Congress: Give us a break!!!

[Jenny_Jackson]

House slaps $16 billion in taxes on oil industry
Lawmakers also pass broad incentives for renewable energy, conservation

WASHINGTON - Declaring a new direction in energy policy, the House on Saturday approved $16 billion in taxes on oil companies, while providing billions of dollars in tax breaks and incentives for renewable energy and conservation efforts.

Republican opponents said the legislation ignored the need to produce more domestic oil, natural gas and coal. One GOP lawmaker bemoaned "the pure venom ... against the oil and gas industry."

The House passed the tax provisions by a vote of 221-189. Earlier it had approved, 241-172, a companion energy package aimed at boosting energy efficiency and expanding use of biofuels, wind power and other renewable energy sources.

"We are turning to the future," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The two bills, passed at an unusual Saturday session as lawmakers prepared to leave town for their monthlong summer recess, will be merged with legislation passed by the Senate in June.

On one of the most contentious and heavily lobbied issues, the House voted to require investor-owned electric utilities nationwide to generate at least 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind or biofuels.

The utilities and business interests had argued aggressively against the federal renewables mandate, saying it would raise electricity prices in regions of the country that do not have abundant wind energy. But environmentalists said the requirement will spur investments in renewable fuels and help address global warming as utilities use less coal.

"This will save consumers money," said Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., the provision's co-sponsor, maintaining utilities will have to use less high-priced natural gas. He noted that nearly half the states already have a renewable energy mandate for utilities, and if utilities can't find enough renewable they can meet part of the requirement through power conservation measures.

The bill also calls for more stringent energy efficiency standards for appliances and lighting and incentives for building more energy-efficient "green" buildings. It would authorize special bonds for cities and counties to reduce energy demand.

Pelosi, D-Calif., said it was essential to commit to renewable energy while reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Doing so, she said, will help address global warming and make the country more energy-independent.

"It's about our children, about our future, the world in which they live," Pelosi said.

Sidestepping auto fuel efficiency for now
Democrats avoided a nasty fight by ignoring — at least for the time being — calls for automakers to make vehicles more fuel-efficient. Cars, sport utility vehicles and small trucks use most of the country's oil and produce almost one-third of the carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming.

That issue, as well as whether to require huge increases in the use of corn-based ethanol as a substitute for gasoline, were left to be thrashed out when the House bill is merged with energy legislation the Senate passed in June.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said he was confident the final bill that will go to President Bush will contain a significant increase in automobile fuel economy requirements

"This is a historic turn away from a fossil fuel agenda toward renewable energy. It's been a long time in coming," said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., in an interview. Markey abandoned efforts to get an auto mileage provision into the bill, but also expressed confidence one will be added during negotiations with the Senate. The Senate in passing energy legislation in June called for a 40 percent increase auto mileage to 35 mpg by 2020.

Republicans said the House bill did nothing to increase domestic oil and natural gas production or take further advantage of coal, the country's most abundant domestic energy resource.

"There's a war going on against energy from fossil fuels," said Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas. "I can't understand the pure venom felt against the oil and gas industry."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20124921/

This is proof positive that the U.S. Congress just doesn't get it. To quote Paul Harvey (yes, I listen to him even though he is about as far right as Limbaugh), "Corporations don't pay taxes - People pay taxes."

Thanks, Congress. Just what the American people and an economy that's rapidly going down the toilet need - Higher gas prices from the oil companies passing on the burden you've created.

With the embarresingly HUGE profits the oil companies are making, there should have been something in there to require the tax to be paid from profits and blocking them from passing the cost on to us.

But the real stinger is this was done in the name of saving energy! Oh yeah, like EXXON really wants us to cut back on the gasoline we buy. That will have a real positive impact on their year-end bottom line.

Goes to prove - you gotta be real stupid to be elected to Congress.

 

[rgraham666]

In a society where corporations are not considered part of society, that is they have none of the duties or obligations of the citizen, and they have far more power than the citizen, what else can we expect?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Corporations are good.

 

[Liar]

Corporations are good.

If done right.

So is government.

 

[xssve]

Corporations are good.

Logician? Corporations are abstract legal entities, and cannot be characterized as either good or evil - these are terms subjective to the actions of the human beings who make decisions on the behalf of said corporate entities.

