Well, I read your post about your job. Yeah ... corporatism is bullshit, whether it's administrative corporatism in the US or smaller-scale corporatism in Canada.
Nothing wrong with what they're doing, inherently.
It's just a royal pain in the ass - they're deliberately putting the employees in the worst position they can to get the most work for the least pay. It's a common, repeated, written policy with those guys.
Actually, I think there is something wrong with it, inherently. I'm anti-corporatist; their right to make a profit doesn't outweigh the rights of others. In fact, in a heirarchy of rights, the right to make a profit comes in very close to the bottom.
So if it was an individual who'd be employing him directly who was offering him the same deal, it'd be less bad? Or do individual people have no more of a right to make profit than corporations?
Mind you, I'm quibbling outright with your use of the word "right"--it comes across as a rather base appeal to button-pushing sensibilities. Does no-one discuss the chance or the opportunity to make a profit anymore?
First, we need to distinguish between a rights, licenses and prohibitions. Rights are not legal entities; all ethical agents have certain natural rights: life, liberty, self-determination and self-defense. Liberty and self-determination may be interderivable. Anyway, licenses are legal entities which grant priveledges to individuals or groups in the form of making some action legally permissible, and prohibitions are what you think probably think they are: laws prohibiting some action by an individual or group; I guess licenses could be called "positive legislation" and prohibitions "negative legislation". How they relate is that the law ought to enshrine and protect our rights by way of prohibitions against violating each others rights, regardless of whatever licenses are granted. The only rights a corporation, or any group of individuals, has are derived from the rights of the individuals which comprise them, although, in practice, it might be easier for larger groups to obtain licenses unavailable to smaller groups or individuals. Chance or opportunity to make a profit is distinct from the right to do so; the right only extends as far as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. An individual, or corporation by extension, does not have the right to make more of a profit if doing so creates an unreasonable risk of harm to the environment and, consequently, creates an unreasonable risk of harm to the health of others (which would be an infringement upon the right of life). Similarly, let's say I'm selling water (or Gatorade) from a licensed stand at a parade; let's also say that my listed price for this is $1 for a bottle of water and $2 for a small bottle of Gatorade. Let's also suppose that you have a sudden case of heat stroke right in front of my stand and there isn't another similar stand for a 100 or so yards. Do I have the right to suddenly demand $5 for a bottle of water or $10 for the Gatorade because you are in the position you are? I wouldn't say that I do ... and I wouldn't say anybody else does either.
So not only is it not a bad thing (because it doesn't interfere with natural rights) but an individual doing the same thing would be no worse than a corporation doing it, and in practice you'd consider giving a big corporation licenses to act in certain ways which would be made unavailable to an individual or a smaller corporation?
Anti-corporatism is a lot mellower than I suspected.
I just think that corporations expecting loyalty from their employees when they don't even remotely give anything approaching it is ridiculous. When it comes to my interactions with corporations, I'm a complete mercenary, because that's all they deserve; corporations, as an entity, are sociopathic and the people who do best in them are sociopathic as well. At least the way things are currently run. I was speaking more descriptively in that respect than prescriptively. It shouldn't be easier for a corporation to get a license to pollute (in fact, such licenses shouldn't exist), for example, but it is, at least in the US. That's a problem caused by the fact that the idiots here think that it's somehow a right to buy a politician (via campaign contributions) and then twist the laws in your favor, which is something that the vast majority of individuals can't do, but massive corporations can. That's why I favor public funding of political campaigns; 1% of the registered voters in an area signing a petition to get a candidate or party on the ballot would be required to quality for public campaign assistance. Plus, media outlets would be required to give equal time to all licensed candidates or parties, as well as fact-check their claims.
...I missed the bit where the corporation looking to hire theweaselking expected (or particularly cared about, rather than actively attempted to discourage) loyalty.
I doubt people think of buying a politician as a right, at least not as you describe it. It's simply an option, and since their doing so does not inherently violate your life/liberty/self-determination/self-defense (2l/2s-d) rights (while the particular legislation they purchase might), what you've outlined so far doesn't provide a basis to object--although the argument for public funding suggests you're also adding in something about a duty on the part of the government to attempt to ensure some form of equitable opportunity to affect the political process (which is fine, simply not covered by the 2l/2s-d rights).
Media fact-checking is something that would be pleasant to see.
