By Request...

[theoryman]

First, some background on me and mine.

I am a 47yo white male. My SO is a 49yo M2F trans who doesn't plan SRS. There are a pic or 2 of us on here but if you want to see more, www.missyannsweb.com Not a pay site or registration required.

We've been together 6years this Xmas. We live in South Western Lower Michigan, United States. We live in a rural area with reasonably close access (about 30 min) to some small/mid-size city's and about 3 hours to either Chicago or Detroit.

My SO, before her transition, spent time in the US Army, during and after the Reagen years. She was in Korea on the DMZ and after that spent time in Germany. After the wall came down, she got out of the Army, and ran a business in the EU with outlets in UK, Spain and Germany for 7 years before returning to the US. Now, she is the shemale housewife she wanted to be. ;) She also has 3 grown children who have dealt with her transition well.

I did a few years in the US Navy during the Reagen years, and saw a bit of Europe and more of the Middle East. Since I got out of the Navy, I've run several small businesses in telecommunications, computer hardware prototyping, computer programming, CAD/CAM upgrading and electronics repair. Not counting my Navy time, I've spent less than 4 years working for someone else. I've almost always been self-employed.

Over the last 10 years, with a business partner, I've built a small Internet Service Provider or ISP servicing areas that the cable and phone company's ignore. We provide High Speed data services to remote and rural locations. Real High Speed, not satellite service. Two months ago, I bought my business partner out and am now the sole owner.

Before anyone thinks we are part of the 1%, let me say that my business grosses less than the $250K that many seem to think is the dividing line between rich and poor now.

While I have a year of collage, neither one of has a degree and we are mostly self taught in the hows and whys of running and building our businesses.

An interesting little side note... We were both born in SW Lower Michigan, in fact less than 30 miles apart but we didn't meet until we were both in our 40's.

As I hate huge posts, I will break this one here and start again. Next up: some politics.

--

[theoryman]

In the US, politics, at the Federal level, and somewhat at the State level, have become so polarized that dialog between the sides has been reduced to screaming slogans and accusing the other side of some imagined misdeeds. I personally believe that it has gone too far and that a real rapprochement between the sides is no longer possible.

Social Issues

IMO, both sides are at fault. Neither side, especially on social issues, can follow the logic to the bitter end. Examples:

On the Right: Abortion, drugs, end of life... MY body, MY choice. Period. You have no right to tell me what to do with my body. It is MINE. But remember, you are responsible for your actions. Don't expect me to pay for a new liver after you have killed yours with drugs and alcohol.

On the Left: If people want to smoke in MY place of business, it is MY property and MY choice. If you don't like it, don't come in. It is my business and I will choose to serve who I wish. If I wish to deny service to someone, it is MY choice. If one wishes to buy a 64oz soda, it is NO ONE else business. (the soda thing in New York City is absolutely disgusting)

On both sides: Government has NO business being involved in marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever the hell you want to call it. This is a PERSONAL matter and government should have no involvement at any level. You should not get more from or pay less to the government because you are married or not. Also, hate crimes... Really? It is worse that you were assaulted because you are a trans than the guy that was assaulted so he could be robbed? WTF? Assault is assault. Rape is rape. Doesn't matter why.

To sum up...

The right wants to tell me who I can sleep with and what I can and can't do to alter my mind.
The left wants to tell me what I can and can't eat and force me to associate with who they say I must.
Both want to tell me who I can and can't decide to spend my life with and how I must think.

As far as I am concerned, this is a place where government needs to BUTT OUT.

--

[theoryman]

National Security Policy

My SO and I are children of the cold war. We are both ex-mil. (volunteer) we both are against any form of draft. We both have been under fire... her in the DMZ at 4P1 and I in the Gulf of Sidra.

We both think that Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and Pakistan have been very badly handled, both by Bush and Obama. We also think that the current policy's are not working well.

Afghanistan: The fact is, we fucked that up a long time ago. Back in the 80's. I don't need to repeat it, if you want to know more, the movie 'Charlie Wilson's War' will tell you all about it. The rise of the Taliban is in many ways our own fault and is fallout from winning the cold war. Part of al qaeda's roots come from there. The second time around, (2001-present), we have suffered from mission creep, an excess of over-site, an unwillingness to be ruthless enough, and worst of all, treating captured terrorists as criminals instead of combatants, legal or illegal under the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of War.

Iran and Iraq: I will cover these in another post but no one in the west comes out looking good here.

Libya: The failure of the administration to protect our people in Benghazi and the lying about Benghazi is unforgivable. To place people in harms way, (even diplomats ;) ), and then not support them is just unforgivable. Fighters could have been overhead in two hours and marines on the ground in five hours. And then we find out today that the administration listened to the fight for seven hours and did nothing?!?

North Korea: This one is simple. The DPRK respects one thing: Force. The day they think that the US will not back the RoK, the DPRK will be crossing the DMZ. Isolate them and wait for the collapse.

Pakistan: This place is well on its way to become a failed state like Somalia. The security agency's are not under the control of the civilian government and do not support the publicly stated goals of the civilian government. I expect the government to collapse into infighting among the factions in the next few years. I don't believe there is anything the west, or even the world, can do to prevent this. When a state with nuclear arms collapses, other states MUST move to secure those arms. This issue transcends politics. It is also something that the US will do and will be publicly demonized for doing while being privately thanked.

Our basic idea is summed up as 'Peace through superior firepower.'

Personally, I wish we didn't need to be involved in all these places. I see how we got there and why. Don't get me wrong, I know we made a lot of mistakes. Part of it was winning the cold war, another part has been allowing energy policy to drive national security. If we can achieve continental energy independence in the next few years, I think you will see a major inward turn for the US and a move toward isolationism.

This may not be a good thing...

--

[Prospero]

Great posts Theoryman.

I agree with you regarding social policy - ie the Government has no rights prying into the bedrooms of citizens anywhere. And preventing those who are gay, transgendred or otherwise "different' from meaningful and legal relationships. It DOES have a duty to protect those who are under age or in other ways vulnerable 9the disabled, the mentally incompetent etc). The law has a duty to protet women in abusive relations. From rape. From forced marriages. etc etc....

But Government DOES need to be involved to protect the little guy - and small businesses - and the jobless and the sick and the old and minorities who are discriminated against - from those who are bigger and more powerful and will bully and exploit and rip-off and discriminate against. Women used to be very much second class citizens. Chattels without the power or right to vote. With little say over their lives. Even in the 1950s many places in the US would not employ Jews until the law was changed. Blacks were even later in gaining rights. We all know the history of the civil rights movement. We need controls and limits on big corporations or they will force down pay, deprive working people of their rights, grab profit and run (Bain is a wonderful example of that in action. Its former CEO would surely apply the same principle nationally as well as rde regulate so his corprorate supporters can plunder) . So Government needs to be there to stand between these people and the rights of ordinary people. Both at federal and state level.

e also need Government to protect ur resources - the birthright of our children and their children and their children. The envrionment. once it is damaged and destroyed the impact could be irreversible. Corporations answer only to the bottom line and their shareholders. Governments answer to you and citizens.

As for the right to drink and smoke and generally harm yourself - that is a much greyer area. I'll not be glib and try to summarise the benefits here. It is generally though to do with education. It is also to do with being in a society - caring about each other, looking ut for each other. In the Uk whre i live we have a Nationa health Service which, gneerally works very well. It cares for everyone rich and poor from cradle to grave. Pre-existing ilnesess are treated. No one is ruled out of care because they can't afford it 9though the rich can buy better and swifter care0. In the US Obama has tried to take some steps towards a society that embraces care and compassion for all - but devoting some tax dollars to creating a better health system. it's a start. This is one measure of what being in a society is surely about? Caring for your fellow man and woman. Even those who are indigent. Even those who through ignorance are lazy. A family takes care of its own. So should a nation.

And as for Foreign Policy... well it is not all the same. I for one supported the invasion of Afghanistan after that day of infamy that was 9/11. Again hindsight says we "fucked up" (I saw Charley Wilson's war) and yet the idea was to support the forces opposing Russian (Soviet0 expansionism and domination. It seemed to US and Western policymakers like a good thing. Indeed there were those who warned of the knock-on effect... but al-Queda's ire against the US derived primarily from the presence of US bases in Saudi Arabia. The Taliban housed these people. But it isn't a simple question. For more info on this I think you'd enjoy The looming Tower - a book that assays in detail the rise of Osama bin laden and the al-Queda franchise. And what might have been the alternative. The collapse of Russia in Afghanistan was a key in hastening the collapse of Soviet power What might have happened if they had hung on there/ Eastern Europe might still be vassal states of Russian sovietism.

No one except those with dubious motives can defend the illegal invasion of Iraq by Bush, Blair and others. (interesting that Bush is never mentioned by Romney and his gang0. It has cost more American lives than were lost on 9/11, thousands and thousands of Iraqi lives and trillions of dollars . Obama at least pulled the US out of that area - but the damage has been done. The region destabilised. For what exactly? No WMDs. To overthrow a dictator/ (There are scores of them around the world. Why not attack Belarus or Uzbekistan or North Korea or many African states?

It is easy with hindsight to criticise Obama over Libya and the death of the very excellent US ambassador there. Intelligence gathering on the ground in a disordered place like Libya is hard. What seemed like a demonstration at first was clearly something else. But scramble jets/ For what purpose by that late stage. Should NATO have supported the toppling of Gaddafy? The uprising was real. The aftermath of revolution is always unpredictable. Look at hat happened in France after 1789.

Pakistan is hugely complex but you are generally correct on that. The West has to stand firm. North Korea. Well a tricky one since they now have nukes and tens of thousands of South Koreans would fry before US action against the North prevailed. So an uneasy holding of the line until the regime collapses is surely the only course.

And iran... which you've not yet dealt with. Interesting to see what your answer to that is.

over to you...

[theoryman]

In from a night of repair, just a quick reply... Responses inline

Great posts Theoryman.

I agree with you regarding social policy - ie the Government has no rights prying into the bedrooms of citizens anywhere. And preventing those who are gay, transgendred or otherwise "different' from meaningful and legal relationships. It DOES have a duty to protect those who are under age or in other ways vulnerable 9the disabled, the mentally incompetent etc). The law has a duty to protet women in abusive relations. From rape. From forced marriages. etc etc....

I think we agree here.


But Government DOES need to be involved to protect the little guy - and small businesses - and the jobless and the sick and the old and minorities who are discriminated against - from those who are bigger and more powerful and will bully and exploit and rip-off and discriminate against. Women used to be very much second class citizens. Chattels without the power or right to vote. With little say over their lives. Even in the 1950s many places in the US would not employ Jews until the law was changed. Blacks were even later in gaining rights. We all know the history of the civil rights movement. We need controls and limits on big corporations or they will force down pay, deprive working people of their rights, grab profit and run (Bain is a wonderful example of that in action. Its former CEO would surely apply the same principle nationally as well as rde regulate so his corprorate supporters can plunder) . So Government needs to be there to stand between these people and the rights of ordinary people. Both at federal and state level.


The devil is in the details. The problem is applying things tailored as remedies for big wrongs to the little guys.

Example: Not long ago, an elderly lady, a life-long church going christian, needed to replace a tenant in her home's upstairs apartment. She advertised an apartment for rent to a 'church-going, christian gentleman'. She was sued by the Federal Dept. of Housing and Urban Development for religious discrimination. How is this right? I can see it against a large company that made it a policy across dozens or hundreds of property's. I can't see it applied to an elderly lady who just wanted a single tenant in her own home. I can't help but believe this type of law, while in good intent and with good results on the macro scale, tends to have bad effects on the micro scale. (BTW, I am agnostic)

From your comment about Bain, I tend to suspect that you are an employee or single contractor, not an employer or a business owner. (Feel free to correct me if I am wrong) What Bain did is part of the normal business cycle in a capital based, free market economy.

Example: In the process of building my business, I've bought out two competitors and let the employees go. Economy of scale. I only employ family members and the labor laws that parallel the above mentioned housing laws are the reason why.


e also need Government to protect ur resources - the birthright of our children and their children and their children. The envrionment. once it is damaged and destroyed the impact could be irreversible. Corporations answer only to the bottom line and their shareholders. Governments answer to you and citizens.


Again, the devil is in the details. The EPA drove my great aunt to her grave in a 20 year fight over 4 acres of her 40 acre plot that stayed wet for 2-3 weeks every 3-4 years. I will go into this if you like but there are similar stories all over the web. Personally, I want that agency abolished and its bureaucrats and lawyers air dropped into the volcano's of Hawaii. With what that agency did to my family, I have to say I'm a bit bitter and irrational about it. (In my saner moments, I can see the general need for that type of protection) But there has to be some way to keep the little guy from being ground-up by the wheels of government...



