Page 4 of 4 <1234
Topic Options
#103432 - 10/16/15 08:28 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: SIN3]
Sargeist Offline
member


Registered: 02/20/15
Posts: 358
Loc: Chile
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
Let's face it, it can be quite the headache and you're in to a lot of liabilities as the owner.


Not always the case of course, if a person or several people own a multinational or corporation they can just vanish any fuck up made, it doesn't even get swept under the rug.

BP Oil didn't seem to take any noticeable punishment for their insignificant oil spill in 2010, for instance.

On the subject at hand, if we aren't our ideas nor words nor actions then, what are we? what makes us?
_________________________
Perdition will set you free.

Top
#103437 - 10/17/15 05:16 AM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: Sargeist]
XiaoGui17 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1264
Loc: Austin, TX
 Quote:

BP Oil didn't seem to take any noticeable punishment for their insignificant oil spill in 2010, for instance.

Oh yeah. That $18 billion settlement for the claims was chump change. The additional $18 billion they've been found liable for in fines and penalties is a slap on the wrist. And they spent a mere $10 billion in cleanup costs.

Those are billions. With a b.

Seriously, do you not think before you post?
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#103439 - 10/17/15 11:02 AM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: XiaoGui17]
Sargeist Offline
member


Registered: 02/20/15
Posts: 358
Loc: Chile
Ok, bad example then. But what I was trying to convey is that bigger companies can at least still operate, lesser ones have a lot of more pressure on them since a fuck up can put them out of biz.

Where I live there isn't much market for small enterprises since despite having a 98% presence on the market they barely make up for a 15% of total sales, while big companies such as WalMart have only a 1,5% presence an 85% total sales.

I don't mind big companies anymore, but things such as microbrewing make going out with friends an awesome experience and I'd hate to see these being completely wiped out by insipid industrial beer.


Edited by Sargeist (10/17/15 11:45 AM)
_________________________
Perdition will set you free.

Top
#103442 - 10/17/15 12:53 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: XiaoGui17]
JamesSTL Offline
member


Registered: 11/29/13
Posts: 312
Loc: St. Louis
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
That $18 billion settlement for the claims was chump change. The additional $18 billion they've been found liable for in fines and penalties is a slap on the wrist. And they spent a mere $10 billion in cleanup costs.


Although the monetary sum total of the 2010 Gulf spill may seem large from where we are all standing, it amounts to a mild-to-moderate hurdle for a conglomerate with a roughly $110 billion market cap ($284 billion in total assets). Especially since we are talking about one of the largest oceanic oil spills in recorded history.

You can bet your ass that if that shit went down under the same culture of neglect in Chinese waters, heads would roll.

Nothing expresses "consequence" quite like the forfeiture of life.

A swifter and sterner system of justice might be something to look forward to after the PRC succeeds in buying America one bearer bond at a time.

Edit:typo police


Edited by JamesSTL (10/17/15 01:42 PM)

Top
#103456 - 10/18/15 12:31 AM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: JamesSTL]
XiaoGui17 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1264
Loc: Austin, TX
 Originally Posted By: JamesSTL
You can bet your ass that if that shit went down under the same culture of neglect in Chinese waters, heads would roll.

I'll take that bet. The People's Republic is notorious for selective enforcement in the most corrupt manner possible. Poor subsistence fishermen get beat down for violations of environmental regulations, while a little wink and nudge and guangxi lets any major oil company get away with much more egregious violations. So...just like the US, pretty much.

 Quote:
A swifter and sterner system of justice might be something to look forward to after the PRC succeeds in buying America one bearer bond at a time.

Yeah, about that. The PRC buying our debt isn't insidious bait to take over. China needs us as bad as we need them. If we didn't undervalue yuan, it wouldn't be as much of a deal to let them have all the manufacturing jobs. And if they lost their role as a manufacturing powerhouse, it would create an economic sinkhole. Trying to call in our debts all at once would be a monumental mistake.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#103460 - 10/18/15 08:17 AM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: XiaoGui17]
JamesSTL Offline
member


Registered: 11/29/13
Posts: 312
Loc: St. Louis
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
I'll take that bet. The People's Republic is notorious for selective enforcement in the most corrupt manner possible. Poor subsistence fishermen get beat down for violations of environmental regulations, while a little wink and nudge and guangxi lets any major oil company get away with much more egregious violations. So...just like the US, pretty much.