Actually, it does violate self-determination, since it effectively takes away the ability to actually use a democratically republican system to do anything ... unless you're rich enough to buy a politician. If I send a letter to a Representative, it doesn't matter, because I don't have a $2000 "contribution" check attached to it. Actually, self-determination does cover the duty of the government to do its best to ensure the ability of the people to have a meaningful voice in their government. Not being able to do so takes away my right of self-determination, by making my vote meaningless. Also, since we ought to have Swiss-style referendum, taking away my right of self-determination is taking away my right to defend myself from the creation of an oppressive government through non-violent means ... although, of course, I have the right to defend myself, even from the government whose geographic area I live in, by force if necessary. I'm a neo-libertarian, which is meant to distinguish what I believe from the platform of the Libertarian Party. Self-determination, in a social context, is what gives me the right to vote, so infringing upon the real utility of my vote is infringing upon my right of self-determination.
But if you insist on disallowing it, you're limiting the self-determination of the individuals involved. Your s-d outranks their s-d because...?
> Actually, self-determination does cover the duty of the > government to do its best to ensure the ability of the people to > have a meaningful voice in their government.
Ah. So that rather than overriding people's votes by buying politicians directly, it will be possible to simply buy people's votes in order to buy politicians. No change, except people are shrugging and saying "Screw it, the system doesn't work but I got mine" rather than "Screw it, the system doesn't work".
At heart, you're outlining a system in which you expect your vote to matter, regardless of how ill-informed, prejudiced, or simply indifferent it is--at that point, a vote becomes the accessible resource, rather than the politician.
Mind you, if you want the government to help assure that the vote will actually be constructive as well as meaningful--you know, through balanced media reporting, access to information, education, decision-making skills, etcetera--I do want to know how you expect it to do so.
> Not being able to do so takes away my right of > self-determination, by making my vote meaningless.
Your vote isn't meaningless, it's simply not meaningful enough. And the system you outline wouldn't change that--your vote would simply be undermined on a different level.
Restricting people from doing things which they ought not do, such as have greater power over the government than others due to irrelevant reasons such as personal or corporate wealth, is not unreasonable and is not infringing upon any of their rights. It isn't saying that my right of self-determination is more important than theirs, it's just refusing to let them have greater powers of determination over the laws under which I am forced to live. Simply keep vote-purchasing illegal, as it currently is. I think that breaking laws regarding elections ought to be a very serious thing; considering it treason seems appropriate. Also, it would require much more time, effort and money to purchase enough votes to indirectly control a politician than it would to directly influence one through campaign contributions. I think we ought to start teaching informal logic in middle school (if not earlier for particularly bright students), about the time, if not slighty before, we currently begin teaching algebra. If we teach formal logic in middle or high school, probably in the context of a math class, I think that we owe it to the students to not restrict that education to classical logic (I question it's validity for various reasons), but to at least inform them that not all logicians agree that classical logic is universally valid, and then at least point them to outside resources about non-classical logics. We also ought to teach ethics, possibly in the same course as informal logic (and call it "Philosophy"), in a debate-style class.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-30 05:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-30 05:40 pm (UTC)So I can HIT THEM WITH A HAMMER AND MAKE THEM DIE. GAH I AM SO ANGRY.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-30 05:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-30 05:58 pm (UTC)It's just a royal pain in the ass - they're deliberately putting the employees in the worst position they can to get the most work for the least pay. It's a common, repeated, written policy with those guys.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-30 06:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-30 07:54 pm (UTC)Mind you, I'm quibbling outright with your use of the word "right"--it comes across as a rather base appeal to button-pushing sensibilities. Does no-one discuss the chance or the opportunity to make a profit anymore?
Naturalistic Ethics and Legal Positivism
Date: 2005-08-30 08:28 pm (UTC)The only rights a corporation, or any group of individuals, has are derived from the rights of the individuals which comprise them, although, in practice, it might be easier for larger groups to obtain licenses unavailable to smaller groups or individuals.
Chance or opportunity to make a profit is distinct from the right to do so; the right only extends as far as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. An individual, or corporation by extension, does not have the right to make more of a profit if doing so creates an unreasonable risk of harm to the environment and, consequently, creates an unreasonable risk of harm to the health of others (which would be an infringement upon the right of life). Similarly, let's say I'm selling water (or Gatorade) from a licensed stand at a parade; let's also say that my listed price for this is $1 for a bottle of water and $2 for a small bottle of Gatorade. Let's also suppose that you have a sudden case of heat stroke right in front of my stand and there isn't another similar stand for a 100 or so yards. Do I have the right to suddenly demand $5 for a bottle of water or $10 for the Gatorade because you are in the position you are? I wouldn't say that I do ... and I wouldn't say anybody else does either.
