Real World Event Discussions

Republican or Democrat

POSTED BY: TightPants
UPDATED: Thursday, November 10, 2022 18:08
VIEWED: 21056
PAGE 4 of 7

TIGER

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 5:46 AM

Quote:
Swap 'money' for 'food and shelter' (and in many families, that's not far off), and there's your basic concept of fealty

This isn't correct. Fealty is the idea of loyalty from a subject to his lord/king for no other reason than being born to that station. In other words, you're born a peasant, he's born a king, and the natural order of the universe says you owe him loyalty. There are no terms to make a "far more relevant metaphor" in today's world, because there are no positions of caste like feudalism that exist today.

The relationship between you and your boss is nothing like this (no matter what some jack-ass, low-self-esteem, middle managers may think). As I said before, you can QUIT your job any time and seek better opportunities. This option isn't available to the peasant OR the king in a feudal arrangement.

But the assumption in your statements is that laissez-faire capitalism inevitably leads to monster corporations so powerful they become as governments themselves. There are real-world examples all around us that show that it is not the power of corporations alone that lead to this phenomenon, but unscrupulous corporations using the FORCE OF GOVERNMENT that allows them to control massive segments of the population's lives.

Example: Microsoft is a monster corporation, but they can't force ONE DIME of your money from you; they have to convince you to buy their product to get your money.

Example 2: On the other hand, there are recent news reports that Bush is now proposing that the entire population be screened for mental illness, with an emphasis on using numerous and varied drugs to treat citizens as young as 4 years old. This is CLEARLY a case of an unscrupulous corporation taking advanatage of the power of government to artificially expand it's customer base, and is specifically prohibted in any truly free market.

The point is, take away the power of government and corporations can never reach such artificial heights of power as proposed by many people frightened of corporations.

Why? because there are always other businesses around to keep the behemoths in check. Using Microsoft again - they may be richer than God, but constantly hounding them is Google, Yahoo, Linux, etc. just waiting to take them down if they make a mistake.

And bringing everything back to Firely, it has already been mentioned (by Joss, I believe, in the commentaries on the DVDs) that Blue Sun and the Alliance are in cahoots, creating a nasty "govcorp" thingy that screws with everybody.

Quote:
Besides which, we're well off topic.

True, but it's so much fun :-)

---------------------------------------------
...In pleasant peace and security
How suddenly the soul in a man begins to die.
He shall look up above the stalled oxen
Envying the cruel falcon,
And dig under the straw for a stone
To bruise himself on.

RADHIL

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 2:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:
True, but it's so much fun :-)

Well, if we're having fun then... :P

Quote:
This isn't correct. Fealty is the idea of loyalty from a subject to his lord/king for no other reason than being born to that station.

The relationship between you and your boss is nothing like this (no matter what some jack-ass, low-self-esteem, middle managers may think). As I said before, you can QUIT your job any time and seek better opportunities. This option isn't available to the peasant OR the king in a feudal arrangement.

In a purely fuedal arrangement, this is true. But not all kingdoms were off-with-your-head for dissenting arrangements. Though strangely enough, it was a popular choice - which of course led to revolt and democracy, but my brain is off on a far tangent already... My point was, if you didn't like your Lord, chances were you could pick up stakes and try someplace else out. Was a discouraged option to be sure, but it was done. Pure fuedalism implies total enslavement, and that simply couldn't be done unless a loyal army was on hand. Not that some didn't try...

Much like our current system is not a perfect free-market - your own examples prove that. You're arguing based on conceptual purity. I'm arguing real-world beat-up and worn-down implementation. So I guess it's natural we're at crossed thought here.

The boss-employee system of business isn't pure fealty, nor is it pure fuedal. But there's more than a few paralells to make Robinson's thoughts on the matter more than just silly speculation. At least to me.

Quote:
Example: Microsoft is a monster corporation, but they can't force ONE DIME of your money from you; they have to convince you to buy their product to get your money.