As for the right to drink and smoke and generally harm yourself - that is a much greyer area. I'll not be glib and try to summarise the benefits here. It is generally though to do with education. It is also to do with being in a society - caring about each other, looking ut for each other. In the Uk whre i live we have a Nationa health Service which, gneerally works very well. It cares for everyone rich and poor from cradle to grave. Pre-existing ilnesess are treated. No one is ruled out of care because they can't afford it 9though the rich can buy better and swifter care0. In the US Obama has tried to take some steps towards a society that embraces care and compassion for all - but devoting some tax dollars to creating a better health system. it's a start. This is one measure of what being in a society is surely about? Caring for your fellow man and woman. Even those who are indigent. Even those who through ignorance are lazy. A family takes care of its own. So should a nation.


The first part of this section, I must disagree with. IMO, the right to do what one wishes with ones own property, (in this case, ones body), is the fundamental right upon which all other rights derive. (BTW, I am an ex-smoker. Quit 3 years ago for my SO after 28 years) It STILL pisses me off when bars and restaurants are FORCED to be non-smoking. Again, a violation of property rights.

On health care... Something that may not have made it across the big pond: Most of us are not upset that there is going to be some kind of national health care system. Most of us are upset about the way it was done, the crony capitalism built into it, and the Supreme Court decision stating that they can force you into a market and tax you for inaction. (BTW, this decision is what makes me believe that the Third American Revolution is 5-10 years out. More on that in another post.)

IMO, a better way, and much more legal way, would to simply have made every US citizen elgable for Medicare/Medicaid and have raised income taxes to cover the costs of it. But that couldn't pass even the Democratic Congress that Obama had for his first 2 years. So we got this abortion instead.


And as for Foreign Policy... well it is not all the same. I for one supported the invasion of Afghanistan after that day of infamy that was 9/11. Again hindsight says we "fucked up" (I saw Charley Wilson's war) and yet the idea was to support the forces opposing Russian (Soviet0 expansionism and domination. It seemed to US and Western policymakers like a good thing. Indeed there were those who warned of the knock-on effect... but al-Queda's ire against the US derived primarily from the presence of US bases in Saudi Arabia. The Taliban housed these people. But it isn't a simple question. For more info on this I think you'd enjoy The looming Tower - a book that assays in detail the rise of Osama bin laden and the al-Queda franchise. And what might have been the alternative. The collapse of Russia in Afghanistan was a key in hastening the collapse of Soviet power What might have happened if they had hung on there/ Eastern Europe might still be vassal states of Russian sovietism.


I was actually trying to channel Charlie there: 'These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world... and then we fucked up the endgame. ' We did what we had to do. But 50 million dollars spent on schools and infrastructure could have saved the world a lot of grief. (BTW, it is GREAT to talk with a self proclaimed left-leaning liberal who knows we did WIN the COLD WAR!)


No one except those with dubious motives can defend the illegal invasion of Iraq by Bush, Blair and others. (interesting that Bush is never mentioned by Romney and his gang0. It has cost more American lives than were lost on 9/11, thousands and thousands of Iraqi lives and trillions of dollars . Obama at least pulled the US out of that area - but the damage has been done. The region destabilised. For what exactly? No WMDs. To overthrow a dictator/ (There are scores of them around the world. Why not attack Belarus or Uzbekistan or North Korea or many African states?

As I said above, I am leaving Iran and Iraq for another post. IMO, they are so intertwined that they must be dealt with together...


It is easy with hindsight to criticise Obama over Libya and the death of the very excellent US ambassador there. Intelligence gathering on the ground in a disordered place like Libya is hard. What seemed like a demonstration at first was clearly something else. But scramble jets/ For what purpose by that late stage. Should NATO have supported the toppling of Gaddafy? The uprising was real. The aftermath of revolution is always unpredictable. Look at hat happened in France after 1789.

An F/A-18 passing by at 900knots 150ft off the ground is a powerful message by itself. It says 'We are coming and bringing a world of hurt.' They could have been there in 2 hours. Marines could have been there in 5 hours. The administration didn't even try. I, and my SO have both been under fire. You don't leave your people out there like that. NOT. EVER.

Prior to this, while I disliked Obama's policy's and his apparent ideals, I respected him as CnC and as the office holder. I did not vote for him and did not plan to vote for him this time. Now, however, I feel he is unfit for the office he holds and unfit as CnC.

I can't justify NATO intervening in Libya's revolution unless NATO is willing to intervene in Syria's revolution as well... Care to open that can of worms? I don't.



Pakistan is hugely complex but you are generally correct on that. The West has to stand firm. North Korea. Well a tricky one since they now have nukes and tens of thousands of South Koreans would fry before US action against the North prevailed. So an uneasy holding of the line until the regime collapses is surely the only course.

And iran... which you've not yet dealt with. Interesting to see what your answer to that is.

over to you...

I doubt that the DPRK has a deliverable bomb. The seismic data looks much more like a fizzle that a real, usable bomb. The problem is Seoul is within artillery range of the north...

Pakistan... we're gonna take it on the chin in world opinion when that happens. But from time to time, when the chips are down, the UK sees realpolitik much clearer than the rest of the EU... When this time comes, I hope you stand with us.

--

[trish]

There is no physical relation between agents and objects which has the property of "possession." When Miss K says, "That's MY car," she is making neither a physical nor a metaphysical claim. Miss K and her car are not exchanging possessons or any other kind of elementary particle that manifests the relation of ownership. The point is that ownership is a social construction. Miss K owns her car only because she has gone through the appropriate rituals within her society and as a result society grants her the type of use of her car that we call ownership or possession. In other words, it is society that determines what you own and the nature of the ownership. Society puts restrictions on what you can do with the things that you own. You can't drive "your" car in the wrong lane. In some places you can't play your stereo at high volume late into the night. It is not an argument to say, "This is MY business," or even "This is MY body." One has to further argue why society should keep or modify the restrictions or rights you have toward your business in regard to smoking, or with regard to toxic dumping or your body in regard to your liver or to the blastocyst in your belly. It is the role of political discussion to sort these issues and the role of government to implement solutions.

[theoryman]

Respectfully, I disagree. The role of government is to protect me from you. Nothing more or less.

What is mine is mine. I won't argue metaphysics about it. Even babies have a sense of property. Collectivism doesn't work on any scale larger than the small tribe. There is research that shows that about 100 people is maxim for a workable collective.

If I agree with your laws, I will obey them. If not, I won't. I alone am responsible for my actions. If you try to take what is mine, and I disagree with you, I will destroy it rather than allow you to take it.

To paraphrase Hank Rearden 'If you think you have the right to compel me, bring guns.' You will need them.

--

[Prospero]

You can't have a workable society where individuals think they have the right to disobey laws they don't like. That way anarchy lies. The law of contracts in business for instance. You oay x to supply you with a hundred widgets and contract him to do it. he doesn't like that law - so takes your money and then doesn't dliver. Simple example. What then? He didn't like the law?

More profoundly you, as a driver, don't like the law which says you should drive on one side of the highway and drivers going the other way drive on the other. So you just drive where you like - and a school bus full of kids crashes as a result.

I could go on. We agree laws in a civilisation and then the authority (police, government, city council whoever) upholds them to ensure we live in a civilised society.

If we feel a law is wrong then protest it. Fight it in politics or the courts.

[theoryman]

Your first example is a breach of contract, not law. There are long established ways of dealing with that.

Your second example is trivial, and, IMO, unworthy. It should be obvious that if you choose to disobey that law, the consequences may be sorta drastic. BUT, it is still your choice to obey or not.

I accept that I am responsible for my actions. Period.

Example: Speed limit on the Interstate here is 70MPH. I tend to drive 80-85. I accept the possibility of getting a ticket and the risk I take. In town, the speed limit is 35MPH. I don't exceed it. Why? I accept personal responsibility for my actions and choose not to place others at excessive risk.

What makes the two situations different?

The 35MHP speed in town is to reduce the risk in areas where traffic is congested and where there are children and pedestrians present. I agree with this goal. Therefor, I will obey.

The 70MPH speed on the Interstate is to raise funds and restrict freedom. I disagree with this goal and will not support it.

Either way, I alone am personally responsible for my actions and I accept that responsibility.

There are many laws that people choose to disobey on a regular basis.

Around here, shooting critters out of season when they are destroying your garden comes readily to mind. How many people drink and drive on a regular basis? Most people know someone who shouldn't but does. In the UK, how about TV licenses?

:D

--

[trish]

What is mine is mine.That's a tautology. But that which is yours is yours by mutual agreement, and what you can do with it is determined by the community in which you live. Yes, we may be born with a sense of entitlement, but that doesn't mean we're entitled.

[martin48]

Your first example is a breach of contract, not law. There are long established ways of dealing with that.

Your second example is trivial, and, IMO, unworthy. It should be obvious that if you choose to disobey that law, the consequences may be sorta drastic. BUT, it is still your choice to obey or not.

I accept that I am responsible for my actions. Period.

Example: Speed limit on the Interstate here is 70MPH. I tend to drive 80-85. I accept the possibility of getting a ticket and the risk I take. In town, the speed limit is 35MPH. I don't exceed it. Why? I accept personal responsibility for my actions and choose not to place others at excessive risk.

What makes the two situations different?

The 35MHP speed in town is to reduce the risk in areas where traffic is congested and where there are children and pedestrians present. I agree with this goal. Therefor, I will obey.

The 70MPH speed on the Interstate is to raise funds and restrict freedom. I disagree with this goal and will not support it.

Either way, I alone am personally responsible for my actions and I accept that responsibility.

There are many laws that people choose to disobey on a regular basis.

Around here, shooting critters out of season when they are destroying your garden comes readily to mind. How many people drink and drive on a regular basis? Most people know someone who shouldn't but does. In the UK, how about TV licenses?

:D

--


A major factor when increasing speed of a car by 10mph is the stopping distance. It will increase from 96m (315ft) at 70 mph to 120m (394ft) at 80 mph.
This means the stopping distance at 70mph is 22 car lengths and at 80mph it is nearly 28 car lengths. If a driver travelling at 80mph leaves a stopping distance designed for 70mph they will collide with the vehicle in front at nearly 40mph.
If a vehicle was brought to an immediate halt the force that a passenger or driver travelling in that vehicle would feel from the seatbelt would be 33% more at 80mph than at 70mph. This isn't a problem until you hit something and "then suddenly all that energy has to go somewhere".



If a car travelling at 70mph and not slowing down were to hit a line of closely-spaced stationary traffic, three cars in front would be affected. At 80mph there is a reasonable probability that a further car would be involved, she says. The impact of more vehicles caught up in an incident could mean an increase in casualties.



A major report in the UK found that if the motorway speed was increased by 10mph, the change could cause an extra 18 deaths per year.



So it's your choice! Ignore the evidence and stand greater chance to kill someone - maybe yourself.

[Stavros]

National Security Policy


Allow me to offer a different perspective on some of your points:

Afghanistan: The fact is, we fucked that up a long time ago. Back in the 80's. I don't need to repeat it, if you want to know more, the movie 'Charlie Wilson's War' will tell you all about it. The rise of the Taliban is in many ways our own fault and is fallout from winning the cold war. Part of al qaeda's roots come from there.
-the Taliban developed in Pakistan and the border areas with Afghanistan in the 1990s from social change among the Pathan and Pashtun who live in Pakistan and straddle the border areas with Afghanistan -the social change in which local warlords and bosses who lined their pockets during the Afghan war from kickbacks and drug money and who failed to develop the local economies, were replaced by local Mullahs who suddenly had power thrust upon them: hence the appeal of the Taliban as an anti-elitist anti-corrupt movement that promises change for the poor.

As you may know the roots of al-Qaeda lie in Saudi Arabia and a long-established theme in Islamic politics that disputes the authority/legitimacy of the Saud family, bin Laden himself used to argue that his entire campaign was based on replacing the Caliphate that had ended with the Ottoman Empire collapsed in 1918, and then the creation of the Turkish Republic in 1923. For this reason, the axis of the Arab Spring turns on Saudi Arabia, not because the North African and Levantine states cannot proceed without it, they can, but because the Saudi's are terrified of social change in their own country that doesn't need them, and are funding the minority Islamic extremists in Syria precisely to derail and undermine a popular revolution there, and create a dependency on Saudi largesse.