Re: Naturalistic Ethics and Legal Positivism
Date: 2005-08-30 08:49 pm (UTC)Anti-corporatism is a lot mellower than I suspected.
Re: Naturalistic Ethics and Legal Positivism
Date: 2005-08-30 08:55 pm (UTC)I was speaking more descriptively in that respect than prescriptively. It shouldn't be easier for a corporation to get a license to pollute (in fact, such licenses shouldn't exist), for example, but it is, at least in the US. That's a problem caused by the fact that the idiots here think that it's somehow a right to buy a politician (via campaign contributions) and then twist the laws in your favor, which is something that the vast majority of individuals can't do, but massive corporations can. That's why I favor public funding of political campaigns; 1% of the registered voters in an area signing a petition to get a candidate or party on the ballot would be required to quality for public campaign assistance. Plus, media outlets would be required to give equal time to all licensed candidates or parties, as well as fact-check their claims.
Re: Naturalistic Ethics and Legal Positivism
Date: 2005-08-30 09:29 pm (UTC)I doubt people think of buying a politician as a right, at least not as you describe it. It's simply an option, and since their doing so does not inherently violate your life/liberty/self-determination/self-defense (2l/2s-d) rights (while the particular legislation they purchase might), what you've outlined so far doesn't provide a basis to object--although the argument for public funding suggests you're also adding in something about a duty on the part of the government to attempt to ensure some form of equitable opportunity to affect the political process (which is fine, simply not covered by the 2l/2s-d rights).
Media fact-checking is something that would be pleasant to see.
Re: Naturalistic Ethics and Legal Positivism
Date: 2005-08-30 09:38 pm (UTC)Actually, self-determination does cover the duty of the government to do its best to ensure the ability of the people to have a meaningful voice in their government. Not being able to do so takes away my right of self-determination, by making my vote meaningless. Also, since we ought to have Swiss-style referendum, taking away my right of self-determination is taking away my right to defend myself from the creation of an oppressive government through non-violent means ... although, of course, I have the right to defend myself, even from the government whose geographic area I live in, by force if necessary.
I'm a neo-libertarian, which is meant to distinguish what I believe from the platform of the Libertarian Party.
Self-determination, in a social context, is what gives me the right to vote, so infringing upon the real utility of my vote is infringing upon my right of self-determination.
Re: Naturalistic Ethics and Legal Positivism
Date: 2005-08-30 11:54 pm (UTC)> Actually, self-determination does cover the duty of the
> government to do its best to ensure the ability of the people to
> have a meaningful voice in their government.
Ah. So that rather than overriding people's votes by buying politicians directly, it will be possible to simply buy people's votes in order to buy politicians. No change, except people are shrugging and saying "Screw it, the system doesn't work but I got mine" rather than "Screw it, the system doesn't work".
At heart, you're outlining a system in which you expect your vote to matter, regardless of how ill-informed, prejudiced, or simply indifferent it is--at that point, a vote becomes the accessible resource, rather than the politician.
Mind you, if you want the government to help assure that the vote will actually be constructive as well as meaningful--you know, through balanced media reporting, access to information, education, decision-making skills, etcetera--I do want to know how you expect it to do so.
> Not being able to do so takes away my right of
> self-determination, by making my vote meaningless.
Your vote isn't meaningless, it's simply not meaningful enough. And the system you outline wouldn't change that--your vote would simply be undermined on a different level.
Re: Naturalistic Ethics and Legal Positivism
Date: 2005-08-31 01:08 pm (UTC)Simply keep vote-purchasing illegal, as it currently is. I think that breaking laws regarding elections ought to be a very serious thing; considering it treason seems appropriate. Also, it would require much more time, effort and money to purchase enough votes to indirectly control a politician than it would to directly influence one through campaign contributions.
I think we ought to start teaching informal logic in middle school (if not earlier for particularly bright students), about the time, if not slighty before, we currently begin teaching algebra. If we teach formal logic in middle or high school, probably in the context of a math class, I think that we owe it to the students to not restrict that education to classical logic (I question it's validity for various reasons), but to at least inform them that not all logicians agree that classical logic is universally valid, and then at least point them to outside resources about non-classical logics. We also ought to teach ethics, possibly in the same course as informal logic (and call it "Philosophy"), in a debate-style class.