|
|
 |
|
Getting On : All My Politics
Why Republicans? | from exister - Tuesday, June 29, 2004
accessed 3495 times Why would someone leave The Family only to become a festering Republican? It never ceases to amaze me that so many who have left The Family lean to the Right in their socio-political views.
In addressing this issue one must first consider wether The Family as a social environment is inherently left wing or right wing. I am sure many of you would simplistically argue that The Family's bizzare sexual norms put it at odds with the Christian Right and make it inherently left wing. This is a gross oversimplification. It is not the content of The Family's norms but rather their context that dictates their social effects. The rules of The Family, especially their sexual ones, are tools of social control in much the same way that the Christian Right's moral agenda is a tool of social control that they would love to see implemented as law. Besides, the hard core right is not so much opposed to sex per se, but rather they are opposed to people freeing themselves spiritually and morally from their taboos.
Another potential appeal that the right may hold for some of you is its supposed championing of state's rights and freedom from federal control. The reason for this is simply that they would rather you be controlled by their money. Remember, power vacums seldom exist in nature. Once again this right wing idea is not dissimilar to The Family's rejection of conventional laws in the name of some higher power. In the Republicans case it is raw greed under the guise of social morality whereas in The Family's case it is brutality and pedophilia under the guise of world evangelism.
On the other hand I suppose I am being presumptuous in assuming that many of you would want to forge a society as different as possible from that of The Family. This assumption is clearly weakened by the fact that some of you are still Christians for Christ's sake. Therefore I suppose it's not entirely surprising that many of you have gravitated toward right wing socio-political views that may differ from The Family's in content but not in their structure and their effects on your lives.
Finally to those of you sufficiently enamored with money to cast your lot with "The Party of Money" let me say that there are ways to make a fortune and still respect yourself in the morning.
At the end of these ruminations I still wonder, why oh why would anyone want to be a festering Republican? |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Ne Oublie
Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 15:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
Just stumbled on this old article - you must be so pleased by the latest election, ex. LOL!
(reply to this comment)
| from Wolf
Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 18:35
 (Agree/Disagree?)
This discussion has deviated from the topic of your post; allow me to address the original subject:
Ex, I think it would be immature to attempt to “forge a society as different as possible from that of The Family.” First, it’s very hillbilly and cultish to think anything is all right or all wrong. Second, the idea of “forging a society” should be anathema to ex members. There’s some good in everything, and that includes the Republicans and TF (both of which I dislike). Should I stop using freeways because Hitler invented them, dislike Tchaikovsky because Stalin liked him, or loathe sex because Berg was obsessed with it?
(reply to this comment)
|  From
Monday, July 05, 2004, 17:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wolf, I am curious about your statement "there is some good in everything, and that includes republicans and TF." I won't say I disagree without knowing more about what you mean, but this is the way I look at and I was wondering if you see it similarly or if you see actual good in The Family in a different sense.
I see The Family kind of like a parasite. The hosts it latches onto are the people it needs to embody it. In this context, I am referring to The Family as the doctrines, the Letters, and they way one must live and who one must be, according to them. The host is a vital entity with good qualities, but it becomes a carrier of something dangerous.
The Family it needs hosts to survive and perpetuate itself. The way some philosophers looked at evil long ago, is that it is not a "thing" but a lack, a non-being. Therefore, anything that *is,* cannot be by definition entirely evil or it would have tipped over into non-being. So there is some remnant of elements that are good even in a hardened criminal.
To put it another way, it's like a provisioned apple with a big rotten part. The rot can't exist without the apple, but the rot is not desirable or "good," the apple was, and the remaining part still is. In my view the apple would be the persons and to the extent taken over by the rot, it is ugly and not good for you, but if you remove the rot there is something good left.
As much as The Family wants to "be ye separate," is can't avoid certain things that are no credit to The Family but are a part of the human existence of the persons who become hosts and carriers. Sure I learned a foreign language in TF so I could "witness," but that is not something you can uniquely get to do in TF (hello, Berlitz? the fees there do not include being raped). The Germans had good despite Hitler's rot that infected a portion of the apple, a rot that had no redeeming qualities. I myself see no redeeming qualities in The Family per se. Again, in The Family meaning its teachings and their application, and again, not counting things that are widely available elsewhere (yes TF is against violence (other than on little kids who are naughty), well what do you know, out here it's called battery too and not usually rewarded, yes TF has pretty songs and pretty people).
On the other hand, maybe it was just a typo and you meant to say "there is some goo in everything, and that includes republicans and TF," in which case I can agree without reservation ;-)(reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Monday, July 05, 2004, 21:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
No typo. I agree that the bad outweighs the good, but I don’t agree that it cancels the good.
“Forging a society as different as possible from that of TF” would necessarily include dropping the good aspects, however few. Take a look at history: so many social orders, in an attempt to improve on the preceding order, tried to be as different as possible. This meant making improvements but also dropping useful practices, just because they were practiced by the previous order. For goodness sake, that’s exactly what TF did: they tried to forge a society as non-mainstream as possible, and ended up throwing out numerous beneficial practices that had been developed by mainstream society, such as education, safeguards against child abuse, etc. This mistake has been made since the beginning of mankind; it’s hard to believe that we really can’t learn from history.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from neez
Friday, July 02, 2004 - 17:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
lol... all this over some maple leaves. I think u may be on to something here
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | from neez
Friday, July 02, 2004 - 17:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
lol... all this over some maple leaves. I think u
(reply to this comment)
| from neez
Friday, July 02, 2004 - 17:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
lol... all this over some maple leaves. I think
(reply to this comment)
| from neez
Friday, July 02, 2004 - 17:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
lol... all this over some maple leaves. I
(reply to this comment)
| from Way off topic
Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 13:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
JULES, WILL YOU PLEASE GET RID OF THESE STUPID MAPLES LEAVES? THE JAVASCRIPT THAT IS RUNNING THEM IS POORLY WRITTEN AND EATS ALL AVAILABLE CPU CYCLES. TO SEE WHAT I MEAN RUN THE TOP APP ON A LINUX BOX WHILE A BROWSER DRIBBLES MAPLE LEAVES. THE CPU USAGE FOR THE BROWSER IS LIKE 98%. GET RID OF THEM DAMMIT! PLEASE?
(reply to this comment)
| From jpmagero
Friday, July 02, 2004, 04:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
How about you simply disable active scripting in your browser, refresh the screen and magic: they go away.
It doesn't eat any real chunk of my cycles, so your machine is either pretty poor to begin with, or the browser you use doesnt handle client side scripting very well.
I have a single P-M 1.4 and my CPU goes from 3% without it, to about 14-16% with it on.(reply to this comment) |
| | From exister
Friday, July 02, 2004, 07:36
 (Agree/Disagree?)
You dare to insult the integrity of my Linux box? Prepare to be punished!
How about people just write smart web pages to begin with and avoid importing silly scripts that they got for free off of cheesycybercanadians.ca? That way people can use stable browsers without having to tweak their settings every 5 minutes.
Back in the golden days when the Internet was interesting there was a hilarious website called losers.org that kept track of web pages with annoying graphics and stupid sound effects. Fortunately for Jules it is no longer up or movingon.org would have surely ended up there.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Joe H
Friday, July 02, 2004, 11:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
"rabid Canadian bashing"? Oh come now, I think you know that I don't HATE Canada or the Canadians, I am in fact a big fan of certain aspects of Canada such as the beer, the whiskey, the permissive cannabis legislation, and so many of your clever and comical countrymen like Mike Myers, Norm MacDonald, Jerseygirl, and of course, you, Jules. The time that I spend having a little fun at Canada's expense constitutes a great deal more affection than the average American will show to Canada -- he tends to be completely ignorant of and indifferent to your existence. That being said, I thought the maple leaves were a clever comeback, like you said, in true Canadian passive-aggressive style. A bit annoying, but not so much so that I was able to stop wasting my time here and wow my boss with a tremendous increase in productivity. The only time that happens is when the internet is completly unavailable, like on an airplane, for instance. Happy belated Canada Day! (Is that really what you call it? Not Maple Leaf Day or Flannel Shirt Day? ;-0)(reply to this comment) |
| | From exister
Friday, July 02, 2004, 08:26
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Now, now Jules. As a knee jerk politically correct Canadian you should know better than to lump people into categories. You seem to suffer from the same delusion that afflicts many others on this site. Namely, assuming that all incredibly hot and intelligent computer scientists are identical.
I don't recall ever using the phrase "can't you take a joke." If I have then please use your text searching powers to correct me, but it just doesn't strike me as something I would say. Why would I reduce any of my speech to the lowly level of jokery? Joe has probably said it before, and unfortunately the two of us are indistinguishable to many people here.
This isn' really a bad situation though, since Joe is in fact hot and terrifically clever in person, which is more than I can say for many others on this site.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Friday, July 02, 2004, 08:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
Gosh, you caught me there. On reflection, I suppose you and Joe fall into very different categories:
Joe seems to feel it is his duty to rate every other participant on here and give us his assessment of their looks, intellect and communication skills. When someone objects to something cruel or demaning that he has said, his response is "it's your fault for not being able to take a joke" and he doesn't take any responsiblity at all for his own behaviour.
You seem to feel it is your duty to rate every other participant on here and give us your assessment of their intellect, communication skills and "systemite purity". When someone objects to something offensive or demeaning you have said, your response is "it's your fault for not being able to see that I'm just trying to be provocative" and you don't take any responsiblity for your behaviour.
What I always find very amusing about many men is that while they know men can be obnoxious, aggressive, dishonest and absolute bastards, they think that they are the exception to the rule and the one who actually has a heart of gold, "just a diamond in the rough", even though they display all the exact same characteristics. Every single client I ever had told me "a sweet girl like you should be careful, there are some real assholes out there". Umm, yes, assholes just like them. I suppose there is a lot of comfort in rationalization and denial.
My point is someone who puts other people down constantly is not attractive. People who bully others because they think they can are not hot. There is nothing clever about being snide or mean because you have nothing to contribute to a discussion. And we are who we are, online or offline. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Jules
Friday, July 02, 2004, 15:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
(Warning: Sweeping generalities below. Disclaimer: This is just my opinion and not necessarily representative of every single man and woman in the world)
I think this depends on the woman. Yes it's fun and exciting to be around a bad boy, but IMO, in the long run integrity, kindness, confidence and responsibility are qualities that women actually admire and respect. The thing about assholes is that they are basically immature. IMO, no woman wants to have to mother a grown man for very long. At some point we want a grownup and someone who can be an equal.
Men are not much different. Bimbos get a lot of attention, but how far does that go? It was always to me interesting to watch the general disdain young men I saw in the Family had for young women who were extremely flirtatious and accessible. It was not like they turned them down and the girls certainly got attention, but they were definitely not considered equals, or even people, sometimes, more like acquisitions or notches on the belt.