What you are seeing in the Middle East and North Korea is the consequence of decades of dictatorship which has been based on a stability of terror, in which the institutions of civil society that reduce the need for the invovement of government in everyday life are removed, and everytihing is mediated by state apparatchiks: remove the head of the beast, and what you have is chaos, and that is how dictators remain in power -the USA, Russia, China, and South Korea do not want rapid change in North Korea because it would be harder to cope with than, say the re-unification of Germany, and that wasn't as smooth as it might have appeared. It is precisely because there are such feeble alternatives to dictatorship that the USA maintains its support for the Saudi monarchy, as does the UK, but can even this regime, which recently started throwing money at its citizens, buy them off forever? I don't think so.

...treating captured terrorists as criminals instead of combatants, legal or illegal under the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of War.
-You have this the wrong way round -it is precisely because the US administration treats the prisoners of Guantanamo as enemy combatants that they are being processed through a military tribunal, and being denied justice in criminal courts. Had Obama removed these prisoners from Guantanamo and subjected them to criminal prosecution in, say the state of New York or Washington DC, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and the others would be free, because the evidence against them, having been gained from torture, is inadmissable in a Federal court. Bush and Cheney locked Obama into a system which may not be just as most people see it, but which he cannot change without letting those people go free -the military tribunal is the dead-end of a dead-end policy and you are stuck with it.

Pakistan: This place is well on its way to become a failed state like Somalia. The security agency's are not under the control of the civilian government and do not support the publicly stated goals of the civilian government. I expect the government to collapse into infighting among the factions in the next few years. I don't believe there is anything the west, or even the world, can do to prevent this. When a state with nuclear arms collapses, other states MUST move to secure those arms. This issue transcends politics. It is also something that the US will do and will be publicly demonized for doing while being privately thanked.
-This is not borne out by the facts. Pakistan is a remarkably stable state, its probems are not even close to the worst that was experienced in Somalia, which is now on the road to reform anyway. Politics in Pakistan is contested at the highest levels by the westernised and secular elites, and the military and its intelligence apparatus- it is precisely because so many poor people are excluded from political decision-making that the Taliban and other radical groups can gain support, yet most Pakistani's are as opposed to the violence inflicted on them and on minorities as you are.

Pakistan has issues with India, that is the absolute core of its foreign policy. Because Pakistan is small compared to India, Russia and China, it is paranoid that it is being left behind in the squabble over the spoils in Afghanistan -and uses that faction of the Taliban it controls to meddle with NATO and India in Afghanistan. The solution is not just good governance in Afghanistan, it is a recognition that in addition to the Taliban, Pakistan must have an economic stake in the reform of Afghanistan that NATO is unable to sponsor because of its obsession with 'security', a problem of its own making. If you want success in Afghanistan that suits everyone, withdrawing the military is a key step, it was a mistake to go into the place in 2001 and has been a mistake ever since. Create a functioning minerals industry, then follow the money, because that it where the road to freedom lies.

North Korea: This one is simple. The DPRK respects one thing: Force. The day they think that the US will not back the RoK, the DPRK will be crossing the DMZ. Isolate them and wait for the collapse.
-This is dangerous nonsense, most North Koreans believe they are normal and cannot undersand the hysteria of the west, if they ever hear about it. They live their lives as best they can, having no political representation or opportunity to engage in politics. Nobody in the region wants another war, including North Korea, because it cannot be won, and there is no point going to war if you have no idea what will happen when the fighting starts. The signs are that Kim No 3 is attempting to maintain the market reforms of his father, Kim no 2, and that the Chinese are pressing for more reforms, as they have done in Myanmar/Burma, but without the drama, although Kim No 3 recently obliterated a General by killing him with a mortar round. For a more extensive analysis of North Korea, this review article is useful:
http://www.ncnk.org/resources/publications/Kang%20They%20Think%20Theyre%20Normal.pdf

Our basic idea is summed up as 'Peace through superior firepower.'
-This is madness, it doesn't work, it breeds resentment, and it kills your own.

The USA will for the foreseeable future maintain an enormous military machine, it has to keep people in jobs on Federal contracts who would otherwise be unemployed; but deploying that firepower is not a solution to any problem, rather it is an admission that politics and diplomacy has failed. How the US reduces the cost of its armed forces without compromising its commitments overseas, and without causing job losses in the US is the policy puzzle facing the President who takes office in January.

[broncofan]

Respectfully, I disagree. The role of government is to protect me from you. Nothing more or less.

What is mine is mine. I won't argue metaphysics about it. Even babies have a sense of property. Collectivism doesn't work on any scale larger than the small tribe. There is research that shows that about 100 people is maxim for a workable collective.

If I agree with your laws, I will obey them. If not, I won't. I alone am responsible for my actions. If you try to take what is mine, and I disagree with you, I will destroy it rather than allow you to take it.

To paraphrase Hank Rearden 'If you think you have the right to compel me, bring guns.' You will need them.

--
Collectivism is not the only alternative to what you recommend. It is a strawman argument to allege that anything not in line with the unmitigated protection of property rights is collectivism. Collectivism means any system of governance that considers the interest of the collective over that of the individual. Yet our system is infused with a balance of both these considerations. What are due process rights if not individual protections? It may be better for the collective good if anyone suspected of crime was detained as a matter of risk-aversion, but we certainly would never allow such an appalling abuse of individual rights in our criminal justice system. Why is the criminal justice system set up with the ideal in mind that it is better for 100 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be condemned? Surely 100 guilty men going free is a greater collective danger to society than one innocent man being unjustly deprived of his freedom, no? We also have a takings clause in the 5th amendment, which is part of due process and prevents the government from confiscating property without compensation. Surely it would be convenient for everyone if property could be taken without compensation, but the takings clause offers some protection against this.

On the other hand, various court decisions have held that contracts between individuals are not sacrosanct. We do not allow organ sales. This is certainly an impediment to individual rights. If a man wants to sell both of his kidneys who are government officials to tell him it is inadvisable? We do not respect contracts made under coercive circumstances either. You can say that this respects individual liberty because coerced parties do not sign of their own volition. But many people who would be called libertarians did not recognize the unequal bargaining power of individuals entering into certain employment contracts (edit: yes vague but there are a whole series of early 20th century cases litigated under the due process clause arguing that it would unjustly impinge on the freedom of employers to not allow them to require anything they wanted of their employees).

It is indeed a collectivist mentality to enforce labor standards, and to allow for collective bargaining so that employers cannot destroy the bargaining power of laborers by dividing what should be their unified interests. What about instituting protocols whereby certain vaccinations are mandatory as a matter of public health? Or quarantining those with contagious illnesses? Should people be allowed to get on airplanes with tuberculosis? What about requiring elaborate clinical testing of drugs before releasing them to the public? This too is a type of collectivism. Do you really want the pharmaceutical industry to self-regulate? Why should there be laws in place forcing them to engage in costly approval processes. What is this if not a veritable tax implemented in the name of the collective good?

At the end of the day living in a civil society means you do not get to have everything you want. Those who want to avoid paying taxes, who want disabled individuals to wheel themselves up to the assembly line, and for indigent folks to die in the street aren't really much more supportive of individual rights than the most hard-line marxist. You say you want the government to bring guns to force you to abide by the laws. I assure you they will. And they'll succeed in subduing you. If you surrender you get due process and a court-appointed lawyer at worst. It's really your choice, but we cannot allow gun-wielding individuals to successfully assert a referendum on the laws that apply to everyone.

[broncofan]

Your first example is a breach of contract, not law. There are long established ways of dealing with that.

--
Validly made contracts that are not violative of statutory law or public policy are enforced in courts of law. The long established way of dealing with such disputes is having a court enforce it, or award damages for its breach. People who want to breach validly made contracts often argue that some exigency they did not plan for arose that should make the contract void. Yet, not considering every contingency does not give an individual a right to breach a valid contract any more than you should be able to drive 85 mph on the highway. You may not agree with the law but you are subject to it even when your judgment tells you the circumstances have changed and should allow an exception.

[Prospero]

Thanks Bronco... i think you answered his first argument well.

Theoryman it is good to "take responsibilty" for your own actions. But would you argue that someone who drives at 60 miles an hour in a town or jumps a red light or overtakes a parked school bus or other dangerous and potentially deadly acts should not be limited by laws but just behave well and accept responsibility. Fine to take responsibility if you just killed a family in a car wreck. That is plain daft. You don't seriously think that without rules and laws society would work do you?. The mere fact you sign off with a mention of guns shows where you are coming from. You think shooting - and maybe killing people - if lawmakers come to arrest you because you have broken the law (maybe killed someone in a hold-up or kidnapped and raped someone etc etc) but don't think you should be subject to the law acceptable. Of course it is not. it should be punishible by law.

Laws such as those of the road are made to protect you - your children and others - from those who don't take such responsibility. Hence rules which prohibit - by the threat of punishment - driving under the influence of alcohol. Such a law saves lives.

[broncofan]

That's a tautology. But that which is yours is yours by mutual agreement, and what you can do with it is determined by the community in which you live. Yes, we may be born with a sense of entitlement, but that doesn't mean we're entitled.
Short, succinct reasoning. I really like how we each try to bring our collective backgrounds to bear in these conversations. Long live your scientific mind, your formal logic, and your bitter sarcasm.

That said, don't be discouraged theoryman, as we have had some run-ins with the libertarian view this election season. I like that you were willing to introduce yourself, express yourself without insults, and engage in the debate. We all respect that here but in these debates we give no quarter and expect none in return.

I know you were attributing the gun quote to someone else and you probably did not mean it to say that you were ready to fire on federal agents if they storm some rural compound where you're stockpiling contraband. And I understand the view that we must disobey some unjust laws.

But I think this comes into play when the injustice of obeying such laws is so significant that liberty cannot stand in the face of their enforcement. Segregation, organized pogrom, slavery. If these were imposed I would disobey them. But we do have to accept that in a society, if it is to function, we are going to have to obey some laws that we disagree with. It is a constraint on liberty but the will to accept these minor constraints offers tenfold the benefit in public safety. We cannot allow every individual to follow what in their own judgment is a sound policy decision as uniformity in the application and enforcement of laws is crucial to a smoothly functioning society. We all sacrifice our liberty every day for the collective good as there is no way to protect everyone's individual rights without constraints on some of those same rights.

P.S I will interpret all thumbs down on this post as recognition that my comment to Trish was a blatant ass-kiss.:D I can't help it as I'm in a good mood;

[trish]

I will interpret all thumbs down on this post as recognition that my comment to Trish was a blatant ass-kiss.:grin:You can kiss my sweet ass anytime you like :D

[broncofan]

Also, hate crimes... Really? It is worse that you were assaulted because you are a trans than the guy that was assaulted so he could be robbed? WTF? Assault is assault. Rape is rape. Doesn't matter why.

--
I agree with a lot of what you said previous to this though sometimes for different reasons. But I disagree with this. In punishing crimes, the mental component, that which motivates someone to commit a crime, determines the culpability of the actor. We do not just look at the objective act or we would end up prosecuting accidental killings such as hunting accidents the same way we would pre-meditated murder.

Someone who assaults a transsexual because they are a transsexual has in the view of the legislature (edit: actually I don't think hate crimes bills include this class though I personally think they should) and most people committed a more guilt-worthy act. They have committed this crime because of their disdain for a class of people who are trying to live the way they want. On the other hand, someone who is a thief may commit the same act of aggression but for the purpose of stealing money and not with the direct intent of producing that same amount of harm. This is an act where there's criminal culpability, but it is not seen to be as great a moral transgression. I don't think that's arbitrary. Is it arbitrary to say that someone who lies in wait for an elderly Jewish or Muslim women and slaughters her because he has a special hatred for their class and yearns to hear their screams is no worse than someone who loses his temper after being insulted and kills someone? Yes one death is one death, but the actor in this latter case has committed acts which did not involve the same planning, the same degree of malice.

The criminal justice system not only considers the culpability of the actor in prescribing punishments but also the likelihood of recidivism. Someone who committed a crime under the influence of a drug may be less likely to repeat their offense than someone who did it because of a set of deeply held beliefs. We also consider the threat to groups of marginalized people in our society. There is a particular threat posed to people when they are targeted for status in an identifiable class and they are blameless for that membership. The legislature again has made the informed choice to protect such people so that they do not feel that their lives are lived in the shadows as prey for those who would harm them.

But I think the best rebuttal is that not considering a hate crime especially heinous and making provision for that type of crime is inconsistent with how our criminal justice system is set up. Motive matters!