Example 2: On the other hand, there are recent news reports that Bush is now proposing that the entire population be screened for mental illness, with an emphasis on using numerous and varied drugs to treat citizens as young as 4 years old. This is CLEARLY a case of an unscrupulous corporation taking advanatage of the power of government to artificially expand it's customer base, and is specifically prohibted in any truly free market.

Point of curiosity: Where'd you pick up that news? I'd be mighty interested.

Semi-Counter: No, M$ can't force dime-one out of my hand. But they can lean on the choices, and have. They've never forced any dollar they earned, but they certainly stacked the deck in their favor. I'm learning Linux as an alternative now, but it's not the easiest thing. Unless you have a techie in the family, it's not really a viable option. Ditto for most businesses, at least those that can't afford their own tech support. You can claim that as not forcing, and you'd be right. But there certainly is a tipping of influence well beyond any popularity or marketing explanation.

Things are changing in favor of Linux, so my arguement isn't really complete. But I think you'll get my point.

Quote:
The point is, take away the power of government and corporations can never reach such artificial heights of power as proposed by many people frightened of corporations.

*cough* Take away the power of government? How? It's a logical impossibility. If a government has to exist to check such power, how can it not be influenced by said power?

That line about the abyss looking back comes to mind.

Quote:
Why? because there are always other businesses around to keep the behemoths in check. Using Microsoft again - they may be richer than God, but constantly hounding them is Google, Yahoo, Linux, etc. just waiting to take them down if they make a mistake.

You'll forgive me if I do not find the analogy of the bear and the lion hounding each other over the rabbits comforting. ;)

Quote:
And bringing everything back to Firely, it has already been mentioned (by Joss, I believe, in the commentaries on the DVDs) that Blue Sun and the Alliance are in cahoots, creating a nasty "govcorp" thingy that screws with everybod

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

TIGER

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 4:14 PM

Quote:
Point of curiosity: Where'd you pick up that news? I'd be mighty interested.

Strangely enough, from the ultra-conservative, christian, right-wing news site, WorldNetDaily. Take a read - it's scary stuff. http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39078

Quote:
Take away the power of government? How? It's a logical impossibility. If a government has to exist to check such power, how can it not be influenced by said power?

REDUCE the government to it's constitutionally authorized functions at least - courts and military being the most important. Get rid of ATF, FBI, FCC, FDA, and every other unconstitutional, invasive, and expensive acronym the politicians have come up with (I know how unlikely this is... it doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do). Only allow politicians to spend our money in constitutionally authorized area. No grants from senators to their home state for a new stadium, no bailing out flood victims, no 'incentives' to keep an auto plant from moving out of town. If politicians don't have the authority to give away millions of (taxpayer) dollars to big business, then there's no reason for big business to be interested in controlling politicians.

Quote:
You'll forgive me if I do not find the analogy of the bear and the lion hounding each other over the rabbits comforting. ;)

Analogies are dangerous things - they're too often inaccurate which leads to misunderstanding. Your analagy assumes FORCE is the prime mover. A more accurate analogy would be two salesmen trying to out do each other for your business (well, that's so literal it's almost not an analogy). Always a good situation for the consumer.

Quote:
Yep, that I remember. It's the "it can't happen here" bit that I stumble on.

I never meant to imply, even a little bit, that a Blue Sun/Alliance type GovCorp isn't possible in reality. Unfortunately, I think it's not only possible but likely. The single most important point I've been trying to make is that in a world with unfettered big business but extremely 'fettered' government, BlueSun/Alliance isn't possible. Only if big government exists can big business wield the force necessary to become oppressive rather than just ubiquitous (like Microsoft).

I think we may be agreeing more than we first thought... :-)

---------------------------------------------
...In pleasant peace and security
How suddenly the soul in a man begins to die.
He shall look up above the stalled oxen
Envying the cruel falcon,
And dig under the straw for a stone
To bruise himself on.