That's what I think of assholes. They are fun when I'm slumming it, but they are not spending the night, and I am certainly not bringing them home to meet the folks. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Jules
Friday, July 02, 2004, 15:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
The chat room sucks is my only answer to this. I downloaded it from some free site so it's a testament more to my laziness than my (admittedly) questionable coding. Sorry. I'll reset the room and that will remove you. I have actually improved my coding knowledge since becoming a fulltime programmer in the last few months, but haven't had time to finish v3 of MovingOn so the entire site is still rather slow, disorganized and flaky. Cobbler's children. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From exister
Friday, July 02, 2004, 09:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
When did I ever claim to have a heart of gold? I don't even aspire to such hoaky goals.
It seems one of the Family's most overused phrases was that one they ripped off from Thumper's mom in "Bambi": "If you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all." Can we eschew this dictum now that we are all grown up?
Joe and I deride commentary that we find blase and boring becuase we desperately want the world to be a more interesting place. Unfortunately many people are painfully boring when they are being nice and only display any interesting qualities when they are provoked.
And don't respond with more GN quotes. You already tried that, and I find it tiresome and much less interesting than your feminist tirades, which I find fascinating BTW.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Jules
Friday, July 02, 2004, 10:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
If you refuse to take responsibility for your own behavior at least be up front about it. Isn't it precisely this quality that many of us find so reprehensible about the Family? "We abused you and you are angry and/or hurt, but it's really your own fault for being ‘bitter’, not ours for engaging in these behaviors." IMO, some of the things you and Joe say are (in a forum for survivors of an abusive group) inappropriate. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Joe H
Friday, July 02, 2004, 11:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
Maybe I'm a little slow, but I'm assuming that by "content" you mean people working through their personal issues that stem from childhood abuse. I have never discredited those people's stories, blamed them for the abuses they suffered, or told them to simply "get over it." This is what I consider inappropriate. If you think that ANY criticism or joking leveled at ANYONE who has ever suffered abuse is "inappropriate" then we'll have to agree to disagree.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume you're correct (and I'm assuming here that you agree with the last sentence of the previous paragraph). What then should we do about the people who routinely accuse me of being sexually frustrated, inadequate in bed, insecure of my sexuality, lacking in self-esteem, and having no friends and no positive regard in my life whatsoever? Should I receive the same pampering and kid-glove treatment as you seem to be requiring for all abuse survivors? I haven't asked for it. Yes, I was abused as a child; just cause I don't talk about it doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I think that we can be a little more thick-skinned and have a good laugh at ourselves and each other. Some of the funniest things I read on here are insults directed at me. Yet sadly, these get thrown into the Trailer Park along with my original invectives, so no one sees me getting my comeuppance. Like I said before, I think there is a line between general joking and the real sensitive issues, and I'm sensitive about a lot of them too. [Insert clever closing statement here](reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Friday, July 02, 2004, 12:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
What I meant by my comment above was when our actions or words cause harm to others, then I believe we should take ownership of those actions. To blame someone who is hurt by us for being "bitter", "too sensitive", or "not having a sense of humour" is precisely, IMO, the cop out used by the Family to excuse them of responsiblity.
I'm really on my soap box at this point, and I was supposed to be getting some work done today, but in answer to your question, I don't know. I understand that "Joe's are people too", but when someone is consistently aggressive it does tend to provoke responses in kind and as with most arguments anywhere, things escalate.
I'm not talking about general banter between participants either, but specific issues that are sensitive. The fact is that Family WAS a wholly unique environment to grow up in. While many of the same issues can be found in different sectors of society, to have them all (educational neglect, sexual abuse, child labour, extreme poverty, physical abuse, neglect, abandonment, sexual exploitation, pyschological torture, etc.) combined in one single organization is unique. What we experienced was not typical tramua and the wounds are still raw.
My point is that we are playing with live rounds. How many of the people we knew have been lost to suicide or untimely deaths? These issues are real. While I can appreciate the need to vent now and then, do we really have to take out our frustrations on each other or demand that we be "thick skinned"? Ok, I'm done. Happy 4th of July weekend to the Americans. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From exister
Friday, July 02, 2004, 10:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
If you refuse to stop acting like a "teen shepherd" then at least be up front about it. Isn't it precisely this quality that many of us find so reprehensible about the Family? "We abused you and you are angry and/or hurt, but it's really your own fault for saying inappropriate things and being out of the spirit, not ours for being stern teen shepherds." IMO, some of the things you say are (in a forum for survivors of brutal behavioral authoritarianism) inappropriate.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From exister
Friday, July 02, 2004, 11:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
So then we must set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission for those who have been irreperably damaged by the words of JoeH and exister. After everyone has testified before this commission the Supreme Syndicate of Hurtful Words will mete out an appropriate punishment for the perpetrators of such harmful thought processes as:
Am I dumb?
Should I broaden my vocabulary?
Should I read a book?
What can College do for me?
This type of introspection can only lead to intransigent self hatred and exacerbation of every exer's already pathetic and insufferable situation.
Heil Jules!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Shackled
Sunday, July 04, 2004, 19:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
IMHO, you know how in TF there were the spiritual and the rotten apples. Sometimes I feel like this site is split into the educated and non-educated. I often wonder how many refrain from posting or visiting this site due to the intimidation they receive from others. I also wonder if certain individuals give a fuck about others who are now leaving and are yet to find a life outside TF. A number of times I've just kept silent out of fear that my comments are incoherent and would be misunderstood and shred to bits. I'm not afraid of a challenge but why put yourself out in the open when you know your reply to their insults will also be torn apart. Some people are good at boasting their ego online, others are not.
I know at times I've been guilty of not respecting someone's opinion. But respecting others, online or not, is not just a Christian thing it's the decent thing to do.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From sarafina
Friday, July 02, 2004, 17:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm sorry , you are a friend who I have known longer then anyone but I have to say I completely disagree with you. People DO NOT have to be assholes and pricks in order to make a site interesting. And just cause a person is nice doesn't make them boring either. I was here before these so called "provocative participants " were ever here and believe me it was a better place. In fact the site was very fun and interesting. There were many new friends made and there was hardly a second that the chatroom wasn't full of people conversing and having a good time. You haven't been on here that long so maybe you don't see the difference but it was a very fun and positive place to go when you needed it.
There were many days and nights during a really tough and depressing period in my life last year where I would come on MO just to distract myself and have a good laugh and talk with some wonderful people. Now I find that I end up feeling worse more often then better when going on here and even when I rarely post a comment I get jumped on or used as an example or made to look stupid. I am amazed that a handful of people could bring so much negativity to this site. I want to say to those few people that although YOU may not need this site, and you admittedly use it solely for your own entertainment (and I might add to satiate your need to feel elite and better then the rest of us) there are actually some people who need and appreciate this site.
It used to be a great place to come for advice, peace of mind, fun entertainment and it provided helpful information. A lot of people who used to contribute a lot of good stuff refuse to participate on here anymore due to the rudeness and continual crass comments made by you few. Now days you can hardly say one thing or make one comment with out you guys jumping all over it and stomping it to the ground. (reply to this comment) |
| | From exister
Monday, July 05, 2004, 11:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
It sounds like you have an uhealthy emotional dependence on virtual friendships. Perhaps the following link will prove helpful:
http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/center_index.php?id=66
Those of you have vested enough of your emotional life in this site to get "bummed out" when someone says something mean need to get a real world life because I've got news for you, "None of this is fucking real!" That is why we use prefixes like "cyber-" and words like "virtual" to describe it.
On the other hand I can see how Jules would get a kick out of people becoming emotionally dependent on this site, since that would validate her hacking efforts, which I find admirable by the way.
You will probably all get your wish when I inevitably get sick of all of this plaintive pining for the days when this was a happy site. It never "was" anything because once again it's not freakin' real!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Jules
Monday, July 05, 2004, 18:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
At one time I would have agreed with you. Something I have learned through interacting on here myself is that it is actually real. Before launching this site, I had perhaps one exer friend. I kept my distance from people who shared my background and thought that people that did not were "ghettoizing" themselves. Through interacting on here I have found some amazing people and the friends I have made are people that I am admire, respect and am proud to know. That is real. They have been there for me and I will be there for them as well.
Dude, about the my getting a kick and hacking efforts? Perhaps this is something that you have to dumb down for me, but I don't understand you at all. It's probably my lack of true computer skills showing again. (Side bar: If you are like me and don't tell people much about anything to do with your life, they probably always love the mystery and come up with something much better than you could have yourself. What people always think about me is:
A: military brat--OMG, so boring.
B: secret world-famous hacker--I love this one, I couldn't hack my way out of a paper bag, but computer geeks worship you if they think you are one and hey adulation is good for the soul.
C: mob assassin--ok this should be cooler to me than a hacker, but I guess I am a geek at heart.
--end of side bar)
One last thing is that you have had at least four predecesors. I don't think this web site was ever "nice". I give my "can't we all just get along" speech about every 8 or 9 months here and it's sometimes almost word for word. Do a search for "Jules+soapbox" (once I get the comments search up) and you will probably find all my previous diatriabes. Dude, I feel a little like the chained eagle. (reply to this comment) |
| | From exister
Tuesday, July 06, 2004, 08:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
I use the term "hacking" to describe any effort put forth by someone using a programming language (or meta-language) with the objective of getting something accomplished with said language. I assume this loosely describes how you got this site up and running. The activity that used to be called "hacking" is now more correctly termed "cracking."
Maintaining a certain mystique about your physical persona probably serves you well, which would explain why you wouldn't deign to have a beer with Joe when he was in your neck of the woods. :-)(reply to this comment) |
| | From Joe H
Tuesday, July 06, 2004, 11:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
Actually, you've got that backwards. "Hacking" used to refer to programming, and a "hacker" was someone highly skilled in this discipline, while a "cracker" was someone who used his/her skills to commit theft or general vandalism, which back then was called "cracking". Over the years, this older, positive sense of "hacking" has been lost, and the word is now used to refer to the activities formerly described as "cracking." I lament this semantic shift just as much as the next prescriptivist, but I feel I must warn you to get on board with the current trend in usage, lest you be frequently misunderstood and forced to explain yourself like you just did in the above paragraphs. (reply to this comment) |
| | From exister
Tuesday, July 06, 2004, 12:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
Usage is largerly defined by the user, and I distinctly recall a time when the popular lexicon used the term "hacker" to describe a cracker. I eventually came around to the correct usage while in college. I think it is still the case that the term "hacker" means different things to computer scientists than it does to the masses. What you describe as the original meanings of the two words is maintained by semantic purists like myself who refuse to let common usage corrupt the historical terminology of our profession.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Joe H
Tuesday, July 06, 2004, 14:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
"I think it is still the case that the term 'hacker' means different things to computer scientists than it does to the masses." Correct. For this reason, I would advise against using the computer science sense "the masses," unless you particularly enjoy having to give a big speech about original definitions and semantic shift among the proletariate, and end up coming off as a pedantic prescripitivist. (I realize "purist" sounds nicer, and you can use that to describe yourself if you like.)
"I distinctly recall a time when the popular lexicon used the term 'hacker' to describe a cracker" What are you talking about? That time is NOW. Current popular usage defines "hacker" primarily as a criminal or mischief maker. "Cracker" rarely means anything other than a dry biscuit or a citizen of the Republic of White-trashistan.