[trish]

My aunt (actually great aunt) was a little girl in Cincinnati when that town was plague by a serial killer...a strangler of women. The whole town was terrified. My aunt's mother worked the night shift at a local bank. Every night my aunt and her even younger brother and sister would watch out the window to make sure their mother got to the car safely and they watch her drive out of sight praying for her safe return in the morning. Not only every woman in town of terrified, but every family and every child.

The moral is that every murder has more than one victim. When a gay man is beaten to a pulp and left for dead, it's a message to every gay man in town. The whole LGBT community is on guard. When a woman is raped on a college campus, all the woman on campus are afraid to go out at night, to the concert, the play, the activities that make college the cultural experience it's supposed to be. Hate crimes are crimes that are directed at whole communities. They are intended to send a message of hatred and intolerance. Even though there may technically be only one victim whole communities suffer the consequences. I don't know how the law reasons, but from my perspective it is fitting that hate crimes should carry stiffer penalties, because the crime is more than just a murder or an assault on a single person.

[theoryman]

That's a tautology. But that which is yours is yours by mutual agreement, and what you can do with it is determined by the community in which you live. Yes, we may be born with a sense of entitlement, but that doesn't mean we're entitled.

I'm pretty sure we are at an impasse here. But I will try once more...

I have things that are mine. I have worked, (traded my time or other things of mine) to get them.

Other people want my things. (bills, taxes and so on)

If they trade me something of value, (power, roads, a Navy), then I am willing to trade them some of my things in return for those goods and services.

But, it is MY choice. I will not be compelled. If I don't agree that it is a worth while trade, I will not be compelled to trade. (the health care law comes to mind)

And woe be to those who try to take my things against my will. You may get them. But they will be worthless to you and will cost you much more that you expected.

--

[trish]

But, it is MY choice.No, it isn't. You only own things because we recognize your ownership. We also determine what you owe us... and that is obedience of the law... and that implies you owe us taxes. It's not a trade. It is the law.

What is it that you think ownership is, if not a social convention constructed by the civilization that you inhabit? Only a child clutches onto toys and insists they are his and if he can't have them he'll smash them.

[theoryman]

A major factor when increasing speed of a car by 10mph is the stopping distance. It will increase from 96m (315ft) at 70 mph to 120m (394ft) at 80 mph.
This means the stopping distance at 70mph is 22 car lengths and at 80mph it is nearly 28 car lengths. If a driver travelling at 80mph leaves a stopping distance designed for 70mph they will collide with the vehicle in front at nearly 40mph.
If a vehicle was brought to an immediate halt the force that a passenger or driver travelling in that vehicle would feel from the seatbelt would be 33% more at 80mph than at 70mph. This isn't a problem until you hit something and "then suddenly all that energy has to go somewhere".

If a car travelling at 70mph and not slowing down were to hit a line of closely-spaced stationary traffic, three cars in front would be affected. At 80mph there is a reasonable probability that a further car would be involved, she says. The impact of more vehicles caught up in an incident could mean an increase in casualties.

Your numbers are very close to mine. I dispute nothing you have said above.


A major report in the UK found that if the motorway speed was increased by 10mph, the change could cause an extra 18 deaths per year.

Irreverent. If we ban all motor vehicles we can reduce motor vehicle deaths by 100%! My choice of acceptable risk is likely different than yours.


So it's your choice! Ignore the evidence and stand greater chance to kill someone - maybe yourself.

Exactly! My choice. I understand the risks and rewards and choose the set I feel works best for me.

--

[trish]

Of course others may die by the poor choices you make. The choices you make diminish or increase the risks to which others are exposed. The choices you make freely have consequences that others are forced to bare. Freedom is optimized only when people accept responsibility.

[theoryman]

Allow me to offer a different perspective on some of your points:

Afghanistan: The fact is, we fucked that up a long time ago. Back in the 80's. I don't need to repeat it, if you want to know more, the movie 'Charlie Wilson's War' will tell you all about it. The rise of the Taliban is in many ways our own fault and is fallout from winning the cold war. Part of al qaeda's roots come from there.
-the Taliban developed in Pakistan and the border areas with Afghanistan in the 1990s from social change among the Pathan and Pashtun who live in Pakistan and straddle the border areas with Afghanistan -the social change in which local warlords and bosses who lined their pockets during the Afghan war from kickbacks and drug money and who failed to develop the local economies, were replaced by local Mullahs who suddenly had power thrust upon them: hence the appeal of the Taliban as an anti-elitist anti-corrupt movement that promises change for the poor.

I don't dispute where it developed. I suspect that you overplay the role of the bosses and underplay the role of Iran. I also think, had we provided infrastructure support to infant 'Islamic State of Afghanistan' the outcome would have been very different.



As you may know the roots of al-Qaeda lie in Saudi Arabia and a long-established theme in Islamic politics that disputes the authority/legitimacy of the Saud family, bin Laden himself used to argue that his entire campaign was based on replacing the Caliphate that had ended with the Ottoman Empire collapsed in 1918, and then the creation of the Turkish Republic in 1923. For this reason, the axis of the Arab Spring turns on Saudi Arabia, not because the North African and Levantine states cannot proceed without it, they can, but because the Saudi's are terrified of social change in their own country that doesn't need them, and are funding the minority Islamic extremists in Syria precisely to derail and undermine a popular revolution there, and create a dependency on Saudi largesse.

What you are seeing in the Middle East and North Korea is the consequence of decades of dictatorship which has been based on a stability of terror, in which the institutions of civil society that reduce the need for the invovement of government in everyday life are removed, and everytihing is mediated by state apparatchiks: remove the head of the beast, and what you have is chaos, and that is how dictators remain in power -the USA, Russia, China, and South Korea do not want rapid change in North Korea because it would be harder to cope with than, say the re-unification of Germany, and that wasn't as smooth as it might have appeared. It is precisely because there are such feeble alternatives to dictatorship that the USA maintains its support for the Saudi monarchy, as does the UK, but can even this regime, which recently started throwing money at its citizens, buy them off forever? I don't think so.

I have a lot to say about Saudi, but it will be in the section on Iran and Iraq. There was a lot of interference over there by the west after WWI and WWII. One of the most important lost opportunity's was when the British pulled out after WWII. That may be delayed though, I'm having a hard time finding a certain history text... the downside of having so many books.


[QUOTE=Stavros;1225070]...treating captured terrorists as criminals instead of combatants, legal or illegal under the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of War.
-You have this the wrong way round -it is precisely because the US administration treats the prisoners of Guantanamo as enemy combatants that they are being processed through a military tribunal, and being denied justice in criminal courts. Had Obama removed these prisoners from Guantanamo and subjected them to criminal prosecution in, say the state of New York or Washington DC, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and the others would be free, because the evidence against them, having been gained from torture, is inadmissable in a Federal court. Bush and Cheney locked Obama into a system which may not be just as most people see it, but which he cannot change without letting those people go free -the military tribunal is the dead-end of a dead-end policy and you are stuck with it.

You misinterpreted me. Like any POW, they they should be held until the conflict is over. Once the conflict is over, return them to their point of origin. If they are illegal combatants, they should have been dealt with on the battlefield.


Pakistan: This place is well on its way to become a failed state like Somalia. The security agency's are not under the control of the civilian government and do not support the publicly stated goals of the civilian government. I expect the government to collapse into infighting among the factions in the next few years. I don't believe there is anything the west, or even the world, can do to prevent this. When a state with nuclear arms collapses, other states MUST move to secure those arms. This issue transcends politics. It is also something that the US will do and will be publicly demonized for doing while being privately thanked.
-This is not borne out by the facts. Pakistan is a remarkably stable state, its probems are not even close to the worst that was experienced in Somalia, which is now on the road to reform anyway. Politics in Pakistan is contested at the highest levels by the westernised and secular elites, and the military and its intelligence apparatus- it is precisely because so many poor people are excluded from political decision-making that the Taliban and other radical groups can gain support, yet most Pakistani's are as opposed to the violence inflicted on them and on minorities as you are.

Pakistan has issues with India, that is the absolute core of its foreign policy. Because Pakistan is small compared to India, Russia and China, it is paranoid that it is being left behind in the squabble over the spoils in Afghanistan -and uses that faction of the Taliban it controls to meddle with NATO and India in Afghanistan. The solution is not just good governance in Afghanistan, it is a recognition that in addition to the Taliban, Pakistan must have an economic stake in the reform of Afghanistan that NATO is unable to sponsor because of its obsession with 'security', a problem of its own making. If you want success in Afghanistan that suits everyone, withdrawing the military is a key step, it was a mistake to go into the place in 2001 and has been a mistake ever since. Create a functioning minerals industry, then follow the money, because that it where the road to freedom lies.

I think you are much more of an optimist on Pakistan than I am. I hope you are right... But doubt you are.

You are right, a working free economy is a major key to making a working Afghanistan... But you must have security and stability to build that economy.


North Korea: This one is simple. The DPRK respects one thing: Force. The day they think that the US will not back the RoK, the DPRK will be crossing the DMZ. Isolate them and wait for the collapse.
-This is dangerous nonsense, most North Koreans believe they are normal and cannot undersand the hysteria of the west, if they ever hear about it. They live their lives as best they can, having no political representation or opportunity to engage in politics. Nobody in the region wants another war, including North Korea, because it cannot be won, and there is no point going to war if you have no idea what will happen when the fighting starts. The signs are that Kim No 3 is attempting to maintain the market reforms of his father, Kim no 2, and that the Chinese are pressing for more reforms, as they have done in Myanmar/Burma, but without the drama, although Kim No 3 recently obliterated a General by killing him with a mortar round. For a more extensive analysis of North Korea, this review article is useful:
http://www.ncnk.org/resources/publications/Kang%20They%20Think%20Theyre%20Normal.pdf


I'd actually seen the stuff about blowing up a General, but, by what I saw, that had nothing to do with reform, and everything to do 'insulting' the memory of Kim II by drinking at the wrong time.

And I'm not sure it matters that they think they are normal. Most everybody thinks that they are normal. For where I live, I'm pretty normal. I suspect that, where you live, I'm not very normal. Doesn't mean anybody is right.


Our basic idea is summed up as 'Peace through superior firepower.'
-This is madness, it doesn't work, it breeds resentment, and it kills your own.

On this one, you are simply wrong. Firepower, violence, naked force has settled more issues in history than ANY other method. You simply have to use enough of it.


The USA will for the foreseeable future maintain an enormous military machine, it has to keep people in jobs on Federal contracts who would otherwise be unemployed; but deploying that firepower is not a solution to any problem, rather it is an admission that politics and diplomacy has failed. How the US reduces the cost of its armed forces without compromising its commitments overseas, and without causing job losses in the US is the policy puzzle facing the President who takes office in January.

On the particular subject overseas commitments, I think, while not explicitly stated by either side, that the general opinion is starting to become 'to hell with all of you'. I think that, if the US can meets its energy needs from North American and to a lesser extent its other resource needs from South America, that you will see a major swing to isolationism in the near future.

--

[theoryman]

Re : post 13-16...

You are all missing the point.

I did not say that I break every law. I did not say that I disagree with every law. I did not say that there shouldn't be any laws...

(altho, when the Federal Code is 80,000 single spaced, double sided pages, I submit it is not truly possible to know you if you are or are not breaking the law and that it might be time to dial it back a bit)

In post 16, one mentions slavery, segregation... At one time these were considered JUST. They were the LAW. But people disobeyed them because they WOULD NOT BE COMPELLED to do something they did not wish to do. I simply claim the same right.

I tolerate the laws I find tolerable. I break the ones I find intolerable.

I don't drive drunk. I don't rape or rob. I don't shoot or kill people without good cause. I don't assault people. Why not? Because it is not right to do such things. I don't need laws to tell me this.

I pay my taxes. The benefits I receive and enjoy outweigh the annoyance of the waste.

I treat people exactly as I wish them to treat me. I will do what I think is right regardless of what laws are around me.

I've spent a long time working out my general philosophy. I am comfortable with it and I know where I stand. So far, my philosophy has worked well for me.

I'm gonna paraphrase one of the authors who had a major influence on my beliefs. Don't google it, just see if any of you know who and where it comes from...

'When is it right for the group to do something that an individual member of the group is forbidden from doing? And why?'

--

[theoryman]

That said, don't be discouraged theoryman, as we have had some run-ins with the libertarian view this election season. I like that you were willing to introduce yourself, express yourself without insults, and engage in the debate. We all respect that here but in these debates we give no quarter and expect none in return.

Trust me, I get much worse that this on some righty forums...


I know you were attributing the gun quote to someone else and you probably did not mean it to say that you were ready to fire on federal agents if they storm some rural compound where you're stockpiling contraband. And I understand the view that we must disobey some unjust laws.

