business of government? - mind control?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » business of government? - mind control? » business of government? - mind control?

business of government? - mind control?

Page: 1 2 3

business of government? - mind control?

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 1018

Posted 05/08/08 - 04:19 AM: Subject: business of government? - mind control?	#1
- I want to start with the idea that Government could never be seperate from business. Never. Some folk on Philosophyforums seem to think this would be something possible, and indeed desirable - but as it is not something possible, the idea of desire is a nonplus. I have repeatedly tried to understand what a seperate government (one that did not intervene in the market, except to stop fraud and theft) would look like, how it might work, and what it would mean for people - but with no success. People do what they are told.By and large this is a truism. It starts from childhood: "be good." - " eat your greens." - "Don't hit!" (followed by a smack) - "don't fucking swear!" ( = ) etc., then we work and have a boss, we have a spouse, we have a label on our t-shirt. As this is learned from a young age, we need to stop and ask, and know what this might mean for the present. And I take this from a business perspective. Business wants your $$$Â£Â£Â£- and it will do many things to get it; it seems the high echelons of "business management" have the single goal of creating a consumer, creating something that is passive, that will not question, will not resist, and simply 'accept' the product, the price, and the exchange mechanism - as this is the "free market" - have we been duped? The Libertarian will rhetorically inform you (as if mothers milk)- "But, what else is there?" Implying anything else is either atavistic socialism, or just plain daft. This, in some sense, is a red herring. If a state of affairs is imagined whereby the government does not interfere with the market, and free exchange between private individuals is the rule, as is the rule between one business and another business then we are nothing but consumers (as we are other things too, father, friend, business owner)- but this returns to the initial problem, where is the government? If the goal of business is profit then surely powerful people will exist- through wealth accumulation. Because of this, they will have influence: naturally. It is because of this, that no government could sit on the fence and be impartial to the market; for example, if there were people complaining about "human rights" abuses, low pay, "harsh working conditions", etc., what on earth does the government care about such 'consequences' of the 'free market'? They don't care. Why? Because they have nothing to do with the running of a free market. Indeed. This all means a necessary relationship between business and Government; and if the policy was "non-interference" the politicians would be working for busines, or would be part of business; so when it comes to arresting "gangsters" or people that commit "fraud" it will only be those people who are deemed enemies of the state, ie. enemies of the market. The whole notion of "fairness" before the law would go by the wayside; if one doesn't believe in equality before the law, then it wouldn't matter I suppose; It would call into question mind control tecniques used by business - telling people what is good, what is right, how people should behave. To exaggerate (if I am) we could be living in a Big Brother, and we could all be Robots.
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth “This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.” -Bush Something cannot come from nothing.

WW_III_ANGRY
All knowing prick

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2008

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 97

Posted 05/08/08 - 06:06 AM:	#2
I never knew the of the notion that people think the government and businesses are entirely and completely seperated...

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1963

Last Blog: Transcontinental Humanitarian Expedition

Posted 05/08/08 - 09:54 AM:	#3
The claim that the so-called private sector or so-called 'business' is separate from the so-called public sector or 'government' is interesting. Mostly, I think it's a ploy that allows greedy people to use governmental force to profit. Let me explain. We all know the businesspeople are greedy and just want money. They are bottom-line thinkers and doers. However, freedom-loving people must respect the freedom of people to exercise their freedom simply for monetary profit. Thus, the endeavors of greedy businesspeople is protected through the ideological promotion of free markets and free society. Government, on the other hand, is claimed to be philanthropic, to be a representative of the general public, and to do what is in the interests of everyone as a whole. As a result, we give government powers that we do not give to non-governmental businesspeople. Unfortunately, government is a tool of business. Let me try to re-explain it in other words. The businesspeople admit to acting out of greed, but they justify it by claiming that they are non-governmental, meaning they only exercise their freedom without infringing on other people's freedom. The government admits to infringing on other people's freedom, but they justify it by claiming that they are philanthropic and acting in the interest of the people as a whole and in the interest of the people whose freedom they violated. So now I hope you can see the dangerous power of corporatocracy. By pretending that business interests are separate from government, the ruling class is able to get away with both being greedy and infringing on people's freedom. The solution is not to reject the free market (or, more generally speaking, free society). Instead, we have to realize and convince others that the tyranny is not coming from the masses in the form of populism. The tyranny is plutocracy which is in the form of corporatocracy marked by industrial-complexes; it's greedy businesspeople using government power to get profits. I would tend to agree with those that say that any government will have and must have a relationship to business and must be involved in the market. But the problem is not non-governmental business, meaning some people choosing to exercise their freedom in a self-serving way. The problem is governmental business which we can call corporatocracy, meaning the use of government power for profit by greedy people, which will happen insofar as there is government in society. The solution is to limit the government's power, especially that power which is most used on behalf of the rich and corrupt. Namely, we need to reduce the amount of government spending. I fully believe that the only way to eliminate government corruption is to eliminate government because I believe government is inherently corrupt. Moreover, the most effective and complete way to reduce the power of greedy, self-serving businesspeople is to reduce the power of government, a power which the businesspeople profitably use by promoting corruption. With a lack of government power, businesspeople will only be able to exercise their own freedom but not infringe upon the freedom of others. Perhaps it's unfortunate that businesspeople are so self-serving and that all people are so self-serving. But the fact that they are self-serving is precisely the reason government power is so destructive and precisely why freedom, free markets and free society is more desirable than statism. Insofar as we allow one group of people to infringe on the freedom of others, they will do it in a self-serving way and self-serving business interests will quickly and easily corrupt any attempts at governmental populism. Attempts at governmental populism will become the very mask the plutocratic monster wears to trick us into tolerating his monstrous tyranny. -Floyd
Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3642

Posted 05/08/08 - 01:22 PM:	#4
Well spoken Floyd. Most people do not understand how a free market works. If they did, they would not ensnare themselves more by running in the opposite direction. There are a few points I think may be confusing and has to be cleared up. 1. Free market is not a lack of government. It just requires a form of government by which everyone is equal under the law. Intervening in the market is giving some people a head start or handicapping others. The result can only be bad, because those who are given a head start can a) sell their products for a higher price b) sell worse products for the same price c) lower wages and working conditions Freeing the market from intervention give us better products for lower prices and will maximize wages and working conditions. 2. Some like to complain and say that human rights are violated and we need to regulate the market to stop it. First off, a free market requires a working justice system so that violation of your rights are punished, and therefore it cannot be blamed on the free market that it allows such violation to go by unpunished. Second, regulating the market will just violate your rights even more. Freemarket is not lawless, but in fact it requires very strict laws and enforcement of those laws in proportion to the degree of criminality to be neutralized. 3. A free market requires an educated and responsible public. Unlike all other forms of societies where people are being taken care of the government, a free society requires that its people stand up for their rights and do not allow themselves to be enslaved. Greedy monopolymen cannot arise because the people will not tolerate meddling in the market the slightest and any form of bribery or deception in the government will immediately result in government officials being thrown in prison. 4. We do not have a free market. We do not have a free society. Democracy is a hoax to give you the illusion that you have choice. The elite perpetuates these lies in society while the reality is that a system of slavery being built and given that the public doesn't understand what a free society is, they can pull the plug and blame it on freedom, and people will grovel for more slavery. Society is engineered in such a way that it is both easily managable by those at the top, and allows them to conveniantly grab more power while milking the population. These guys don't need any money; they have an infinite supply of money. Whenever they need it, they just print up more. They only need it to pay their idiot minions, the politicians they bought up, who don't realize it is worth nothing. The working paradigm is to have different groups in society played out against each others that would otherwise become a threat to the elite. For instance the middle class is a real threat to the elite, so they play the lower classes out against each other until there is only one slave class. Blacks and white fight against each other and women and men fight with each other, ethnic groups and religious sects are played out against each other, and both sides of every war since Napoleon has been sponsored by the same people, the elite bankers, who make hefty profits lending money and then have them pay back at interest. This method of balkanization has kept people busy for centuries not noticing who is actually pulling the levers and manipulating society. Even if you don't believe this is done artificially, you know that this is how society is working today, everyone is at each other's throats. Stop fighting for a moment and step back for a while and imagine how things would be if people stopped fighting each other and started to cooperate instead. We have been brainwashed to think our situation is hopeless, that humans are powerless and that people are inherently evil, but it is only because we have been neutralized in this manner. If we stand together, we can achieve wonders. Together we can stand against tyranny.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 1018

Posted 05/09/08 - 02:50 AM:	#5
FLOYD, Floyd wrote: The solution is not to reject the free market (or, more generally speaking, free society). Instead, we have to realize and convince others that the tyranny is not coming from the masses in the form of populism. The tyranny is plutocracy which is in the form of corporatocracy marked by industrial-complexes; it's greedy businesspeople using government power to get profits. I have many sympathies with some of the views given from the Libertarians (I agree with alot of what FE has to say), however one theory, or one political story does not tell the tale, or solve all problems- same with anarchism we might say. The 'greedy business people' will always be there, where there is a market, where there is competition- there will always be "greed." And depending on what side of the political spectrum you are on, you will deem this a negative or positive; indeed, even the language will indicate: "greed." (or will be interpreted as such). I would tend to agree with those that say that any government will have and must have a relationship to business and must be involved in the market. But the problem is not non-governmental business, meaning some people choosing to exercise their freedom in a self-serving way. The problem is governmental business which we can call corporatocracy, meaning the use of government power for profit by greedy people, which will happen insofar as there is government in society. Yes, and this is the key point (and Keda has many good thing to say on this). It is about justice or fairness before the law- and a person's bank statement, wealth, status should not get them power and free reign to do what the desire (see Cortes); the way out is a free market, not necessarily a free market ruled centrally or regulated, but a free market that has RULES. But the question will be asked: what are these rules? Isn't this just more INTERVENTIONISM???!! The answer is simple - no. The rules should be something that the people agree to. Right now, many corporations dictate power, even have more power than governments- because of this, it looks as though the gangters are in power, and the people must go along with what policy comes down from government, and it is fed to us as "democracy". I fully believe that the only way to eliminate government corruption is to eliminate government because I believe government is inherently corrupt. Moreover, the most effective and complete way to reduce the power of greedy, self-serving businesspeople is to reduce the power of government, a power which the businesspeople profitably use by promoting corruption. With a lack of government power, businesspeople will only be able to exercise their own freedom but not infringe upon the freedom of others. How do you eliminate a government? I like to think I am an anarchist - but can that question be answered? Perhaps it's unfortunate that businesspeople are so self-serving and that all people are so self-serving. But the fact that they are self-serving is precisely the reason government power is so destructive and precisely why freedom, free markets and free society is more desirable than statism. Insofar as we allow one group of people to infringe on the freedom of others, they will do it in a self-serving way and self-serving business interests will quickly and easily corrupt any attempts at governmental populism. Attempts at governmental populism will become the very mask the plutocratic monster wears to trick us into tolerating his monstrous tyranny. -Floyd Its tautologous to say "business people are self-serving." Of course they are, they are working for themselves as private Individuals. But, business is more that this - it also gives us the things we want, what did you last buy? Edited by litkey on 05/09/08 - 03:08 AM
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth “This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.” -Bush Something cannot come from nothing.

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 1018

Posted 05/09/08 - 03:15 AM:	#6
KEDA, I agree with what you have said, but what does it mean to say "equal before the law"? Where there is business, and where there is minimal governmental intervention (or none) there necessarily will be poor people, crime, and low wages: there will also exist those little "Rights Claims" - especially if we go along with "equal before the law." Rights, Wages, Working Conditions: From reading your post it seems as though your answer is Education. I agree Education might make us understand the mechanisms, the processes that are at work, and it would also create (lets say) a better equiped work force - but what stops "monopolyman"? - If there is no Governmental Intervention in the market, then this means that the Government is already at the table dealing its cards. - A monopoly might not necessarily be an evil - but we can certainly understand what evils can come from such circumstances. - I agree with your view of PARADIGM - and it sums up the USA's victory over the left. Wicked stuff.
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth “This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.” -Bush Something cannot come from nothing.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3642

Posted 05/09/08 - 04:37 AM:	#7
Regarding anarchism, I think there is something inherently contradictory about it, but I suppose it depends on the exact definition. If there is to be any institution that enforces laws, how is it different from a government? Equal before the law means impartiality. The law applies equally to everyone. The big problem with a corrupt government is that its laws are usually selectively enforced, so that some, usually those big corporations that bribed it, are allowed monopoly room while small business suffers and are incapable of competing with the big corporations that are above the law. This is a very serious form of govenment intervention that has lead to the situation we are today. Most people who are poor, that is most people in the world, are poor because they are suppressed from above, not because nobody is helping them. Usually the charity that goes to help them ends up somewhere else. The developement countries are simply not allowed to develope. Real charity involves beating up the big corporations instead of blindly giving money away that will end up in their pockets. This is another problem with the people, that they think throwing money at something will eventually solve it. The thumb rule is that the more money you throw at something, the less likely it is going to be solved, because the vampire bureaucrats come to suck your blood if you don't watch it, and the more money is involved in an organization the more likely it is going get corrupt. The only way can be sure it ends up spent how it should be spent is to take control over the operation yourself. This is also the method how to achieve a free society, namely by taking control over the government. Our time is short, because the gap between the rich and poor is growing fast and at a certain point a revolution will become impossible forever. Education is the key. The so called public education system is nothing but a brainwashing factory, built to produce good little slaves that are incapable of critical thinking. The very concept of independence has been undermined from every angle of society, from the education system, and media to the entertainment industry. People live in little boxes, compartmentalized like little cogs in a huge machinery knowing nothing of the big picture. No matter how much they hate the machinery, they keep cooperating with it instead of trying to stop it, and so the slavery is perpetuated. To stop it, people have to be educated about freedom and about the system, how it is built to enslave us. To stop the "monopolyman", we must stand together and take back the government, to get back in the driver seat, because we are the proper masters of it, we are not their slaves. Of course, Fried Egg has put up a good thread somewhere about monopolies, that they are not inherently evil or bad in any way, but it is usually the result of evil that they become monopolies.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 1018

Posted 05/15/08 - 03:46 AM: Subject: "free society"??	#8
keda wrote: Regarding anarchism, I think there is something inherently contradictory about it, but I suppose it depends on the exact definition. If there is to be any institution that enforces laws, how is it different from a government? Strictly speaking, anarchism is about self-rule; the meaning is "Without+ Rulers" (not those things you underline a date with) =) It does not mean there isn't authority, people may consent to authority, to certain "rules" - but not to rulers: there must be free association, and "Consensus" is the pivot by which anarchism works. It's an idea. Our present idea of rulers, government, and indeed "anarchy" often cloud and distort the above. Equal before the law means impartiality. The law applies equally to everyone. The big problem with a corrupt government is that its laws are usually selectively enforced, so that some, usually those big corporations that bribed it, are allowed monopoly room while small business suffers and are incapable of competing with the big corporations that are above the law. This is where Friedegg and I reached disagreement; as I understood the situation, a government, if it was seperate from the market, then certain evils (like those above) could happen; it could mean gangsters rule; and this being the case, it would negate any meaning of "government" - as a "certain" relationship would necessarily exist. This is a very serious form of govenment intervention that has lead to the situation we are today. Most people who are poor, that is most people in the world, are poor because they are suppressed from above, not because nobody is helping them. Usually the charity that goes to help them ends up somewhere else. The developement countries are simply not allowed to develope. Real charity involves beating up the big corporations instead of blindly giving money away that will end up in their pockets. This is another problem with the people, that they think throwing money at something will eventually solve it. The thumb rule is that the more money you throw at something, the less likely it is going to be solved, because the vampire bureaucrats come to suck your blood if you don't watch it, and the more money is involved in an organization the more likely it is going get corrupt. The only way can be sure it ends up spent how it should be spent is to take control over the operation yourself. This is also the method how to achieve a free society, namely by taking control over the government. Our time is short, because the gap between the rich and poor is growing fast and at a certain point a revolution will become impossible forever. " A free society" - what does that even mean? In the above, it might mean some are more free than others. Right? Where does the revolution begin? I am all for bringing down the fat cats: I see them easily enough.On the one had there is the attitude of Anarchism, but if there is a great monopolyman controlling society with power then there needs reaction. Edited by litkey on 05/15/08 - 03:51 AM
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth “This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.” -Bush Something cannot come from nothing.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3642

Posted 05/15/08 - 05:48 AM:	#9
litkey wrote: Strictly speaking, anarchism is about self-rule; the meaning is "Without+ Rulers" (not those things you underline a date with) =) It does not mean there isn't authority, people may consent to authority, to certain "rules" - but not to rulers: there must be free association, and "Consensus" is the pivot by which anarchism works. It's an idea. Our present idea of rulers, government, and indeed "anarchy" often cloud and distort the above. So far the idea you describe doesn't seem any different from the type of libertarianism I subscribe to. In the lack of a name, I'm going to call it consensus libertarianism, because at the core it is incompatible with any form of government that is not based on consensus. I would be reluctant to call it anarchism though, because usually it has the connotation of doing away with government rather than having one based on consent. Really if what you describe is anarchism and there is nothing more to it, then it is basically the same thing as consensus libertarianism. This is where Friedegg and I reached disagreement; as I understood the situation, a government, if it was seperate from the market, then certain evils (like those above) could happen; it could mean gangsters rule; and this being the case, it would negate any meaning of "government" - as a "certain" relationship would necessarily exist. It comes down to what is meant by government being separate from the market. In my terms, the government is required to keep the gangsters from ruling, and allowing the gangsters to do so would be interfering with the market. " A free society" - what does that even mean? In the above, it might mean some are more free than others. Right? A free society is a society without coersion. Nobody forces you to do anything against your will. Where does the revolution begin? It begins in the minds of people like you and me, who are tired of the current system where we basically have no say. I am all for bringing down the fat cats: I see them easily enough.On the one had there is the attitude of Anarchism, but if there is a great monopolyman controlling society with power then there needs reaction. In bringing down the fat cats, it should be noted that these fat cats are very sharp and intelligent people who knows how to divert the frustration of people into their own favour. The Bolshevik revolution is an example of this. What we should be aiming for is a peaceful revolution a la Ghandi, because the violent ones tend to fill the pockets of fat cats. To name a few names, the Rotschilds and the Rockefellers and other central bankers are the ones pulling the strings in the world today. We should of course bring their minions to justice but foremost they should be, as they tend to sacrifice their minions and puppets to divert the anger of the population.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

Chops
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2005

Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 1129

Posted 05/31/08 - 09:41 PM:	#10
keda wrote: To name a few names, the Rotschilds and the Rockefellers and other central bankers are the ones pulling the strings in the world today. We should of course bring their minions to justice but foremost they should be, as they tend to sacrifice their minions and puppets to divert the anger of the population. Clearly, society is controlled by a small number of individuals working solely for their own interests. And that is why society is uniform, uncomplex, and benefits said parties in every possible respect, while significant opposition to said parties remains impossible and unheard of. All that talk about society being complex and difficult to comprehend? The whole careers and, indeed, disciplines created, maintained and expanded by countless numbers of dedicated, intelligent people bent solely on comprehending the many factors at play in any given society? All a red herring! Social order and, indeed, the world social order is, in point of fact, so simple as to be not only comprehensible but exactly controllable by a select few! Wont all those social scientists, economists, philosophers, pyschologists, politicians, clerics and social workers be relieved! They can all retire, at long last! Or perhaps I have it all wrong.... Perhaps society is indeed as complex as is widely thought... And these elites are, in fact, demigods! Beings of such inhuman cunning that they can bend the myriad tides of social order to their wills! Further, inspite of being possessed of such qualities, they are nonetheless governed by petty and easily comprehensible motives like greed. Oh how wonderful and simple the world can be when we are so driven by our lust to find someone to blame we ignore all of its complexity. :nods:

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.