SOUTHERNMERC

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 4:29 PM

Ima thinking Soupcatcher may be correct, in that the Independants were a varied bunch and had many different forms of Govt. But, if you limit it to our BDH's, they seem, for the most part, to be Libertarian. Don't really know the distinctions, so I'll be checking out those websites listed.

Jayne: "See, Vera? You get dressed up, you get taken someplace fun!"

SOUTHERNMERC

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 4:41 PM

Sorry for the second post, but I just read the article you mentioned, Tiger.

The more I look around, the more the world we live in resembles the near-future-dystopia of Cyberpunk or Shadowrun. Will corporation "security forces" be far behind?

Jayne: "See, Vera? You get dressed up, you get taken someplace fun!"

TIGER

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 4:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SouthernMerc:
Ima thinking Soupcatcher may be correct, in that the Independants were a varied bunch and had many different forms of Govt.

I think you're right. I wouldn't be surprised if the only thing the Independent planets had in common was a hatred for government from the outside. Other that, I'd bet it was a smorgasbord.

Quote:
I just read the article you mentioned, Tiger.

The more I look around, the more the world we live in resembles the near-future-dystopia of Cyberpunk or Shadowrun.

I was especially concerned by this part:

"Schools, the panel concluded, are in a key position to screen the 52 million students and 6 million adults who work at the schools.

The commission recommended that the screening be linked with treatment and supports, including state-of-the-art treatments using specific medications for specific conditions."

Just one more reason why, when my 4 month old daughter gets old enough, she won't be going to public school.

---------------------------------------------
...In pleasant peace and security
How suddenly the soul in a man begins to die.
He shall look up above the stalled oxen
Envying the cruel falcon,
And dig under the straw for a stone
To bruise himself on.

SOUTHERNMERC

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 5:37 PM

Ahhh, public schools. The best little place on Earth to enslave those consumer sheep...I mean give small citizens a double plus good learning!

Jayne: "See, Vera? You get dressed up, you get taken someplace fun!"

SPLIBERTARIAN

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 7:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:
I was especially concerned by this part:

"Schools, the panel concluded, are in a key position to screen the 52 million students and 6 million adults who work at the schools.

The commission recommended that the screening be linked with treatment and supports, including state-of-the-art treatments using specific medications for specific conditions."

Just one more reason why, when my 4 month old daughter gets old enough, she won't be going to public school.

Though not nearly as sinister, vaccinations already use a similar scheme. In my state, the schools require that all children are vaccinated - whether or not those children even attend the public school system. It seems the state gov't gets federal money for high vaccination rates. As a parent, if you feel your child is better off getting, say, chicken pox, rather than risking an adverse reaction to the vaccination, your only recourse is a religious waiver.

SOUPCATCHER

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 8:06 PM

Quote:
Though not nearly as sinister, vaccinations already use a similar scheme. In my state, the schools require that all children are vaccinated - whether or not those children even attend the public school system. It seems the state gov't gets federal money for high vaccination rates. As a parent, if you feel your child is better off getting, say, chicken pox, rather than risking an adverse reaction to the vaccination, your only recourse is a religious waiver.

Yeah. It permeates through all levels of education. In undergrad I was put in quarantine off campus because there was a Rubella case and I refused to get my MMR. Basically just two weeks of living at a friend's apartment and having people bring me lecture notes and assignments. It was a very workable compromise between the health needs of the entire student population and my aversion to blanket innoculations.

When I was admitted to graduate school they tried to make me get an MMR. I found a sympathetic doctor who gave me a blood test, determined that I was not at risk for any of the target ailments, and signed off on my health records. Not sure what would have happened instead if the doctor was a legalist who insisted I conform to the letter of the regulations, rather than the spirit.

I imagine it must be more difficult at the primary school level for parents who are leery of the potential side affects.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

CREVANREAVER

Monday, July 12, 2004 11:06 PM

I've made up my mind, most of the Browncoats would have definately given both parties the finger and voted Libertarian straight down the board!