No worries, I'm not stockpiling anything illegal.

And why does the media always call it a 'compound'? What's wrong with home or ranch or farm?

--

[Prospero]

If its simply a home or a farm then that is what it is. But if the person involved are some kind of zany self-styled militia man with a stockpile of weapons then the use of the word compound seems legitimate. I don't think Bronco was saying you live in a compound.

But frankly your views on the laws do not make sense. A society cannot function if individuals declare themselves outside the law because they are moral and ethical beings. That may be true of you but a fellow who holds up a liquor store at gunpoint or abducts and rapes a woman might argue the same - from their point of view. A man who mow down a child through speeding might say the same. An individual judgement that the law does not apply to you is untenable. If laws are bd or wrong then society needs to act in concert to challenge them - through repeal or amendment. Not individual defiance.
I am curious what specific rules and laws in modern America you feel should be scrapped?

And quoting slavery to justify your position is somewhat fatuous. No time to write more now... but I will respond more fully anon.

[theoryman]

No, it isn't. You only own things because we recognize your ownership. We also determine what you owe us... and that is obedience of the law... and that implies you owe us taxes. It's not a trade. It is the law.

What is it that you think ownership is, if not a social convention constructed by the civilization that you inhabit? Only a child clutches onto toys and insists they are his and if he can't have them he'll smash them.

Call me a child if you wish. It doesn't change my belief is that property is the fundamental, natural right from which all other rights derive.

No one has the right to take my property against my will. You may think that 50%+1 gives you the right to take my property. It doesn't. The only reason you are successful at taking others property is either
a) especially in a 'voluntary' tax system, they feel the tax is a fair trade for the services recived, or
b) because of the implied or overt threat of force.
I simply do not respond well to threats of force. I tend to meet force with more force and I to subscribe to a scorched earth policy.

Especially in a 'voluntary' tax system, when people no longer feel that the services they receive are worth the taxes they pay, one way or another, they will stop paying...

--

[theoryman]

Of course others may die by the poor choices you make. The choices you make diminish or increase the risks to which others are exposed. The choices you make freely have consequences that others are forced to bare. Freedom is optimized only when people accept responsibility.

Just as I am forced to bare the results of their choices. IMO, it balances out.

--

[Prospero]

Theoryman - your philosophy, if universally applied, would lead to the breakdown of society.
I hope you are never faced with bailiffs. For your ideas, if applied, would lead to the injury or death of an innocent.

And returning to your remarks about Obama failing to protect American staff in Benghazi. Again, following that line of argument, I think you might want to level a far bigger accusation against Bush over 9/11.

Illogical and wrong.

[theoryman]

If its simply a home or a farm then that is what it is. But if the person involved are some kind of zany self-styled militia man with a stockpile of weapons then the use of the word compound seems legitimate. I don't think Bronco was saying you live in a compound.

I didn't think he was. I was making the point that the media often calls a place a 'compound' when it is no more that a rural home. A few years back, there was a tax resister that the IRS wanted. He refused to come out of his home. He had a registered hand gun and was believed to have a shotgun for deer hunting. For reasons of public image, the IRS did not want to go in after him. He had a ranch style home on a hill in the middle 10 wooded acres. Over weeks of time, during which his wife left and entered the home freely, the media turned the home into a compound because one old man would no go along with the IRS. It is a tactic to demonize the person resisting and to prevent others from empathizing with them.


But frankly your views on the laws do not make sense. A society cannot function if individuals declare themselves outside the law because they are moral and ethical beings. That may be true of you but a fellow who holds up a liquor store at gunpoint or abducts and rapes a woman might argue the same - from their point of view. A man who mow down a child through speeding might say the same. An individual judgement that the law does not apply to you is untenable. If laws are bd or wrong then society needs to act in concert to challenge them - through repeal or amendment. Not individual defiance.

But this is exactly the point. People who are moral and ethical don't NEED the laws. They will behave well anyway. People who are not moral and/or ethical won't obey the law anyway. So they have to be dealt with. The law itself doesn't matter. What matters is that they are harming someone else.

An additional point of my beliefs is 'No harm, no foul.' In the first example above, one person is depriving another of his property, there by harming him. In the second, the harm is obvious.

But do you really believe that a law against rape or robbery stops anyone from doing it? 'I think I'm gonna go rob that store!... Shit! I forgot! There is a law against it so I can't. Damn it!'

But, when I drive 85MPH on the Interstate, I'm not harming anyone. I may be taking on more risk, but I reject the 'nanny state' idea in its entirety.


I am curious what specific rules and laws in modern America you feel should be scrapped?

It is not about particular laws, it is about the principle, the ideal. But in general, if you can't point to a victim, it shouldn't be a crime. And I reject the idea of society as a victim.


And quoting slavery to justify your position is somewhat fatuous. No time to write more now... but I will respond more fully anon.

There are many other examples but I used that one because it had already been brought up and because the Judeo-Christian-Islamic forms of religion have ALL, until recently, considered it to be not only lawful but moral, ethical and right. It is an excellent example of how morals and ethics evolve.

--

[theoryman]

Theoryman - your philosophy, if universally applied, would lead to the breakdown of society.
I hope you are never faced with bailiffs. For your ideas, if applied, would lead to the injury or death of an innocent.

Since I make it a point not to harm others, there is no reason for a LEO to attempt to apprehend me.


And returning to your remarks about Obama failing to protect American staff in Benghazi. Again, following that line of argument, I think you might want to level a far bigger accusation against Bush over 9/11.

Illogical and wrong.

Not at all. When the action commenced there was no action G.W. could take to save American lives. There was no combat action going on that troops could effect.. (effect or affect?) Fighters were in the air looking for 93 within an hour of the first impact.

There may have been prior intelligence data, like Benghazi, but I don't say Obama is unfit for the intelligence failure, but rather for his failure to act after the attack began.

I don't know if you have served or not. But, around here, among both ex and active duty military, the consensus is he has shown he is unfit to command.

--

[hippifried]

This isn't about "libertarianism". Im sick & tired of egoists trying to rewrite the dictionary to match their half baked philosophy. Ayn Rand was a crackpot. Her egoist cult followers are crackpots. I refuse to perpetuate the big lie by calling them "objectivists", because there's nothing objective about any of it. There's no individualism involved either. They're just playing follow the leader, & the leader is a dead hack writer of fantasy who made heroes out of a bunch of whining thieves, terrorists, & trust fund babies, who were hiding out in the publicly owned wilderness to avoid facing the consequences of their actions.

Libertarianism has been pretty much thought through, & accepts the fact that the social collective generates everything that makes us civilized & a step up from the monkeys in the trees. Ayn Rand (demigod of the egoist collective) on the other hand, in a failed attempt to legitimize egoism, merely skipped over the universal moral code (reciprosity) that allows us to form societies in the first place, & flat denied the existence of altruism because she wasn't smart enough to make it fit in the philosophical fanaticism of egoism.

[theoryman]

That was an interesting read. Had to go look up egoist.

That's not even close to where I am...

I want the least amount of law and government possible. I believe most people will act in a rational and ethical manner given a reasonable opportunity.

TANSTAAFL

--

[Stavros]

--
[QUOTE=theoryman;1225817]

I don't dispute where it developed. I suspect that you overplay the role of the bosses and underplay the role of Iran. I also think, had we provided infrastructure support to infant 'Islamic State of Afghanistan' the outcome would have been very different.
-Iran was not involved in the development of the Taliban and was opposed to it -indeed their legitimate security interests on their border with Afghanistan formed one component of the rapprochement that was offered to the USA by President Khatami in 2001, spurned by the Bush administration -and in particular by John Bolton who, when approached by the Iranian delegation at the UN dismissed their proposal out of hand.
-The role played by social change in Pakistan is crucial to the development of both the Taliban, and the appeal that some -and I repeat some- of the Islamic extremists have had, their source of strength -the poor who have lost faith with the corrupt elites- mirrors the social problem in Afghanistan, and to some extent in Nigeria as well.

I have a lot to say about Saudi, but it will be in the section on Iran and Iraq. There was a lot of interference over there by the west after WWI and WWII. One of the most important lost opportunity's was when the British pulled out after WWII. That may be delayed though, I'm having a hard time finding a certain history text... the downside of having so many books.
-British interests in 1900 Arabia were all coastal -from Aden around the Gulf to Kuwait, and designed to protect and supply the sea route to India. British interests in the Gulf were not direct until oil was discovered in Iran in 1908, whereupon a detachment of the Indian army was sent to protect the facility, a presence which deepened as the Royal Navy at this time was converting its ships from coal to oil.
-The British did indeed give Abdul Aziz ibn Saud bags of gold for a short period after 1918, but when he attempted to break out of the Nejd and extend his influence in the Hejaz he lost their support, as Britain had backed the Hashemite Hussein ibn Ali since 1915. When Ibn Saud seized Mecca by force of arms in 1925 having also tried to invade TransJordan as part of his own plan to create a single Arab 'Caliphate' to replace the Ottoman one (and as far as I know, this remains the long term objective of the Saudi family) any hope of a healthy relationship with the British evaporated, which also meant the Anglo-Persian Oil Company had no clout in the country, where it was the USA/Standard Oil of New Jersey which signed the exploration deals that led to the discoveries of Saudi oil. Ever since Roosevelt met Saud in the 1930s, the USA has had this complex relationship, although one should acknowledge that the Saudis are ruthless modernizers -it is only the lamentably ignorant who describe Saudi Arabia as a 'desert kingdom', and its religion as 'medieval' when it is one of the youngest Islamic sects. The brutal obliteration of ancient buildings that was begun by ibn Saud has continued to the present day -the first wife of Muhammad, Khadija's home is now a public toilet, and the Kingdom has no interest in the tomb or the old home of Prophet which may disappear in the expansion of the Mosque in Medina over the next 10 years.

You misinterpreted me. Like any POW, they they should be held until the conflict is over. Once the conflict is over, return them to their point of origin. If they are illegal combatants, they should have been dealt with on the battlefield.
-I am not sure what an 'illegal combatant' is. As far as al-Qaeda is concerned, they declared war on the USA in 1998, but as they are not a State, their fighters cannot be considered soldiers under international law, which as far as I can make out, means they are common criminals. Rather than be set free or summarily executed on the 'battlefield' (a curious description for the places where most inmates of Guantanamo were arrested), they should have been sent to the International Criminal Court at The Hague to be tried under humanitarian law, having committed crimes against humanity in East Africa, in the Yemen and on 9/11 in the USA, but your country doesn't believe in this court and anyway, the mere fact that people were tortured makes a fair trial impossible, which is another reason why the military tribunal will continue.


I think you are much more of an optimist on Pakistan than I am. I hope you are right... But doubt you are.
-If you want a different and more rational perspective, try Anatol Lieven's recent study Pakistan: A Hard Country, which does a lot to balance the judgement on that country without letting the extremists off the hook. -Pakistan's reaction to the fate of Moulala Yousafzai also suggests that there are more people in Pakistan in favour of educating girls than those who are against it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/26/malala-yousafzai-everybodys-daughter-father

You are right, a working free economy is a major key to making a working Afghanistan... But you must have security and stability to build that economy.
-my view in this may be odd, but if you make security a precondition, you will never get to make the money: start making money by giving people there jobs that are not dependent on the military, and the focus will change

I'd actually seen the stuff about blowing up a General, but, by what I saw, that had nothing to do with reform, and everything to do 'insulting' the memory of Kim II by drinking at the wrong time.
And I'm not sure it matters that they think they are normal. Most everybody thinks that they are normal. For where I live, I'm pretty normal. I suspect that, where you live, I'm not very normal. Doesn't mean anybody is right.
-Your original point was to remove politics and diplomacy from any equation -you said the only thing they understand is force -I think there are other ways of looking at North Korea without waving a big stick all the tme.

On this one, you are simply wrong. Firepower, violence, naked force has settled more issues in history than ANY other method. You simply have to use enough of it.
-History suggests otherwise. Alll the firepower that the USA rained on Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos failed to weaken the USSR, which was the core reason for the USA's involvement in south-east Asia. In fact, the Vietnam war was one of the reasons why the USSR increased its military development in the 1970s, while the legacy of US involvement in south-east Asia was a disaster in Cambodia, and Vietnam is still run by the Communist Party, and as with Germany and Japan, country's once bombed by the USA now receive its investments to a significant degree. These displays of firepower you claim make a difference, are an expensive way of paying for the mistakes and failures of politicians who then return to try again when the fighting is over -although probably not the same guys.