Thus, "corporations are good" is meaningless: only the actions of the human beings who make decisions on behalf of corporations can be judged in accordance with ethical baselines on a case by case basis.

In fact, the peculiar legal status of corporations often shields these individuals from the consequences of their actions, and this is quite often decidedly not good for many people.

In this case, the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority in our government has shielded oil companies from innovative competition, in egregious violation of capitalistic principle, and in doing so has increased our dependence on unstable foriegn governments, undermined our own self determination, setting the technological spillover, infrastructure and regulatory management that drives economic progress back 30 years if you count Reagan, has involved us in and expensive and essentially unwinnable war, and is now contemplating selling arms to the very people we are fighting - though no doubt, some hefty corporate profits are involved.

This all strikes me as very bad, and sooner or later, it will strike you similarly.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

My thoughts are this... Congress is stacking a $16 Billion dollar tax on ALL of the oil companies. If you look just at EXXON for the first half of the year, that's only 3% of their profits. Now take all the profits from EXXON, BP, Phillips and the rest and the tax is less than 1% which will be eaten up by the "Oil Depletion Allowance" carried forward from prior years, Depreciation and so on.

The only affect this will have is a raise in gas prices. If anything the total profit picture will be better than last year for the oil companies after they "pass on" this tax to the consumers.

Now we have Dumb-ass Rice in the middle east selling arms to God knows who. Obviously, this is another case where Bush is unable to learn from history. We armed the Talaban in the 80's. We armed the Iranians in the 60's. We armed the Iraqis in the 70's. Talk about having you head up your ass.

Rather than selling arms in the middle east and raising gas prices in this country, we should be acting like the leaders we could be and stop this crap. Investment in oil exploration with a legal requirement to exploit the finds is a much better way to go.

Then if the government wants to play the 1970's game of "alternate energy sources" that has never really worked, so be it. But do what is right first.

 

[rgraham666]

Arms is now the biggest industry in the world, Jenny. And the US economy is dependent on it.

On paper it looks like arm sales are profitable for the nation. In actuality we usually lose money as we lend the money to them to buy our arms.

The fact is that arms have been converted from a consumer good to a capital good. That delusion has persisted for nearly fifty years. Since the technocrats that dreamed this change up have no sense of history they cannot see how this drains the economy and comes back to bite us on the ass.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Logician?

Yes.

Corporations are abstract legal entities, and cannot be characterized as either good or evil - these are terms subjective to the actions of the human beings who make decisions on the behalf of said corporate entities.

Corporations are a real and existant in the universe, and as such are perfectly well under the auspice of utilitarian (good/bad) and even ethical (good/evil) judgement. Given that a thing effects a consequence and the consequence causes a change in independant moral agents--it perfectly well can be characterized as good or not.

Logic. Philosophy. It's not just for stodgy old men anymore.

Thus, "corporations are good" is meaningless: only the actions of the human beings who make decisions on behalf of corporations can be judged in accordance with ethical baselines on a case by case basis.

It is perfectly meaningfful--and can be so even without regard to "human beings who make decisions". If a corporation affords an unactualized or abstract positive--so, an Idealistic positive--it can very well be called good. I feel silly for even having to point that out. I mean, jeez, your argument sounds like one that would preclude any category of action, any state unactualized, and any principle as being "neither good nor bad" until someone did it. That would mean that I couldn't call unactualized murder "bad", only murders that have happened.

In fact, the peculiar legal status of corporations often shields these individuals from the consequences of their actions, and this is quite often decidedly not good for many people.

Ah, but now we're just picking and choosing components to call good and bad--which doesn't appear to have any relation to your point of "it can't participate in goodness or badness at all". But, regardless, it wouldn't be the first time an undesireable component of a desireable system had to take the backseat on the drive to a better future (I like "polio vaccines for babies" as an example of that).

In this case, the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority in our government has shielded oil companies from innovative competition, in egregious violation of capitalistic principle, and in doing so has increased our dependence on unstable foriegn governments, undermined our own self determination, setting the technological spillover, infrastructure and regulatory management that drives economic progress back 30 years if you count Reagan, has involved us in and expensive and essentially unwinnable war, and is now contemplating selling arms to the very people we are fighting - though no doubt, some hefty corporate profits are involved.

