Canada Redeeming

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: Canada Redeeming

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Fri Mar 04, 2022 6:53 am

I think the contention that a way to distinguish between what we consider acceptable and what we don't is by measuring degrees of "power" and "corruption" is preposterous.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Canada Redeeming

Postby gib » Fri Mar 04, 2022 4:42 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:I think the contention that a way to distinguish between what we consider acceptable and what we don't is by measuring degrees of "power" and "corruption" is preposterous.


You may have to flesh out what you mean by this (and its relevance to this discussion), but my first thought is--sure, maybe it's not a good idea to decide what we should or shouldn't have based on power and corruption. After all, if it wasn't for the corporation, we probably wouldn't have all the cool gadgets we enjoy in today's world, not to mention the caliber of weaponry that probably saved us on numerous occasions from foreign invasions and attacks. But I'd like to know where you're going with this. Are you trying to propose a standard by which to decide what's acceptable and what isn't in the corporate world?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

"Why, I haven't been that entertained since the stock market crash of 1929! Ha! Ha! Ha!... So many orphans."
- Alastor the radio demon

"I want to watch the scum of the world struggle to climb up the hill of betterment only to repeatedly trip and tumble down to the fiery pit of failure."
- Alastor the radio demon

"`With all due respect’ is a wonderful expression because it actually doesn’t specify how much respect is due."
- Alastor the radio demon
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Canada Redeeming

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Fri Mar 04, 2022 9:57 pm

I'm not going anywhere. I was answering to this:

gib wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:Your contention, then, is that men should not be allowed above a certain level of power?

Of course, someone with more power than that level would be required to enforce that.


Who said anything about "allowed"? I'm not proselytizing here. I'm just calling it like it is: power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. <-- You denying this?


Just trying to establish some basic things, so we can approach the thesis about corporations and legal liability etc. Then you asked me this and that was my answer.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Canada Redeeming

Postby gib » Sat Mar 05, 2022 10:22 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Just trying to establish some basic things, so we can approach the thesis about corporations and legal liability etc. Then you asked me this and that was my answer.


Ok, in that case, let me take it in this direction: this is something I've been meaning to post recently--a separation between state and business.

The first amendment in the US Constitution establishes a separation of church and state, and the reason for this, it seems, is that the people were sick and tired of government coming down on them for religious reasons--for not having the right religion, for not doing the right thing according to religion, etc.--and the idea was that if a government could be established that wasn't concerned with the individual's religious convictions, then one could live relatively free of religious persecution.

What makes the mixing of religion and state so dangerous is that people rely on their religion for spiritual guidance and for connection to their community. If it wasn't for this, one could avoid religious persecution simply by renouncing their religion and subscribing to another, like a job that just wasn't working out for them. But people are hungry for the truth. People rely on religion to guide them towards the truth. Truth is not something you can pick and chose from like entrees at a buffet. If you believe in your heart that your religious convictions are aligned with the truth, and your government tells you to renounce your religion or else, you're in a real bind. Sure you could renounce your religion and save yourself from government persecution but you know the truth doesn't work like that. You know that truth doesn't just follow you along to whatever convictions you pick up after abandoning previous ones. So the choice is an extremely difficult one and one is apt to consider facing government persecution for the sake of one's religious convictions.

I see something similar going on here with respect to Big Tech and the war on the spread of misinformation. Like religion, we rely on these Big Tech platforms, not to mention the news media, to stay informed of the truth and to speak the truth as we see it. And if government is able to appropriate Big Tech and persecute us for our allegiance to what it considers misinformation, then we're back in the same boat as when religion and state were intermixed. And it doesn't have to be the state persecuting us directly. The reality is that it's the Big Tech companies themselves that persecute us--silence us, ban us, rob us of a platform from which to speak the truth as we see it--but only because they are beholden to Big Gov. So Big Gov still acts as judge and jury but gets the Big Tech companies to do the dirty work, to be executioner.