On the particular subject overseas commitments, I think, while not explicitly stated by either side, that the general opinion is starting to become 'to hell with all of you'. I think that, if the US can meets its energy needs from North American and to a lesser extent its other resource needs from South America, that you will see a major swing to isolationism in the near future.
-Isolationism of the kind that was practised when Warren Harding entered office is no longer possible, globalisation means that while the USA can restrict its military commitments, and probably will have to for financial reasons, flows of capital investment bind the USA into the economies of so many states that even tired old ideas like tariff barriers and economic nationalism are no longer valid.

[trish]

IMO, it balances out.Benefits are not absolute but relative to the values various people place upon them. Therefore risks and benefits can only reach an optimal balance when everybody follows the mutual agreement. If you're breaking the law, then it doesn't balance out.

[trish]

Call me a child if you wish. It doesn't change my belief is that property is the fundamental, natural right from which all other rights derive.You're the one threatening to smash his toys. What is a fundamental right? Do you think that natural inclination is enough to justify an action? Do think rights are part and parcel of fabric of physics? Are they god given? What makes a fundamental and natural? Stating your belief over and over again it neither clarifies it nor establishes its validity.

[trish]

TANSTAAFL(There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch)except for the minerals of the Earth, the food in her oceans, jungles and meadows, the energy of her streams and buried coals and oils...all fed for eons by nothing but light from the Sun pouring freely through the atmosphere and over the Earth's surface. All there for the picking. The question is: who does it belong to? The laborers who hunt it, farm it, extract it? The capitalists who step in organize the extraction, funnel the products and grow wealthy on the profits? Do the natural products of the Earth belong to all of us? Just to the kings of nations and the kings of finance? If it belongs to everyone should we all be asked if someone wishes to profit by mining in Yosemite? Or if it belongs to all of us should anyone of us be allowed to go in there and start lumbering and mining no questions asked? What is ownership? Even people are natural raw materials. My ancestors were owned and worked by private plantations for their labor. Maybe the fruits of the Earth belong to none of us. Maybe the first to stake a claim owns it? Or is it so simple we don't need laws, regulations or agreements? TANSTAAFL. Don't make me laugh. The Earth is the biggest free-est lunch there is. The problem is people, tribes, nations and corporations staking out portions of it and claiming ownership. Ownership is neither god given nor nature given. It is taken either by intimation or coercion, or it is agreed (implicitly or explicitly) upon by peaceful mutually beneficial arrangements that entail reasonable regulation to insure fair use of the commons for everyone; i.e. some kind of government of, for and by the people.

[hippifried]

That was an interesting read. Had to go look up egoist.
Why? That was Ayn Rand's term. Egoism was the name she gave her "philosophy". The dishonest name change was a PR stunt. You should know all this since you're the one who's quoting her as if she were omniscient. Its all bogus because it's halfassed & not thought through. The whole philosophy's based on false &/or dishonest premises. Atlas shrugged because he just couldn't believe there was so much naivety in the world.

"Property rights" (a misnomer because property has no rights) aren't natural at all. It's just "the right of kings" extended. They never had extra rights either. Just power. The reason for all this polarization is that the loud people don't know what they're talking about. Capitalism is a financing methodology for private business. It's a way of pooling resources. Privatized socialism. It's not a social system. Corporatism, or corporate control of governance, is the definition of fascism. Free market capitalism is capitalism constrained. Left to their own devices, capitalist markets will always consolidate into monopolies, & a monopoly is anathema to a free market. Egoism was never thought through. Government is not a business, gold isn't money, all wealth flows from the social collective, austerity measures just lower wages & revive the "peon" caste. Ayn Rand was a crackpot.

[theoryman]

Why? That was Ayn Rand's term. Egoism was the name she gave her "philosophy". The dishonest name change was a PR stunt. You should know all this since you're the one who's quoting her as if she were omniscient. Its all bogus because it's halfassed & not thought through. The whole philosophy's based on false &/or dishonest premises. Atlas shrugged because he just couldn't believe there was so much naivety in the world.

I paraphrased one quote from one character of one of Rand's works and now I am an egoist.

I never said I agree with everything, or even most of what she said. I don't. I agree with a few of her ideas, about compelling people against their wills and about crony capitalism, i.e. the government picking the winners and losers in the market, and property rights. I also tend to agree with her anti-collectivist statements.



"Property rights" (a misnomer because property has no rights) aren't natural at all. It's just "the right of kings" extended. They never had extra rights either. Just power.

Seems odd that everyone knows what I mean when I say 'property rights'. Also seem odd that everyone is ok with taking someone elses property but they sure get upset when it is their property being taken. I'm just a bit more honest about it.


The reason for all this polarization is that the loud people don't know what they're talking about. Capitalism is a financing methodology for private business. It's a way of pooling resources. Privatized socialism. It's not a social system.

I know the difference between economic systems and social/governmental systems. And if you add the word voluntary to privatized socialism, I'd, in general, agree.


Corporatism, or corporate control of governance, is the definition of fascism. Free market capitalism is capitalism constrained. Left to their own devices, capitalist markets will always consolidate into monopolies, & a monopoly is anathema to a free market.

I never advocated corporatism in any way. Go back and actually read my posts. Your statements on capitalism i generally agree with, altho there some natural monopoly's and they need much more careful regulation than the market in general.


Egoism was never thought through.
Don't know.

Government is not a business,
Government is a necessary evil. It could in some ways, be improved by a more business like approach.

gold isn't money,
Never said it was. But paper doesn't seem to be any better.

all wealth flows from the social collective,
No. Wealth comes from individuals who work to make it.

austerity measures just lower wages & revive the "peon" caste.
One school of economics agrees with you, others don't. The issue is far from settled. And if you are unwilling to control spending, then you have the need to figure out where you will get the money from... running the presses simply devalues what is already out there and sooner or later, lenders want paid.

Ayn Rand was a crackpot.
Looks like an opinion to me. Everybody's got one. I never met the lady so I don't know.

If you are one of the type that has to have a label to hang on people, try rational anarchist. It is not exact... I accept the need for some limited government, but it is the closest to my ideas I've ever found.

--

[theoryman]

Corparations and Polotics

The court was wrong about Citizens United.

I hope that it was done on purpose, though.

The fiction of a 'corporate person' was to enable a corporation to sign and enforce contracts, i.e. to sue and be sued. Nothing more. To extend political speech rights to them is absurd.

The problem is, other collectives, like unions, churches and so on, were already engaging in political speech, and there was no equitable way to allow them to continue and deny the same political speech rights to corporations.

I believe that NO collectives should be allowed political speech rights nor should they be able to contribute to political causes. This right should be restricted to individuals. An individual can contribute to a candidate or issue, to as many candidates or issues as he wishes, but only a set amount per candidate or issue. No foreign contributions. No corporate contributions. No union contributions. Just citizens.

And since it was brought up, I believe that the idea of a criminal complaint against a corporation is silly. Corporations don't commit crimes... People, individuals commit crimes.

--

[Prospero]

Ask the hundreds of people of Bhopal in India about corporate crime? 3,787 people died because of a release of toxic gas. Sixteen thousand more since.Union Carbide, an American corporation were the owners of the plant. Now owned in turn by Dow. They fought against their corporate guilt over this long and hard through the courts. Tens of thousands are still suffering. The final compensation payments were derisory. This was corporate crime. Plenty of other examples.

[theoryman]

Some individual(s) is/are responsible for what happened.

Some person(s) made the mistake or the decision. No corporation decides to do anything. People decide. The corporation may be liable, but still a person(s) is/are still responsible.

--

[Prospero]

Yeah - and the head of the corporation and the board should accept responsibilty. That is what leadership is about. Of course a corporation is NOT a person.

[Stavros]

Some individual(s) is/are responsible for what happened.

Some person(s) made the mistake or the decision. No corporation decides to do anything. People decide. The corporation may be liable, but still a person(s) is/are still responsible.

--
Are you saying that the Captain of the oil tanker that ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska, in 1989, the Exxon Valdez, should have taken responsibility for his actions, because he was drunk at the time of the accident? But if so, what was his responsibility in practical terms? Was it his responsibility to clear up the mess he left behind, and pay for that operation, and compensate the fisherman who were unabe to fish in the waters because of the pollution?? Not sure how you differentiate between 'liability' and 'responsibility' because under international law, it was Exxon, not the Captain who became liable to deal with consequences of the accident. And for the record, it was indeed Exxon's decision to send an oil tanker to the oil terminal in Valdez, and it was Exxon's decision to use the courts in the USA to limit the actual amount of financial liability. To say No corporation decides to do anything, is so absurd as to be meaningless.

[theoryman]

Yeah - and the head of the corporation and the board should accept responsibilty. That is what leadership is about. Of course a corporation is NOT a person.

If their orders led to the disaster, yes. Of course, the corporation may be liable without being responsible... The board and CEO may also be liable without being responsible.

If an employee commits a criminal or negligent act, the individual employee is responsible for his actions and their results, not the corporation. The corporation may still be liable.

If it was the policy of the board to ignore criminal or negligent behavior, then they are responsible, not the corporation. The corporation may still be liable.


People make decisions. People are responsible for their decisions. People are also liable for their decisions. If they were acting on behalf the corporation, then the corporation is also liable.

--

[theoryman]

Are you saying that the Captain of the oil tanker that ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska, in 1989, the Exxon Valdez, should have taken responsibility for his actions, because he was drunk at the time of the accident?

Yes.


But if so, what was his responsibility in practical terms?

The same as any drunk driver. If you are driving a tractor-trailer for a large company and you decide to drink and drive and you run over a bunch of kids, you are responsible as well as liable. You chose to drink, not your employer. Since your employers equipment was involved, and you were preforming you duties as an employee, your employer is also liable. But to say that the 'employer' is responsable for the accident is silly.


Was it his responsibility to clear up the mess he left behind, and pay for that operation, and compensate the fisherman who were unabe to fish in the waters because of the pollution??

Yes to all the above. Of course, since his employer is also liable, his employer also pays.


Not sure how you differentiate between 'liability' and 'responsibility' because under international law, it was Exxon, not the Captain who became liable to deal with consequences of the accident.

Liability is a question of 'Who pays?' Responsibility is a question of 'Who caused this?'


And for the record, it was indeed Exxon's decision to send an oil tanker to the oil terminal in Valdez,

Not sure what you are saying here... are you trying to say that they should not have used this terminal? If so, why? Should the people working for Exxon have had precognition? And again, people made the decision, not the company.


and it was Exxon's decision to use the courts in the USA to limit the actual amount of financial liability. To say No corporation decides to do anything, is so absurd as to be meaningless.

Exxon can't think. Exxon can't make decisions. People, employees of Exxon made decisions. Hold those people responsible for their decisions.

Trying to blame it on the 'corporation' is simply a cop out. A person or persons made every one of those decisions you mention.

--

[trish]

A person or persons made every one of those decisions you mention.Or a committee by majority vote.

[broncofan]

The reason there is corporate liability is that the employees of a corporation are not acting in their capacities as individuals but as fiduciaries (and agents) of the corporate entity. The corporation is a legal entity and the board members and managers are tasked with increasing shareholder value. The extent to which a manager is allowed to consider interests other than those of the shareholders has been the subject of much debate in corporate law. But one reason individuals may not be responsible in the usual sense is that they are agents of the company, carrying out tasks consistent with their fiduciary duties. The corporate form removes that element of conscience that would normally be operative in individuals acting alone or in concert.

When a corporation evaluates whether they should implement a life-saving measure they consider their probability of being successfully sued multiplied by the magnitude of the loss if the suit is successful. This is balanced against the cost of taking a precaution that would prevent a lawsuit (and in human terms a disaster) on the other side of the equation. Anytime this latter side of the equation is larger than the former, the corporation will be making a rational economic decision if they do not take precautions. Why? Because taking the precaution is more costly than their liability if they do not. While ordinary people might find this thinking reprehensible, corporate actors must make such calculations. It makes sense that corporate actors are in some sense deindivuated because their decisions will not reflect their individuals values.

[trish]

Even though a corporation is not a person, a corporation can be a primary causal force. Just as the moon causes the lunar tides, EXXON was a primary causal agent of the Valdez oil spill and BP a primary causal agent of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill two summers ago. Any collection of people engaged in a project who together make decisions (perhaps by vote or by agreed adherence to any sort of decision making algorithm) to further that project is likely a causal agent. The very purpose of the group is to cause progress toward the stated project. The group is responsible for the consequences of its actions, just like EXXON was responsible as well as liable for the Valdez accident. This is not to say the infamous Captain isn't also a primary causal agent responsible for the accident.