So, you dislike corporatism? Me too. But I think corporations are good. There's a canyon of difference between the entity and this way some of them have been involved. Just like there's a difference between democracy and the prisoners in San Quentin who voted to kill off one of the guards.

This all strikes me as very bad, and sooner or later, it will strike you similarly.

I hope I don't become that close minded. Corporations are an effective and efficient means of working in a modern market. They afford a great deal more capitalistic agility and a greater levels of control and involvement for the owners and investors--while shielding many from unforeseen or chance occurances.

I think its a good thing. I am, remarkably it may seem, not the only one who does. Though it is a particularly unpopular viewpoint here--in this place--it isn't a lack of experience or information or reason that brings me to that decision.

Of course, the hope is that the reality of that will strike you sooner or later...

(really, did you /have/ to try and be a dick at the end like that?)

 

[xssve]

Yes.


Corporations are a real and existant in the universe, and as such are perfectly well under the auspice of utilitarian (good/bad) and even ethical (good/evil) judgement. Given that a thing effects a consequence and the consequence causes a change in independant moral agents--it perfectly well can be characterized as good or not.

Logic. Philosophy. It's not just for stodgy old men anymore.

Then why use stodgy arguments and glittering generalities?

It is perfectly meaningfful--and can be so even without regard to "human beings who make decisions". If a corporation affords an unactualized or abstract positive--so, an Idealistic positive--it can very well be called good. I feel silly for even having to point that out. I mean, jeez, your argument sounds like one that would preclude any category of action, any state unactualized, and any principle as being "neither good nor bad" until someone did it. That would mean that I couldn't call unactualized murder "bad", only murders that have happened.

Idealistic? Abstract? "Good" and "bad" are meaningless abstractiosn themselves out of context - "corporations are good" what does that mean? Collective economic interests can be good or bad, the various economic practices engaged in by the economic collectives called corporations can be called good or bad, depending on the what where or when.

In fact, our legal system has evolved in order to draw such distinctions after the fact, there is quite simply no other way to do it - "murder" is simply a legal fiction, against which alleged murders are compared, that's why there are gradations: First, Second, Third degree, negligent homicide, homicide, self defense, etc.

One cannot judge the merits of an action which has not occured, that isn't logic, it's farce. At best, on can attempt to adjudge the likely outcome, and make a decision on whether the benefit outweighs the risk.

In short, about all you can say is, "corporations are good, except when they're not".

Ah, but now we're just picking and choosing components to call good and bad--which doesn't appear to have any relation to your point of "it can't participate in goodness or badness at all". But, regardless, it wouldn't be the first time an undesireable component of a desireable system had to take the backseat on the drive to a better future (I like "polio vaccines for babies" as an example of that).

Is there some other way of doing it? There always costs and benefits, including opportunity cost, and yes, these can and have to be, assessed on a case by case basis - to simply lump all corporate behavior into a single catagory and call it "good" or "bad" is not logic, it's ludicrous.

So, you dislike corporatism? Me too. But I think corporations are good. There's a canyon of difference between the entity and this way some of them have been involved. Just like there's a difference between democracy and the prisoners in San Quentin who voted to kill off one of the guards.

So now we make distinctions? Are Unions good or bad?

I hope I don't become that close minded. Corporations are an effective and efficient means of working in a modern market. They afford a great deal more capitalistic agility and a greater levels of control and involvement for the owners and investors--while shielding many from unforeseen or chance occurances.

It sin't being closed minded, it's being open minded - history repeats itself because human behavior is largely predicable ad fiollows certain patterns. The entire point of having a political, economic and legal system that is based on opposing self interest is to prevent a narrow minority consensus from ruling by fiat on behalf of their own narrow self interest at the expense of others.

That is philosophy one could characterize as more statistically likely to result in good, although of course this probability is only statistical - in praxis, the self interest of narrow consensus's can and often does run people over, slavery, etc. Similarly, the likelyhood of corporatism resulting in malign human behaviors is also statistically very good, and both of these predictions tend to be bourne out by the empirical historical evidence - we did end slavery, whereas the various permutations of Feudalism, corporatism or otherwise, have typically resulted in extreme diseconomy adn compromise of group and individual fitness across a broad spectrum.