Finally, I didn't know you had a degree in Computer Science, which would enable you to refer to it as "our" profession. ;)(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Jules
Friday, July 02, 2004, 18:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
I completely agree with you Sarafina. The point of this site was not to debate politics or compare IQs. It was not to see who was a "true exmember" and who was not. There is no one else in the world who knows what we have experienced but each other. That might not mean much to some, but to me and many others it does mean a lot. There are thousands of web sites on the Internet where we can vent and rage and be obnoxious. There is only one for SGs raised in The Family.
Ok, totally so lame, but I love the Pet Shop Boys quote "she was never bored, because she was never being boring". I try to live by that in my own life; if I am bored, it's my own damn fault--not that I am never boring, hello, I am a programmer. My point is, why should I expect the world to entertain me? The day I reach that point, I know have seen too many reality shows.
You said: "I find that I end up feeling worse more often then better when going on here". This I have heard from so many people in the last few months and has made me question what the hell I am doing in enabling this site. I can't help it, I feel like Pandora, and the web site scares me a lot at times. My greatest fear is that it will perpetuate more harm than good.
I truly hoped that it would be a forum that would help to bring change in the group and a voice to those who have left. I know it's just a (poorly coded) web site, but I care about it deeply. It is part of me and to think this site has caused any more pain to people who have faced too much already is horrific. Sarafina, I want nothing more than to support you and to tell you how wonderful you are. I am so sorry. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Vicky
Saturday, July 03, 2004, 03:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sorry, computer's messing up....
Following on from the above:
...If I had not found this site I would most probably still be a highly confused quasi-family member struggling to leave all that wierd stuff behind and assert myself as an individual with my own thought processes. It has been SO good for me to be able to talk here, but more importantly to listen to others, particularly those who were further ahead in the progression of truly moving on from TF than I was when I first joined this community.
I think perhaps the fact that the dialogue on this site has shifted slightly lately, away from subjects directly linked to our upbringing, is actually an indication of the lengths that most of us have come in overcoming the negative aspects we were left with as a result of our upbringing in TF. I do think it should be seen as a good thing in some ways. In my own case, I know that I am generally free of the neurosis that dogged me when I first left, and find that I don't really need to talk much about TF anymore. It has less and less relevance to my life with each passing day.
As far as those who are a bit more obnoxious or forceful in their opinions, or in the case of Joe and Ex, frightfully proud of their apparent superiority when it comes to knowledge and wit, I admit that I am a shameless worshipper of the 'intelligentsia', generally and on this site - There is nothing that excites me more than listening to someone who I am aware knows much more than me. Due to this I can sometimes appear slightly fawning, I think.
But, that aside, I do believe that there are many things that are just as important in life, if not more, than just being smart, such as the ability to make people feel good about themselves, the art of empathy and understanding of another's position, and the oft overlooked gift of reading others so that you know where they are at and what they genuinely feel about themselves, underneat the posturing. I do believe that some of the things that have been said (and again I am talking about a few little things, not the majority) were not even that bad that they could legitimately be put into the Trailer Park, but anyone who was paying attention could tell that it was most likely very hurtful to the person on the receiving end. I feel for the people who are at a vulnerable place right now, because I know what it feels like. And even though its only someone out in Cyber space it can still hurt.
I do agree with Frmrjoyish too, though, that people should be able to say what they want here, as much as possible. In any case, I don't envy your position as moderator, I am sure it causes you some grief when trying to decide where you stand and how much is too much, etc etc.(reply to this comment) |
| | From anonym.
Monday, July 05, 2004, 17:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
Vicky, you said "...there are many things that are just as important in life, if not more, than just being smart, such as the ability to make people feel good about themselves, the art of empathy and understanding of another's position, and the oft overlooked gift of reading others so that you know where they are at and what they genuinely feel about themselves, underneath the posturing."
I think the students that you work with as an educational psychologist, or whatever you end up doing in the field of education, will be lucky. I think what you expressed in that statement will make you bring out the best in students in your care, probably sometimes to the point of apparent transformation. In the family me and my siblings were swiftly stereotyped as the "sensitive one," the "violent one," the "foolish one," the "self-righteous/proud one," and labeled as "dumb" or "smart" "obedient" or not, etc. to the point where I am very skeptical of the term "intelligence." I think what people label "intelligence" is largely made up of the self-concept people have and how they act out the roles they have taken on.
As somebody who has spent many years as a student, I know the power for good that teachers or other helpers have. When I said "apparent" transformation, it's because I think whatever a good teacher/helper can elicit was there to begin with, it was just obscured by layers of the roles thrust upon us and our reactions. But we are social beings and it can be hard to make a 360 change in a vaccum, or even worse, in a hostile environment. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From sarafina
Saturday, July 03, 2004, 11:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
No no frmjoyish! I'm sorry but I think you read my comment wrong. I wasn't referring to you in that statement. I was referring to those you had referred to as "provocative ones" re-read what I said.. "I am amazed that a handful of people could bring so much negativity to this site. I want to say to those few people that although YOU may not need this site..." I'm sorry if it seemed directed at you. I have known you my whole life and I can honestly say in person you are one of the nicest people I think you've had a pretty good balance in your debates in sticking to the topics and not attacking the person occasionally we all get carried away every now and then but I was addressing those that make it their daily duty. Sorry again, I'll try and be more clear next time.
Lots of hugs
Sarafina (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Jules
Friday, July 02, 2004, 16:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
The thing with cruel remarks is that you don't really understand the hurt they can cause unless you have been the brunt of them. I am all for free speech, telling it like it is, open debate and challenging viewpoints. That doesn't have to include demeaning our peers, proclaiming our own intellectual superiority at every opportunity and rating the looks and intellectual capabilities of other people. I could just sit here and bat my eyelashes, flirt and suck it up, but I did that for too many years and I just can't any more.
Frankly I would have included you in the Joe and Ex category, except that you have shown an ability to consider other points of view and to take responsiblity for your own behaviour. If you have a problem with me, Joy, please say so, the "certain individuals" is patronizing. Some of the more "provocative" participants have already disappeared at some point. Sometimes they come back, sometimes they don't.
Who wants anyone to behave like cultish zombies? What I am hoping for is adult-like behaviour. Would any of us interact with our colleagues or friends in such a immature and bratty way? I take exception to the notion that the rights of a few take precedent over the rights of others, no matter how smart they think they are. (reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Friday, July 02, 2004, 16:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
The point of my comment was not offend or name names. I actually have a great deal of respect for you but if you think you should be included in the patronising lecturer category then be my guest but know that you are not alone. I do agree that some times the behavior around here tends to lean towards being a bit immature and catty. I've been guilty occasionally and so have you!
And I'm curious as to exactly which category you were ready to lump me into with Joe and ex. Is said category based on offensiveness, intelligence, most posts in a day?? What is it? Or perhaps the similarities you see in us stem from a desire to pick and choose exactly who's ass we will kiss rather hand it out indiscriminately as is often the case on this site!
It is my understanding that this is an open forum for those of us raised in a very unique situation. The interactions are not what one would expect with the average collegues or even aquaintances. The nature of the beast ensures that even with the most valient of efforts, emotions will enter into the picture. Exchanges are bound to be much more heated and emotional than on the average social website.
We all have different ways of dealing with our past and none of us came out unscathed. Some come across as crass and obnoxious and some as sweet and demure. Either way, we are all struggling to overcome our childhoods and just because some may seem tougher than others doesn't mean that they are not struggling with the same pain that everyone else is.
For many of us this is a place to let our guards down and interact with the only people who actually have a clue as to what and where we come from. Of course everyone deserves to be treated with a certain amount of decency, but over-sensitivity will not get any one anywhere! Not here, not with other friends, and certainly not in the workplace.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Friday, July 02, 2004, 17:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
I am not offended by your comments. I appreciate debate and frank opinions. Honestly though, hello I was raised in the Family too, I can do much better than this regarding patronizing lectures. I will also be the first to admit that I have totally been an bitch at times on here. That is part of who I am. I am a total bitch in my real life at times.
The particular issue I am taking objection to here (with Joe and Ex) is when other participants here are dismissed and discounted because of differing views.
Perhaps you have not been on this web site long enough to know this, but I hate it when people suck up to me. It disturbs me more than the antagonism. Thankfully, no one really does that anymore. I get as much disagreement as anyone else and I do truly appreciate the opinions that differ from my own and feeling like an equal here.
You said "For many of us this is a place to let our guards down and interact with the only people who actually have a clue as to what and where we come from." I think this is brilliantly said and I could not agree more. This is my whole point. We face antagonism, derision and cynicism from every point of interaction in our lives everywhere else. Here, of all places, can't we let our guard down in safety and not have to watch our backs for someone attacking us?
You also said: "we are all struggling to overcome our childhoods and just because some may seem tougher than others doesn't mean that they are not struggling with the same pain that everyone else is" This is precisely my point as well. I believe we all have an Achilles Heel, something that, if dismissed or detonated, will deeply hurt us. Since we are individuals and our experiences are different, that issue/s is different for all of us. Something that might seem blase or trivial to one person might be completely devastating for another. That is my point.
To assume that everyone is just like us is arrogant and harmful. To assume that something that is not painful for us is not painful for anyone else can be devastating. To assume anything at all about the lives and feelings and experiences of others is arrogant. That is my point.
Those of us raised in the Family know in a way no one else can about the isolation, the fear and the pain our peers feel. All I hope for is that we can listen to and actually hear each other. There is no need for the preening or the pageantry we tend to effect, at least I hope not here, of all places. That's all I hope for on this web site. That we can be real and as you said "let down our guards" just for a moment, to connect with others who really know us. (reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Saturday, July 03, 2004, 11:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
I guess maybe this site has been on the negative side lately. I've been thinking and there is a possibility that my comments here have leaned towards the negative side. I don't apologise for anything I've said and like I said earlier I've been on the recieving end of some pretty harsh comments but a little more positivity (is that a word?) never hurt anyone. There are a few people on this site whose opinion of me actually matters, but overall I guess most of the stuff just tends to roll off my back.
I do admire those of us on here who manage to always come across positive and supportive such as Vicky and Sara....sorry but those are the names that come to mind currently but I'm sure there are many more. But I also appreciate the contributions of the sharper tounged among us whether or not I am the brunt of the tounge lashing or not. I like intelligent banter and appreciate the hard work many of the members have put into educating themselves. It is my opinion that education is the one way to overcome all the brainwashing that we went through in our childhoods and I respect it tremendously. But I dont think that those who went on to a higher education are better or even smarter than others. They just bring a different perspective and I like that. It takes all kinds of individuals to make the world go 'round and some of the smartest people I've met have not held formal degrees.
I can see how some would think that those with more education would be "talking down" to them but in my field this is a daily occurance and comes with the territory. The Phd's think they're better than the Masters, the Masters think they're better than the BS's, the BS's think they're better than the BA's..and of course all of the above are better than the undergraduates. I have to prove myself and my work on a daily basis and I endure incredibly intense critisism and regular scrutiney so when I think about it, it doesn't surprise me that the exchanges on here seem like pillow talk to me sometimes. To me, debate and criticism serve to either furthur bolster your position or render it obsolete thus saving you time and effort by steering you in a different direction.
