- This topic has 12 voices and 265 replies.
-
Posts
-
Well, this could go way off topic, but for example, liberals tend to reduce sexual morality to the issue of mere consent, whereas conservatives have a higher threshold of morality here.Don't you think it best if we do not speak of the morality of either group especially our politicians?I am sorry, but when I hear the words "higher threshold" I tend to giggle as testosterone and the DNAGod trump almost everything sometimes.
N0--I know that would be an impossible position for you--but you have a chink in your armour and for now 'tis enough.
How exactly is it a chink in my armor? I never said anything about the government getting involved, which is something that liberalism would tend to want. Even conservatives want to protect the communities in which they live.
I think corporations ought to be watched carefully. Because of their charter--no community obligations--no national obligations--just shareholders--we should view them as valuable and wonderous things that must be overseen lest they turn and bite us.
Corporations *do* have obligations to their shareholders, many of whom live in the United States. They also have obligations to operate within state and federal laws. Why should they have "community obligations" when that is not their task? Should the boy scouts have obligations to make X amount of profit per year? What is your basis for thinking an entity which is designed to sell a product needs to have community or national obligations beyond which they already adhere to? As I can see it, your gripe against corporations is because they can "buy" elections. Yet the same can be said about unions. I would argue that politician have free will and should be able to resist the lure of dollars. If they cannot resist the temptation of a campaign donation, then that is the candidate's problem, not the corporation's (or union's).
The entire reason why the news story is bigger when conservatives get involved in sexual scandal is because they are held to a higher standard in the first place – which actually proves my point (I am not sure you were disagreeing with this in the first place, though). Can workers at a brothel be criticized for being involved in a sex scandal? It would be very difficult.
My two cents' worth in paraphrase….
Well, this could go way off topic, but for example, liberals tend to reduce sexual morality to the issue of mere consent, whereas conservatives have a higher threshold of morality here.
This demonstrates the point that some people have weak morals and others make benefit for having, at least, situational morals; Bill Clinton though it okay to have a hummer in the office with Monica... at least Harding hid out in a broom closet with his honey. At least that was the story we were told in US History in college. ::)
.... Yet the same can be said about unions. I would argue that politician have free will and should be able to resist the lure of dollars. If they cannot resist the temptation of a campaign donation, then that is the candidate's problem, not the corporation's (or union's).
Yet the same should apply to politico of either party... if they cannot resist a chance to donate (sperm) it is the candidate's problem not the party nor the recipient of said donation.All kidding aside there are three levels in this diverging discussion: 1) morality; knowing what to do and not to do... and acting accordingly. 2) immorality; knowing what to do and not to do... and acting as one wishes w/o regard to morality. 3) amorality; the total lack of moral compunction... far too many folks like this get elected.I will now retire for my evening cup of bile.
The entire reason why the news story is bigger when conservatives get involved in sexual scandal is because they are held to a higher standard in the first place – which actually proves my point (I am not sure you were disagreeing with this in the first place, though). Can workers at a brothel be criticized for being involved in a sex scandal? It would be very difficult.Please enlighten me. Who or what entity establishes the standard to which Conservaties are held?I would not criticize workers in a brothel except perhaps on performance issues--never on being part of a process business.
How exactly is it a chink in my armor? I never said anything about the government getting involved, which is something that liberalism would tend to want. Even conservatives want to protect the communities in which they live.Oh you cannot fool me. Like Bush II, I can peer into your computer eyes and see your soul. What Isee is a LIBERAL circuit. Don't deny it--you are outed!
Please enlighten me. Who or what entity establishes the standard to which Conservaties are held?
I don't think this is my mere opinion here. I think that conservatives are judged more harshly for moral foibles than are Democrats because conservatives are more closely associated with the family values message.
Oh you cannot fool me. Like Bush II, I can peer into your computer eyes and see your soul. What I see is a LIBERAL circuit. Don't deny it--you are outed!