I think its a good thing. I am, remarkably it may seem, not the only one who does. Though it is a particularly unpopular viewpoint here--in this place--it isn't a lack of experience or information or reason that brings me to that decision.

No, it isn't remarkable to make generalizations. One can make valid generalizations, such as that collective investment creates new opportunities and offers certain benefits in terms of spreading risk, or that economies of scale have certain benefits, one cannot make a broad generalization like "corporationss are good", call that logic, and not expect me to call bullshit.

Just own up, it's indefensible, and no amount of arguing will make it anything but a glittering generality - I'll accept a plea of a moment of informal sloppiness, I have seen better from you.

Yes.
Of course, the hope is that the reality of that will strike you sooner or later...

(really, did you /have/ to try and be a dick at the end like that?)

Dick? It's a simple statistical probability, cause and effect, and I am hardly the only one who has seen it coming, and there will come a point when it is no longer possible to ignore - how did you fare when the recent mortgage/buyout bubble burst? That was predictable too.

Human behavior is as predictable as the laws of physics on a mass scale, it's a simple matter of stressors and adaptations - which is why we have an economic system designed to regulate behavior in ways that are synergystic with a free market economy, i.e., to prevent corporatism from forming as it's wont to do - all systems tend towards monopoly, it's quite simply the most desireable market position.

Microsoft started in a grage with an OS written for a senior thesis - of course Bill Gates know better than anybody that a better OS can do the same thing to him he did to IBM - corporations are also highly vulnerable to competiton, that's how capitalism is supposed to work - protect corporate profits at the cost of suppressing competiton, and shield them from the consequences of poor decisions, and you no longer have a system you can call capitalism. You might as well just start justifying corporatism, I'm sure you'll find a more receptive audience.

This can hardly be called a market economy anymore, more like a game of Three card Monte.

How much of the wealth being traded on the global market today actually represents goods and services?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Then why use stodgy arguments and glittering generalities?

It's like jazz, hoss... if you don't know what it is, I just can't explain it to ya'.

Idealistic? Abstract? "Good" and "bad" are meaningless abstractiosn themselves out of context - "corporations are good" what does that mean? Collective economic interests can be good or bad, the various economic practices engaged in by the economic collectives called corporations can be called good or bad, depending on the what where or when.

So, you agree that "corporations" as a subject can participate in "goodness" and "badness"--depending on some kind of predication. That's good, that was part of my point. We're on the same page, in that respect (which confuses me as to why you denied that was possible earlier).

In fact, our legal system has evolved in order to draw such distinctions after the fact, there is quite simply no other way to do it - "murder" is simply a legal fiction, against which alleged murders are compared, that's why there are gradations: First, Second, Third degree, negligent homicide, homicide, self defense, etc.

One cannot judge the merits of an action which has not occured, that isn't logic, it's farce. At best, on can attempt to adjudge the likely outcome, and make a decision on whether the benefit outweighs the risk.

So, you're saying that logic has no participation in something that hasn't experentially occured?

Have you ever /read/ a logic book? You do realize that logic is almost entirely concerned with the analytical? The not-necessarily-existant? The "a priori"? When we do Propositional Logic--we're not bound to use only existant and actual things to examine the relationships between them. Quanitifier Logic doesn't require anything greater than a defining of the domains and participating categories.

Oh, for the love of God A'Mighty... you cannot be saying that Logic does not manage, handle, or structure the non-occurant? Or, to put it another way, that Logic must only concern itself with the actually occurant in order to be called Logic?

Dear God, man. All those words (and you wrote a lot of words) and we may have to take you back to square one to do this right.

In short, about all you can say is, "corporations are good, except when they're not".

Is there some other way of doing it? There always costs and benefits, including opportunity cost, and yes, these can and have to be, assessed on a case by case basis - to simply lump all corporate behavior into a single catagory and call it "good" or "bad" is not logic, it's ludicrous.