Sorry for the long rant but I just think that part of the process of healing is the ability to realize that not everyone has to have the same opinions and viewpoints. Everyone has the right to their opinions even those that may come across a little to forceful. Sometimes those that we find the most grating, obnoxious, or different can be those we have the opportunity to learn the most from.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Dani
Monday, July 05, 2004, 00:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think it’s a little unfair and condescending to insinuate that higher education is the only way to be free from brain washing and family indoctrination.
I know that my views on marriage have been noted and disagreed with on in this site. A lot of my friends now have children and in my view they are good parents who work hard to ensure that their children are well looked after and financially secure.
Many people on this site have gone straight into their particular industry, and needless to say are financially much better off than people I know who are in university or paying off huge student loans.
The quality of life for my friends who have done this is a lot higher at the moment than students or post graduates who are lumbered with huge amounts of debt. Also not everyone has the desire to spend half of their adult life cooped up in a lab.
The priorities of some people may be different to yours, that doesn’t make them any more or less brainwashed than you. For some buying a house, raising their children, and gaining work experience has been more important than higher education.
A close friend of mine went to a community college and had on the job training, he is now a fully qualified engineer as is a lot more money and qualifications than most post graduates could hope for. I think that just because something works for you doesn’t mean that it is for everyone. (reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Monday, July 05, 2004, 06:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
I stated my opinion, Dani! If you don't agree well that's your opinion. And I wasn't referring to any sort of financial security or the quality of life that can be attributed to money. I was talking about rewiring our brains to think for ourselves and question everything around us which was not hardwired into us as children. A higher education, IMO, is the best way to accompish that. If I was as obsessed with money as some on this site I damn sure wouldn't be in the biology field. Intellectual stimulation and learning are far more fascinating to me than someone going on and on about how much money they've made on so little education. And who's to say someone would want to spend half their adult life cooped up in some office in front of a computer screen going blind and getting carpal tunnel syndrome. And for your information, I spend about 1/4 of my life out in the forest gathering data, 1/4 teaching class, 1/4 in lab analyzing data, and the other 1/4 in class myself. And somewhere in between all that I manage to squeeze in what I consider to be a pretty fantastic life for myself!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Shackled
Sunday, July 04, 2004, 22:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree with most of what you said. I'd also like to add that I don't think you're one of the harsh ones.
But I do have a question concerning your comment:
"I can see how some would think that those with more education would be "talking down" to them but in my field this is a daily occurance and comes with the territory."
Since alot of us are not in college and come here for the sole purpose of understanding and communicating our hurts, why should we have to re-deal with the reality of not having that education? I realise that depending on the topic/discussion a well written opinion is a good way for us to learn but when it's condescending I think it's way overboard.(reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Monday, July 05, 2004, 07:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Maybe it's just cultural differences. I think much of what is reffered to as "condescending" is not meant to come across in that way. It is my experience, being currently in Academia, that many people automatically attribute some sort of snobbery to those with higher educations whether it's deserved or not. This is a form of discrimination that those without higher educations may unintentionally be projecting on those with. Often a certain manner of speaking is just ingrained in those with higher education and can sometimes come across as a foreign language to those without. It's not always meant to be snobbish or condescending just the way that some people communicate on a daily basis with their coworkers and collegues. Just because someone speaks "intelligently" and uses a bigger vocabulary than most (I am not inculding myself in this) doesn't mean that they are trying to show how much better or smarter they are than everyone else. There are actually others in real life who speak in such a manner on a daily basis. This is normal for them and shouldn't be automatically branded as snobbish and condescending just because it's different.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From frmrjoyish
Tuesday, July 06, 2004, 08:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Like I said before, it takes all kinds of people to make the world go round. Ex and Joe have just as much right to participate on this site as everyone else whether or not everyone agrees with them all the time. I happen to think they make this site interesting and entertaining. Another thing to think about is that perhaps there is more going on behind the scenes between the participants on this site other than what is public in the threads. There may be underlying issues going on that everyone else is not aware of. Just a thought!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Monday, July 05, 2004, 07:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
I currently work in a research facility myself. Almost everyone else I work with directly has at least a Masters and most of the people we develop applications for are scientists and academics, some of whom are leaders in their field. I honestly don't know anyone under 50 (besides perhaps some of the residents) who is condescending in conversation. They respect our knowledge as simply being different from their own and you certainly don't hear them bringing up their education at every opportunity. I agree that having a large vocabulary and expressing yourself well doesn't mean that you are saying you are smarter than other people. When someone says "You are stupid and I am smarter than you" though, I don't know that that loses anything in the translation.
I understand what you are saying about grad students though. From what I have seen people who are studying a certain field often have to take a lot of crap from those higher up the food chain. I have a friend who was completing her doctorate in molecular biology (or something like that) and got so fed up with the enviornment that she quit and started over in IT, a field for which she had no formal training at all. On the other hand other people I know enjoy their work in the labs a great deal and that balances out the stress. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Saturday, July 03, 2004, 14:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree with much of what you said. I don’t think anyone wants to see discussions here be “positive” or that there be “less negativity”. As I said differing opinions and frank discussion are what makes this site interesting. It’s fun to trade banter with others and it’s interesting and informative to hear others views, even when and sometimes especially when those views are passionate. This is not what I am talking about at all.
What I am talking about is dismissing and demeaning other people and their experiences just because we didn’t share them. Referring to our peers as “plebeians” “collaborators” “dumb” “lazy” “whiners”, etc. is what is IMO inappropriate for this forum. Specifically what I am referring to are issues such as when someone left the group, young parents, body image, lack of grammatical skills and/or education, religious views, etc. etc. There is a lot more to these issues than just one side and for some of us these are difficult and sensitive topics.
There are young former members who have had severe problems with eating disorders and have been hospitalized because it has reached the point of being life threatening. There are people who have children from being date raped in the Family, or being forced to have unprotected sex by the leaders. There are many young people trying to leave the group right now. What sort of support can they find? For those of us lucky enough to have good writing skills, we may not understand how intimidating it can be for those who do not to try to express themselves and their views. These are real issues and to dismiss them out of hand is as hurtful as someone saying that someone’s sexual abuse is made up or their own fault.
I’ll admit when this site first launched, I was very dismissive of views that I didn’t share. Sometimes I still am. I’ve learned a lot about myself and others over the past few years though and I hope I am less judgmental than I was. Religion for example seemed like a crutch to me. I am still an atheist, but through getting to know and understand friends who are religious I can understand and respect their faith. I don’t share their views and it’s interesting to debate the topic with them, but they are not stupid, weak or lame for believing something I do not.
Personally most comments on most topics roll off my back because it’s not a wound or something personally painful to me. There are areas where I am very vulnerable and a cruel or callous comment would hurt me a great deal. That of area vulnerability is different for everyone and that’s why I think it’s essential to proceed with caution. Someone who hasn’t experienced sexual abuse doesn’t understand how much the dismissal of our pain can reopen those wounds. It’s the same, IMO, with these other issues. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From frmrjoyish
Friday, July 02, 2004, 16:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
Agreed! That's what the Trailor Park is for!
I may just be a gluten for punishment but some of the most entertaining exchanges I've been involved with have been of the not so friendly sort! My exchange with Dani a few months ago in the trailor park still makes me laugh! She definitely got some good ones in there! I showed them to my best friends and we were cracking up! It was a blast!
Oh and another thing, enough with the anonymous posters! If ya ain't got the balls to claim what you say then shut the hell up!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Friday, July 02, 2004, 16:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
"enough with the anonymous posters! If ya ain't got the balls to claim what you say then shut the hell up!"
I have to agree with you there fmrjoyish! We're not in TF any more where everyone needs to worry about their 'security' and whether 'they' will find out what your 'real' Family name is... much less your legal name - oooh my! We're all using ID's in any case, so at least give us the privilege of knowing who we are addressing our comments to!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Joe H
Thursday, July 01, 2004, 15:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sarafina has demonstrated perfectly why the field of Computer Science is dominated entirely by men. "Is it pretty and festive?" or "Does it match my hair color?" are the LAST questions we tend to ask ourselves when choosing to add a new feature to a system. Some of the questions that a sane (read: non-Canadian) programmer would have asked him or herself before putting fluttering leaves all over a website would have been "Does it make the page harder to read?" or "Does it slow down performance?" Oh well.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Nick
Friday, July 02, 2004, 08:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
Actually I beg to differ there. I don't think that IT industry is inundated with men at all.
I bet if you compared IT to other industries you would see that the percent of women compared to men is as proportionate or higher. (Not saying there are more woman than men as the work force as a whole has more men. But I bet the percentage is higher than a lot of industries.)
Anyone got any stats?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from pharmaboy
Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 07:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
Posted this on the political orientation thread, but thought this would go better here.
"The liberal left makes sense, the right was formed to counter the left and fantazise about a wonderful past when everyone that mattered was a heterosexual, white christian and no one questioned big brother. The right really doesn't have a valid arguement, unless you consider paranoia and ignorance a valid arguement. Fascism's biggest problem was defining itself as a school of thought, their only sure points were patriotism and a hate of the left, kind of like the Anglican church when they first broke from the Catholic church."
As for the economic left/right:
"the current right would love a no holds barred market free to trash our home planet and use employees like disposable napkins, the left is too busy helping nature's damned, dysfunctional and malformed to actually give a damn about the working, healthy average middle class, and does not realize that death is as important as life for a healthy balance on this planet."
What do ya all think of these blanket statements?
(reply to this comment)
| from Ne Oublie
Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 14:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
exister,
While that is an interesting analysis of Berg's beliefs, IMO you have missed out an important factor which is his fiscal policies, which he blatantly based on the Communist model. He repeatedly refered to Communism as being the 'ideal' economic system. I can also say from personal experience that the vast majority of Family members support left-wing politics and economics.
While their religious and social policies are authoritarian, this is not necessarily a Right-Wing trait, just one that many right-wing politicians have also held, leading to some drawing the conclusion that the two are the same.
My political views are based on 2 principles: 1) personal responsibility; 2) meritous rewards. In other words that people should be held responsible for their own actions, and then should be entitled to benefit/suffer from the results of those actions. I do not support the nanny state of the Left!
I also believe that a community/country has the right - and indeed responsibility - to moderate the moral and social interactions between its citizens. But I do not support the draconian moral standards that are commonly associated with this policy, what I am in favour of is a basic code of conduct which sould be expected of individuals to ensure productive interactions.
(reply to this comment)
| From
Thursday, July 01, 2004, 21:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
I am "afraid", you're wrong.Berg based his financial policies
mainly on Acts 2:44,45 & the like.He always held the opinion, that the communist idea was a poor imitation of the "acts" of the early church.Nevertheless I'd say he had often sympathies
for left-wing parties, although he had the horrors of Pol Pot
etc. clearly in mind, if I happen to remember right.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From exister
Friday, July 02, 2004, 07:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
You are still looking at details of content rather than TF's behavior in a larger context, so I'll give you another example:
Intolerance and Xenophobia. Berg, like The Right, was unable to tolerate or empathize with those whose preferences or world views diverged from his own. These groups at various times included Jews, Blacks, homosexuals etc. Come to think of it Berg was an outright Holocaust denyer and Hitler apologist, and for those of you who are historically rusty Hitler was the very epitome of Right Wing Xenophobia.