We rely on Big Tech for the same reason we rely on religion--it connects us to the truth, to information--the ability to be informed and to inform others; but this is also part of a larger pattern of reliance period--that is, reliance on all the things Big Business provides for us. For example, we rely on Big Business for our energy needs, for oil & gas--and you can imagine an extreme left wing government cozying up to clean energy companies and, through them, forcing the people to rely on windmills instead of fossil fuels or else face persecution. It would be one thing if we had a choice--the kind of choice we're supposed to have in a free market--if one energy company wishes to sanction us for not being more environmentally friendly, we can just switch to another energy company to heat and power our homes, or to fuel up our vehicles, etc. Or coming back to Big Tech, if we get banned from Twitter, for example, for tweeting out what it considers misinformation, we can just switch to another social media company to express our views. But that's not how the world is turning out. It is turning out that Big Gov is buying the allegiance of more or less all Big Tech companies such that there are no alternatives for us to turn to. They might as well all be one gigantic cartel. In this way, they've got us. We rely on Big Tech for our information needs, and we rely on Big Business more generally for all sorts of needs. So like religion, we can't just drop it.

The challenge is how to establish a clean separation between Big Business and Big Gov? When it comes to the separation between church and state, it seems relatively simple--the state is not to adopt a state religion, and the first amendment protects the citizen's right to believe and practice whatever religious convictions they have (so long as it doesn't trample the rights of others or breaks the law). But this doesn't translate exactly to the relation between the state and the corporate world. The state already doesn't have a sponsored corporation. Rather, the relation seems to work the other way around. Big Gov is the Biggest Client of Big Tech. So Big Tech does its bidding. So do we make it illegal for businesses to take on government as a client? Add another amendment? But then politicians can easily get around this by approaching Big Tech, not as representatives of the state but as ordinary citizens dipping into government coffers. But maybe that's enough. Maybe the fact that the money, at the end of the day, has to come from the treasury means there will always be an audit trail that, assuming transparency can be maintained, can be followed by those tasks with performing checks and balances. Government would have to be pretty creative to figure out a way to account for such expenses without making it too obvious where the money's going.

But whatever way we do it, I think a separation similar to that between church and state is needed. Whenever you have two or more "Big" institutions colluding with the government, then government has a hand in an area of life where it has no business. Mixing church and state gives it a hand in people's spiritual lives. Mixing Big Tech with the state gives it a hand in what information the people have access to and what information they can put out. Mixing Big Business in general with the state gives it a hand in the market, limiting the people's choice of what to consume, what to produce, what to sell, and so on--overall, bringing it dangerously close to communism. By keeping Big Business and Big Gov separate, the individual's freedom to choose is preserved. Without a gargantuan client with bottomless pockets to serve, corporations have to compete with each other for shares of the consumer base, which means competing with each other for the consumer's allegiance. And what follows is what you'd expect from any competitive free market. If the consumer doesn't like what one business is doing, he can switch to a competing business who will be more than happy to cater to his wishes.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

"Why, I haven't been that entertained since the stock market crash of 1929! Ha! Ha! Ha!... So many orphans."
- Alastor the radio demon

"I want to watch the scum of the world struggle to climb up the hill of betterment only to repeatedly trip and tumble down to the fiery pit of failure."
- Alastor the radio demon

"`With all due respect’ is a wonderful expression because it actually doesn’t specify how much respect is due."
- Alastor the radio demon
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Canada Redeeming

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat Mar 05, 2022 11:15 pm

The problem is you can't have it both ways.

You can't have the wish to closely watch, regulate and even punish business and have government separate frome business.

Just like, back in the day, when the decision was made to separate church and state, the choice was made that things considered abhorrent even by those instituting that separation would have to be allowed. Probably none of them wanted gays running around with impunity, but such a thing was implied in the act and today we (those who are descendants of the men who made that decision) find it pretty much unremarkable that gays walk around with impunity. Just to give one specific example.

In the same way, you can't have government take its dirty fingers off of business and then ask it to regulate business, "punish" evil businessmen, "prevent corrpution," "save the planet," "eliminate hate," "redistribute wealth," etc etc etc etc etc.

As long as you accept, nay, demand that the government take a hand, business will find it wise to allign its interests with the government, and government will obviously do all it can to gain greater ascendancy on business.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Canada Redeeming

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat Mar 05, 2022 11:27 pm

I also think you are wrong about one thing:

It's not the government's deep pockets that ties businesses to them, but their regulatory activity.

Businesses more and more seek to 1. avoid regulations that harm their business and 2. promote regulations that insulate them from competition.

So, as an example of point 1, companies like Exxon Mobil are now voluntarily dedicating an important portion of their budgets to unprofitable hippy technology, hurting their business model and, oil being a if not the major player in the world economy, hurting the world economy. It also fits point 2 because, by doing this, they tighten their relationships with governments and assure for themselves protection by the governments.