I didn't claim it /was/ logic. Only that it didn't lack reason or ways in which it was reasonable--and nothing I said failed a basic test of actual Logic. I said "Corporations are good", then you went on a hissy-fit about how that wasn't a meaningful statement and how corporations could not be good (or presumably bad) based on what a corporation was. THEN, I came to the table with reasons why "corporation" as a term--employing what it actually is by definition--can participate in both meaning and normative labelling.

Keep up.

So now we make distinctions? Are Unions good or bad?

I have nothing intelligent to say about Unions. Are civil unions good or bad? Union soldiers? The European Union? The Union Jack? I can, however, point out that all of them can participate in a normative judgement, and rationally so, as well as meaning.

It sin't being closed minded, it's being open minded - history repeats itself because human behavior is largely predicable ad fiollows certain patterns. The entire point of having a political, economic and legal system that is based on opposing self interest is to prevent a narrow minority consensus from ruling by fiat on behalf of their own narrow self interest at the expense of others.

That is philosophy one could characterize as more statistically likely to result in good, although of course this probability is only statistical - in praxis, the self interest of narrow consensus's can and often does run people over, slavery, etc. Similarly, the likelyhood of corporatism resulting in malign human behaviors is also statistically very good, and both of these predictions tend to be bourne out by the empirical historical evidence - we did end slavery, whereas the various permutations of Feudalism, corporatism or otherwise, have typically resulted in extreme diseconomy adn compromise of group and individual fitness across a broad spectrum.

No, it isn't remarkable to make generalizations. One can make valid generalizations, such as that collective investment creates new opportunities and offers certain benefits in terms of spreading risk, or that economies of scale have certain benefits, one cannot make a broad generalization like "corporationss are good", call that logic, and not expect me to call bullshit.

What I call logic is the manner in which propositions relate to each other--you'd do well to understand that THAT is all logic does. I don't call normative statements "Logic"--nor should you. Because that's not what logic is. Logic is the science of the relationships between propositions, that's all. It hasn't anything to say about what it actual, real, or even true. Just what is sound.

Nothing I proposed was unsound. The truth value is another thing altogether--that's a whole 'nother branch of philosophy. Again, read a logic book.

Just own up, it's indefensible, and no amount of arguing will make it anything but a glittering generality - I'll accept a plea of a moment of informal sloppiness, I have seen better from you.

Point out one thing in my initial response to you. Just one little thing... that wasn't rational. Or, for that matter, point out one thing that I claim "is logic"--'cause you keep saying that.

Dick? It's a simple statistical probability, cause and effect, and I am hardly the only one who has seen it coming, and there will come a point when it is no longer possible to ignore - how did you fare when the recent mortgage/buyout bubble burst? That was predictable too.

Maybe nobody taught you better, and that's possible... but in the future, when you say things like "I realize X" and then follow it up with "Eventually you'll realize X, too"--it can be, and might be, taken as "I know better than you, but you'll grow-up/wise-up/smart-up eventually". That may not have been your intention, but understand that you need to far, far more cautious with how you put things. This is a civil place, afterall.

Human behavior is as predictable as the laws of physics on a mass scale, it's a simple matter of stressors and adaptations - which is why we have an economic system designed to regulate behavior in ways that are synergystic with a free market economy, i.e., to prevent corporatism from forming as it's wont to do - all systems tend towards monopoly, it's quite simply the most desireable market position.

Microsoft started in a grage with an OS written for a senior thesis - of course Bill Gates know better than anybody that a better OS can do the same thing to him he did to IBM - corporations are also highly vulnerable to competiton, that's how capitalism is supposed to work - protect corporate profits at the cost of suppressing competiton, and shield them from the consequences of poor decisions, and you no longer have a system you can call capitalism. You might as well just start justifying corporatism, I'm sure you'll find a more receptive audience.

This can hardly be called a market economy anymore, more like a game of Three card Monte.

How much of the wealth being traded on the global market today actually represents goods and services?

None of that has anything to do with my points. Please tell me you realize that.

 

[xssve]

It's like jazz, hoss... if you don't know what it is, I just can't explain it to ya'.

I can only assume you percieved the terminal line in my initial response to be condescension, and so are taking pains to return the favor, it wasn't, and your little digs are getting infantile.