Do we need other examples?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ne Oublie
Friday, July 02, 2004, 08:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
exister, your lack of understanding of Right-wing politics amazes me! Xenophobia and intolerance are attitudes which are neither an intrinsic part of the Right Wing, nor exclusively held by members of the Right.
Communism, for example, was astonishingly xenophobic and repressive of other races.
As for what Right-wing policies are, let me reiterate: Right vs Left primarily refers to economic policies, with the Right supporting financial independence and free enterprise, and the Left promoting government subsidies and assistance to the less privileged. The Right stands for smaller, sleeker governments with respectively lower taxes, while the Left stands for an almost all-encompassing government, or nanny-state, which requires higher taxes from the successful in order to support those who aren't.
In the States, and many Western countries, the Left has taken the political platform of supporting change, since it promotes government assistance to the less privileged, it by default represents those who are less than satisfied with the current system. It has therefore become the rally-point for most people who want to enact change - be it financially, or socially. That is why Left has taken on a Liberal context in many cases.
Conversely, the Right has stood for the already existing economic freedoms - particularly in the US - freedoms under which individuals and corporations have been able to achieve notable success and wealth. Therefore the defence of these freedoms has become a rally point for those who wish to maintain the current system, again either financial or social. However, even within the Right there are large discrepancies between the standard to which social morality should be held, as well as to the extent that this should reach.
My personal position is that a standard is essential in order to maintain social structure, and provide a positive environment in which to live and work. But I believe that only the very basic rules of conduct need be regulated, and that diversity should be encouraged to create a healthy environment.(reply to this comment) |
| | From exister
Friday, July 02, 2004, 08:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
"Right vs Left primarily refers to economic policies"
You are far too enamored with money to think logically about power in any other context. While it is true that money is power it is not the only power. Perhaps when you have contemplated other mediums of power and how they impact the human condition then we can talk. Until then, enjoy your money and all of its attendant social delusions.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Friday, July 02, 2004, 08:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't consider the primary significance of money to be the power that can be derived from it, therefore your comments are irrelevent to mine.
There are many forms of power which can be, and are exerted in the world. However, control over the financial state of the citizens of a nation dictates control over far more than just their pocketbooks. Left wing policies claim to help the needy or less privileged, yet in order to do so there must be an established standard below which one is considered to be needy. There is therefore incredible power held by anyone in the position to determine that standard: what is a necessity, luxury or extravagance? THAT is power which I am not prepared to yield up in exchange for the ability to shag whichever gender I choose!
A population which is dependant on their government for their basic sustenance is what I consider to be an enslaved nation! One is not likely to be overly critical of a government that holds such power over their life, therefore while the government may originally begin with the noblest of intentions of equality, such a society is far more likely to engender tyranny than overt brutal subjugation tactics.
I know that corporations are just as likely (some may say more so) as governments to be corrupt, but the difference is the scope of their control. Similar to the separation of Church and State, I believe that commerce should be separated from the state in order to maintain the integrity of each. The capitalist system relies on the forces of supply and demand coupled with healthy competition to create a dynamic economy. To allow a government to position itself as a provider of any commercial (or social) services is to compromise the role of a government as unbiased policy maker.
Any form of corporate monopoly encourages corruption and poor service. Private endeavours will never hold comparable influence to a governmental organisation, thus ensuring that any competition has an intrinsic disadvantage. That is why I believe that control over the economy should be removed from the state in every possible way.(reply to this comment) |
| | From exister
Friday, July 02, 2004, 09:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
Your second paragraph clearly contradicts your first, and if you can't see that then we really aren't even in the same room let alone the same page.
"Private endeavours will never hold comparable influence to a governmental organisation"
This naive announcement is easily refuted with two words:
Microsoft and Halliburton.
Think about them and get back to me...(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Friday, July 02, 2004, 16:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
Interesting choice of examples to bring up, seeing that the primary complaint about Haliburton is it's ties with the current government! Microsoft is the mammoth in it's own field, however seeing as there is no governmental competition in the software market I can't draw any comparisons to a governmental equivalent. At least you can be happy that you're not being forced to pay a percentage of your income to Microsoft whether or not you choose to use their products!
As for the supposed contradiction in my post, I think that someone of your alleged intelligence should be able to note the difference in terminology and context of those two paragraphs. But I'll spell it out for you to save you the effort:
In the first paragraph I said that to me power was not the primary significance of money. This is because I see money as a system of measurement, a dollar therefore is no more powerful than a meter - one measures value while the other measures value. Currency is the system that human society has chosen to measure value, yet money has no power in itself - yet it can be a measure of power in many instances. This is the interest I have in the concept of money.
In the second paragraph I address one of the forms of power that governments can exert over their citizens: the power over their financial state - while, as I said above, money is the standard measure of that, the control is being exerted over the entire lifestyle of the citizens, from their housing to the clothes that they wear and food that they eat!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From roughneck
Friday, July 02, 2004, 22:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hate to pick nits but you couldn't have chosen a worse analogy to illustrate paying for what you don't use. - For in fact there is such a thing in the computer industry as the "Microsoft Tax", wherein a person buys a computer system with some form of Microsoft Software bundled, and whether or not it is the user's intention to use Microsoft's software, s/he pays for it nonetheless. OK, so it's not really a tax per se, I'll give you that much. - but if you are a business, using Microsoft software *is* likely to cost you a percentage of your income per annum, and that's just the upgrades!.. (shameless Linux plug here) :)
I have to question your preference for privately owned corporations having absolute power to exert over your finances, yet having some overriding problem with a democratically elected government having financial power over you... what gives? Do you think (insert rich corporation owner here) gives a toss about you, the lowly peon? Hell no! If you were his employee, he'd dump your ass in a minute if it would increase his bottom line, for after all "profit is king" is it not? I in no way mean to demean your undoubtedly vital skills to your organisation, but *nobody* is irreplaceable (unless they've got pictures of the boss in a compromising position. If this is you, please accept my congratulations on your job security :) where accumulation of wealth for an elite minority (board members?) is the sole objective. Lower taxes mean YOU (middle class) pay more to cover the shortfall because the the big boys (girls) want to pay less. I personally don't think you're rich enough to be Republican, but maybe I'm wrong, and you'd rather pay for everything yourself. :)(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Saturday, July 03, 2004, 00:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
Unfortunately Microsoft was not my choice of example - so I had to make do. What is different in regards to the Microsoft 'tax' is that (at least here) you can choose a system which is not bundled with MS, so if you choose one that is you are in effect agreeing to pay that 'tax' whether or not you intend to use the software. The upgrades are, of course, optional, and so must be paid for as you would any other service. OR you can choose to go to Linux and pay nothing for the efforts of the thousands(?) of programmers who have enabled you to do those finishing touches on your system setup.
Ironic, however, that no one questions the monopoly held by MacOS over Mac systems - shouldn't there be a choice given over what software you load onto a Mac, as there is (however imbalanced) over what you put on your PC?
Job security is not something I am particularly concerned about at the moment, because I know from experience that my skills are in demand and that in most cases I am able to move into a BETTER job than my previous one by changing employer. It's a long time since a 'job for life' was more or less guaranteed, I therefore have decided to exploit the new job environment to achieve faster promotions by working as a Temp and moving up the ladder of better jobs, all the while gaining invaluable experience in a variety of roles and companies.
Naturally, this is not something I intend to do indefinitely, but the day I am content to sit around at a job simply because I have it and can do it with my eyes shut, will be the day that my boss is justified in sending my position to some minimum wage Bangladeshi!
You're right, I'm probably not rich enough to be a Republican - but I have every intention of achieving that wealth! In the meantime, however, I find that I am paying well over the odds for the services I recieve (hardly any), which is why I want the choice of whether I pay for a given service or not - without fear of breaking the law for not paying my taxes, that are going almost solely to pay for excessive bureacracy in government services that I am unlikely to ever benefit from!(reply to this comment) |
| | From roughneck
Saturday, July 03, 2004, 10:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
OK, I'm being real pedantic here, but Linux runs on Apple's PPC (PowerPC) architectures just fine.. :)
http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/products/
http://penguinppc.org/
additionally, most UNIX programs work nicely on Apple's own MacOS X, which really does give one quite a wide choice of what software to use, even if you don't want to switch operating systems.
Perhaps you don't hear so much bitching about Apple 'cause they aren't the thousand-pound gorilla unfairly leveraging their near-monopoly status to crush the competition at the moment. - Or stranger still, maybe Apple just has a much larger percentage of very satisfied customers than does Microsoft. Personally, I'm a cynic and I don't think Jobs' greed would be any less than Gates' should their positions be reversed. - But that's just me. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Monday, July 05, 2004, 07:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
The point still remains the same - a new iMac will invariably come with MacOS pre-installed, and you are therefore paying for that software, even if you intend to replace it with an alternative.
IMO the reason for the double-standard is because of the different perception of the companies: the same company makes both the hardware and software for Mac's, therefore it's just assumed that they are meant to go together. PC's are made by a number of companies - most of which have no defined link to MS, so other software developers feel that Microsoft is unfairly cornering the supply market. The effects to the end user, however, are the same in both cases.
There is also the difference in size between the PC and Mac markets, which means that there is currently greater competition for PC software.
In the vein of pedantism, last I heard Bill Gates had bought a large (controlling?) share in Apple-Mac - saving them from the slump they were previously in and providing the capital required for their iMac range. He is therefore largely responsible for their current position in the personal computer market. (I can't vouch for all of the details, and he may no longer hold those shares, this was @ 5 or 6 years back, as I recall.)(reply to this comment) |
| | From exister
Monday, July 05, 2004, 11:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
I just love it when someone walks right into my "History of Operating Systems" lecture, aka "Why Bill Gates is Evil"
Back in what we call the Golden Age of Computer Science a handful of geeky college students (most notably at Berkley) and researchers (primarily and AT&T Bell Laboratories) developed sound principles of Operating Systems and implemented them in Unix and subsequently in its variants like BSD.
Around that time a mediocre programmer who had dropped out of Harvard struck upon a scheme to suck billions from the masses. This concept was simply to apply the idea of a copyright (historically applied to the stable printed word) to the ever changing medium of software. Nevermind that a copyright would tend to lithify software and make it unwieldy and cumbersome, there was money to be made dammit!