Another example would be that none of us have access to the mind-bogglingly cheap and mind-bogglingly clean energy that nuclear fission provides, a source that would create a new world economy boom, because hippies in government. Etc.

Everybody has the right to an opinion. If some idiot thinks that altering a plant's genetics by definition makes it cancerous, he is allowed to think that as provided for by God Almighty himself. But if we let that idiotic hippy make legislation, two thirds of the world that aren't already will starve.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Canada Redeeming

Postby iambiguous » Sat Mar 05, 2022 11:35 pm

gib wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Come on, can't you see I'm trying to expand your horizons. Get you out of the "my way or the highway" hole that you are in?


No thanks, I've got a ladder that works nicely.

iambiguous wrote:The more you come off as just another "Urwrong if you don't think like me" buffoon/pinhead, the less respect I can have for your intelligence.


Image

Sigh...

Et tu, Gib?

Note to others:

Pick two...

1] Mr. Wiggle
2] Mr. Chickenshit

8) :lol: :wink: though not necessarily in that order
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46397
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Canada Redeeming

Postby Mad Man P » Sat Mar 05, 2022 11:50 pm

Peter Kropotkin wrote:as for the Canadian anti-vaccine protest goes, it has turned quite violent....
for example, in one case, pro-covid protesters tried to burn down a
apartment building while taping the doors shut so that no one could get out...
this is in response to the people in the building yelling at the pro-covid protesters
to go home.. this was 2:30 in the morning, mind you...


I don't even care if what you just said is true or not... in this context, this comes across as you justifying driving a fucking car into a group of people...
"some people who agree with a very specific political view of those hit by the car did something fucked up, so it's perfectly ok what happened to them"

I hope for your sake, that's not how you meant it... but if that is how you meant it... I'd like to know.
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2822
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Canada Redeeming

Postby gib » Mon Mar 07, 2022 3:40 am

Pedro I Rengel wrote:You can't have the wish to closely watch, regulate and even punish business and have government separate frome business.


Sure, but you can put down a law that says Big Business (or any business I guess) cannot take on government as a client.

(Although I do wonder how much your political system relies on government occasionally needing to approach businesses to get things done.)

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Just like, back in the day, when the decision was made to separate church and state, the choice was made that things considered abhorrent even by those instituting that separation would have to be allowed. Probably none of them wanted gays running around with impunity, but such a thing was implied in the act and today we (those who are descendants of the men who made that decision) find it pretty much unremarkable that gays walk around with impunity. Just to give one specific example.


But I'm not talking about regulatory powers. Government can still pose regulations and restrictions on businesses even without being a client.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:It's not the government's deep pockets that ties businesses to them, but their regulatory activity.


For the most part, yes, but this isn't where the corruption lies. All regulations that government imposes on businesses are supposed to be there. They were voted on through the proper channels and are responses to the demands of the poeple or loud lobbyist groups. You may not like them, you may not agree with them, but that's different from saying they're corrupt.

The corruption that we've seen over the past several years in Big Tech seems to work the other way around--it starts with government and the money goes to the corporations--then the corporations do the government's bidding. Of course, I'll admit that this is a conspiracy theory whose only basis for being said is conjecture, but it's the only theory I can think of that makes sense out of everything. There has to be a common factor that ties all these Big Tech companies together, make them aligned not only in their political leaning but in how extreme they will go to uphold that political leaning (banning people for voicing opinions they disagree with, appointing themselves the misinformation police, removing content that isn't aligned with their political agendas, etc.). I've heard theories like the consumer bases for most social media platforms happens to be overwhelmingly left leaning and woke, but this still seems to be not a powerful enough reason to go to the lengths Big Tech companies go to. They act as though they're beholden to a very powerful actor who will turn a blind eye to how unconstitutional their extreme measures probably are. So I propose that government (Democrats in particular) is their #1 client.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:So, as an example of point 1, companies like Exxon Mobil are now voluntarily dedicating an important portion of their budgets to unprofitable hippy technology, hurting their business model and, oil being a if not the major player in the world economy, hurting the world economy. It also fits point 2 because, by doing this, they tighten their relationships with governments and assure for themselves protection by the governments.

Another example would be that none of us have access to the mind-bogglingly cheap and mind-bogglingly clean energy that nuclear fission provides, a source that would create a new world economy boom, because hippies in government. Etc.