So, you agree that "corporations" as a subject can participate in "goodness" and "badness"--depending on some kind of predication. That's good, that was part of my point. We're on the same page, in that respect (which confuses me as to why you denied that was possible earlier).

Not at all, you have completely changed your argument here as you had to do. Your initial statement is quote: "Corporations are good", or "there is a thing (corporations) that have an assigned unqualified moral value (good).

By inference, all corporations, any corporations, an unqualified good.
Now you say: " ...'corporations' as a subject can participate in 'goodness'... " - which is a complete reformulation of your original proposition.

Perhaps you meant to say that the abstract concept of a corporation is a good concept, but in context that wasn't at all what it sounded like.

I probobly wouldn't have jumped on your reformulation, and I'm going to have to take it as capitulation that your original proposition was poorly stated, however grudging. That's what happens when you say something stupid while calling yourself a logician - you could have saved us both a lot of valuble time by simply correcting yourself to begin with.

So, you're saying that logic has no participation in something that hasn't experentially occured?

No. Perhaps my example confused you, logic can be used to debate fictions, but fictions are also abstractions and cannot be either good or bad in and of themselves.

Have you ever /read/ a logic book? You do realize that logic is almost entirely concerned with the analytical? The not-necessarily-existant? The "a priori"? When we do Propositional Logic--we're not bound to use only existant and actual things to examine the relationships between them. Quanitifier Logic doesn't require anything greater than a defining of the domains and participating categories.

Sterile logic perhaps. Apparently I'm not a logician, or at least when I am I confine it data structures, inheritence, etc. where it actually means something. I'm more what you might call a philosopher, we are allowed to use our senses and discuss real things - which as you say, corporations are.

Oh, for the love of God A'Mighty... you cannot be saying that Logic does not manage, handle, or structure the non-occurant? Or, to put it another way, that Logic must only concern itself with the actually occurant in order to be called Logic?

Logic without context is metalogic at best, which in fact has a context, logic, little more than mental masturbation if it is not contextualized in terms of objective consensus reality, that is: what is and what has been and, insofar as possible, what will be - one does not need to read a book to learn to use ones senses, or undertand the relationship between cause and effect. Logic is merely an abstract tool, the purpose of which is to construct abstract models of empirical reality, typically with respect to cause and effect, prior (fiction) or post, which typically incorporates the lessons learned from the law of unintended consequences.

Dear God, man. All those words (and you wrote a lot of words) and we may have to take you back to square one to do this right.

Feel free, I'll be waiting for you.

I didn't claim it /was/ logic. Only that it didn't lack reason or ways in which it was reasonable--and nothing I said failed a basic test of actual Logic. I said "Corporations are good", then you went on a hissy-fit about how that wasn't a meaningful statement and how corporations could not be good (or presumably bad) based on what a corporation was. THEN, I came to the table with reasons why "corporation" as a term--employing what it actually is by definition--can participate in both meaning and normative labelling.

So it's not logic now? Or is it? you appear to be arguing both simultaneously, whatever works for you.

Keep up.

Lol, which card is it under?

I have nothing intelligent to say about Unions. Are civil unions good or bad? Union soldiers? The European Union? The Union Jack? I can, however, point out that all of them can participate in a normative judgement, and rationally so, as well as meaning.

Cute.

What I call logic is the manner in which propositions relate to each other--you'd do well to understand that THAT is all logic does. I don't call normative statements "Logic"--nor should you. Because that's not what logic is. Logic is the science of the relationships between propositions, that's all. It hasn't anything to say about what it actual, real, or even true. Just what is sound.

Again, how is "corporations are good" sound? there is a logical proposition here by inference: "all corporations are an unqualifed good", which relates to the proposition that corporations exist: to whit: "Corporations exist, and they are good", which is really the only inference one can draw here without being excessively generous, which given the objective empirical reality that contextualizes this proposition, I'm not in the mood to be.

Nothing I proposed was unsound. The truth value is another thing altogether--that's a whole 'nother branch of philosophy. Again, read a logic book.

So now it's sound logic again, make up your mind.

Point out one thing in my initial response to you. Just one little thing... that wasn't rational. Or, for that matter, point out one thing that I claim "is logic"--'cause you keep saying that.

Is it or isn't?

