Originally Posted by The Rani

You've missed the point.
I wasn't making a comment about whether they are right/wrong. I was talking about whether or not they are effective.
Laws against animal abuse aren't effective either, because obviously the abuses continue in violation of the laws which are already in place. That's why we need (that's right, WE NEED ) the undercover videos and the power of consumer choice.

We have laws against murder, rape, armed robbery, and drug trafficking yet we still have murder, rape, armed robbery, and drug trafficking. That's not to say that laws prevent horrible crimes. People who do such crimes do so either in complete indifference to the consequences or with the assumption that if they do certain things they will avoid detection and thus the consequences. Our legal system allots huge resources to efforts to catch offenders who slip up at some point and leave evidence behind or does behaviors that tip people off. Maybe the cadaver dumped at sea decays enough to become buoyant and literally resurfaces. Someone who pulls off what seems like the 'perfect crime' lives beyond his obvious means without getting harassed by creditors. People who think that they can outsmart the law may make a fool of one cop -- but not all of them:

http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/.../poland621.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Laci_Peterson

...Giant corporations prefer that people buy their products with little thought. That is why we have advertising, one of the most powerful forms of communication. People who think too much might by the generic alternative to a branded item. The difference between the generic item and the branded item is often that the branded item has more marketing costs associated with the item that justify a higher price. Product advertising is as far from objective communication as is possible; it borders on brainwashing. Political advertising is just the same.

Just about every corporation seeks to give itself the image of itself consisting of good people and that it operates as a 'good citizen', which explains why soon after the introductory spot one often has "Sponsored by the good folks at DEF Corporation". Does that mean that the serial rapists and spouse abusers, undetected embezzlers, and bribe-takers at DEF Corporation are somehow excluded? Or that people at DEF Corporation all like the show and the few who dislike it aren't such nice people?

Giant corporations do not want to be known for supporting political sociopaths, violating laws to get economic advantage, or destroying personal freedom of employees. A corporation such as Wal*Mart wants you to buy an article of clothing by getting you to think "That will look good on me, I can afford it, and it is in my size" and not "this is made in a nightmarish sweatshop in a country with abysmal working conditions to which I would never consent". Or with food, it wants you to think "Chicken would be nice tonight" instead of "the chicken produced for the slaughterhouse were raised in boxes and were all but force-fed". We are conditioned not to think of such things, and 130 years ago Americans generally did not know that the cotton in much of the cheap fabric of the time was produced with the aid of slaves.

It is impossible to participate in the consumer culture without patronizing business entities that pay off politicians that I despise, so I can't be sure that if I buy Kimberly-Clark products I do a great service to humanity by avoiding those that Koch Industries produces. One thing is certain: I can hardly see a more dangerous tendency in American life than the attempt of giant corporations to perform a hostile takeover of our Constitutional system of government and twist that government into a fascistic nightmare, and Koch Industries is as blatant as any. Until recently I thought that people whose culture includes William Shakespeare and Gorge Orwell could never go fascist because Macbeth and Richard III are effective warnings against cut-throat politics and political demagoguery; people aware of 1984 and Animal Farm would never experience such in real life.

Maybe our K-12 schools need to re-introduce the Bard anew and dust off old copies of 1984.

The Shakespearean tragedy that needs to be written is entitled "Paul von Hindenberg".

I read an interesting blurb somewhere about language that illustrates just how deeply ingrained authority-think is in all of us. The article mentioned that the term violence is actually a special case of the use of force. When a person in authority uses force, it is described as exactly that, or in more recent times in Orwellian euphemisms like "kinetic action". But when an individual uses force without official permission of the authorities, it is called violence.

We are not allowed to act on our own behalf in increasing numbers of areas of our lives. We are being infantilized. Every action must be "vetted" by a higher authority, and this is leading to every personal thought needing to pass muster with a thought leader. This is the mindless sort of non-societal state that Orwell and Huxley wrote about. In this vein I cannot see any light between So Cons and their "Progressives"/ "Liberals"/Term-of-the-month counterparts. They both seek to use force to impose their will on the rest of us.

Government is force. Government is a gun pointed at a person's head. That's all it is, that's all it ever will be. If something is wrong for an individual to do, it is wrong for the government as well.

If you seek to impose your belief system on others, have the courage of your convictions. Be willing to pick up a gun and point it at your neighbor's head. Don't be a coward and have costumed enforcers of the government do it for you, while you pretend to be more moral than the rest of us.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

I read an interesting blurb somewhere about language that illustrates just how deeply ingrained authority-think is in all of us. The article mentioned that the term violence is actually a special case of the use of force. When a person in authority uses force, it is described as exactly that, or in more recent times in Orwellian euphemisms like "kinetic action". But when an individual uses force without official permission of the authorities, it is called violence.

