Corporations are the property of their owners (share holders).
But it is the government that authorizes or creates (incorporates) the legal entity. Government itself is a form of corporation.
Anarcho-capitalists want to do away with the state and let people be free to make agreements amongst themselves and create corporations. While I agree to a limited extent, I think this is not a solution but a sort of reset button which will just lead to a period of instability as power structures reform, but there will still be the same competiton amongst power structures and whether you label those power structures states or governments or corporations, they will reign tyranny and terror on the people unless they are treated with suspicion and their size and lifespan is managed.
I think if we view the state as a subset of corporations this might bring some light to the anarcho-capitalist blind spot.
If the corporation(s) can own and control access to resources and means of production isn't that an imposition on a population? Aren't they ultimately just feudal lords?Let's face it. Hurm is a socialist.
Let's face it. Hurm is a socialist.
But it is the government that authorizes or creates (incorporates) the legal entity.
You're saying that corporations derive power from the state, but also that the state is a subset of corporations?
Name one thing a corporation could impose on a population on a non-voluntary basis without the power of the state.
As far as I know, your associations with corporations are totally voluntary. They do not have law or corresponding enforcement apparatuses as a result of their inability to confiscate wealth (and investors don't like unnecessary financial expenditures). If the opposite were true, then tautologically the corporation would be a state.
Let's face it. Hurm is a socialist.
I don't think that's anywhere close to true. Look deeply into any of the cases I mentioned above and you'll get a sense for the challenges re prosecution of the guilty in these cases.
https://medium.com/@Cernovich/here-...w-transcript-with-mike-cernovich-a0cb58a80ba0
Here is the full 60 Minutes Interview Transcript with Mike Cernovich
...
Scott Pelley: You reported in November five days before the election, quote Clinton’s inner circle includes child traffickers pedophiles, and now members of a sex cult.
Mike Cernovich: Lauren Silsby was arrested in Haiti trying to smuggle children out of Haiti. Do you remember that story?
...
Mike Cernovich: She was a friend of Hillary. Hillary intervened on her behalf, to get a reduced sentence for Lauren Silsby.
...
It does include that inner circle. Dennis Hastert, Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein good friends. Jeffrey Epstein is a lifetime registered sex offender. He was convicted of trafficking women who are underage. Great fiend of Bill Clinton. Great friend to Hillary Clinton. So that is part of her inner circle, so that is indeed a true statement.
...
Do you think that sort of loose way of speaking is really fair or honest? The very term 'alt-right' was designed to denigrate people with certain views, without any regard as to why people believe them or whether they are true. For example, I don't believe in man-made climate change, because I don't think the evidence is statistically robust, I know that the various climate models predicted far more warming over the past 15 years, than has taken place, and I have read some of the emails leaked in 'climategate' that exposed scientists colluding to force out journal editors who published scientific papers that contained information that cast doubt on this scare. I also have a variety of other reasons (none of them involving cheques from big business) for thinking the way I do.When I made that statement I was more referring to conspiracies that the 'alt-right' subscribe to or that the GOP tend to lean towards. For example many people in the GOP deny manmade climate change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyz8MZNrJCQ
Police / Military Closing In On Pedophile Network
What do you think we can do to increase the chances that intelligent people will be able to have real dialogues (about issues of concern to Skeptiko listeners?) and get past the polarising political situation we're currently in? Do you think that will happen, or do you think we are fundamentally stuck in a way that is not going to immediately fix itself?
In my opinion, it is not just about 'intelligent people' but rather a human condition that can be observed everywhere at different depths of discussions. So I guess many people call it ego. i have my reservations from such jargon at the moment. I am also assuming that this analysis is no shock to anybody here, but I still feel like that is at the heart of this disconnect/ division/ polarity. whichever topic it may be, when i listen to a discussion I am a lot less concerned with the content of the discussion but rather the way it is carried out. I try to prioritize the manner in which topics are discussed over the content, which always varies. I find it quite rare to be able to get any point across to the other side, simply through content and counterarguments if the emotional front is neglected. To different extents, we are all protective over our views, and it is not easy sometimes to question our held beliefs especially when we don't realize they are beliefs. The question of how to advance a dialogue between two people is a tricky one, because it really depends on the two individuals, and how much they are in touch with this emotional side in them. Ideally and rationally speaking, the two sides should be able to question openly and honestly everything, without restricted movement. Unfortunately, that is rare. Most people get upset, impatient, and antagonistic when there is disagreement. I think most people are extremely uncomfortable in such a place, and most of the times the discussion gets stuck. instead of dealing with the actual issue that's discussed directly, it becomes about something personal though it is disguised by the intellect. finally, after wrestling it out for a while, nothing new comes up usually, and both sides go their own way. I think it's a shame that people get stuck so often, as Alex and Daniel had here on this podcast, and as has happened so many times here on this show. I mean this is what Skeptiko, ideally, is all about - trying to go deeper together.
Alex, I don't think that a real and open dialogue is always possible, especially when you host Skeptics who are often so easily ticked off. Some people will have a very hard time opening up to new ways of thinking. I'm betting that everybody here had to go through these difficulties of being wrong, becoming defensive, and letting go of false ideas throughout their life. I think that in order to increase the chances of having real dialogues with others we have to acknowledge that we are dealing not just with the intellect, but mostly with people who are vulnerable and emotional, just as we all are. I am not suggesting going through a therapy session with every person on the show :). I am suggesting simply not to get dragged to this personal and hostile place with people. I think it has a much stronger effect to remain composed while probing into some part that is uncomfortable for the other. It will expose the ugly side of the interviewee. I believe that that's the best thing you could do. It's easier said than done, but I think it's your responsibility as the host. I think it will really affect the listener's stance when they will witness one side losing it. It reveals a lot. That is one of the reasons I kept listening to Rupert Sheldrake for instance, although his ideas were quite strange for me at first. He always kept his cool.
In my opinion, this can also increase the chances of having intelligent dialogues, because it will gradually filter out personal and indirect nonsense from these deep topics. When these two are intertwined, there is no real dialogue.
love to hear any thoughts.
Boom!! He's back.Speaking of civil discussions, this comment might offend Michael Larkin. It's not broken down into enough separate paragraphs.
love to hear any thoughts.
But who controls the deep state?
More paragraphs would encourage people to read your posts.
There is nothing to stop you pressing the edit button and retro-fitting a paragraph structure on what you have written!I take it :)
There is nothing to stop you pressing the edit button and retro-fitting a paragraph structure on what you have written!
David