Maybe nobody taught you better, and that's possible... but in the future, when you say things like "I realize X" and then follow it up with "Eventually you'll realize X, too"--it can be, and might be, taken as "I know better than you, but you'll grow-up/wise-up/smart-up eventually". That may not have been your intention, but understand that you need to far, far more cautious with how you put things. This is a civil place, afterall.

I apologize if you thought that condescending, and I thought I worded it sufficiently succinctly: it's a prediction, I make them from time to time.

None of that has anything to do with my points. Please tell me you realize that.

Here's one more for you: how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

 

[rgraham666]

Corporations, like most human creations, are simply a tool. Tools are neither good nor evil.

That is something only human beings can be.

 

[xssve]

I would tend to agree with that - in buiding wall, if I find a rock shaped the way I need for a particular spot, I might say "this is a good rock", but the rock is neither good nor bad in the objective sense, it's only good or bad in in the particular context of myself and what I'm trying to achieve.

Nit picky perhaps, but logic is not called a dicipline for nothing.

 

[rgraham666]

I would tend to agree with that - in buiding wall, if I find a rock shaped the way I need for a particular spot, I might say "this is a good rock", but the rock is neither good nor bad in the objective sense, it's only good or bad in in the particular context of myself and what I'm trying to achieve.

Nit picky perhaps, but logic is not called a dicipline for nothing.

My start on the separation of tools from ethics started with All Quiet On The Western Front.

In that Remarque mentioned that the favoured weapon with the German troops for hand to hand combat was their entrenching tools, basically a shovel.

You can use a shovel for useful, 'good' purposes. You can dig a garden or a ditch or a foundation for a house.

Or as the Germans found, you can gut or brain another person with it.

In neither case is it the shovel's fault. That lies with the person using it.

So it is with corporations, unions, government, money and all the other abstract tools we've created. They can only do what the users direct them to do. The blame lies with them. With us.

 

[Liar]

Corporations, like most human creations, are simply a tool. Tools are neither good nor evil.

That is something only human beings can be.

Yeah, but all tools are not equally suited for good or evil use. Like a sponge. You'll have to be quite creative to do bad things with a sponge.

 

[rgraham666]

Yeah, but all tools are not equally suited for good or evil use. Like a sponge. You'll have to be quite creative to do bad things with a sponge.

But the blame, or credit, still lies with the user. The sponge can't do much without a human being's intervention.

In fact they're more useful if we leave them alone.

 

[Lee Chambers]

Yeah, but all tools are not equally suited for good or evil use. Like a sponge. You'll have to be quite creative to do bad things with a sponge.

 

[xssve]

In fact they're more useful if we leave them alone.

True dat.

 

[Liar]

But the blame, or credit, still lies with the user. The sponge can't do much without a human being's intervention.

Hmh. I think the problem is that I think of "good" vs "bad" where you think "good" vs "evil".

As in a good design, one that lends itself to good use easier than to evil.

And as such, I see a corporation as a good organisation structure for human collaboration. Certainly not flawless or immune to corruption. But none is.

In fact they're more useful if we leave them alone.

No love for the sponge, eh? A a hot sponge bath administered by an even hotter wench, and you'll come around.

 

[xssve]

Hmh. I think the problem is that I think of "good" vs "bad" where you think "good" vs "evil".

As in a good design, one that lends itself to good use easier than to evil.

And as such, I see a corporation as a good organisation structure for human collaboration. Certainly not flawless or immune to corruption. But none is.

Good point - good regulation usually lets the market do the heavy lifting. The best recent example I could use is the cap on CEO salaries that crops up from time to time - this is really a bad regulatory proposal, the problem is stock options, which CEO's take the bulk of their compensation in.

Originally, stock options were supposed to incentivize managers to improve productivity, leaner, meaner, all that lean production jazz - instead it turned out to be easier to cut variable costs (labor), cook the books, etc., and generally game the system to drive stock prices up - which is how CEO's make obscene amounts of money even while company profits fall.

Limit the size of stock options, and you kill two birds with one stone.

Agriculture and healthcare are going to require a bit more thought.

No love for the sponge, eh? A a hot sponge bath administered by an even hotter wench, and you'll come around.