[broncofan]

Any collection of people engaged in a project who together make decisions (perhaps by vote or by agreed adherence to any sort of decision making algorithm) to further that project is likely a causal agent. The very purpose of the group is to cause progress toward the stated project.
Exactly. Corporations used to have to state the goal of their business in their articles of incorporation. Now it's universally understood that their goal is to use any legal means to earn a profit. To take your analogy further, the actors are so attached to this project that any time they make a decision reflecting their own values in conflict with those of the mission, they are violating a legal duty. There were early court cases discussing whether CEOs are allowed to make charitable donations and the answer is almost universally yes. The reason for some who take the corporate form very seriously is that any ethical decision a corporation makes can accrue to them as goodwill. In the U.S, corporations have therefore been given some room to make ethical decisions, but not necessarily for ethical reasons. The UK companies act as a more enlightened statute says that managers can consider employees and the public in addition to the stakeholders when carrying out their fiduciary duties.

But with every corporate actor being conscripted to the corporate mission it is clear why corporations are causal agents. They are sort of monolithic and the only way they are deterred from acting unconscionably is when their reason for being is threatened. When they are sued and their coffers are emptied or when the public is so outraged that their brand becomes associated with cruelty, the calculus changes.

[hippifried]

Well this has gotten far afield. The mentioned disasters weren't planned. But since there's no personal liability for corporate actions, the only thing at risk is money.

I don't have a big philosophical problem with "Citizens United". It could've been thought out better & narrowed, but the problem it addressed was arbitrary knee-jerk reactions by regulatory entities. The ban on use of collective entities to amplify speech has been lifted. My problem is with the big lie that the decision removes all regulation. Not so. Right now, the court is being used as a shield of anonymity to hide the source of political funding. the problem isn't collectivism. It's individual dishonesty using collective resources to rip off the collective.

[Stavros]

Yes.

The same as any drunk driver. If you are driving a tractor-trailer for a large company and you decide to drink and drive and you run over a bunch of kids, you are responsible as well as liable. You chose to drink, not your employer. Since your employers equipment was involved, and you were preforming you duties as an employee, your employer is also liable. But to say that the 'employer' is responsable for the accident is silly.

Yes to all the above. Of course, since his employer is also liable, his employer also pays.

Trying to blame it on the 'corporation' is simply a cop out. A person or persons made every one of those decisions you mention.

--

But if we now look at the details of the case, it appears that the Captain had been drinking the night of the accident but it was not proven in court that he was intoxicated at the time of the accident just after midnight; in addition, he had left the ship under the control of the 3rd Mate who did not/could not use the ship's radar because it hadn't worked for a year and it was subsequently claimed this was because the management didn't want to spend the money to replace it; as a result the ship hit a reef and the rest is history. The claim about the management knowing the radar didn't work is central to the claim that there was Corporate guilt, because the shipping management operate according to a strategic plan, and as is often the case in these accidents, it is claimed that saving money was a key contributing factor. As for the Captain, he was indeed fined - $50,000 (which he did pay) and ordered to help clean up the mess although in the end he did community service in Anchorage.

The accident was a major blow to Exxon's reputation, as Deepwater Horizon was to BP's, even though the latter is a far more complex (and interesting) case. That oil companies don't have high esteem among the public doesn't help them anyway. But you could always go one step further and argue that if societies were not so dependent on oil and gas, the Exxon Valdez would not have been on the high seas, and Prince William Sound would never have been polluted.

Compare the issue of 'Corporate Mansalughter' -and especially in relation to tobbaco companies and tobacco-related disease. A recent survey has claimed a billion lives will be lost in the 21st century to tobacco-related illnesses, and for all the effort they have made to dispute the connection, the record shows that Richard Doll and associates began linking tobacco to cancer in the early 1950s, which is also when the first cases were brought against the companies.

If it is clear that a product can cause fatal illness -not just any illness- should this product be sold? The problem for the government is that the costs of treating people with tobaccosis is high, but so are the tax revenues they get from tobacco, and banning tobacco would not be effective. The libertarian argument is that the companies issue a warning about their product, so people who buy it are making their own choice and if they die, well that's tough but they were warned. Similarly perhaps, enjoying a whisky is one thing, drinking 10 bottles a day something else and most likely fatal in a shorter than usual space of time.

I am with the tobacco companies on this issue, not because I approve of their business strategies or advertising or whatever, but because I see the personal choice to smoke as being no different from the choice people make as to what they eat; as long as it is made clear that tobacco is a dangerous substance that can kill, because it is one of the oldest stimulants known to human society and a ban would be stupid and ineffective.

When it comes to industry, I am aware from my own research that many, but not all accidents are usually caused by human error, I knew of someone who wasn't wearing safety goggles when a freak accident caused him to lose an eye. But if the company has a sound health and safety culture that all employees know about, but does not replace ageing equipment or plant owing to a corporate decision to reduce costs over a five-year cycle, and it can be proven that an accident occurred when ageing plant failed causing a fire, explosion etc, then the corporate responsibility is real. Bhopal is a shocking case by any standards, that it is still going on is as shameful as the way the original company operated in India. In any case, the law imposes liability on companies operating plants like power stations, chemical factories, oil refineries, so this is really academic. Unfortunately, as if often the case, the plaintiffs get lost in a labyrinth of legal proceedings. After all, Exxon could afford to spend 20 years in court, and the amount it spent on legal fees did reduce the amount of fines it paid substantially, so for them, the law worked.

[hippifried]

Way far afield. These are bad examples because civil & criminal liabilities are getting lumped together. They aren't the same.

Corporations are financial entities. Corporate criminality is almost always centered on theft from investors, creditors, & others they do "business" with; or incorporation as a shield against criminal liability in the first place. It's all about the money. The worst punishment corporation can suffer is dissolution. There's nothing left by then, if there ever was anything there to start with.

[trish]

Theorydude is claiming that corporations are liable but never responsible for the consequences of corporate actions, essentially because actions are never taken by corporations but rather by individual people; i.e. people cause actions and their consequences not corporations. I agree that is not a person. But I do contend that corporations act and insofar as they are actors, they are causes. The point is that corporations are causal agents. They are responsible for the consequences of the their actions in the sense that they are causes of those consequences. It can be argued whether that makes them legally liable, morally responsible etc. etc.

[broncofan]

Theoryman's argument that blaming corporations is a cop-out is not all that coherent in its own right. We know that corporations are legal fictions. It is a legal form and as such only determines the rights and relationships of its equity holders, creditors, employees, and agents. You cannot say a "corporation" does anything in the literal sense any more than you can say the Democratic party does something or NASA does something. The question is whether the collective has characteristics of its own that makes its constituents behave differently than they would in the absence of that entity. We know that nothing that is not animate is going to act. People run the show, but if the people are attached to a certain mission, are acting under color of law to advance those missions and are given certain incentives, they will do things they ordinarily would not.

This is where we get into the philosophical sort of "responsibility" that Theoryman is talking about. It's like blaming bankers for making lots of loans when they know they can package and sell the loans and don't depend on their solvency. At some point, you realize people are acting pursuant to incentives created for them by a lax regulatory structure. I'm not saying CEOs who lie or cook the books are not responsible for their malfeasance, but it misses a huge part of the picture not to look at the corporate culture and the way the corporate form has influenced their actions. At some point it is the corporation acting and it is a conglomeration of its constituents faithful service.

And while I do not know what the status of corporations should be with respect to campaign donations, I do think it is wrong to allow corporations to make donations without revealing their identities. When they donate money to campaigns they should be accountable for what they have done. Otherwise these large donations take on the form of under the table bribes made by those with only financial interests at stake.

[theoryman]

The corporate form removes that element of conscience that would normally be operative in individuals acting alone or in concert.

... It makes sense that corporate actors are in some sense deindivuated because their decisions will not reflect their individuals values.

Don't call Goodwin on me, but that sounds an awful lot like what we heard at the Nuremberg trials.

Do you suppress your humanity when you work?

--

[theoryman]

Or a committee by majority vote.

Yes. But, if your vote knowingly supports and leads to criminal action, shouldn't YOU be both responsible and liable for those actions?

--

[theoryman]

Exactly. Corporations used to have to state the goal of their business in their articles of incorporation. Now it's universally understood that their goal is to use any legal means to earn a profit. To take your analogy further, the actors are so attached to this project that any time they make a decision reflecting their own values in conflict with those of the mission, they are violating a legal duty. There were early court cases discussing whether CEOs are allowed to make charitable donations and the answer is almost universally yes. The reason for some who take the corporate form very seriously is that any ethical decision a corporation makes can accrue to them as goodwill. In the U.S, corporations have therefore been given some room to make ethical decisions, but not necessarily for ethical reasons. The UK companies act as a more enlightened statute says that managers can consider employees and the public in addition to the stakeholders when carrying out their fiduciary duties.

But with every corporate actor being conscripted to the corporate mission it is clear why corporations are causal agents. They are sort of monolithic and the only way they are deterred from acting unconscionably is when their reason for being is threatened. When they are sued and their coffers are emptied or when the public is so outraged that their brand becomes associated with cruelty, the calculus changes.

I agree. But, a dog can be a causal agent. Do we accuse the dog of a crime when it poops on the neighbors walk? No. We access civil penalty's against its owners. If repeated often enough, we will take criminal action against its owners, the party's responsible.

A corporation has no more responsibility for its actions than a dog.

--

[theoryman]

But if we now look at the details of the case, it appears that the Captain had been drinking the night of the accident but it was not proven in court that he was intoxicated at the time of the accident just after midnight; in addition, he had left the ship under the control of the 3rd Mate who did not/could not use the ship's radar because it hadn't worked for a year and it was subsequently claimed this was because the management didn't want to spend the money to replace it; as a result the ship hit a reef and the rest is history. The claim about the management knowing the radar didn't work is central to the claim that there was Corporate guilt, because the shipping management operate according to a strategic plan, and as is often the case in these accidents, it is claimed that saving money was a key contributing factor. As for the Captain, he was indeed fined - $50,000 (which he did pay) and ordered to help clean up the mess although in the end he did community service in Anchorage.

He knowingly took a vehicle out with defective safety equipment. He's as responsible as a truck driver knowingly taking a truck on the road when half it's brakes are out.


Compare the issue of 'Corporate Mansalughter' -and especially in relation to tobbaco companies and tobacco-related disease. A recent survey has claimed a billion lives will be lost in the 21st century to tobacco-related illnesses, and for all the effort they have made to dispute the connection, the record shows that Richard Doll and associates began linking tobacco to cancer in the early 1950s, which is also when the first cases were brought against the companies.

If it is clear that a product can cause fatal illness -not just any illness- should this product be sold? The problem for the government is that the costs of treating people with tobaccosis is high, but so are the tax revenues they get from tobacco, and banning tobacco would not be effective. The libertarian argument is that the companies issue a warning about their product, so people who buy it are making their own choice and if they die, well that's tough but they were warned. Similarly perhaps, enjoying a whisky is one thing, drinking 10 bottles a day something else and most likely fatal in a shorter than usual space of time.

I am with the tobacco companies on this issue, not because I approve of their business strategies or advertising or whatever, but because I see the personal choice to smoke as being no different from the choice people make as to what they eat; as long as it is made clear that tobacco is a dangerous substance that can kill, because it is one of the oldest stimulants known to human society and a ban would be stupid and ineffective.

As long as the warning is given... IMO, no foul.


When it comes to industry, I am aware from my own research that many, but not all accidents are usually caused by human error, I knew of someone who wasn't wearing safety goggles when a freak accident caused him to lose an eye. But if the company has a sound health and safety culture that all employees know about, but does not replace ageing equipment or plant owing to a corporate decision to reduce costs over a five-year cycle, and it can be proven that an accident occurred when ageing plant failed causing a fire, explosion etc, then the corporate responsibility is real. Bhopal is a shocking case by any standards, that it is still going on is as shameful as the way the original company operated in India. In any case, the law imposes liability on companies operating plants like power stations, chemical factories, oil refineries, so this is really academic. Unfortunately, as if often the case, the plaintiffs get lost in a labyrinth of legal proceedings. After all, Exxon could afford to spend 20 years in court, and the amount it spent on legal fees did reduce the amount of fines it paid substantially, so for them, the law worked.

Human error... and then the question becomes negligence or mistake...

--

[theoryman]

Theorydude is claiming that corporations are liable but never responsible for the consequences of corporate actions, essentially because actions are never taken by corporations but rather by individual people; i.e. people cause actions and their consequences not corporations. I agree that is not a person. But I do contend that corporations act and insofar as they are actors, they are causes. The point is that corporations are causal agents. They are responsible for the consequences of the their actions in the sense that they are causes of those consequences. It can be argued whether that makes them legally liable, morally responsible etc. etc.