Everybody has the right to an opinion. If some idiot thinks that altering a plant's genetics by definition makes it cancerous, he is allowed to think that as provided for by God Almighty himself. But if we let that idiotic hippy make legislation, two thirds of the world that aren't already will starve.


I think what I said above addresses this too.

iambiguous wrote:Note to others:

Pick two...

1] Mr. Wiggle
2] Mr. Chickenshit

8) :lol: :wink: though not necessarily in that order


Is this my new nickname? :o Am I being inaugurated into Biggy's Club of Pinheads?

I prefer Mr. Wiggle if I have a say in it.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

"Why, I haven't been that entertained since the stock market crash of 1929! Ha! Ha! Ha!... So many orphans."
- Alastor the radio demon

"I want to watch the scum of the world struggle to climb up the hill of betterment only to repeatedly trip and tumble down to the fiery pit of failure."
- Alastor the radio demon

"`With all due respect’ is a wonderful expression because it actually doesn’t specify how much respect is due."
- Alastor the radio demon
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Canada Redeeming

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Mon Mar 07, 2022 3:49 am

gib wrote:The corruption that we've seen over the past several years in Big Tech seems to work the other way around--it starts with government and the money goes to the corporations--then the corporations do the government's bidding. Of course, I'll admit that this is a conspiracy theory whose only basis for being said is conjecture, but it's the only theory I can think of that makes sense out of everything.


Well that's why I said it's preposterous to use "corruption," whatever the hell that is, as a standard. The reason it doesn't add up for you is that it's not government money. As you mention further up, it's rather government that constantly comes to business for money. Tax revenue doesn't actually account for the government's available funds. That's why they sell bonds and such, and it's businesses buying those bonds.

Also, the government can't just keep whatever tax revenue it collects in giant piles of cash. It needs to put it in banks, which transform them into stocks and and generally shares of business, i.e. it gives 100% of taxes to businesses.

gib wrote:There has to be a common factor that ties all these Big Tech companies together, make them aligned not only in their political leaning but in how extreme they will go to uphold that political leaning (banning people for voicing opinions they disagree with, appointing themselves the misinformation police, removing content that isn't aligned with their political agendas, etc.).


You may not like it, but it's the constant carrot and stick of regulation that does this. You don't need to dig very deep, you don't need any unprovable conspiracy theories, it's all right there on the paper. Businesses even explicitly say it. So does government. It's not really any kind of secret.

You can't have it both ways.

gib wrote:For the most part, yes, but this isn't where the corruption lies. All regulations that government imposes on businesses are supposed to be there. They were voted on through the proper channels and are responses to the demands of the poeple or loud lobbyist groups. You may not like them, you may not agree with them,


Government borrowing from businesses or hiring companies for their own business is also perfectly legal and was made legal by regular, voted-for legislative channels.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Canada Redeeming

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Mon Mar 07, 2022 4:01 am

Take this example, gib,

When Trump won his election, facebook and "social media" generally were instrumental. When the commies noticed this, they made a big ruckus and started threatening all sorts of punitive regulations via legislation, started all sorts of senate investigatory committees, generally started waving the big government stick around, and that was when facebook started censoring right wing views in earnest.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Canada Redeeming

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Mar 07, 2022 4:11 am

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Take this example, gib,

When Trump won his election, facebook and "social media" generally were instrumental. When the commies noticed this, they made a big ruckus and started threatening all sorts of punitive regulations via legislation, started all sorts of senate investigatory committees, generally started waving the big government stick around, and that was when facebook started censoring right wing views in earnest.


I appreciate that your saying things like this on behalf of a world that’s already destroyed. (Trump did nothing to help by the way).

Plan your forever.

That’s the best thing you can do with your life.

Invest. Invest in your forever.
The purpose of life is to give everyone individually what they always want at the expense of no being - forever.

The biggest problem of life is the, “hey, I don’t want this to be happening” problem for everyone.

Welcome to thinking.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 16011
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am
Location: Duh. Existence. I'm sure that'd be wrong on SAT's!

Re: Canada Redeeming

Postby gib » Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:49 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
gib wrote:The corruption that we've seen over the past several years in Big Tech seems to work the other way around--it starts with government and the money goes to the corporations--then the corporations do the government's bidding. Of course, I'll admit that this is a conspiracy theory whose only basis for being said is conjecture, but it's the only theory I can think of that makes sense out of everything.