Nurse: [to female patient] Six o'clock, time for your sponge bath.
Estelle: George… I'm huuunnnggry!
George: Hang on, ma, hang on!

 

[rgraham666]

Oh yes. A little aphorism that came to me this morning while waiting for coffee to brew.

Logic doesn't care.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

...stuff...

Alright. I guess we really do /have/ to start from scratch here.

Joe 01: I said "Corporations are good". That's my opinion on Corporations.

You 01: You then layout several points... namely

01-a... Corporations are abstract legal entities
01-b... Corporations cannot be characterized as either good or evil
01-c... Good and evil are terms subjective to the actions of human beings who decide the actions of the corporation.
01-d... "Corporations are good" is meaningless.
01-e... Only the actions of human beings on behalf of the corporation can be judged in accordance with ethical baselines.
01-f... A bunch of stuff about "often shielding people" and "capitalistic principles" and "Reagan" and whatnot that I have nothing intelligent to say anything about.

. . .. ... .....

Joe 02: I take your points and show them to be not necessarily true, or rather do my best to make that end evident.

02-a... I have no disagreement with corporations being abstract legal entities, except to say that they are also real and existant--which is just true. As if they are not fictions or impossible or anything like that. There /are/ corporations, you don't seem to disagree with that.
02-b... I point out that because corporations exist, they can be judged on purely utilitarian basis' (which are "good/bad" determinations)--which is true, we can judge a corporation as being useful or un-useful and thus good and bad. That's not uncommon in Utilitarian philosophy.
02-c... I make the point that "good" and "evil" can be attributed to things outside the realm of "actualized human action"--and can be attached to things like Idealistic Positives. So, things like "love" can be "good" even if there is no direct referrant of "X's love for Y"--such is the nature of abstract thinking. Categorical judgements are very much a part of ethics--they don't require actualized referrents. So, given that categorical referrents are possible in ethics, and "corporations" are existant, they--too--can participate in an ethical judgement. There isn't anything irrational about that possibility.
02-d... Given that we can judge a corporation based on utility or ethical adherance (both of which are possible), the phrase "corporations are good" definitely has meaning. We can say "its wrong, and they're bad" or "in some cases they are good and some bad" or "it depends on how you think about good and bad"... but then we're entertaining that the phrase has "meaning", and we disagree with its content. That's different than a phrase with no meaning like "round squares" which has no possibility at all.
02-e... The actions of a corporation, given that it has an effect, can participate in ethics. The idea that one has to attach it to a human agent is just "regress". We can judge the actions of the corporation (because they affect things) or regress that to the actions of the board of people in charge (because they affect things) or regress that to the actions of a particular person (because they affect things) or regress that to the actions of whoever raised that person, etc, etc, etc. There is no immutable rule or theory that ethic is bound to human action. There are several theories of ethics that take into account evils ranging from human action to "intentional" human action to "actions of an agency" (usually people, not always) to "natural evils" (tornados) to "unactualized immorality" (propogating unethical behavior by non-action), etc. Needless to say, corporations can participate in "ethical judgement" so long as they effect something.
02-f... I had nothing to say about the "shielding" and "Reagan" and whatnot.

. . .. ... .....

O.k. Now... As you can see--I stated an opinion that you said was not possible and meaningless. I pointed out (each time and for each proposition) where it was both possible and had meaning. At no point did I say "corporations are good" was a logical argument (it was nothing of the sort), but I did say repeatedly that it participates in logic--because it isn't a logical impossibility or an irrationality by itself. Everything about that phrase is both possible and rationally justifiable--as I've said before.

You seem to have a disjointed view of what points I've been making. What more can I make clear for you? You say you're more of a "philosopher" than a "logician", but I know a thing or two or three about philosophy and it seems like you should have understood this from the beginning if you have a degree in philosophy, and certainly if you have a doctorate.

There is nothing irrational about what I've said, yet. And I've little confidence in your being a "philosopher" or even having a passing understanding of basic logic if you can't see that. It's laid out right there. You can go back to the posts, I've ripped the summary straight from there. I would be more than willing to see where I've made an error, but--and most people around here who've fussed up with me before know this--I'm rationally cautious and rarely work outside of a purely rational asserting of possibility and impossibility. I've done the same thing in this case, and consistently.