So he and his buddy Paul Allen hired a guy who knew what the hell he was doing to port and essentially copy the BASIC programming language, which was the original work of two Dartmouth professors named Kemeny and Kurtz. Despite the fact that these two had spent years perfecting BASIC, Mr. Gates decided that after two months of porting it to the Altair computer he pretty much owned BASIC and announced this position in a threatening letter in 1976:
http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/gateswhine.html
From these mediocre beginnings Bill realized that the masses weren't interested in a stable OS like Unix, but that instead they were ready to be wowed by pretty pictures. So he devoted all of his companies resources into developing a windowing system with little regard for the stability of the underlying OS. Once the masses of peasants were staring dumbstruck at the little windows that popped up Billy realized that to keep their software dollars in his grip all he needed to do was develop applications that could only be run on his crappy little windowing OS. So his company developed Word and Powerpoint and a host of other mediocre application that featured absurdly inefficient ways of handling data, but were also incompatible with any other application or OS. And despite the apallingly poor quality of these products the masses continued to buy them. Why? Because everyone else had, and few things strike fear in peoples hearts like the possibility that they or their computers might not get along with others.
So now we can address the question, is Microsoft unfairly taxing us? Yes! When millions of people pay billions of dollars for an inferior product for no other reason than the fact that everyone else uses that products that is unjust taxation of the worst kind.
Stable Operating Systems have been around since long before Microsoft, and they will be around long after Microsoft. When the ignorant masses finally come around to the fact that they have been duped to the tune of billions of dollars the name Mirosoft will be synonymous with a shameful episode in the history of the Global Consumer.
You seem to think that software wields no power in the sphere of government. It seems many government entities disagree with you considering that governments across the globe have passed legislation banning any one entity from supplying a majority of the sofware they buy. It would seem to me that these governments rightly see that to solely control a government's data management is to control that government.
As for Halliburton, my point was that corporations do wield as much power as governmental entities. To date nearly a thousand US soldiers have died so that Halliburton and the others who have their finger in the defense pie can get rich. When corporations can sway our leaders to make decisions that cost lives I would say those corporations are wielding some hefty power indeed.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Monday, July 12, 2004, 05:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
exister,
Thanks for your rant, but honestly it is exactly that - a RANT! There are enterprising individuals such as Mr Gates in every part of the business world, and they have become successful by realising an oportunity and finding a way to market it. Granted, he may have used methods which are less than exemplary, but those are primarily the negatives of the type of attitude which is required in order to be successful.
Is it really wrong to be competitive? Or to strive to make one's company the best/most successful? While I agree that Microsoft software is far from perfect, it has provided most of the world with a somewhat standardised platform, and given the average computer user access to software - and thereby information - which they would not otherwise have had. I venture that were it not for Mr Gates computing would not be at the stage it is now.
As for the way he bought out others' work, at the time I don't think you would have found a single one of them complaining! While what he paid them is no comparison to the wealth he has been able to accumulate through their labours, but this does not mean that his purchase of the rights to that software were essentially unfair to begin with.
Even the letter which you posted a link to, is an entirely sensible approach: in every other area creative property is respected and paid for: be it music, art, literature, etc. Why should software be any different? If someone is able to buy something at a lower price, and then market it for more - all the more power to them!(reply to this comment) |
| | From roughneck
Monday, July 12, 2004, 16:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
As I understand it, the reason antitrust litigation was brought against Microsoft was that it was using it's position in the marketplace to bar competitors' Operating Systems from being installed on OEM systems in place of or alongside MS-Windows. In short, if you refused to sign a MS-only exclusive licensing contract, your cost to offer Windows preinstalled on machines would double or triple. In the small-margins world of OEM computer sales, this would almost invariably mean the difference between profit and loss. This action served to prevent most OEMs from offering anything but Microsoft Windows. Anti-competitive? Yes!
An additional issue in the antitrust suit(s) was that of MS's practice of bundling every possible application into Windows, at the same time deliberately making competitors' apps run poorly if at all (as in Caldera vs. Microsoft). This was and is for no other reason than to ensure a customer sticks with Microsoft products. Is this an unfair action by a monopoly? Clearly I'm not the only one who thinks so. Even so, they've gotten off pretty easy in court so far. - Especially in the US.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Tuesday, July 13, 2004, 03:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
Roughneck,
Even the 2 examples you gave are not 'evil' in themselves - rather people perceive them as such because of the anti-Microsoft propaganda that's been around lately. I also can't imagine that anyone would have complained at all were it a small company that were using those marketing techniques. Why should there be double-standards in what is allowed?
Let's remember what Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) software really is - it's a bulk discount that is given to computer manufacturers. The purpose of this discount is to benefit the manufacturer, by allowing them to sell a functional PC; and to benefit the software company, by providing greater acceptance of their software. It therefore makes sense that such contracts would be favourable towards exclusivity - offering better rates in exchange for greater coverage.
Similarly with bundling additional software for free, or minimal additional charge. This is a very common marketing practice (at least in Europe), typically using a phrase similar to 'Buy One, Get One Free'. The principles of which - as with any sale - are: 1)greater turnover means the profits can be spread out thinner, thus allowing for considerably lower prices; 2) even if a loss is initially incurred, the benefits of greater brand awareness is usually worth the investment.
These are standard marteking strategies that are used in every industry, why is is suddenly wrong for Microsoft to do so?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From roughneck
Tuesday, July 13, 2004, 07:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
Uh, evil? Sorry, I don't believe in the concept. Microsoft may be unscrupulous & downright unpleasant litigious scum-sucking bastards, not to mention makers of exceedingly crappy software, but evil? I think you should talk to Exister 'bout that one. (we're not the same person dammit!) ;)
Now this should be self-apparent, but Anti-trust legislation specifically forbids actions by a monopoly that would be otherwise legal if committed by a smaller company. Yeah, I know you don't like it - that's just tough. The Sherman Act (in the US) serves to prevent any one corporate entity from dominating (and exploiting) the market in any given field to the exclusion of all others. Boo-hoo for Bill Gates, but this is a NECESSARY double standard to ensure healthy competition in the marketplace and the survival of your treasured small businessmen & entrepreneurs. For someone who supposedly cares about the consumer, you should know that once the honeymoon wears off, monopolies are actually very bad for the consumer. Once competition has been stamped out, the monopoly is free to (and does!) compromise on quality and jack up the price at the same time - to the detriment of the consumer. Anyway, I've got more to say on this, but it will have to be later as I haven't the time at present.
L.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Tuesday, July 13, 2004, 09:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
I've gotta say it's rather ironic the way that you've come down so hard on Microsoft as a 'monopoly', while you at the same time advocate governmental monopolies on public services, social security, etc.
The very complaints you have about monopolies are the reasons I am opposed to such governmental programmes: they are almost invariably inefficient, sub-standard, and overcharged! Or, if they aren't directly overcharged, they are subsidised by other indirect taxes... but still all paid for by us!
Just because a governmental organisation is able to provide a service cheaper than a private one doesn't mean that it's more cost-effective, it's just that they aren't billing you directly for everything, but are subsidising those supposed 'cheap' prices, by the money that you're forced to pay them through other channels.
THAT is the difference between corporate monopolies and governmental ones - a corporation can't force you to buy their product, like a government can. That is why it is a clear conflict of interests for governments to be providing any services which are not directly related to their governmental duties (yes, I recognise that there is room for debate here - my criteria is that if it can be done by the private sector, then it should be!)(reply to this comment) |
| | From roughneck
Tuesday, July 13, 2004, 17:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
No, the fundamental difference between a government monopoly and a corporate monopoly is that in general, the government monopoly's first motive is not squeezing every last profit dollar out of the customer. Rather, most Government agencies (or monopolies if you prefer) operate under a mandate or charter to provide minimum service levels using funds allocated in a budget passed by a popularly elected house. Private corporations exist solely to create a profit for their shareholders &/or owners, none of whom are elected. Are you *really* sure you'd prefer the new corporate boss, whose policies you didn't get (and won't get!) a chance to vote for or against? This "new boss", who doesn't really give a rip about you the customer aside from the contents of your wallet? - And if you don't like him, you'll go to his competitors, right? Being "good" businessmen, they'll have exactly the same outlook. - And that will be the end of that!
I've said it before, I'll say it again: if you'd like to bitch and whine about government *waste*, I'm with you. But none of the things you're kvetching about can be made do with much less or put on a paying basis without seriously disadvantaging those who can afford it least. Take for instance publically funded universal health care. Yes, your taxes are high in the UK to pay for the NHS, but if you need an operation to save your life, chances are you won't have to take out a second mortgage on your home to pay for it, as in the States. You might say: "but I could have health insurance under a private system". I say who will insure you if you can't pay what they ask for? Furthermore, your private-and-blessedly-unencumbered-by-government-interference insurer is free to deny you coverage for practically any reason they see fit, after taking your money, of course. I think the term for what you'd be in this case is "screwed", no? If that doesn't apply to you, are you sure the insurance you'd be paying for would cover what might go wrong with you? Why are millions of lower-income americans without health care? Because almost without exception they can't afford it! Just because Joe Billionaire can undergo a triple-bypass without batting an eye about the cost doesn't mean you can do the same, buster. Under your preferred system the rich live and the poor die, and I for one think this is fundamentally unjust.
Do you have any idea the percentage of bankruptcies in the US that are due to inability to pay medical bills? How's just about half grab ya? Under a for-pay system, YOU the wage-slave will be only one (1) serious illness or injury away from financial ruin. But of course you should still have those few dollars/pounds a month extra that aren't being taken away in taxes by big bad government.. Whoopee! - Hopefully it's enough to cover paying up front! - I guarantee you it isn't even close, if you're looking for a clue.
If a public service can be done by the private sector, chances are better than excellent that it's going to be done by the lowest-bid (ie crappiest) company. If you aren't pleased by the levels of service you get from the publically funded health (or other) services now, chances are when privatisation happens you'll be even less pleased by the minimum-wage workers who are employed by the cheapskate company that bids lowest. At least if one day you find yourself laying in the ER wondering whether or not you're going to live or die, you'll have that warm and fuzzy feeling of knowing that your suffering is making some rich guy just a little richer. I hope it's enough for you, really I do. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Vicky
Wednesday, July 14, 2004, 14:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
An interesting piece of information regarding the state of the NHS in this country: Many NHS hospitals are now so filthy that MRSA is rife and people are dying after being admitted for minor operations. Hospital infections cause at least 5,000 deaths a year, with MRSA thought to be the main culprit. This disgraceful statistic is put into perspective when compared to the annual death toll on Britain's roads, 3,500, and homicides, 1000.
The NHS operates on a lottery basis, by which I mean that the quality of treatment one receives varies widely according to what town one lives in. Those who are lucky have what they need, others have to make do without. This is true even in cases of terminal illness such as cancer or heart disease. The notion of free quality health care for everyone is an ideal that no one believes in anymore. People have been known to fly to South Africa or India for procedures such as hip or knee replacements, because it is cheaper to pay for the flights, hotel, the procedure and other expenses overseas than it is to pay for private treatment here.
I think that the state of the NHS in this country is absolutely deplorable and does not do the tax system justice by any stretch of the imagination, and it irks me no end that the government was prepared to go off to Iraq for no good reason at all, spending billions of Pounds in the process, while leaving 'their own house' in such a shambles.
There, I feel better now.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Wednesday, July 14, 2004, 07:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have to disagree with you on this one. The idea that human lives need to be saved at any public cost may sound idealistic but it is entirely unhelpful … one of the biggest problems facing humanity is overpopulation. I would much rather my tax dollars go to distribution of condoms, birth control in underdeveloped countries, etc. I’m not talking about letting poor people die for lack of basic health care. I’m talking about not paying tens of thousands of dollars to help a poor 60 year old live a few more years.
Just a few dozen years ago people were said to have died a natural death when they died of organ failure … now we have to pay for an expensive transplant? No thanks. There should be a clear limit on public health expenditures. Saving lives at any cost should not be the goal. Giving quality health care at a reasonable cost should be the goal, and expensive operations should be left for those who have the money to pay for them. Yes, I would say the same thing if one of my relatives was in need of an operation and couldn’t afford it (I would pitch in, but I wouldn’t expect taxpayers to dole out the money).(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Wednesday, July 14, 2004, 07:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, I'm glad you have so much trust in your elected officials. Personally, I don't think I could ever trust a professional politician - someone who schmoozes their way through into office, and whose very livlihood is based on their ability to lie convincingly! IMO I have the ability to cast the most important vote when it comes to corporations - I have the RIGHT to CHOOSE where I spend my money! That is the most effective way of voting - actually putting your money where your mouth is! Unfortunately, that is a right I am deprived of when it comes to governments - I am forced to pay whatever mad taxes they decide to levy, whether or not I agree with the 'scheme' that money is supposed to fund, or whether I even voted for that politician!
As fun as it may be to 'bitch and whine about government waste', that is hardly the most important issue, and I am far more interested in addressing the CAUSE of that waste, which is government gone mad, and imposing itself into fields well beyond their scope!
Taking out an insurance policy, as any other business transaction, is a contract between 2 parties. Therefore they can NOT 'deny you coverage for practically any reason they see fit, after taking your money'. A contract clearly specifies the instances in which you can claim, and those in which the insurer is able to deny, payment.
While my sympathies are with anyone unfortunate enough as to have been bankrupted by medical bills, or who have been forced into financial difficulties because of them, I have to say that those situations COULD have been avoided - had they taken the proper steps initially. Insurance is a multi-billion dollar industry, and is offered on everything from life to the heirlooms sitting on your mantlepiece. The rates for that insurance have matched the demand, and I have no doubt that the same would be (and in many cases is) true for private health insurance.
Again you are reverting to your stereo-typical 'evil corporation' versus the 'poor struggling citizen', a scenario which exists primarily in your mind and the left-wing hollywood productions you seem to have based your politics on.
As for the number of bankruptcies that are caused by medical emergencies in the US, these are significantly outweighed by the number of successes that have been achieved by their less restrictive economic environment (though still far from what I would consider to be ideal, I might add.)
You seem to have mistaken the concept of a government contracting out services, and actual privatisation. You're right, that were the government contracting out the work, they would likely go for the cheapest alternative - and the one which offers services closest to their own (crap). However, if it is truly privatised we will find that a range of services will become available, at least one of which will cater to your budget and requirements.
As for track record, let's look at the strongest industries, they are almost invariably entirely private. Look for example at the tremendous progress which has been made in mobile communications, and the way that prices have dropped in only the past decade! Look at the computing industry, and the incredible rate of progress that it has maintained for nearly half a century! These are examples of what the private sector is able to achieve when the government is kept from squelching progress.
So in closing I will paraphrase you by saying that at least if one day you find yourself laying in the ER wondering whether or not you're going to live or die, you'll have that warm and fuzzy feeling of knowing that your suffering will ensure an electoral victory for the sleazy liberal politician of your choice. I hope it's enough for you, really I do!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Tuesday, July 13, 2004, 09:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
You may have noted that I placed the word evil within quote marks - there was a deliberate significance to that.
As for Sherman Act violations, although Microsoft's actions could be interpreted as 'attempting to create a monopoly', their actions are nothing to do with the violations most commonly targeted under the Act, which are: price fixing, bid rigging, and territorial or customer allocation among competitors. What highlights this difference is that Microsoft was acting on its own, and entirely for its own benefit - as opposed to the other violations which all involve collusion or conspiracy between 2, or more, parties.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From frmrjoyish
Wednesday, June 30, 2004, 16:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
Do you also believe that giant corporations should not be receiving public subsidies or financing laws which enable them to have an advantage over the average person or small business? Do you believe that a consumer based economy should infact benefit the average consumer and not tip the scales towards the corporations they consume from? What about a basic code of conduct for corporations? Seems individual conduct is very well regulated while the same cannot be said for corporate conduct.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Wednesday, June 30, 2004, 23:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
No, corporations should not receive subsidies - no one should! However, if they're being given out at all, I don't have a problem with them being given out to companies which are successful, whether they're large or small.
A consumer-based economy is one that is based on the principles of supply and demand, and therefore it will ultimately be beneficial to both the consumer and the manufacturer/retailer.
Yes, as I said, I am in favour of social/moral regulation - but not as extensive as you probably have in mind. I don't know if I would agree that corporate conduct is not already regulated (not that I necessarily agree with those regulations). It's obvious that corporations who have the money to invest in lawyers and accountants to find every single loophole in the legal system - which I would blame on an overly-complex legal code, which allows for all these loopholes.
Besides, if they are doing it in order to avoid paying prohibitively high taxes - from which they will reap a minimal benefit - then I'm not too critical of that. I'm not in favour of governmental social security or benefits, nor of the 'rich' subsidising the 'poor'. That's what charities are for - not governments.(reply to this comment) |
| | From roughneck
Friday, July 02, 2004, 21:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
OK, I'll bite! As it was explained to me, subsidies are intended to "make up the difference" enabling local (read: expensive) manufacturers &/or producers to compete with the dollar-a-day Chinese or Indian wage slaves. Yes, subsidies might be expensive, and yes, they take money out of your pocket, but that's the price you pay for JOBS in your country! Your precious unfettered "consumer-based economy" WILL see YOUR job immediateley transferred to a Bangladeshi who is willing to do it for pennies on the dollar/pound. Ever heard of outsourcing? This is "free-market capitalism" at it's finest. Don't say you weren't warned. :)
As for social/moral regulation, who makes the regulations? You? Why do you think your particular set of mores and values ought to apply to everyone? Discuss!
Now, for the ultimate Left-to-Right question: Why shouldn't the obscenely wealthy subsidise the poor? Because this would mean that instead of the 150 foot yacht, Joe Billionaire will have to settle for the 145 foot model without the ivory-inlaid masts and gold-plated railings? As far as I can tell, taxation & social spending seems to be the most equitable way so far to even the score between haves and have-nots (incidentally staving off a revolution of the proletariat a la Russia), and until someone comes up with a better way to do it, I'll stick with things the way they are. And yes, our taxes are expensive here too. :)
Now, as a working stiff why wouldn't you be in favour of social security or benefits? - Because you have to pay a little off each cheque for it? Do you honestly think that in 40 years you're going to end up in the top 10% (guessing) of your country's population that can actually afford to retire with no pension, health-care or benefits? Methinks you're a tad overly optimistic. I'll remember your kvetching about "governmental social security" when the aforementioned Bangladeshi has your job and you're standing in line for the "charity" that's available to you. :) Let me clue you in: you don't ever want to be dependent on charity... EVER! Give me the mandated-by-statute "charity of the state" any day when I'm down and out over standing in line at the Salvation Army waiting for my bowl of tepid broth. But now I'm ranting (some would say raving as well). :)
PS. Please don't even start with insinuating that I am actually in fact standing in line at the Salvation Army. Remarks about my sexual preference will be studiously ignored :)
L.
-Stop! Don't Shoot! I'm Canadian!-
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Saturday, July 03, 2004, 00:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Roughneck, I would like to think that my record on this site would have rendered your PS unnecessary. But let me assure you that the sexual preference, economic standing or ethnic background of my opponent (in debate) are not points on which I seek to win my argument. I believe in debating the topic, and if I can't win based on that then I'll be the first to change my opinion!
" As for social/moral regulation, who makes the regulations?"
This is a topic on which I have recently opened a discussion in another forum. The fact of the matter is that no matter how Left-wing your views there is still a degree of social regulation. Take for example crimes such as murder, theft or (and I hesitate to bring it up in this forum) child abuse. 100 years ago most of society would have considered homosexuality to be on par (or worse) than child abuse. The point I am making is that either there is an absolute moral code, or there isn't - in which case there is no way to prevent all of the above. This, however, is a topic which I think should be discussed in a separate topic, in order to give it the attention due it.
My thoughts regarding the wealthy subsidising the poor is that why should we penalise those whose enterprise is essential for the prosperity of our country in favour of those who are (no offence) a drain on our economy? We complain about tax cuts being awarded to the rich - but does anyone stop to consider that the rich are already paying a FAR HIGHER rate of tax, for services which they invariably will use far less - if at all? In the UK this means approximately 50% of their income (above the threshold) in direct taxes - not to mention all of the additional local/road/sales/etc. taxes. Why should someone be penalised for being successful simply because others are not?
It's not the social benefits, medical insurance or pension that I'm opposed to - what I am opposed to is being forced into a governmental scheme for these services, whether or not I ever intend to use them. I am for 100% privatisation, AND competition, in order to ensure that the forces of supply and demand are able to provide the (voluntary) consumer with an economically viable service.
This is why I am in favour of independant charity as well - they are not forced to give to anyone and everyone as a government would be. While there is room for abuse in the criteria by which this aid is distributed, I should say that anyone who is expecting to live off of my hard-earned money should be responsible to me in some way or another. While I have no interest in what they do on their own time, and with their own money, I most certainly will have something to say about what they do with MY money - and I believe that is my right as a hard-working individual!(reply to this comment) |
| | From roughneck
Saturday, July 03, 2004, 10:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's nice to know that I'm debating a gentleman (gentleperson if you prefer) who wouldn't stoop to the ad hominem to prop up a shaky argument. Now that we've gotten that out of the way.. :)
Of course there is going to be a degree of social regulation under *any* form of government (anarchy isn't government,[for the pedants]), it's the degree and scope of social regulation that Republicans prefer that worries me. You do make a good point on how mores and values change over time - a view, incidentally, which is more in keeping with the views of the Left than the Right. But as far as an absolute moral code is concerned, it sure as hell wasn't written on Mount Sinai. "Harming no-one, do as thou wilt", is a pretty good substitute for a moral code though. Child abuse causes harm, Bottom Line. Two consenting adults, (regardless of gender) doing as they please to each other harms nobody. But no, I don't think there is an absolute moral code that applies universally to everyone in every given situation. But then again, not even gravitation is proven to be universal (yet). I agree we should discuss this at length elsewhere. :)
Now on to the fun stuff! I asked in the grandparent why you thought that the wealthy should not subsidise the less-well-to-do. Sadly, you've just reversed the question and asked it of me. So, fine: I'll show you mine (argument) if you show me yours. :) In a previous post you mentioned how legislative loopholes were to blame for the wealthy being the way they are. Taxation merely makes these people pay for the privilege of exploiting a huge consumer-base and big-business friendly legislation. In a Republican wet dream where user-pays-for-everything the guy who does not have the disposable income suffers (that's you!), while the person who has disposable cash in spades pays almost nothing, percentage-wise (that's Joe Billionaire). High prices (from tax cuts!) hurt those who can afford it least (again, you). Taxes, on the other hand, pinch those most who can afford it best. What's not fair about that? When you take into account that most of the very rich made their billions off the sweaty backs of the hard-working lower classes, then you might agree that taxation is really much more even than it looks. I agree that you have every right to bitch and complain when your hard-earned tax money is *wasted* but spending some bucks here and there so that single mothers and the elderly don't end up living on the street is a very small price to pay, in my admittedly not-so-humble opinion.
I have to ask: what would be an ecomomically viable and competitive way to ensure that the less fortunate in society don't fall through the cracks? Your solution seems to pretty much come back to the Salvation Army Soup Kitchen model. As I outlined before, the solely supply-and-demand based consumer economy always comes back to how efficiently one can compete with someone who is willing to do the same job for less. For an off-the-cuff example, witness the economic devastation among small businesses when Wal-Mart moves into town. The mom-and-pop type store cannot compete with Wal-Mart in price and product availability, so they go under in droves (more on Wal-Mart's predatory business practices later). Market Forces At Work! - Now mom-and-pop are either unemployed, bankrupt (or both!) or now wearing a blue smock working for minimum wage at Wal-Mart. Who wins most here? Since Wal-Mart is never going to voluntarily donate to charity remotely similar amounts to those that they would be assessed in tax, why shouldn't they pay taxes to help pay for the economic damage that their freewheeling market forces cause? Cause a CEO needs another mansion / yacht / learjet? Come on! - Besides, the rich do avail themselves of publically funded benefits just as much as the less-well-to-do. Surely the police, roads, military, fire services and public health services et cetera aren't just for the poor are they? Or would you really prefer to see a tollbooth at every intersection? A meter on every tap? A cholera patient on every sidewalk? Elderly and infirm living under highway overpasses? This is what you get from a "free market", user-pay system, and frankly, you can have it! Freedom is great, but a financial situation like you prefer merely means freedom to starve for the vast majority of people.
Anyway, I've rattled on quite enough for one comment. Sorry 'bout the length, brevity is a virtue I seldom possess. :)
L.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From lucidchick
Sunday, July 04, 2004, 16:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree! Roughneck hit the nail on the head with the part about "Surely the police, roads, military, fire services and public health services et cetera aren't just for the poor are they?"
I think secretly the rich know that it's not in their best interests to have "A cholera patient on every sidewalk" or more than a certain amount of "Elderly and infirm living under highway overpasses" (although in reality there are too many). The rich heads were the first to roll in the French Revolution when people decided it was just too much and they weren't going to take it anymore. The privileged can go behind gated communities but they will never be able to entirely avoid the poor who oil the machinery that makes their good life possible. Partly because wealth is relative and if the poor were gone, there would be nothing to help the rich feel rich! Also because the less desperate the situation of a society's poor, the less the rich need to worry about their safety.
The rich know this but they keep kvetching and make known their outrage at having to pay taxes, so as to make the underprivileged feel guilty or at the very least be grateful to have whatever they can get and not presume to ask for more -- like better health care in the US.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Monday, July 12, 2004, 05:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
First of all, sorry for the delay, I was in Madrid for the first part of last week, and haven't had as much time as I would have liked to write a response. I hope I'll do the subject justice now. I'll aim to answer your post point by point. First of all, don't worry about the political correctness - that is something I couldn't care less for (but that's another issue!)
Perhaps my actual moral views are more liberal than is commonly associated with the Right, but the point is that I support the government/community's right - and even duty - to enforce it. I think that everyone should be entitled to a reasonable say in the mode of social interaction in their community, and that they needn't be held hostage by a minority who insist on using 'freedom' as a justification to disrupt the community. A discussion on the moral values of each respective act would be tedious and achieve nothing, so I'll suffice by saying that even your mantra of "harming no-one, do as thou wilt" is open to a lot of discussion. Take for example the hurt which can be caused by a romantic break-up, should dumping someone then become a criminal offence? How about firing someone? Or how about smoking? We all know of the dangers of inhaling even second-hand smoke.
I don't remember saying that legal loopholes were responsible for the wealthy being such - I said that such loopholes were used by them in order to pay less tax than would otherwise be exacted. My point being that those taxes are excessive in the first place, and therefore the loopholes are simply a way of evening out the odds - however, a preferable solution, in my opinion, would be to just reduce the tax rates in the first place, thereby negating the need for rebates and what-have-you, not to mention the incredible amount of red tape and bureaucratic positions for which the taxpayer is forced to pay. Inasmuch as I'm against penalising the wealthy, I'm also not in favour of governmental favouritism or protection of either large or small companies. I think that everyone should be given an even playing field legally - no matter what the size of company you have managed to establish.
You seem to be reverting to the logic that 'they can afford it, so they should pay' - something which I consider to be entirely unfair! I believe that people should be free to choose what services they pay for with the money they have worked hard to earn. The fact that someone has worked harder (or perhaps smarter) to have a greater disposable income is no excuse for penalising them for their efforts! Perhaps we have different perspectives on an 'ideal world': your posts indicate a desire for a world of sameness, where everyone has more or less the same amount of money and holds the same liberal views. My 'ideal world' is one of opportunity, where success is not penalised.
So, to answer your question, I do not favour the wealthy subsidising the less fortunate because I am against the principle of subsidies! I think that everyone should be expected to work for, and earn, their own comforts. I am also against the concept of a government setting what they consider to be an 'appropriate' standard of life. In the same way that you are averse to governmental involvement in the moral code of their citizens, I am opposed to their involvement in our finances! I consider such financial intrusion to be far more restrictive than merely enforcing a civilised code of interaction between people. The amount of money I earn should not be a factor in the percentage of that income that I pay the government, simply because someone has decided that I have 'too much' money.
As for the benefits enjoyed by the wealthy for the taxes they pay - I did not say that they did NOT benefit from these services, rather that they didn't receive proportionately more, and in most cases even less, than the poorer classes. Take your examples of 'the police, roads, military, fire services and public health services': the wealthy typically live in low-crime neighbourhoods, and are able to pay for private protection agencies, thereby lessening the amount they rely on the police; roads are used similarly by both wealthy and poor - however, remember that this is not a service of our basic taxes, but is paid for by Road Tax (or the equivalent in Canada); fire services are similarly required less by the wealthy due to the fact that they are able to afford better-built accommodations and protection against such emergencies; I'm surprised you even mentioned public health services as they are probably the classic example of a service which is NOT used by anyone with enough money to afford private care!
In your arguments you constantly draw on the example of massive corporations as the rich, totally ignoring the thousands of people who every year become millionnaires through their efforts in small businesses, or perhaps through offering their services. This supports your view that the wealthy are by definition unconcerned with the betterment of the less fortunate - a view which is contradicted by actual fact. Many of the most wealthy individuals firmly believe in giving back to their community - they have therefore established, or funded, numerous charities, and frequently support charitable efforts. This is because they recognise what you've said, that having a healthy and successful society is beneficial to all. The difference that I see is that when support is given on a governmental/institutionalised basis there is far more room for abuse of that support, as compared to individual donors or charities which are far better able to identify those who are genuinely needy through direct personal contact, rather than bureaucratic forms and applications.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Saturday, July 03, 2004, 01:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
As I doubt this is the appropriate thread in which to address this question, added to my aversion of responding to anonymous postings, I shall refrain from the 'lengthy and elaborate response', and post the edited version instead.
This is a question which I have been asked a number of times - and indeed one I ask myself from time to time. My answer is that I wanted to leave TF on my own terms. In retrospect I cannot think of any other point in my life when I would have been able to make the transition as smoothly as I did - particularly not without being dependant on another's goodwill, something which I intend never to do (again).(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From frmrjoyish
Thursday, July 01, 2004, 04:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
See here in America we have a little thing called "Government of the people by the people and for the people". "People" are still considered "people" whether they're rich or poor and they deserve the same sort of representation from their government. There's no mention about the right of corporations to continute to pilfer off the tax system. It makes me so mad when I hear people bitch about welfare (which I also have issues with) but say nothing about the billions of tax payer dollars going to susidize big corporations. A government is therefor the benefit of all and if that requires a helping hand every now and then so be it but it should be to those who really need it. I'd rather see that helping hand pay for college for some poor kids than go towards fattening the bank accounts of some greedy corporation. But seeing as how you're in finance, I wouldn't really expect you to understand anything more complicated than the bottom line.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Saturday, July 03, 2004, 01:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
The part that I don't see in the Constitution, however is the requirement for the government to 'buy the people, fund the people and coddle the people'. You are right, people are people irrespective of their financial standing - which is exactly my reasoning behind my statement that large corporations are as entitled to government subsidies (should they even be given) as smaller companies.
Do also remember that the government is not giving away it's own money - it indeed has none - the government is feigning the role of benevolent benefactor while dishing out the exorbitant taxes they have extracted from their population... and might I add that the rich pay a far higher percentage of their income, for far less serive received.
If you support equality, then support a flat tax rate - for any income bracket!
As for my understanding of economics, rest assured that the 'bottom line' is far more complex than just the expenditures. That is why so often cost-cutting moves have backfired in the faces of companies where they have lost the goodwill of their market audience or lost important quality standards in their drive to save money.
So while my focus may be on the bottom line, this can only be properly done by a proper analysis of all of the influencing factors.(reply to this comment) |
| | from Shaka
Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 09:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
In all honesty I cannot say that I am a Republican although I have been christened such by many people here. I am very liberal when it comes to personal choice. But when it comes to issues between my nation and another, my loyalty lies here even if I am inconvenienced in some ways. I am a nationalist; right or wrong, I'll stick by this country. Which is why I'm voting Republican this year even though I may not agree with all Bush's platforms.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | From exister
Wednesday, June 30, 2004, 10:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
"for war, we need someone with the will to fight"
Ah yes, but do we need war?
I realize you are on your way to basic training, and that ambiguities about your commander in chief won't help you there. For that reason you can be forgiven for voting for an ignoramus with beady little varmint eyes.
I spent 7 years where you are going, and I had the privilege of caring for many brave souls whose bodies were savaged by the demands of political and financial expediency. Depending on what line of work the military gives you, you may someday become one of these victims. Maybe your views will change then. Until then, go get'em airman!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Haunted
Wednesday, June 30, 2004, 10:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
See WHAT through? Okay, so I'll admit that along with many of my fellow Americans, I'm confused about exactly WHY we're in a war to begin with; but giving Bush the benefit of the doubt, it is my understanding that the purpose of being in Iraq was to remove Saddam from power (evil man that he is - and yes, I agree that he is indeed a very evil man) and 'liberate' the Iraqi people.
Perhaps you should read the news more as I recall that this past Monday we turned the government over to the Iraqi people. Thus, the question begs to be asked, haven't we already seen through what we proposed to do?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Jerseygirl
Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 08:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
Great article. I am amazed though, that for someone who was so rebellious and not sold out and out of the spirit in the cult, that you would remember so many of the beliefs and practices in order to compare them intelligently and accurately.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Communist
Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 06:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
Perhaps they become republican to get as far away from you as possible.
(reply to this comment)
|
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]