And when a corporate entity forces things on us, it is called "freedom" by you guys.

We are not allowed to act on our own behalf in increasing numbers of areas of our lives. We are being infantilized. Every action must be "vetted" by a higher authority, and this is leading to every personal thought needing to pass muster with a thought leader. This is the mindless sort of non-societal state that Orwell and Huxley wrote about. In this vein I cannot see any light between So Cons and their "Progressives"/ "Liberals"/Term-of-the-month counterparts. They both seek to use force to impose their will on the rest of us.

It is necessary, because individuals cannot be counted on not to impose force on others, and infantile behavior is common. How do you establish individual behavior for all in which force is never used? How do you guarantee that individuals will never use force on others? And keep in mind that any use of money to make decisions is a government action by force.

Government is force. Government is a gun pointed at a person's head. That's all it is, that's all it ever will be. If something is wrong for an individual to do, it is wrong for the government as well.

Government is law. Law requires enforcement if there is disobedience to the law.

If you seek to impose your belief system on others, have the courage of your convictions. Be willing to pick up a gun and point it at your neighbor's head. Don't be a coward and have costumed enforcers of the government do it for you, while you pretend to be more moral than the rest of us.

Why the hell not? Why should all actions be individual, and not as a group?

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

I read an interesting blurb somewhere about language that illustrates just how deeply ingrained authority-think is in all of us. The article mentioned that the term violence is actually a special case of the use of force. When a person in authority uses force, it is described as exactly that, or in more recent times in Orwellian euphemisms like "kinetic action". But when an individual uses force without official permission of the authorities, it is called violence.

We are not allowed to act on our own behalf in increasing numbers of areas of our lives. We are being infantilized. Every action must be "vetted" by a higher authority, and this is leading to every personal thought needing to pass muster with a thought leader. This is the mindless sort of non-societal state that Orwell and Huxley wrote about. In this vein I cannot see any light between So Cons and their "Progressives"/ "Liberals"/Term-of-the-month counterparts. They both seek to use force to impose their will on the rest of us.

Government is force. Government is a gun pointed at a person's head. That's all it is, that's all it ever will be. If something is wrong for an individual to do, it is wrong for the government as well.

If you seek to impose your belief system on others, have the courage of your convictions. Be willing to pick up a gun and point it at your neighbor's head. Don't be a coward and have costumed enforcers of the government do it for you, while you pretend to be more moral than the rest of us.

Aren't you attempting to impose your belief system on others here as well?

Originally Posted by The Rani

First “Ag-Gag” Prosecution: This Utah Woman Filmed a Slaughterhouse from the Public Street

Animal cruelty as a statutory offense is a crime, and as with other crimes those who commit those crimes have no common-law right to privacy. No crime implies no material to expose to the public. If I went to a bank for a loan and the lending officer asked for for a bribe from me before I could even be considered for a loan and I got the proposed transaction on video then neither the lending officer nor the bank could stop what I did with the video. The deed would be extortion, a criminal act. The prosecuting attorney would get first dibs. Local news media might also get it if I believed that such would not compromise the efforts of law enforcement.

Corporations want complete control of their public image, and it is understandable that they don't want low-level employees talking to News 6 at 11 -- or is that news 11 at 6? you may have a concern with cruelty to animals -- but ultimately cruelty to people is even more objectionable. Could giant corporations be brainwashing their employees? Could they be giving threats with paychecks that read something like:

"If you happen to like the fruits of the American way of life, then consider that those might end for you if you fail to vote for President Putrid, Senator Snake, Congressman Crook, Governor Graft, Councilman Crony, and Sheriff Shill. If you expose this notice to anyone you may be fired. We cannot guarantee that you will be hired elsewhere except at near-starvation wages".

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

I read an interesting blurb somewhere about language that illustrates just how deeply ingrained authority-think is in all of us. The article mentioned that the term violence is actually a special case of the use of force. When a person in authority uses force, it is described as exactly that, or in more recent times in Orwellian euphemisms like "kinetic action". But when an individual uses force without official permission of the authorities, it is called violence.

We are not allowed to act on our own behalf in increasing numbers of areas of our lives. We are being infantilized. Every action must be "vetted" by a higher authority, and this is leading to every personal thought needing to pass muster with a thought leader. This is the mindless sort of non-societal state that Orwell and Huxley wrote about. In this vein I cannot see any light between So Cons and their "Progressives"/ "Liberals"/Term-of-the-month counterparts. They both seek to use force to impose their will on the rest of us.

Government is force. Government is a gun pointed at a person's head. That's all it is, that's all it ever will be. If something is wrong for an individual to do, it is wrong for the government as well.