Well that's why I said it's preposterous to use "corruption," whatever the hell that is, as a standard. The reason it doesn't add up for you is that it's not government money. As you mention further up, it's rather government that constantly comes to business for money. Tax revenue doesn't actually account for the government's available funds. That's why they sell bonds and such, and it's businesses buying those bonds.

Also, the government can't just keep whatever tax revenue it collects in giant piles of cash. It needs to put it in banks, which transform them into stocks and and generally shares of business, i.e. it gives 100% of taxes to businesses.

gib wrote:There has to be a common factor that ties all these Big Tech companies together, make them aligned not only in their political leaning but in how extreme they will go to uphold that political leaning (banning people for voicing opinions they disagree with, appointing themselves the misinformation police, removing content that isn't aligned with their political agendas, etc.).


You may not like it, but it's the constant carrot and stick of regulation that does this. You don't need to dig very deep, you don't need any unprovable conspiracy theories, it's all right there on the paper. Businesses even explicitly say it. So does government. It's not really any kind of secret.

You can't have it both ways.

gib wrote:For the most part, yes, but this isn't where the corruption lies. All regulations that government imposes on businesses are supposed to be there. They were voted on through the proper channels and are responses to the demands of the poeple or loud lobbyist groups. You may not like them, you may not agree with them,


Government borrowing from businesses or hiring companies for their own business is also perfectly legal and was made legal by regular, voted-for legislative channels.


Pedro I Rengel wrote:Take this example, gib,

When Trump won his election, facebook and "social media" generally were instrumental. When the commies noticed this, they made a big ruckus and started threatening all sorts of punitive regulations via legislation, started all sorts of senate investigatory committees, generally started waving the big government stick around, and that was when facebook started censoring right wing views in earnest.


Aaaah, I see. It's way more complicated than I ever imagined.

Let me see if I understand. Government sells bonds. Facebook (and other Big Tech companies) invests. The value of the bond grows. Facebook profits. At the same time, government is an investor in Facebook via government buying Facebook stocks through the banks. So they're essentially buying and selling from/to each other. The stocks, to be any worth to the government, would have to be "cashable" at some point, so it doesn't quite all go to Facebook.

So Facebook has an interest in making sure government does well. Assuming the bonds are mostly Democrat bonds, Facebook stands to profit if the Democrats do well (grow more powerful, gains a larger share of the voter base, etc.), which explains their left leaning tendencies.

Then with the Democrats slapping down regulations ever since 2016 (or shortly thereafter), you get Facebook taking extreme actions to cater to the Democrat agenda.

But what about Republican bonds? Are those available on the market? Are tech companies buying up those at all?

And I mean, you could have a law that says government can't become a client but still lay down regulations. What you're saying is that would be useless since that's not the problem. Government isn't a client. If anything, Facebook is the client (buying bonds) and government is an investor. And even if we made that illegal, there'd still be the regulations. So it wouldn't make the problem go away, is what you're saying.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

"Why, I haven't been that entertained since the stock market crash of 1929! Ha! Ha! Ha!... So many orphans."
- Alastor the radio demon

"I want to watch the scum of the world struggle to climb up the hill of betterment only to repeatedly trip and tumble down to the fiery pit of failure."
- Alastor the radio demon

"`With all due respect’ is a wonderful expression because it actually doesn’t specify how much respect is due."
- Alastor the radio demon
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Canada Redeeming

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Mar 08, 2022 12:50 am

The whole point is that bonds don't affect business behavior or government policy. Money is not what coerces. Business has much more money than the gvt, it's the gvt that needs business money.

gib wrote:And I mean, you could have a law that says government can't become a client but still lay down regulations.


Which is the reason this would do exactly nothing. Also doesn't make sense, because how is government going to carry out the stuff it commits to, it needs to pay someone to do it.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Canada Redeeming

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Mar 08, 2022 12:54 am

Put another way,

If I can threaten to beat you with a stick until you die, in public, with impunity, why would I need to secretly bribe you? Specially when I have low self-confidence and enjoy lording my stick and using it as often as possible?
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Canada Redeeming

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Mar 08, 2022 12:56 am

This is why, essencially, Canadian truckers can cry me a river.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Canada Redeeming

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Mar 08, 2022 1:00 am

Imagine you are a parent, and you give the child everything it wants, exactly when they want it, bend-over backwards to please them if they cry, let them decide how everything goes, and then you complain one day when the kid makes a scene in public.