Kinda like the US, but with a lot more fun twists. Embrace the chaos (ie corruption). The de jure is a lullaby for the sleeping. The de facto is the dancing song of the Awakened. "A thing for every place, and a place for every thing," says the assassin of the human spirit.

As an aside: I think your cultural Calvinist underwear shows a little bit in your posts. It is definitely a different shade than the cultural Catholic underwear majority that post on this forum (myself included). Unless I'm totally wrong and you were raised either Jewish or Muslim.

Anyway, back to it...

The element in common is that they are both essentially oligarchies, and as thus exhibit characteristics very common to oligarchies: Corruption, economic/judicial disparity, unfairness everywhere! The PRC is generally more straightforward with its oligarchic nature than the USA. The PRC doesn't pretend to be the "Land of the Free". I think the PRC's ideal-of-self matches their reality-of-self much closer than a United States of America that likes to pretend that it is something other than a de facto fascist (ie corporatist) State.

Where the two diverge in approach is with the application of violence as a consequence of "crime". The unfairness and selectiveness of this applied violence is irrelevant to its core purpose. The Chinese understand, as did the Romans, that Man's appetite for violence is an intrinsic element of his nature. While many collectives have tried to use capital punishment as a means of deterrence with varying degrees of success, the root motivator for capital punishment has nothing to do with the hollow ideal known as "justice". Capital punishment is about vengeance. Capital punishment is about blood lust.

To use this "tainted milk" incident as an example, a CEO, a salesperson, and farmer were all sentenced to death. The CEO was able to wiggle out of it with a suspended sentence, but the other two faced the firing squad. And the peoples' vengeance was (partially) sown.

As for the CEO, I suppose the mob has grown to be satisfied with some-blood rather than none-at-all. Judicial disparity as it correlates to wealth is a common theme of collectivism throughout history. The underclass accepts it as a given, like breathing air being taken for granted, or water being wet. The fruits of collectivist conditioning. Who needs balls when you have a television? And what's on TV? Vicarious depictions of violence. Pornography compared to the real thing, but good enough for most.

"You get as much 'justice' as you can afford," as they say in them streets.

What they should really say is that you get as much vengeance as you are willing to exact. The Bolsheviks understood that. Say what you want about those pinko bastards. They were men of action. And the anomaly of a guillotine blade kissing the back of a king's neck is a thing of rare beauty...

I digress.

 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
Yeah, about that. The PRC buying our debt isn't insidious bait to take over. China needs us as bad as we need them. If we didn't undervalue yuan, it wouldn't be as much of a deal to let them have all the manufacturing jobs. And if they lost their role as a manufacturing powerhouse, it would create an economic sinkhole. Trying to call in our debts all at once would be a monumental mistake.


Give them a little more credit than that. The debt pawn is just one piece on the board. The board to a game that is being quietly played every day. Friends close, enemies closer... and all that jazz.

The next "Big One" will not come in the form of trench warfare or nuclear explosions. It will most likely come in the night like a daylight savings time switch.

And if you're reading about it in the Washington Times its already too late. Behold! The shape of war to come:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015...-econ/?page=all

As with all organisms whose nature and very existence relies on the functions of survival and self-propagation, my loyalties lie with myself. But there are definitely times when I think I might have been born on the wrong side of the Pacific. I guess the jokes on me.

Edit: It is 7:40 AM on a Sunday. Big Brother heard that you were talking shit.


Edited by JamesSTL (10/18/15 09:16 AM)

Top
#103461 - 10/18/15 09:15 AM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: Sargeist]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: Sargeist
Ok, bad example then. But what I was trying to convey is that bigger companies can at least still operate, lesser ones have a lot of more pressure on them since a fuck up can put them out of biz.


Operate sure, operate without headaches? Nope. You don't exactly hear about the laborer at BP having to take the hit for the Oil Spill, which was the point I was honing in on. It's among the reasons (aside lack of innovation and capital) that most labor for owners of companies instead of owning companies.

Incidentally, I was listening to Deferred Gnosis Episode 7 and where Steve Leyba and I part ways in our views, is the so-called 'Moral Obligation to cast away Evils'. He rebuttals his own point by saying that people had the word 'Moral' but I'd replace that with 'Obligation'.

