Capitalism and Firefly by chrisisall

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Capitalism and Firefly

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 06:21
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6660
PAGE 3 of 3

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 5:46 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
The CEO is a Firefly fan!

No way!

I think we cross-posted. So you are another who would be willing to give up this system for a better one.

I think there are some advantages to being a corporate country which would aid the transition to ex-corporate nicely. For example, there is an accumulation of infrastructure and technology. The infrasctructure is both a blessing and a burden, but the technology is more easily maintained. All it takes is convincing the next few generations there is value in learning this stuff. When it comes to production technology, it does take accumulated wealth to make the investment, but that investment can come in the form of research or university facilities.

I don't see it as impossible.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

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

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 7:02 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
The CEO is a Firefly fan!
No way!

I think we cross-posted. So you are another who would be willing to give up this system for a better one.

I think there are some advantages to being a corporate country which would aid the transition to ex-corporate nicely. For example, there is an accumulation of infrastructure and technology. The infrasctructure is both a blessing and a burden, but the technology is more easily maintained. All it takes is convincing the next few generations there is value in learning this stuff. When it comes to production technology, it does take accumulated wealth to make the investment, but that investment can come in the form of research or university facilities.

I don't see it as impossible.

I completely agree. The head of this company I'm going to work for is very much interested in this kind of thing. He proposes something called 'Sociocracy'. It's really interesting . Basically it attempts to preserve the benefits of democracy, giving people a voice in governance, but has mechanisms in place to prevent the familiar 'tryanny of the majority' problem.

It's really fascinating stuff. I've seen it working in the company and it's really simple and pragmatic in action. It's kind of strange to wrap your head around at first though. I've been reading about it here:

http://www.masternewmedia.org/2004/11/29/taking_back_our_decisionmakin
g_power.htm

Here's another link:

http://www.sociocracy.biz/

The head of the company sees a time when the concept will be expanded, in ever increasing circles until the governance of our entire society will be run this way. I'm really interested to see how it would work on a large scale. It might be exactly the kind of idea I've been looking for.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 29, 2005 8:40 PM

SIGMANUNKI

View the thread after a *sigh* couple weeks (see blog) and looks like I've missed some fun. So, here's my answer to those that have replied to me. I'll try to catch up, no promises. And I haven't really minded my use of "you/your/etc." So, before anyone thinks I'm talking about them, please mind that mentioned fact.

Plus, I'm tired. So, expect some... tired stuff going on

@ChrisIsAll:
"""
Capitalism works in the short run, and most of the wealthy will be dead before it all falls. Heroine addicts have a similar rationale, I suspect.
"""

Agreed, and well put

@Tiger:
"""
True. I want to be free and you want to be taken care of. That's it in a (very small) nut shell. It's boiled down to this point in so many discussions like this with people born into different economic cultures, that I don't know why I keep trying to convince them (especially on message boards - in person these debates are so much more interesting).

Anyway, I know these online debates can turn ugly, and emotional intent isn't always easy to show, so good talking to you. I can honestly say I learned something (although I don't promise it's what you intended).
"""

I partially agree. Your statment, as I read it, makes it seem as though I need or want to be taken care of in all aspects of my life (though I don't think that is want you intended).

This isn't a freedom vs government oversite that you seem to be making out. We are quite free up here and we do have a good long history of invention, etc as well (dis-proportionally large for our population size by the way

). But, we as well have a long history of taking care of eachother and have developed a nice safty net, etc for those that need it. There's nothing not free about that. In fact, I'd say that that safty net ensures freedom.

As in, a woman running a business (struggling) has a kid. First off, the birth is payed for through our medicare, and if her net income is low enough (not sure about the actual numbers) there'll be subsidized child day-care. In the US system, her options are limited in this regard. Her medical bills would be... large, and her ability to run her business would be comprimised (can't afford day-care) and would probably fail as a result.

I think that you may be misinterpreting my wanting a safty net with government interference in business in a bad way. After all, we both agree that what is going on with corp. law, etc is, as you put it, "disgusting."

But, for fun, let's go over what zero government involvment (suggested above) would actually incurr as reprocussions.

There would be no Environmental Protection Agency. Because after all, since it is in the business best interest to keep there resources availible then they would take care of them. In this case, the environment.

There would be no Food and Drug Administration. Because after all, it is in the best interest of the drug companies that they produce drugs that don't harm there customers (or kill them). So, they'll be sure to do proper ethical testing, right?

These are but two examples of agencies that are for the public good, that although are there for the good of the public, are interfering in the affairs of companies. Therefore they go away. Let capatilism work.

But we know that this isn't the way big business works. Companies regularly screw the environment for short term profits (ie rain forest anyone). And if you've looked at the side effects of some drugs out there, you'd wonder how they got approved in the first place (ie prozac or any drug that messes with brain chemistry).

Government "interference" is absolutly necessary to protect the customer. But if this is really going to continue, I would think that you/we are going to have to spell out what exactly we are talking about with the term "government interference." I really think that we think very different things when typing that term.