The balls on you, am I right?
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Canada Redeeming

Postby gib » Wed Mar 09, 2022 3:59 am

Pedro I Rengel wrote:The whole point is that bonds don't affect business behavior or government policy. Money is not what coerces. Business has much more money than the gvt, it's the gvt that needs business money.


Well, the thing about shares is it's both party's money. That's why they call it a share.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
gib wrote:And I mean, you could have a law that says government can't become a client but still lay down regulations.

Which is the reason this would do exactly nothing. Also doesn't make sense, because how is government going to carry out the stuff it commits to, it needs to pay someone to do it.


NOW I can agree with you. :D

Pedro I Rengel wrote:If I can threaten to beat you with a stick until you die, in public, with impunity, why would I need to secretly bribe you? Specially when I have low self-confidence and enjoy lording my stick and using it as often as possible?


So are you saying it's only the regulations that account for Facebook having this seemingly left leaning bias to the extent that they ban and censor people?

I'd like to see what kind of regulations were voted for and passed that tell corporations to ban and censor right leaning people. And why wouldn't Facebook just come out and complain about it? Why wouldn't they just say: government regulations require us to be biased in our sensorship and banning policies? I mean, I thought corporations were supposed to hate this stuff. Rather, they deny they have a left leaning bias when it comes to enforcing these regulations, which tells me they're in cahoots with someone. And if it was just Facebook, we could chock this up to a left leaning bias on the part of Facebook only, but it seems like every Big Tech company is behaving in this way. There's no way some kind of collusion isn't going on.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:This is why, essencially, Canadian truckers can cry me a river.


???

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Imagine you are a parent, and you give the child everything it wants, exactly when they want it, bend-over backwards to please them if they cry, let them decide how everything goes, and then you complain one day when the kid makes a scene in public.

The balls on you, am I right?


Is the child the truckers and the parent the Trudeau government? Are you saying they should come down hard on the truckers? This would put you in the same camp as Sanjay--pro-authoritarianism. Was it in this thread that I posted my thoughts about what makes a democracy work? Do you remember the two-men-with-guns metaphor? When someone comes in with the parent-child metaphor of the relation between government and people, I smell authoritarianism. It indicates that they think government is naturally superior to the people and has the responsibility of ruling over and taking care of the people, that government knows best. I beg to differ. I think for government to preform that function requires a commitment to selflessness that I don't think human beings are capable of, especially with that much power. Rather, I see the relation between government and the people as one of equals--equal, in democracies at least, because the government is formed from the people and the people elect them into office--and they each bear the responsibility of keeping the other in check--hence the two guns. Both are capable of overreaching and both are capable of being too permissive, but the system only works if a balance between both sides is maintained. With respect to the truckers, at least here in Canada, I think it was definitely, without a doubt, the government overreaching, as made completely evident by the way Trudeau handled the whole situation.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

"Why, I haven't been that entertained since the stock market crash of 1929! Ha! Ha! Ha!... So many orphans."
- Alastor the radio demon

"I want to watch the scum of the world struggle to climb up the hill of betterment only to repeatedly trip and tumble down to the fiery pit of failure."
- Alastor the radio demon

"`With all due respect’ is a wonderful expression because it actually doesn’t specify how much respect is due."
- Alastor the radio demon
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Canada Redeeming

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Wed Mar 09, 2022 4:05 am

gib wrote:Is the child the truckers and the parent the Trudeau government?


No of course not. The child is the government and the parent is the citizenry.

gib wrote:Well, the thing about shares is it's both party's money. That's why they call it a share.


Yes, nobody ever gives anybody money for free.

gib wrote:So are you saying it's only the regulations that account for Facebook having this seemingly left leaning bias to the extent that they ban and censor people?

I'd like to see what kind of regulations were voted for and passed that tell corporations to ban and censor right leaning people. And why wouldn't Facebook just come out and complain about it? Why wouldn't they just say: government regulations require us to be biased in our sensorship and banning policies? I mean, I thought corporations were supposed to hate this stuff. Rather, they deny they have a left leaning bias when it comes to enforcing these regulations, which tells me they're in cahoots with someone. And if it was just Facebook, we could chock this up to a left leaning bias on the part of Facebook only, but it seems like every Big Tech company is behaving in this way. There's no way some kind of collusion isn't going on.


Look, is that dude and the university class executives and employees totally with the system from the get-go? Yes. Will that stop them from wanting to make more money? No.