If you seek to impose your belief system on others, have the courage of your convictions. Be willing to pick up a gun and point it at your neighbor's head. Don't be a coward and have costumed enforcers of the government do it for you, while you pretend to be more moral than the rest of us.

Seattleblue, this is such a great post(as usual), IMO.

I'm taking the liberty of altering one of Rani's posts just a bit here:
(I hope! she won't mind too much. )

Originally Posted by The Rani

The question is whether the beneficial "effect" is worth the restriction of "fill in the blank"
by an organized government which has a "virtual"-monopoly on the use of "fill in the blank" (love that one!)

Amazing!


Prince

PS: Thank you both. You two get a "thumbs-up"!

Originally Posted by The Rani

First “Ag-Gag” Prosecution: This Utah Woman Filmed a Slaughterhouse from the Public Street

This is a case in point where corporations have more clout than citizens. Factory farming is known for it's abuses, not only of animals, but also the environment and communities where they reside. When oversight and regulations on corporations get watered down in favor of the mega corporation, as they are now, things will only continue to get worse.

Originally Posted by Deb C

This is a case in point where corporations have more clout than citizens.

They actually don't but the government they work with/for absolutely does.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

They actually don't but the government they work with/for absolutely does.

The government works for corporations; not vice versa. When you finally understand that copperfield, you will finally be on the road to wisdom.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The government works for corporations; not vice versa. When you finally understand that copperfield, you will finally be on the road to wisdom.

No. They work with and for the government Eric. As has been shown many times, corporations (in the modern sense) cannot exist without government and all of the services, regulations, barriers to entry and coercion that the state provides. Really, all you need to do to understand this is to, you know, read the laws.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

No. They work with and for the government Eric. As has been shown many times, corporations (in the modern sense) cannot exist without government and all of the services, regulations, barriers to entry and coercion that the state provides. Really, all you need to do to understand this is to, you know, read the laws.

Um, who do you think writes the laws? It's typically lobbyists who line the pockets of the Congresscritters with campaign donations.

I think that's what Eric the Green is getting at, yes?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The government works for corporations; not vice versa. When you finally understand that copperfield, you will finally be on the road to wisdom.

There's no real distinction between the two. That's how the leaders of "one of them" so easily "move across" to become the leaders of "the other one", and vice versa. It's just different faces of the same thing.

Once you allow yourself to see that, Eric, you will have taken the very first small step towards understanding the world around you.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Um, who do you think writes the laws? It's typically lobbyists who line the pockets of the Congresscritters with campaign donations.

I think that's what Eric the Green is getting at, yes?

And who passes those laws? Who enforces those laws?

Which one of the two are you able to opt out of (without the threat of violence) should you so choose?

The truth of the matter is, they are all giant man-eating lizards. Once you understand that, well, the closer you are to being eaten. Nobody said life was fair. Especially not the lizards.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Exactly.
Corporate lobbyists can write up any kind of bullshit that they want (such as ag-gag laws) but without government to pass and enforce those laws they are meaningless pieces of paper.

Corporations want less government so they can do whatever they like with their insatiable appetite for profit. Many of our politicians are working for them, not us. In some respects, the corporations rule with their campaign donations and the politicians are doing their bidding.

Like this:

Originally Posted by Deb C

Corporations want less government so they can do whatever they like with their insatiable appetite for profit. Many of our politicians are working for them, not us. In some respects, the corporations rule with their campaign donations and the politicians are doing their bidding.

Like this:

Oh goodness no. Corporations don't run through the less government/more government cheerleading routines that the mundanes do. That particular competition is simply a tool to keep the voting chattel distracted. Size has never been their concern just so long as the standard quid pro quo arrangements remain satisfied.

Corporations require laws and regulations to maintain wealth and status, provide barriers to entry and most importantly to provide marginally educated, obedient worker-consumers (and of course the force necessary to kill a few of those worker-consumers if they should become less obedient).

I mean who do you think actually provides the charter for a corporation anyway? (hint: it isn’t the owners, executives or shareholders)

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Corporations require laws and regulations to maintain wealth and status, provide barriers to entry and most importantly to provide marginally educated, obedient worker-consumers (and of course the force necessary to kill a few of those worker-consumers if they should become less obedient).

Would you give some examples of how laws and regulations maintain the wealth of corporations?

Originally Posted by The Rani

PoS will love the logic of this one ...

I'm sure he'll give it a thumbs up

If corporations are writing the laws and regulations, why wouldn't they write them in such a way that it maintains their wealth?

And that's exactly what they do, because we let them.

Originally Posted by The Rani

PoS will love the logic of this one ...
If corporations are writing the laws and regulations, why wouldn't they write them in such a way that it maintains their wealth?

