lot of stuff happening in the present - that you are wilfully ignoring.