Oh, well that may be because I may appear to be "liberal" on certain issues (not necessarily in the area you're thinking), though I would probably call it something else. In fact, in a recent WCF ranking, I was picked no higher than the fourth most conservative figure on this forum. So maybe I'm a closet leftist after all. 😮
Corporations *do* have obligations to their shareholders, many of whom live in the United States. They also have obligations to operate within state and federal laws. Why should they have “community obligations” when that is not their task? Should the boy scouts have obligations to make X amount of profit per year? What is your basis for thinking an entity which is designed to sell a product needs to have community or national obligations beyond which they already adhere to? As I can see it, your gripe against corporations is because they can "buy" elections. Yet the same can be said about unions. I would argue that politician have free will and should be able to resist the lure of dollars. If they cannot resist the temptation of a campaign donation, then that is the candidate's problem, not the corporation's (or union's).Corporations, as artificial persons, are required to comply with law, rule an regulation at variousgovernmental levels and almost all do almost all the time. Further, many are involved in variouscommunity activites as it is good for business and employee morale. You and I are citizens as well as persons and have additional concerns and responsibilities. We vote, wedefend our nation, obey the laws, we pay taxes, unlike Corporations who pretend to, and concern ourselves with the long range health of the nation.Corporations do not vote although they do spend money, they are not called upon to fight and die for the nation, they do not go to jail for violations of the law and nothing requires them to have the interestsof the nation elevated over the interests of the shareholders. There is no need to speak of howsome banks and corporations profited from their relationship with Hitler's Germany prior to WWII, Itwas just business. Was it not Lenin who said that when the hanging began some Capitalist would sell him the rope? (This is not really accurate--but close).Our politicians cannot be elected without big bucks. From whence do these funds come--you? Me?If I resist temptation I lose the election--not a great strategy.
Corporations, as artificial persons, are required to comply with law, rule an regulation at variousgovernmental levels and almost all do almost all the time. Further, many are involved in variouscommunity activites as it is good for business and employee morale. You and I are citizens as well as persons and have additional concerns and responsibilities. We vote, wedefend our nation, obey the laws, we pay taxes, unlike Corporations who pretend to, and concern ourselves with the long range health of the nation.Corporations do not vote although they do spend money, they are not called upon to fight and die for the nation, they do not go to jail for violations of the law and nothing requires them to have the interestsof the nation elevated over the interests of the shareholders. There is no need to speak of howsome banks and corporations profited from their relationship with Hitler's Germany prior to WWII, Itwas just business. Was it not Lenin who said that when the hanging began some Capitalist would sell him the rope? (This is not really accurate--but close).
Willy, you seem to have a serious problem with distinguishing between the legal construct of the corporation as "person" and the human being as person. Making complaints against corporations because they aren't called upon to go to war is downright silly. If you want to go that route, then corporations don't get to spend any of their own money, are deprived of food, never get to take showers, etc. etc. Do you see how absurd this becomes if we fail to make the distinction I mentioned?Of course we all know that it is the shareholders of that corporation who may be called upon to go to war. The officers may be held liable for the corporation's actions (look up the legal term of "piercing the corporate veil" if you don't believe me). The shareholders have added responsibilities in their communities and families. Your example about Hitler brings up an interesting point, one which should be examined for the ethical issues that arise, but that is clearly an exception, not the norm.
Our politicians cannot be elected without big bucks. From whence do these funds come--you? Me? If I resist temptation I lose the election--not a great strategy.
If your argument is that "big bucks" is bad for candidates, then candidates should refuse money over a certain amount from any source, or reject money over a certain amount from any source and make it up in volume. Either way, the issue should apply across the board - don't simply single out corporations.