I asked Copperfield his thoughts on which laws and regulations help corporations maintain their wealth. I have my opinions, I wanted to hear his.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

No. They work with and for the government Eric. As has been shown many times, corporations (in the modern sense) cannot exist without government and all of the services, regulations, barriers to entry and coercion that the state provides. Really, all you need to do to understand this is to, you know, read the laws.

Businesses were established first, by greedy, profit-hungry entrepreneurs (and in some cases, by brilliant, energetic community-oriented leaders ). Government then established some parameters and charters when they grew so big and public. Government provides services to the populace, and that includes businesses. If we elect stooges for corporations and their lobbyists, who use slogans of "smaller government" to enable greedy thugs to screw us over (as happened in Nov.2010, Nov.1980, etc.), then that's what we get, and society becomes ever-more corrupt, poor and unjust. If instead we elect peoples' minded politicians like Grayson or Sanders, then we get a government that regulates business for the betterment of the people and the community, and thereby for the betterment of even the corporations themselves.

If your ideal is a world without corporations and governments, I sympathize; but I think it is impractical now, because all you have to do is read the news for one day to see that humans are not yet angels. And your position in favor of individual violence begs the sincerity of your dedication to that ideal. Your ideal world is the jungle, rather than the Eden us hippies envisioned

Originally Posted by Justin '77

There's no real distinction between the two. That's how the leaders of "one of them" so easily "move across" to become the leaders of "the other one", and vice versa. It's just different faces of the same thing.

Once you allow yourself to see that, Eric, you will have taken the very first small step towards understanding the world around you.

Until then, "I don't have a clue."

Originally Posted by Deb C

Would you give some examples of how laws and regulations maintain the wealth of corporations?

Seriously? The Rani quite recently posted a great example on this very thread.

I myself have mentioned on more than one occasion the advent and more recent distortion of Intellectual Property law.

Perhaps a more recent law is more to your liking? We could also delve into state-granted monopoly (try building an electrical generator in your back yard with the intent to sell power and see what happens), tariffs, taxes, zoning, and protection from tort. There are probably thousands of other examples.

I mean you don’t actually think that it’s an accident that McDonald’s (among others) spends millions of dollars lobbying for increased regulation do you?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Seriously? The Rani quite recently posted a great example on this very thread.

I myself have mentioned on more than one occasion the advent and more recent distortion of Intellectual Property law.

Perhaps a more recent law is more to your liking? We could also delve into state-granted monopoly (try building an electrical generator in your back yard with the intent to sell power and see what happens), tariffs, taxes, zoning, and protection from tort. There are probably thousands of other examples.

I mean you don’t actually think that it’s an accident that McDonald’s (among others) spends millions of dollars lobbying for increased regulation do you?

Try selling food out of your kitchen, too. You're be amazed as to the extent to which food safety regulations are tilted towards businesses able to buy expensive, industrial scale equipment. It's not just a matter of keeping things clean, but having specific pieces of equipment or services available, which are much easier to procure as a multinational corporation than it is as a mom and pop shop. Which is too bad, as those small businesses are the ones that employ the most Americans, and keep their money in the community.. It's a bit like income taxes, which purport to be progressive but really impact the middle and upper middle classes the most, as the truly rich don't really live off of income.

Just different ways for the different wings of the elite to screw you over.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...Government then established some parameters and charters when they grew so big and public.

Not some, Eric. Government establishes the parameters and charters by which modern corporations exist. The term itself if a legal term, which is to say, something defined and enforced entirely by government.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Government provides services to the populace, and that includes businesses. If we elect stooges for corporations and their lobbyists, who use slogans of "smaller government" to enable greedy thugs to screw us over (as happened in Nov.2010, Nov.1980, etc.), then that's what we get, and society becomes ever-more corrupt, poor and unjust. If instead we elect peoples' minded politicians like Grayson or Sanders, then we get a government that regulates business for the betterment of the people and the community, and thereby for the betterment of even the corporations themselves.

If your ideal is a world without corporations and governments, I sympathize; but I think it is impractical now, because all you have to do is read the news for one day to see that humans are not yet angels. And your position in favor of individual violence begs the sincerity of your dedication to that ideal. Your ideal world is the jungle, rather than the Eden us hippies envisioned [IMG]file:///C:/Users/Matthew/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.png[/IMG]

As for the rest, you elect from among the small pile of those already selected for you. It’s an important distinction to make for a slave and sadly not one that is often made, let alone understood. In short, you are allowed the illusion of choice.

Of course one could also point out the cowardice implied by taking part in a process that has the ultimate goal of meekly requesting another speak to the powerful in your stead, alongside the stupidity of assuming that particular other has and will continue to have any interests in mind other than his or her own. The simple act of taking part in said process validates and legitimizes every single crime they commit in your name. It is indeed your fault, but not because you vote for the wrong people. It’s your fault because you allow them to exist at all.