Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Mar 21, 2017.
Corporations are the property of their owners (share holders).
But it is the government that authorizes or creates (incorporates) the legal entity. Government itself is a form of corporation.
Anarcho-capitalists want to do away with the state and let people be free to make agreements amongst themselves and create corporations. While I agree to a limited extent, I think this is not a solution but a sort of reset button which will just lead to a period of instability as power structures re-form, but there will still be the same competiton amongst power structures and whether you label those power structures states or governments or corporations, they will sooner or later reign tyranny and terror on the people unless they are treated with suspicion and their size and lifespan is managed. This management needs to be crowd-sourced or managed by a government that is sufficiently limited and crowd-sourced and egalitarian as to not be controlled and corrupted.
I think if we view the state as a subset of corporations this might bring some light to the anarcho-capitalist blind spot.
You're saying that corporations derive power from the state, but also that the state is a subset of corporations?
Name one thing a corporation could impose on a population on a non-voluntary basis without the power of the state. As far as I know, your associations with corporations are totally voluntary. They do not have law or corresponding enforcement apparatuses as a result of their inability to confiscate wealth (and investors don't like unnecessary financial expenditures). If the opposite were true, then tautologically the corporation would be a state.
Let's face it. Hurm is a socialist.
If the corporation(s) can own and control access to resources and means of production isn't that an imposition on a population? Aren't they ultimately just feudal lords?
(Will respond when I have a moment!)
Government authorizes citizenship too.
I'm saying that corporations are instantiated as a legal entity by the state. Where power comes from is another matter. But yes, the state can be thought of as a type of corporation. Municipalities - one of the smallest forms of government - are by definition corporations. States and nations act as corporate bodies with a constitution that defines their genesis and existence. They ideally exist through a "social contract" with the people. A corporation is just people getting together and saying let's do stuff as one "body" (corpus) and let's be recognized legally as one entity.
Anything really. Name one thing the state imposes on a population on a non-voluntary basis, and a corporation could do the same. Without a state, the corporations would become the new state and the new cartel.
If there is no state, there is no agreed upon law, and if there is no law, there is nothing to keep corporations from abusing the people the way the state does. And I know the anarcho-capitalist answer to this is: the corporations manipulate law to their advantage. But in a competition if one team manipulates the rules to cheat, that doesn't mean the game will be improved by simply scrapping all the rules. The other answer provided by anarcho-capitalists is: people will vote with their dollars and not give money to the corporations that abuse people. But I think that is short-sighted: corporations can grow to a size that enables them to maintain secrets and manipulate the flow of information and perceptions, corporations also do business with other corporations, and not everyone is conscientiously motivated to be ethical with their spending. Without a state, you get a cartel. If the state is not kept in check, the state eventually turns into a cartel anyway. The origins of the state are in the need for common defense against other predatory hierarchies. If people don't get themselves organized into an effective hierarchy, they will be conquered and enslaved by those who do.
Ideally everything would be voluntary. But any time people act as a group (even a group consisting of two persons), individuals sacrifice and compromise in order to align with the direction and needs of the group. So the smaller the group size, the more opportunity for choice exists. That's why my vision of a stable political environment consists of many small groups existing in balance and no big ones.
Nature has a way of keeping things balanced - it is called death. If something doesn't die and grows and grows and consumes and consumes upsetting the balance, we have names for that like "cancer" or "invasive species" or "zombies". So if we want a healthy political ecosystem we have to program a timely death into the life of the "bodies" (corporations). A kind of death and limitation on growth is supposed to be programmed into the corporation of government with term limits and debt ceilings and constitutional limitations and whatnot... but obviously, governments have found ways to live forever and vampirically suck off the population. Perhaps all laws should have time limits too. No one wants to expend political capital to repeal laws that have fine sounding names, but if all laws expired unless renewed by vote, maybe that would be helpful? I don't know.
(I hope you were joking!)
I am more of an anarchist than the anarcho-capitalists! I am suspicious of all groups of people and even more so when they are organized hierarchically. There's nothing sacred about a group of people that call themselves a corporation and they are no less dangerous than the state. The bigger the group, the more dangerous its potential. But I recognize that the only defense against groups of people is other groups of people. Therefore, hierarchies will always exist and they will initially or ostensibly function as a state. The best way to deal with them is the way nature deals with them: program death into their corpus from birth so that they die before becoming grotesquely corrupt, and give them lots of more or less equally matched competitors and develop a web or network of organization so that there are no critical paths (of resources and information).
Do you think that sort of loose way of speaking is really fair or honest? The very term 'alt-right' was designed to denigrate people with certain views, without any regard as to why people believe them or whether they are true. For example, I don't believe in man-made climate change, because I don't think the evidence is statistically robust, I know that the various climate models predicted far more warming over the past 15 years, than has taken place, and I have read some of the emails leaked in 'climategate' that exposed scientists colluding to force out journal editors who published scientific papers that contained information that cast doubt on this scare. I also have a variety of other reasons (none of them involving cheques from big business) for thinking the way I do.
I actually suspect that 'climate change' evolved out of a scheme to try to level the playing field between poor countries and rich ones. It has also turned into a money spinner for electricity companies, who can sell a deluxe product to customers, and take the same percentage profit from a larger cake. It that turns out to be true, it could be that you are helping to support the alt-right at the expense of poor electricity consumers.