Willy, you seem to have a serious problem with distinguishing between the legal construct of the corporation as "person" and the human being as person. Making complaints against corporations because they aren't called upon to go to war is downright silly. If you want to go that route, then corporations don't get to spend any of their own money, are deprived of food, never get to take showers, etc. etc. Do you see how absurd this becomes if we fail to make the distinction I mentioned?Of course we all know that it is the shareholders of that corporation who may be called upon to go to war. The officers may be held liable for the corporation's actions (look up the legal term of "piercing the corporate veil" if you don't believe me). The shareholders have added responsibilities in their communities and families. Your example about Hitler brings up an interesting point, one which should be examined for the ethical issues that arise, but that is clearly an exception, not the norm. I used a bit of satire. If Corporations are persons they escape some of the duties of persons(citizens) by virtue of their artificiality. They demand the good stuff, but are not called upon to do the bad stuff--that is left to us. As Smedely Butler, former Commandant of the Marine Corps said of his career " I was the muscle of Corporations in Central America and the Caribbean". In another case,when Corporations were looking for a place to grow rubber trees for the new cars rolling of the variousassembly lines, one wit was quoted as saying--"We must find not only a good place for rubber trees, but a place where our gunboats can get to." Both these quotes are rough, but essentially accurate.I suggest that since Corporations are chartered by the states there ought to be some obligation inreturn. When the FSS was assigning frequencies years ago there was a clause in the license whichrequired that they set aside certain times for public service broadcasts. I believe that is now passe'.I realize this is Federal, not state, but you do get the idea.So Corporations get service, you pay their taxes and the armed forces makes sure that debts arecollected--check history of Haiti and the US control of the Custom Houses--it was all just business.Now I am not like Canute raging against the Corporate wave. I recognize that they are needed and even desirable. My solution is more regulation so that the banks and auto companies do not have the President having to decide who lives and who goes into Chapter 7. Regulation is not a bad thing inand of itself--think of it like morphine--a little is good for the patient --a lot is bad.
I suggest that since Corporations are chartered by the states there ought to be some obligation inreturn. When the FSS was assigning frequencies years ago there was a clause in the license whichrequired that they set aside certain times for public service broadcasts. I believe that is now passe'.I realize this is Federal, not state, but you do get the idea.So Corporations get service, you pay their taxes and the armed forces makes sure that debts arecollected--check history of Haiti and the US control of the Custom Houses--it was all just business.Now I am not like Canute raging against the Corporate wave. I recognize that they are needed and even desirable. My solution is more regulation so that the banks and auto companies do not have the President having to decide who lives and who goes into Chapter 7. Regulation is not a bad thing inand of itself--think of it like morphine--a little is good for the patient --a lot is bad.
Well, alright, here is a different way to look at it. Is it better that a corporation donates $1 million to a certain charity, or that the corporation issues dividends to 1000 shareholders, each of whom donates $1000 to that charity?
Well, alright, here is a different way to look at it. Is it better that a corporation donates $1 million to a certain charity, or that the corporation issues dividends to 1000 shareholders, each of whom donates $1000 to that charity?Report to moderator LoggedA Corporation donates a million to a charity--great!Are the shareholders bound to do the same? I think not--More Hobbesians than RousseauiansSo--I would go with the first.
Oh, well that may be because I may appear to be "liberal" on certain issues (not necessarily in the area you're thinking), though I would probably call it something else. In fact, in a recent WCF ranking, I was picked no higher than the fourth most conservative figure on this forum. So maybe I'm a closet leftist after all. AHA! I can sniff them out still!
A Corporation donates a million to a charity--great!Are the shareholders bound to do the same? I think not--More Hobbesians than RousseauiansSo--I would go with the first.
My question wasn't who would be bound to do it - which would be better if it were done. As for me, I would rather have the individual shareholders use profits awarded to them to donate to the charity. The corporation's purpose is to make profits for the shareholders, and the shareholder's purpose - well, here we get philosophical/religious, and I do think they have a duty to help their neighbor. I think it allows for much more virtue for 1000 individuals to donate to a charity than to have it become a business decision for some officers to decide for the corporation to do this instead.
As for me, I would rather have the individual shareholders use profits awarded to them to donate to the charity. The corporation's purpose is to make profits for the shareholders, and the shareholder's purpose - well, here we get philosophical/religious, and I do think they have a duty to help their neighbor. I think it allows for much more virtue for 1000 individuals to donate to a charity than to have it become a business decision for some officers to decide for the corporation to do this instead. ...Yet Corporations donate millions to charitable events and individual charities as well as scholarships,sponsorships and other things. I imagine they do this to show that they are good corporatecitizens and extend themselves beyond the boundary of what is mandated by rule or law. I alsoassume they do this with the full support of the Board of Directors as the funds will have an effect on dividends and profits.As for people having a duty to help--well Moslems, Jews, Christians and perhaps other faiths teach this and many embrace the practice. It is admirable.This reminds me of an historical joke:Marx and Engles are walking down a street in London when they are accosted by beggar seeking alms. Engles reaches into his purse for a shilling, but his hand is stayed by Marx who says-" NO NO Engles, you will delay the revolution."