When the threats of regulation began, then, even though they would have preferred simply to make money, their personal biases made it very smooth to just adjust in order to prevent those regulations. Remember, business, specially multi-billion dollar ones, hire very smart people, and very smart people will do what it takes to avoid the regulations, rather than need them to actually take place. Very smart people will also begin to try to replace the lost revenue with government business, which will basically by definition bypass the risk of punitive regulation.

You say some secret pact is necessary to explain all this, but why don't you go back to news clippings and such of the time and make a time-line? When exactly did they start censoring, under what exact threats?


-


This whole "two guns" thing of yours is ridiculous. If you ask, nay, demand that the government keep a firm regulatory grip on business, you gave them a gun, your gun, and a bat, and then pulled down your pants. And then had the gall to cry when they started forcing you to do what they want.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Canada Redeeming

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Wed Mar 09, 2022 4:09 am

Regulation doesn't only mean lost revenue, it can also mean, if you are already a huge and established business, red tape and preferred access and any number of ways to keep them in a comfortable position, and the competition at bay.

Think of the East India Trading Company and its government-granted monopoly.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Canada Redeeming

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Wed Mar 09, 2022 4:13 am

Regulatory threats from the Republican side have no teeth and thus no effect. Nobody actually believes any Republican will have the voter-base that will support or even approve of massive regulation schemes.

The Democommies, on the other hand...
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Canada Redeeming

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Wed Mar 09, 2022 6:11 am

Let's look at it from another perspective:

Say you are facebook, or Exxon Mobil, or Twatter, or Bayern, and you personally feel a great affinity for the authoritarian socialist regime being dreamed up now by a portion of the world population, including many of its governments, but you are bound by stakeholders and bosses and your own lust for profit and concern over your curriculum and all sorts of reigns that force you to simply focus on what will bring short, middle and long term value for your company, and you cannot put in your two cents.

Now, imagine certain governments started regulating or implying the threats of regulation unless you started putting in those two cents. Well, suddenly, you can turn to your stockholders and bosses and clients and say "listen, if we don't get with the program, we're down the tubes."

As to why there can be such homogenity of political leaning, just ask yourself: what proportion of the people you remember from your university days were left and what proportion right leaning? Be honest. Didn't you say that before you started questioning your positions because of posters like Uccisore and then watching a bunch of yourube videos "from the other side" socialism seemed obvious to you?
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Canada Redeeming

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Wed Mar 09, 2022 6:42 am

With what is wrongly termed Big Tech, there is also the added problem that most of them built their businesses around a strategy of aggressive growth. Even when they could not forsee short, medium or even long term profit, they continued on the premise that if you corner a market, profit will eventually present itself. Facebook, Twitter, Uber, Netflix, Airbnb, etc etc etc, all eventually held stock holder's meetings where they admitted that they could not forsee a profit ever.

So eventually they got to the point where the market is exclusively theirs and still no profit on the horizon. What do you do?

Well, governments are sort of notorious for funding unprofitable ventures, n'est-ce pas?

Facebook even started trying a cryptocurrency scheme with the big banks at one point to try to secure its future, but the banks shied away before it really got rolling. So that doesn't leave them many options, does it?

They also were angling for an aggressive advertising angle, facebook specially, but the many restrictions both threatened and imposed made it impracticable.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Canada Redeeming

Postby gib » Wed Mar 09, 2022 7:05 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:No of course not. The child is the government and the parent is the citizenry.


Oh, I had it backwards.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:When the threats of regulation began, then, even though they would have preferred simply to make money, their personal biases made it very smooth to just adjust in order to prevent those regulations. You're losing me here. Remember, business, specially multi-billion dollar ones, hire very smart people, and very smart people will do what it takes to avoid the regulations, rather than need them to actually take place. You mean, smart guy at Facebook says 'ban right wing videos' in order to appease left wing politicians? Very smart people will also begin to try to replace the lost revenue with government business, which will basically by definition bypass the risk of punitive regulation.

So we're back to doing business with government.

You say some secret pact is necessary to explain all this You misinterpreted, but why don't you go back to news clippings and such of the time and make a time-line? When exactly did they start censoring, under what exact threats?

This whole "two guns" thing of yours is ridiculous. Then you think democracy is ridiculous. If you ask, nay, demand that the government keep a firm regulatory grip on business, you gave them a gun, your gun, and a bat, Who's giving them a gun? I'm not. and then pulled down your pants. Wha??? And then had the gall to cry when they started forcing you to do what they want.