Is it inconceivable to you that some people doubt the concept of man-made climate change for totally rational and honest reasons?
I am not a fan of Alex Jones but I watched the video because Cernovich is interviewed.
Mike Cernovich Exposes Pedophile Control System. Exclusive
(Cernovich comes on at :50)
Cernovich is saying that the pedophile ring are compromising people in the government by staging photos they can use for blackmail.
I have long thought many government officials are being blackmailed because it would explain a lot about what has been going on in Washington.
I would like to know who is controlling this? In the video, they call it "deep state". But who controls the deep state?
Cernovich also says the media tried to hide the story on Susan Rice story because journalists are also compromised and the "deep state" wants to hide the fact that they are spying on everyone of importance who isn't already compromised. The Trump/Russia eavesdropping was an attempt to get information with which to either blackmail or to use as an excuse to deny security clearance to unblackmailable people. Cernovich says anyone who can't be blackmailed is denied a security clearance.
That would explain why there are so many leaks of classified information: only people who are compromised can get a security clearance.
Jones mentions this article during the video:
474 Arrested, 28 Sexually Exploited Children Rescued During Statewide Human Trafficking Operation: LASD
Here's another Jones video interviewing Craig Sawyer who runs Veterans for Child Rescue (http://www.vets4childrescue.org/)
Police / Military Closing In On Pedophile Network
Sawyer mentions the Muslim Brotherhood and the head of a major political party. It's not clear to me what he is saying about them, either they seem to be against investigating pedophiles which he says means they have self-identified themselves as perpetrators, and/or they are under investigation by law enforcement.
Police / Military Closing In On Pedophile Network
Michael O'Leary, my old boss, rubbishes climate change.
@David Bailey @Michael Larkin
What do you think we can do to increase the chances that intelligent people will be able to have real dialogues (about issues of concern to Skeptiko listeners?) and get past the polarising political situation we're currently in? Do you think that will happen, or do you think we are fundamentally stuck in a way that is not going to immediately fix itself?
In my opinion, it is not just about 'intelligent people' but rather a human condition that can be observed everywhere at different depths of discussions. So I guess many people call it ego. I have my reservations from such jargon at the moment. I am also assuming that this analysis is no shock to anybody here, but I still feel like that is at the heart of this disconnect/ division/ polarity.
Whichever topic it may be, when I listen to a discussion I am a lot less concerned with the content of the discussion but rather the way it is carried out. I try to prioritize the manner in which topics are discussed over the content, which always varies. I find it quite rare to be able to get any point across to the other side, simply through content and counterarguments if the emotional front is neglected.
To different extents, we are all protective over our views, and it is not easy sometimes to question our held beliefs especially when we don't realize they are beliefs. The question of how to advance a dialogue between two people is a tricky one because it really depends on the two individuals, and how much they are in touch with this emotional side in them.
Ideally and rationally speaking, the two sides should be able to question openly and honestly everything, without restricted movement. Unfortunately, that is rare. Most people get upset, impatient, and antagonistic when there is disagreement. I think most people are extremely uncomfortable in such a place, and most of the times the discussion gets stuck. instead of dealing with the actual issue that's discussed directly, it becomes about something personal though it is disguised by the intellect. finally, after wrestling it out for a while, nothing new comes up usually, and both sides go their own way.
I think it's a shame that people get stuck so often, as Alex and Daniel had here on this podcast, and as has happened so many times here on this show. I mean this is what Skeptiko, ideally, is all about - trying to go deeper together.
Alex, I don't think that a real and open dialogue is always possible, especially when you host Skeptics who are often so easily ticked off. Some people will have a very hard time opening up to new ways of thinking. I'm betting that everybody here had to go through these difficulties of being wrong, becoming defensive, and letting go of false ideas throughout their life.
I think that in order to increase the chances of having real dialogues with others we have to acknowledge that we are dealing not just with the intellect, but mostly with people who are vulnerable and emotional, just as we all are. I am not suggesting going through a therapy session with every person on the show . I am suggesting simply not to get dragged to this personal and hostile place with people.
I think it has a much stronger effect to remain composed while probing into some part that is uncomfortable for the other. It will expose the ugly side of the interviewee. I believe that that's the best thing you could do. It's easier said than done, but I think it's your responsibility as the host. I think it will really affect the listener's stance when they will witness one side losing it. It reveals a lot. That is one of the reasons I kept listening to Rupert Sheldrake for instance, although his ideas were quite strange for me at first. He always kept his cool.
In my opinion, this can also increase the chances of having intelligent dialogues, because it will gradually filter out personal and indirect nonsense from these deep topics. When these two are intertwined, there is no real dialogue.
love to hear any thoughts.
Speaking of civil discussions, this comment might offend Michael Larkin. It's not broken down into enough separate paragraphs.
Boom!! He's back.
More paragraphs would encourage people to read your posts.
Nobody does. The "Deep State" is just various factions inside governments fighting each other for power.
Jim, have new seen this new Dutch whistle-blower Ronald Bernard?
I've investigated scores of these "insider whistle-blowers" over the years. 99% are money-grubbing cons selling books, or disinformation agents pushing a narrative, but this guy seems legit to me.
Worth a watch if you've not seen him...
I take it
There is nothing to stop you pressing the edit button and retro-fitting a paragraph structure on what you have written!
Apart from not knowing it was possible! Fixed it...
Separate names with a comma.