I think we agree on this now.

It can't be morally responsible. It doesn't have morals. It can be liable.

--

[theoryman]

Theoryman's argument that blaming corporations is a cop-out is not all that coherent in its own right. We know that corporations are legal fictions. It is a legal form and as such only determines the rights and relationships of its equity holders, creditors, employees, and agents. You cannot say a "corporation" does anything in the literal sense any more than you can say the Democratic party does something or NASA does something. The question is whether the collective has characteristics of its own that makes its constituents behave differently than they would in the absence of that entity. We know that nothing that is not animate is going to act. People run the show, but if the people are attached to a certain mission, are acting under color of law to advance those missions and are given certain incentives, they will do things they ordinarily would not.

As a country, are we really ok with this? I'm not.


And while I do not know what the status of corporations should be with respect to campaign donations, I do think it is wrong to allow corporations to make donations without revealing their identities. When they donate money to campaigns they should be accountable for what they have done. Otherwise these large donations take on the form of under the table bribes made by those with only financial interests at stake.

I'd love to see ALL donations required to be public!

And, Thanks to all for a civil, useful discussion.

--

[Stavros]

He knowingly took a vehicle out with defective safety equipment. He's as responsible as a truck driver knowingly taking a truck on the road when half it's brakes are out.

Human error... and then the question becomes negligence or mistake...
--

Except that the Captain was not the owner of the tanker and it was not his responsibility to replace the radar, it was Exxon's. I don't know how the Captain made the company aware the radar wasn't working, or what their response was, so I can't add any further.

You are trying to dismiss the concept of a corporate crime/responsibility because a corporation consists of individuals with roles to play, and you therefore see the problems as having been caused by those individuals. In the case of Bhopal, there is an allegation that the initial act which led to the contamination of the gas plant was an act of sabotage, whereas the Bhopal survivors claim Union Carbide failed to maintain the plant in best condition hence the leak which killed at least 5,000 at the time was caused by erosion in the pipes. In other words, the company could have prevented the accident from occurring.

In both Exxon Valdez and Bhopal the Corporation was responsible because it is the Corporation that signs the contracts which give it the right to operate, and that has legal consequences. It is up to Exxon as a Corporate body to ensure that its ships are fully functional, for Union Carbide that its plant was fully functional, it is part of the health and safety culture of the firm, which is why you must prove how good it is, and the signal criticism of the fire and explosion at the Texas City Oil Refinery in 2005 highlighted precisely this aspect of BP's operations there.

Consider other locations -how often when you go to a hotel do the staff tell you where the fire exits are? They may tell you that your room is on the 3rd or the 33rd floor, do they tell you anything else? How many times have you been to an office and again, not been told where the fire exits are? If you are in your local Walmart/Tesco, again, do you know how to get out if there is a fire? The corporate body, the firm, the hotel, has a duty of care and is legally responsible for telling you and not telling you.

[trish]

I think we agree on this now.

It can't be morally responsible. It doesn't have morals. It can be liable.

--

My post and now your last post commits us to the position that corporations act and their acts have causal consequences. I said one can further argue the legal, ethical and moral nature of of those actions. One can also argue whether a corporation itself is a moral agent. What is clear is that the actions of corporations are intentional (they are goal oriented and purposed to achieve those goals and they are not generally made by a single purpose but by many people engaged in a structured decision making process). Insofar as a corporation's actions are deliberate they may be judged moral or immoral depending on their consequences and intent.

I think it is important to realize that no philosophical consideration can settle the question of whether a given action is moral or immoral, as morality itself is a social construction and something that evolves with culture and civilization; we (not philosophy) get to decide whether or not a given action by a corporation or a person is immoral. On the other hand causality is not a social construction and so it's easier to decide causal responsibility. Corporations are definitely causal agents responsible for their actions and consequences. They are also intentional agents responsible for their actions and consequences. Whether they are moral agents or not, I confess I don't really care; the first two categories of responsibility allow us sufficient justification to reward or punish their actions.

[theoryman]

Except that the Captain was not the owner of the tanker and it was not his responsibility to replace the radar, it was Exxon's. I don't know how the Captain made the company aware the radar wasn't working, or what their response was, so I can't add any further.

I drove trucks professional for a couple years. It is well established that it is the OPERATORS responsibility, under DOT regulations, that have the force of law, to be sure the vehicle and all its safety gear is operational before operating it.


You are trying to dismiss the concept of a corporate crime/responsibility because a corporation consists of individuals with roles to play, and you therefore see the problems as having been caused by those individuals. In the case of Bhopal, there is an allegation that the initial act which led to the contamination of the gas plant was an act of sabotage, whereas the Bhopal survivors claim Union Carbide failed to maintain the plant in best condition hence the leak which killed at least 5,000 at the time was caused by erosion in the pipes. In other words, the company could have prevented the accident from occurring.

In both Exxon Valdez and Bhopal the Corporation was responsible because it is the Corporation that signs the contracts which give it the right to operate, and that has legal consequences. It is up to Exxon as a Corporate body to ensure that its ships are fully functional, for Union Carbide that its plant was fully functional, it is part of the health and safety culture of the firm, which is why you must prove how good it is, and the signal criticism of the fire and explosion at the Texas City Oil Refinery in 2005 highlighted precisely this aspect of BP's operations there.

In each of the cases you cite, an individual or individuals, failed to preform their duties. If you, as an employee, knowingly operate in an unsafe manner, you are responsible for what happens.


Consider other locations -how often when you go to a hotel do the staff tell you where the fire exits are? They may tell you that your room is on the 3rd or the 33rd floor, do they tell you anything else? How many times have you been to an office and again, not been told where the fire exits are? If you are in your local Walmart/Tesco, again, do you know how to get out if there is a fire? The corporate body, the firm, the hotel, has a duty of care and is legally responsible for telling you and not telling you.

Not sure about office spaces, but motels are required to post that information on the inside of the room doors. If it isn't there, the manager or other individual is responsible.

Some individual must tell or show you that information. Unless you believe that the corporation has the ability to control, on the micro level, all the actions of the employees, isn't that endorsing the concept that the employees have no humanity?

--

[theoryman]

My post and now your last post commits us to the position that corporations act and their acts have causal consequences. I said one can further argue the legal, ethical and moral nature of of those actions. One can also argue whether a corporation itself is a moral agent. What is clear is that the actions of corporations are intentional (they are goal oriented and purposed to achieve those goals and they are not generally made by a single purpose but by many people engaged in a structured decision making process). Insofar as a corporation's actions are deliberate they may be judged moral or immoral depending on their consequences and intent.

I think it is important to realize that no philosophical consideration can settle the question of whether a given action is moral or immoral, as morality itself is a social construction and something that evolves with culture and civilization; we (not philosophy) get to decide whether or not a given action by a corporation or a person is immoral. On the other hand causality is not a social construction and so it's easier to decide causal responsibility. Corporations are definitely causal agents responsible for their actions and consequences. They are also intentional agents responsible for their actions and consequences. Whether they are moral agents or not, I confess I don't really care; the first two categories of responsibility allow us sufficient justification to reward or punish their actions.

Never disputed the ability to reward or punish. I just say it can not be criminal. Only civil liability applies.

--

[Stavros]

I drove trucks professional for a couple years. It is well established that it is the OPERATORS responsibility, under DOT regulations, that have the force of law, to be sure the vehicle and all its safety gear is operational before operating it.

In each of the cases you cite, an individual or individuals, failed to preform their duties. If you, as an employee, knowingly operate in an unsafe manner, you are responsible for what happens.

Not sure about office spaces, but motels are required to post that information on the inside of the room doors. If it isn't there, the manager or other individual is responsible.

Some individual must tell or show you that information. Unless you believe that the corporation has the ability to control, on the micro level, all the actions of the employees, isn't that endorsing the concept that the employees have no humanity?
--

I am not sure what the point is of this argument -businesses, small medium and large, have to abide by the law where they are, be it a village a town a city or a country -you know as well as I do this is a fact, but you are unwilling to accept that the legal responsibility of the firm to abide by the law is a collective responsibility that applies to everyone in the firm. Perhaps if Americans did not rush into court rooms to sue at the earliest available opportunity when something goes wrong, these issues would not be so controversial -on the one hand I think its daft to sue McDonalds if X is obese because he ate two big mac meals twice a day for a year; but in a complex operation like an oil refinery, or a power plant, or even a nightclub, the owners can't just shrug their shoulders and walk away having sacked their staff -the law applies to them too, and it should. Who profits the most from these enterprises -the captain of the ship? The bank manager?

[trish]

I don't see how being causally and intentionally responsible exempts an organization from being criminally liable.

[hippifried]

When a corporation engages in criminal behavior, it's because the board set that policy. It takes more than one person. That makes the corporation itself the conspiracy, & a criminal enterprise.

[trish]

Since theoryman hasn’t had time to answer yet, let me elaborate the background of my question: Given the fact that a corporation is a causal agent that can intentionally act, why is it not justifiable to ever hold a corporation criminally liable for the consequences of its actions?

I said in post#64 that corporations are causal agents that act intentionally. Theoryman did not disagree. I also maintained that I was indifferent to whether they were moral agents; that we already had sufficient justification for rewarding and punishing their actions.
Again theoryman seems to agree. I least he made no criticism of the post but merely attempted to sidestep it with the assertion...


Never disputed the ability to reward or punish. I just say it can not be criminal. Only civil liability applies.--

Perhaps theoryman thinks that since I’m reluctant to call the corporation a moral agent, I can’t hold a corporation criminally liable for any of its actions. But the law doesn’t maintain that only moral agents can be held criminally responsible, it only requires the agent know the difference between right and wrong. I would argue that quite a few people behind bars know the difference but are indifferent to that knowledge and not moral agents. Yet they remain criminals.

It seems to me that any agent, human or organization that acts intentionally to physically harm a person for monetary gain could justifiably be held criminally liable. Again, law is something that we construct for ourselves, it is not some strange metaphysical object handed to us by the gods or the universe. I see no reason why we couldn’t decide that “acting with the intention to harm for organizational gain” was justifiable grounds for holding the actor criminally liable.

But I’m not a lawyer. I know some of the people engaged in this conversation are. What would holding a corporation criminally liable for its actions mean? Have there been cases where corporations have been held criminally liable for their actions? If not is there a legal reason why not?

[martin48]

Have there been cases where corporations have been held criminally liable for their actions? If not is there a legal reason why not?

In UK under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, only one successful prosecution and that was for a small company with one director. How well the Act will work for large companies with long chains of management (and deep pockets for lawyers' fees) no body knows.

http://solicitors.contactlaw.co.uk/corporate-crime/first-company-convicted-of-corporate-manslaughter-under-new-legislation-991157.html

[Prospero]

Funny thing the law. The US Supreme Court ruled that Corporations are people in the eyes of the constitution (for the purposes of making donations to political parties) So if they are technically people, surely they can be prosecuted?

Put Exxon in jail.

[hippifried]

There's been a lot of convictions of corporations for felony crimes. It's almost always money crimes though. They're still conducting business as usual too, while the endless appeals process goes on forever. I would imagine Enron could have been convicted of multiple crimes if they hadn't dissolved into nothing due to lack of any tangible assets. Arthur Anderson got their conviction overturned, but I believe they're still winding down the operation. After so many huge failures, I can't see why anybody could still have confidence that they could do the job at all, let alone honestly.

Far too often, incorporation is just a dodge by the officers, who know they couldn't get away with their actions without the corporation to hide behind. Too many cowardly thieves. Maybe if some of these punks were left to the NY authorities, & tossed in Attica instead of Club Fed, it might give others pause. This shit's gotten out of hand. Standard market pressures can no longer regulate corporate business, if they ever could. But some kind of regulation is surely needed. To loosen corporate control of government (fascism) if nothing else. Well, unless you enjoy getting screwed every which way & saying "Yes Master, can I have some more?".

[Stavros]

Funny thing the law. The US Supreme Court ruled that Corporations are people in the eyes of the constitution (for the purposes of making donations to political parties) So if they are technically people, surely they can be prosecuted?

Put Exxon in jail.

Surely they can be prosecuted, if there has been a crime, and if there is enough evidence to take them to court. But going to court doesn't guarantee a conviction -and, incidentally, what does Put Exxon in Jail actually mean? Every Employee? The Board? What for? Is Jail in fact the most effective punishment?