Whether the people seek its vengeance against BP for one of the biggest spills in our history doesn't exactly address the environmental consequences. Five Years Later, effects linger... How much punishment would be satisfactory? How much money will it take to reverse the effects and why should we even bother?

 Quote:
"Our beaches were ruined."

Now Craft says they have recovered and visitors are coming back. But the disaster was a huge blow, both economically and environmentally, and he's not sure it's over.


To go on as business as usual, to keep the money machine well oiled? "Our Beaches" is more telling of the human psyche. Do we own the environment? Or, do we merely contribute to it?

 Originally Posted By: V
If we didn't undervalue yuan, it wouldn't be as much of a deal to let them have all the manufacturing jobs.


If the U.S. seeks to change the economic climate, to build upon its own machine, then it must throw the monkey-wrench into competing machines.

 Originally Posted By: James
As with all organisms whose nature and very existence relies on the functions of survival and self-propagation, my loyalties lie with myself. But there are definitely times when I think I might have been born on the wrong side of the Pacific. I guess the jokes on me.


Do machines dream? I suppose they do.

You could live in China and still just work in a factory.

_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#103517 - 10/22/15 05:47 AM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: SIN3]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3343
Let's cut things short (general reply btw).

We spoke of rights and the possible consequences.
A red line is being treated and jumped over on many an occassion during this past-blast.

"Duty".

Not a very liked word. Shunned even by liberterian free-thinkers.
Yet, that's all what it boils down to. The duty to uphold "....". [Fill in blank]

Having a right means having a duty to perform/uphold.


Edited by Dimitri (10/22/15 05:48 AM)
Edit Reason: Scrabbilyflupbloob
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#103536 - 10/23/15 03:26 AM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: Dimitri]
XiaoGui17 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1264
Loc: Austin, TX
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
We spoke of rights and the possible consequences.
A red line is being treated and jumped over on many an occassion during this past-blast.

"Duty".

Not a very liked word. Shunned even by liberterian free-thinkers.
Yet, that's all what it boils down to. The duty to uphold "....". [Fill in blank]

Having a right means having a duty to perform/uphold.

Very true.

Hohfeld is one of my favorite jurists precisely because he made the logical and practical relationship between "right" and "duty" clear.

For every one party's right, another party has a corresponding duty. If I have a right to exclusive ownership and control of my Lenovo ThinkPad, everyone else has a duty to keep their sticky mitts off of it. If I have a right to free speech, some entity has a duty not to interfere with that. Interesting how the very first right enshrined in the Bill of Rights is phrased in terms of the corollary duty: "Congress shall make no law..."

And as I noted way back, the exercise of our rights creates duties. If I exercise my right to sign a contract, I take on the duty of performing its terms.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#103538 - 10/23/15 09:27 AM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: XiaoGui17]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
Duty/Obligation same thing in my mind. If people choose to uphold that ideal, I think it has more to do with personal morality. There are plenty of broken contracts, failed obligations and the consequence is seeking punishment. Thing is, it's not really a solution because it fails to reconcile the amorality.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#103541 - 10/23/15 01:28 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: XiaoGui17]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Quote:
And as I noted way back, the exercise of our rights creates duties. If I exercise my right to sign a contract, I take on the duty of performing its terms.


In an ideal world, this would be so. Still, I wouldn't recommend that anyone approach contracts in such a way. One glaring example would be in the case of a contract signed under duress. Less obvious examples encompass scenarios wherein the stipulations of the contract violates state, federal, and/or local laws. In such cases the contract itself is null-and-void inclusive of anything by way of a waiver or agreement to arbitration. This can often work to one's favour, and is not necessarily dishonorable or unethical. After all, if it were a mere matter of honor and ethics there'd be no need for a contract in the first place.

Quite often the conditions of, shall-we-say, shady contracts are tolerated simply because the thinking is "well, I did sign it".

While in a perfect world, one does have a duty to fulfil their commitments, since this is not a perfect world, one also has a supreme duty to ensure that they are not being screwed on account of their own ignorance of contractual law.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
Page 4 of 4 <1234


Moderator:  TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.035 seconds of which 0.021 seconds were spent on 24 queries. Zlib compression disabled.