@HKCavalier:
"""
So, until the human race grows up and actually wants whats good for them
"""

I generally agreed with what you said, but, I'd reword that as the US. The rest of the world (at least Western) as a large social component in there culture/law/etc.

@Rue:
I generally agree with whatever you post on this board; we seem to be like thinkers. But, I really disagree with this "just enough" concept.

If everyone did just enough, then no-one would be really motivated to inovate new whatever. And who'd work full time if they didn't need to? They'll just do enough and that's that. To me, just enough, would bread a stagnant society.

@SergeantX:
I as well find money cumbersome. I do accept that it's necessary, but why can't there be at least a little "trade" involved?

"""
I've often yearned for a lifestyle where I directly utilized the fruits of my labor.
"""

I think that some (a lot?) of people have this to one degree or another without even knowing it. For instance, I am/was a professional programmer and use OpenBSD as my OS. Now OBSD isn't exactly known for have tonnes of programms availible for it so I'm forced to either write my own or port something someone else has already written. To date I've done both a number of times. So, I do have what you're talking above partially.

Anyone else have something like this?

@Rue:
"""
As my BIL says, if that stuff is so good, why are they trying to exchange it for your money?
"""

Going to have to remember that one

@ChrisIsAll:
"""
If a tree falls on Chrisisall, can he make money sueing the forest?
"""

And another

@HKCavalier:
"""
Alcoholism used to be nothing but a big joke on prime time television, now corporations pay for their employees' rehab. Fat people used to be nothing but funny. Smoking used to be nothing but cool. Debtors Anonymous is a growing movement.
"""

Um, that has more to do with law than anything else.

Rehab - laws changed
Fat - now what 70% of society in the US is considered fat
Smoking - now we know it kills, then the surgen general recommnended it for relaxation
DA - I find it sad that this has to exist

Also, I think that people are addicted to calling things addictions (or diseases). Personally, I think it is because it relieves the responsibility for someone. ie step whatever in AA, I'm sorry I did X, can you forgive me. I was drunk after all.

All of these things are self inflicted conditions. Grow up and take responsibility for "your" actions, sheeze.

"""
Dude, you gotta get out of the 'burbs and see how people really live! LOL!
"""

I would have to say to you that you should get out of your commun and see how people really live. You are a rare care and need to realize that the majority of people live in towns/cities/etc; not where you do.

Though I have no doubt about the laughing thing.

@ChrisIsAll:
"""
and when I beat up bad guys, I use economy of motion to save energy...
"""
LOL

@SergeantX:
From http://www.masternewmedia.org/2004/11/29/taking_back_our_decisionmakin
g_power.htm
"""
It starts from the concept that people are unequal
"""

I like it already! Don't have time right now to read it, but it looks like an interesting read.

By the way, my new quote is from a documentary called "Stupidity." The "we" in it is refering to us as a society. I think that it's rather appropriate to the disucssion (or part thereof), yes?

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 6:21 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
@HKCavalier:
"""
Alcoholism used to be nothing but a big joke on prime time television, now corporations pay for their employees' rehab. Fat people used to be nothing but funny. Smoking used to be nothing but cool. Debtors Anonymous is a growing movement.
"""

Um, that has more to do with law than anything else.

Rehab - laws changed
Fat - now what 70% of society in the US is considered fat
Smoking - now we know it kills, then the surgen general recommnended it for relaxation
DA - I find it sad that this has to exist

Why do laws change in the first place? I was talking about awareness shifting in the culture. You missed the point completely, but judging from your other comments on alcoholism and addiction you simply don't know what you're talking about. It's infuriating.

Quote:
Also, I think that people are addicted to calling things addictions (or diseases). Personally, I think it is because it relieves the responsibility for someone. ie step whatever in AA, I'm sorry I did X, can you forgive me. I was drunk after all.

All of these things are self inflicted conditions. Grow up and take responsibility for "your" actions, sheeze.

Why, why, why, did you have to post this nonsense? Why do people insist on maligning things about which they know nothing?

Sigma, I don't really want to get into this with you, except to say that this trash about AA relieving responsibility reaks of analysis without a shred of experience. Analysis without experience, what do you call that? Most people in AA that I've known (and that's a lot of people) are guilt ridden super-responsible types. The whole movement centers on personal responsibility. If you don't know that, you don't know anything about AA.

AA works. What AA gives people is an understanding that the disease undermines their will ('cause it's an addiction) so that mere bootstrapping as you suggest is about as useful against full-blown alcoholism as it would be against cancer (and sure, some few people do stop their own serious drinking habit, and some people miraculously recover from cancer without conventional therapy).

Ach, and this nonsense about people being addicted to calling things additions, is some kind of Randian talking point you've picked up somewhere. It sounds clever but it makes no sense. Who are these "people" you're you talking about? AA and 12 steps are for people who need them. They've helped millions.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE