Justice the Capitalist Way: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Justice the Capitalist Way » Justice the Capitalist Way

Justice the Capitalist Way
Toward a meaningful concept of justice

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Justice the Capitalist Way

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 07/07/08 - 06:36 AM:	#31
litkey wrote: I don't even know where you are going with this gibberish. In the post above, I said to think of "socialism" outside its ideological framework, and rather to think of it as a reaction to circumstance(s). Even bad ideas are typically reactions to circumstances. litkey wrote: Many Individuals can be described as "capitalist" - but you seem to have your own quaint type of Capitalist ie., "might = right." How many times have I've corrected you on this? (No doubt you would prefer an Objetivist argument for capitalism?) litkey wrote: Many corporations are plain and simply corrupt- corrupt individuals, corrupt rules, and corrupt interactions with the environment, and with Individuals. There is no "common interest" - i'd like you to explain that bullshit idea to me. Surely there is only one interest - the bottom line. As this is such a critical issue I'll resist the temptation to laugh in your face and instead try once more to explain it to you. The "common interest" of a corporation is that interest which is common among the shareholders (simply speaking). The shareholders have a common interest in the profitability of the corporation in proportion to their ownership of shares. The bottom line is their common interest, the interest that they all have in common. Now, in addition to the shareholders there are others (e.g. employees, suppliers, consumers, etc.) who share an interest in the corporation though their relationship is different from a shareholder. litkey wrote: Here we have more quainthood of contradictory - oh, so its acceptable for the management to say "fuck off! you are all trouble!" (I thought there was a union of workforce and management...hmnn) This is not only contradictory, but very retarded - Management (lets say management for now) will say "goodbye" to its employees on one ground only --financial reasons. People will be trouble because the costs (output) are too high...plain and simple. Well, there are a host of reasons but ultimately they all tend to translate into financial reasons. Troublesome employees are not good for the bottom line. I've fired shareholder employees before. They keep the portion of the shares they've earned to date and so they continue to have an interest in the welfare of the corporation. litkey wrote: and? Yes, I know you said this. But you were implying (explicitly) that a tribe was voluntary - and it isn't. And please, do tell, how does a corporation act voluntary? No, and I explicitly corrected you on that misinterpretation (which is a rather generous characterization). I added "voluntary" in front of tribe to qualify it and indicate that, unlike a normal tribe, a corporation is voluntary but that it is otherwise like a tribe in that there are insiders and outsiders. litkey wrote: What, a person can quit? Wow, that's enlightening, have you had your cocopops today? Tell that to a person making Nike trainers in Indonesia. "well, you can always quit." -The corporation has almighty power. IT makes the rules, not the person "volunterring" Yes, even in Indonesian Nike "sweat shops", people can quit their jobs. litkey wrote: ...corporate justice?? That is the subject of this thread.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 881

Posted 07/07/08 - 08:15 AM:	#32
cortes wrote: Even bad ideas are typically reactions to circumstances. ok, let's skip this, you obviously find it difficult to stand in reality. How many times have I've corrected you on this? (No doubt you would prefer an Objetivist argument for capitalism?) Now you get it. There is no single true "capitalism" - it may be different for different Individuals, as it is with different nations/states. As this is such a critical issue I'll resist the temptation to laugh in your face and instead try once more to explain it to you. The "common interest" of a corporation is that interest which is common among the shareholders (simply speaking). The shareholders have a common interest in the profitability of the corporation in proportion to their ownership of shares. The bottom line is their common interest, the interest that they all have in common. Now, in addition to the shareholders there are others (e.g. employees, suppliers, consumers, etc.) who share an interest in the corporation though their relationship is different from a shareholder. Exactly. You have side-stepped and made a U-turn, but this is better. We live in an unsustainable world, a world where "keeping -up-with the jones" is now becoming a dark reality. The profit motive isn't necessarily an evil - but it can be an evil. The question social activists sometimes ask is "how much is enough?" Some folks will go to any length to fuck people to get 'more' - and this is one of the pieces in the downfall of your dominos: you believe in the Individual, in competition, and in free choice - but you deny to everyone else. he. =) Well, there are a host of reasons but ultimately they all tend to translate into financial reasons. Troublesome employees are not good for the bottom line. Absurd. Have some more coffee and get back to me. No, and I explicitly corrected you on that misinterpretation (which is a rather generous characterization). I added "voluntary" in front of tribe to qualify it and indicate that, unlike a normal tribe, a corporation is voluntary but that it is otherwise like a tribe in that there are insiders and outsiders. No - there are no Outsiders when thinking of "tribe." There is the Tribe, and there are other Tribes. A corporation is subject to law, and is therefore in a system - as it should be, why? Well, because there are some "bad apples" out there who will fuck over your Individual. ;0) simply put. Yes, even in Indonesian Nike "sweat shops", people can quit their jobs. Yes, but that doesn't really inform to the brutality of the system in place. I suppose it really speaks volumes when a person does quit - why are they quitting? Wouldn't it be nice to read the responses to that question? Again, no deep secret here, we know there places exist. My issue is that Profit comes before the Individual. The Individual should be treated as King: not as a mere product.
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing can only come from nothing.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 07/07/08 - 08:36 AM:	#33
litkey wrote: We live in an unsustainable world, a world where "keeping -up-with the jones" is now becoming a dark reality. The profit motive isn't necessarily an evil - but it can be an evil. The question social activists sometimes ask is "how much is enough?" If "social activists" were asking that of themselves it would not be a problem. The problem arises when they try to decide for me what is enough. That's when they fall into my crosshairs. litkey wrote: No - there are no Outsiders when thinking of "tribe." There is the Tribe, and there are other Tribes. Go argue with 180 Proof (and everyone with have a brain for that matter). litkey wrote: A corporation is subject to law, and is therefore in a system - as it should be, why? Well, because there are some "bad apples" out there who will fuck over your Individual. ;0) simply put. As I said, that is a larger issue that requires applying the concept of justice to the community. litkey wrote: cortes wrote: Yes, even in Indonesian Nike "sweat shops", people can quit their jobs. Yes, but that doesn't really inform to the brutality of the system in place. I suppose it really speaks volumes when a person does quit - why are they quitting? Indeed it does. Maybe they have a better job offer. The "sweat shop" will either have to make a counter-offer to keep him or else find someone else to replace him. But at least you admit that even Indonesian "sweat shops" are voluntary. litkey wrote: Wouldn't it be nice to read the responses to that question? Again, no deep secret here, we know there places exist. My issue is that Profit comes before the Individual. The Individual should be treated as King: not as a mere product. And I do treat myself as a king, nay a god. Your issue is with reality: we can't all get what we want. A corporation cannot treat its shareholders, customers, and employees all as kings. You just don't like the particular tradeoffs that typical corporations make. But by and large corporations make just choices and your suggestions would be relatively unjust by comparison.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 881

Posted 07/08/08 - 03:10 AM:	#34
cortes wrote: If "social activists" were asking that of themselves it would not be a problem. The problem arises when they try to decide for me what is enough. That's when they fall into my crosshairs. This is a point of liberty that I also agree - for example, if a person wants a fast red porsche, wants to live in a mansion, then I say "fair dues!" - This person ought to have full choice over what he or she wants. Why? There should be no dictating from another, whether this be in the guise of religion, reason, or any other authority - the Individual ought to have the last say on his or her life. Go argue with 180 Proof (and everyone with have a brain for that matter). Have a brain? Look, if you had half a brain you would be seriously dangerous, and i'm somewhat comforted by this fact. As I said, that is a larger issue that requires applying the concept of justice to the community. What justice are you talking about now? Cosmic again? As was mentioned earlier "justice" is (in the real world) applied outside the corporation - as it should be. The problems unfold when corporations act 'outside' the law - and act almost as a "state" unto themselves; and this is when the profit motive works against Individuals. Yes, but that doesn't really inform to the brutality of the system in place. I suppose it really speaks volumes when a person does quit - why are they quitting? Indeed it does. Maybe they have a better job offer. The "sweat shop" will either have to make a counter-offer to keep him or else find someone else to replace him. But at least you admit that even Indonesian "sweat shops" are voluntary. [/quote] Voluntary presumes "choice" and choice informs of Motivation - when the motivation and the reasons for working in a sweatshop are looked at closely it seems a person would never choose to work in a sweatshop; they do so because they must - a necessary evil. And I do treat myself as a king, nay a god. Wonderful, and i'm sure you'll be remembered with fondness. Medication Time! Your issue is with reality: we can't all get what we want. A corporation cannot treat its shareholders, customers, and employees all as kings. You just don't like the particular tradeoffs that typical corporations make. But by and large corporations make just choices and your suggestions would be relatively unjust by comparison. IT isn't about the trade-off, it is about "people" working in an environment where they have no choice - no choice over working conditions, over wages, over their working hours. Agreed, we need to have competition, and a worker will conceivably work else where for better conditions, and for better pay: but what happens when the rules are dictated from 1 company? What happens when there is no other place to go? - - i'm insinuating that there is no choice; however this is a political question, because if we live in a democracy (not socialism) then you would expect Individuals to vote in such a way that would be benificial to the community. Simple.
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing can only come from nothing.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 07/08/08 - 06:29 AM:	#35
litkey wrote: This is a point of liberty that I also agree - for example, if a person wants a fast red porsche, wants to live in a mansion, then I say "fair dues!" - This person ought to have full choice over what he or she wants. Why? There should be no dictating from another, whether this be in the guise of religion, reason, or any other authority - the Individual ought to have the last say on his or her life. Perhaps then you are simply rebelling against reality. Because what you are arguing for is simply impossible. People naturaly have incompatible desires. That, my friend, is a fact of life. Nobody gets "full choice". litkey wrote: cortes wrote: As I said, that is a larger issue that requires applying the concept of justice to the community. What justice are you talking about now? Cosmic again? As was mentioned earlier "justice" is (in the real world) applied outside the corporation - as it should be. The problems unfold when corporations act 'outside' the law - and act almost as a "state" unto themselves; and this is when the profit motive works against Individuals. No, the concept we are discussing here: alignment of organization and individual goals. A corporation affords a very nice microcosm in which we can study this concept of justice. But you keep wanting to jump outside the microcosm. Suppose that I agreed to your enlargement, what reason would I have to believe that you would not try to jump outside the community to a yet larger community? A corporation is a community. litkey wrote: Voluntary presumes "choice" and choice informs of Motivation - when the motivation and the reasons for working in a sweatshop are looked at closely it seems a person would never choose to work in a sweatshop; they do so because they must - a necessary evil. At a minimum, people who choose to work in "sweat shops" choose them over agriculture. Very commonly, they choose one "sweat shop" among many. Life is full of choices, even in Indonesia. litkey wrote: Agreed, we need to have competition, and a worker will conceivably work else where for better conditions, and for better pay: but what happens when the rules are dictated from 1 company? The closest that thing to this that has ever existed was communism where people were told where to work. litkey wrote: i'm insinuating that there is no choice... And you are flat wrong on the facts. litkey wrote: However this is a political question, because if we live in a democracy (not socialism) then you would expect Individuals to vote in such a way that would be benificial to the community. Simple. No, even in a democracy, people typically vote in such a way that is beneficial to themselves.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1235

Posted 07/08/08 - 06:50 AM:	#36
cortes wrote: A corporation is a community. This idea was how Japan understood capitalism until recently, but this idea has been destroyed by the recent evolution of capitalism itself. A fair community does not exclude its members if these ones did their best and have done nothing wrong. In a society, it would be like putting innocent people in jail, in a systematic way. A corporation however typically punishes people who are innocent, some get fired because the company has failed for some reason (sometimes totally external to the company itself). That's the problem of considering corporation as a community. it is so open to external events that it does very little to shield its people from these events. Japan succeeded to do so for decades because of very peculiar cultural features (that no doubt you will call socialistic), employees until recently were in a company for life, and this one really was a significant part of the family unit. It's no more the case (it has also been the case, to some extent, in the West, though it was less culturally loaded than in Japan). Today, there is no other alternative but to look at the corporation as an essentially unfair community, one therefore not worth considering when reflecting on the idea of justice.
"The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - you know who

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 07/08/08 - 08:00 AM:	#37
enkidu wrote: This idea was how Japan understood capitalism until recently, but this idea has been destroyed by the recent evolution of capitalism itself....Japan succeeded to do so for decades because of very peculiar cultural features (that no doubt you will call socialistic), employees until recently were in a company for life, and this one really was a significant part of the family unit. It's no more the case (it has also been the case, to some extent, in the West, though it was less culturally loaded than in Japan). No, what changes is not the nature of a corporation as a community but the rules of that community. enkidu wrote: A fair community does not exclude its members if these ones did their best and have done nothing wrong. This, of course, is the subject of this thread (assuming fair=just). Keep in mind, though, that the key distinction of a corporation is that it is a voluntary community. So pointing out that individuals come and go is not a remarkable observation. enkidu wrote: In a society, it would be like putting innocent people in jail, in a systematic way. A corporation however typically punishes people who are innocent, some get fired because the company has failed for some reason (sometimes totally external to the company itself). That's the problem of considering corporation as a community. it is so open to external events that it does very little to shield its people from these events. You are using "punish" in a very peculiar way. People who get laid off are not being punished, though they may well suffer as a result. Corporations are, indeed, more open to external events but communities are too though to a lesser extent. Keep in mind also that no corporation ever offers employment for life. There is no breach of agreement when a corporation lays off employees to increase profits. enkidu wrote: Today, there is no other alternative but to look at the corporation as an essentially unfair community, one therefore not worth considering when reflecting on the idea of justice. On the contrary, corporations are quite fair and just insofar as they order themselves to align individual and corporate goals.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 881

Posted 07/08/08 - 09:15 AM:	#38
cortes wrote: Perhaps then you are simply rebelling against reality. Because what you are arguing for is simply impossible. People naturaly have incompatible desires. That, my friend, is a fact of life. Nobody gets "full choice". ahh, you love a good distort huh? Shit, you must have had terrible potty training when you were young. Look, what I said was that a person ought to have 'full choice' over what a person wants - this is not the same thing as the person getting it. Creeping Jesus! How long lord?? How long!! Ofcourse 1) a person has a desire for X (a Jewish Princess, big big tits) but 2) this does not mean the person will get it. OK??? Now. The answer to your problem is that it is wrong when another person comes along and says: You cannot have X (the Jewish Princess) because they (let's say) have greater entitlement; what we are touching upon is the little concept known as COMPETITION. We all agree on this, but there needs to be rules - a person can't go around stabbing people because he or she feels like it...they will end up in jail. So, you ask, what rules are you referring to Mike? Well, that would be a reasonable question. The "rules" I suppose we could say were the rules of this or that society; some societies have fairer rules - in the UK we have civil, common law; in the states you have a legal system in place likewise - the point being we all PLAY BY THE RULES (even though some maybe don't feel like it). No, the concept we are discussing here: alignment of organization and individual goals. A corporation affords a very nice microcosm in which we can study this concept of justice. But you keep wanting to jump outside the microcosm. Suppose that I agreed to your enlargement, what reason would I have to believe that you would not try to jump outside the community to a yet larger community? A corporation is a community. What TWADDLE. If TWADDLE was a reasonable word, your face would be "aligned" with the word. Ok Bamber Gascoign, what are, pray, the goal of an Individual? LEt's look at the "Individual" in the abstract for the moment - If you could step outside your Godly shoes for a moment, and ask "what does the Individual want?" At a minimum, people who choose to work in "sweat shops" choose them over agriculture. Very commonly, they choose one "sweat shop" among many. Life is full of choices, even in Indonesia. Ok, this is plain dumb - many people work in sweatshops because they are forced of their land, because there is no money in "agriculture", and because the city is the only place for employment (what with massive population growth) - - incidentally, the Agriculture you speak of is also now thought of as "sweatshop" -like labour: cheap, harsh, and the cause of mental and physical problems ie., death. And you are flat wrong on the facts. What?! How can you conceivably use the word "facts"??? At one point you thought you were a King, and now in the above post you say you are a GOD - look buddy, you 1) either have serious insecurity problems (im going for small penis syndrome) or 2) you really are mentally unwell and think you are a God - in which case you really should up your medication. No, even in a democracy, people typically vote in such a way that is beneficial to themselves. Yes, people should vote in such a way that is benificial to themselves; but this asks many questions - why do people NOT VOTE? Why would a person vote for someone when they know they will get fucked in the ass? Its all baffling to my little brain, however it is a moot point: voting in a democracy asserts what is right for the community - for the 'people' and if there is any institution antagonistic to the community, then such an Institution should be burned up into a massive ball of fire.
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing can only come from nothing.

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1235

Posted 07/08/08 - 09:27 AM:	#39
cortes wrote: On the contrary, corporations are quite fair and just insofar as they order themselves to align individual and corporate goals. That is where you are mistaken. The corporation itself does nothing to align individual and corporate goals, corporate goals are in no way altered by individual goals (in absence of regulations, which I believe, is the case we consider here), it is exclusively up to individual goals to align themselves on corporate goals, the individual goals become thoroughly determined by corporate goals. And even when they are such, the community still retain the discretionary power to exclude any individual (don't call it a punishment if you wish, but if you intend to equate corporations and communities, when one member is banned from the community, it is usually called a punishment). What you are advocating is not individualism, it is extreme corporatism, and it is widely accepted among historians that this is the essence of fascism (and indeed manifest itself somehow as extreme socialism). In the less regulated economies, the reality is that most individual will not focus their life on work, and not relate to the company they belong to with great intensity, they certainly stay very far from considering it a community within which to find justice. In south-east asia, for instance, job hopping is the national sport, companies are merely seen as a disposable means (to make money, travel cheaply, get health insurance, further one's social position,...), never as an end (which, by contrast is what community tends to assert themselves as).
"The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - you know who

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 07/08/08 - 09:57 AM:	#40
litkey wrote: ...but there needs to be rules... Sure, and the rule is: worship me as a living god. Do my will. litkey wrote: ...- a person can't go around stabbing people because he or she feels like it...they will end up in jail. So among the realities that one must deal with is that certain actions may result in jail. So? This says nothing about there "needing to be rules" nor about what the rules ought to be. It says there are rules. litkey wrote: So, you ask, what rules are you referring to Mike? Well, that would be a reasonable question. The "rules" I suppose we could say were the rules of this or that society; some societies have fairer rules - in the UK we have civil, common law; in the states you have a legal system in place likewise - the point being we all PLAY BY THE RULES (even though some maybe don't feel like it). You just can't manage to stay focused, can you. The purpose of this thread is to explore the concept of justice. The corporation is a useful laboratory for exploring this question for a number of reasons cited above. Now we could certainly look, instead, at the UK as a community but then the same questions would apply just with more complications to cloud the issue. Rules such as those you refer to above are simply unjust. litkey wrote: cortes wrote: No, the concept we are discussing here: alignment of organization and individual goals. A corporation affords a very nice microcosm in which we can study this concept of justice. But you keep wanting to jump outside the microcosm. Suppose that I agreed to your enlargement, what reason would I have to believe that you would not try to jump outside the community to a yet larger community? A corporation is a community. What TWADDLE. If TWADDLE was a reasonable word, your face would be "aligned" with the word. Ok Bamber Gascoign, what are, pray, the goal of an Individual? LEt's look at the "Individual" in the abstract for the moment - If you could step outside your Godly shoes for a moment, and ask "what does the Individual want?" Well, now, finally a relevant question. Generally speaking, shareholders seek captial gains and dividiends. Customers seek products and services. Employees seek wages and salaries. The challenge is to align all of these individual desires. Simply whining about how one set of individuals don't get what they want doesn't foward the goal of alignment. litkey wrote: cortes wrote: At a minimum, people who choose to work in "sweat shops" choose them over agriculture. Very commonly, they choose one "sweat shop" among many. Life is full of choices, even in Indonesia. Ok, this is plain dumb - many people work in sweatshops because they are forced of their land, because there is no money in "agriculture", and because the city is the only place for employment (what with massive population growth) - - incidentally, the Agriculture you speak of is also now thought of as "sweatshop" -like labour: cheap, harsh, and the cause of mental and physical problems ie., death. You've been reading too much propaganda. There is food in agriculture. Of course, people would rather have a paying job in a "sweat shop". That's why they choose to leave their farms and move to the city and work in a "sweat shop". No kidding, subsistence agriculture is hard work. Duh! litkey wrote: Yes, people should vote in such a way that is benificial to themselves; but this asks many questions - why do people NOT VOTE? Usually because they make the quite rational choice that its not worth their trouble. litkey wrote: Why would a person vote for someone when they know they will get fucked in the ass? Its all baffling to my little brain... No doubt. litkey wrote: ...however it is a moot point: voting in a democracy asserts what is right for the community - for the 'people' and if there is any institution antagonistic to the community, then such an Institution should be burned up into a massive ball of fire. What rubbish. Voting in a democracy asserts what the majority vote for. Nothing more, nothing less. It's ironic, though, that after all that garbage about how the invidual should be god you turn around and assert that the community is supreme. All that business about the individual vs. the corporation was just a smoke screen for your socialism.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.