That's what lefties do. That's why I keep saying, "Stop giving them bigger guns!"

You do understand the two-gun metaphor, don't you? It represents what each party--the government and the people--do to keep the other in check. Government has the law and law enforcement. The people have protesting, lobbying, voting, and an independent judicial branch that doesn't always align with the current government. These are the "guns". What's the issue?

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Regulatory threats from the Republican side have no teeth and thus no effect. Nobody actually believes any Republican will have the voter-base that will support or even approve of massive regulation schemes.


I know.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Let's look at it from another perspective:

Say you are facebook, or Exxon Mobil, or Twatter, or Bayern, and you personally feel a great affinity for the authoritarian socialist regime being dreamed up now by a portion of the world population, including many of its governments, but you are bound by stakeholders and bosses and your own lust for profit and concern over your curriculum and all sorts of reigns that force you to simply focus on what will bring short, middle and long term value for your company, and you cannot put in your two cents.

Now, imagine certain governments started regulating or implying the threats of regulation unless you started putting in those two cents. Well, suddenly, you can turn to your stockholders and bosses and clients and say "listen, if we don't get with the program, we're down the tubes."


Sure, that's if I was a left leaning business owner. And this caving to government pressure would apply to right leaning owners as well, although they'd probably say it in a much more reluctant tone.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:As to why there can be such homogenity of political leaning, just ask yourself: what proportion of the people you remember from your university days were left and what proportion right leaning? Be honest. Honestly, I have no clue. I was oblivious to what right/left even meant back then. Didn't you say that before you started questioning your positions because of posters like Uccisore and then watching a bunch of yourube videos "from the other side" socialism seemed obvious to you?


Yes, but I considered Canadian style socialism to be relatively centered. I thought of it as in between total capitalism and total communism. I never thought differing voices should be censored though and I don't think any of my peers did either (this was late 90s, early 2000s). I realize that universities today are infested with wokists and extreme leftists, and I suppose that's what you're getting at--the mostly leftist consumer base for all these social media companies (which is a theory I mentioned above)--but this begs the question in a sense: how did the universities get so infested?

When I was having those discussions with Ucci and Eric, they were the ones who told me that the universities, journalism, and Hollywood are infested with radical leftists (I don't think the term 'wokist' was invented yet). The discussion went on about how this came to be--why universities, journalism, and Hollywood?--and I don't think anyone had a very satisfying answer (I think Ucci proposed that these were all outlets for mass propaganda and brainwashing, but it's easy to find patterns after the fact). Now with Big Tech companies being infested with extreme leftists and wokists, it just looks like a disease that's spreading. But my question remains: how did it start? And I guess: has it taken on a life of its own, or are there agents purposefully orchestrating it all?

Pedro I Rengel wrote:With what is wrongly termed Big Tech, there is also the added problem that most of them built their businesses around a strategy of aggressive growth. Even when they could not forsee short, medium or even long term profit, they continued on the premise that if you corner a market, profit will eventually present itself. Facebook, Twitter, Uber, Netflix, Airbnb, etc etc etc, all eventually held stock holder's meetings where they admitted that they could not forsee a profit ever.

So eventually they got to the point where the market is exclusively theirs and still no profit on the horizon. What do you do?

Well, governments are sort of notorious for funding unprofitable ventures, n'est-ce pas?

Facebook even started trying a cryptocurrency scheme with the big banks at one point to try to secure its future, but the banks shied away before it really got rolling. So that doesn't leave them many options, does it?

They also were angling for an aggressive advertising angle, facebook specially, but the many restrictions both threatened and imposed made it impracticable.


So you're telling me Facebook doesn't make a profit? And they rely on government subsidies? Ok, but that doesn't explain the left leaning tendency or the extreme measures... unless you're saying this is one more reason for them to want to appease government by showing how they adhere to left leaning regulations.

Overall, you've given me a picture that makes sense. Now my question is: is this all just theory or do you have evidence?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

"Why, I haven't been that entertained since the stock market crash of 1929! Ha! Ha! Ha!... So many orphans."
- Alastor the radio demon

"I want to watch the scum of the world struggle to climb up the hill of betterment only to repeatedly trip and tumble down to the fiery pit of failure."
- Alastor the radio demon

"`With all due respect’ is a wonderful expression because it actually doesn’t specify how much respect is due."
- Alastor the radio demon
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Canada Redeeming

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Mar 10, 2022 1:25 am

-hold-
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron