• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

When the Corporate World Gains too Much Power

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Or are they brilliant..? I think without politicians, we eliminate 'groupthink' ... Everyone becomes independent, and we can control the media too, by passing laws that force "requirements" for talk show hosts to be educated and fair... We the people can end partisanship altogether and move forward with modern technologies... If we dare...

There is no the people in the sense you talk about it. You still need minority rights, a constitution and so on. Otherwise it can turn into a dictatorship of the majority.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
There is no the people in the sense you talk about it. You still need minority rights, a constitution and so on. Otherwise it can turn into a dictatorship of the majority.

That's why the social scientists elected to write the proposals will be the cream of the crop, highly educated professors, doctors, and historians of the highest standard. They won't be allowing regressive options. And it will be peer reviewed.
 
Last edited:

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
That's why the social scientists elected to write the proposals will be the cream of the crop, highly educated professors, doctors, and historians of the highest standard. They won't be allowing regressive options.

It is not possible to do that. One person's freedom is another person's regressive options. There is no objective morality or standard and to believe that people, who have gone to universities are better at this, is without any evidence. It is your subjective bias. I also have mine.

So here is what history teaches us. It is not about making the best possible system. It is about making a system that can't be taking over by any one flavor of "right; good and what not", but allows for the exchange of ideas and most people that say in which ideas should be used.
To quote Churchill: Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

Never try to make a privileged class of people run anything as large as a society. It will always end up in a less free society.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
It is not possible to do that. One person's freedom is another person's regressive options. There is no objective morality or standard and to believe that people, who have gone to universities are better at this, is without any evidence. It is your subjective bias. I also have mine.

So here is what history teaches us. It is not about making the best possible system. It is about making a system that can't be taking over by any one flavor of "right; good and what not", but allows for the exchange of ideas and most people that say in which ideas should be used.
To quote Churchill: Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

Never try to make a privileged class of people run anything as large as a society. It will always end up in a less free society.

So your fear is of the majority taking aim at minorities... You think there's no way around that?

There is one way. Dividing civil rights laws from all other potential new laws... Such as how to handle pollution, or economics... Only *these* things then will be allowed to be entered into ballot measure style computer questionnaires. And rights will be kept according to the current ways.

Problem solved. :cool:

 

Audie

Veteran Member
Desperate for a new cause, now that destroying the democratic process didn't pan out, we have "censorship", ... because the mascot for greed and selfishness, Donald Trump, has been banned from Twitter for inciting sedition.

One would think these people would feel ashamed, and foolish, chasing after these idiotic 'causes'. But nope. The "neverwrongs" are never wrong. No matter how wrong they are. So their cause just keeps on morphing to keep up that righteous indignation that they have become so addicted to wallowing in.

Wonder if you could write a post without denouncing greed.

Even better, without always this bright line
US V Them, good v evil.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
So your fear is of the majority taking aim at minorities... You think there's no way around that?

There is one way. Dividing civil rights laws from all other potential new laws... Such as how to handle pollution, or economics... Only *these* things then will be allowed to be entered into ballot measure style computer questionnaires. And rights will be kept according to the current ways.

Problem solved. :cool:

...

Great idea, but to vague. Let me explain how. There is no strong coherent set of rights, that add up.
Let me give you a practical example for my wife's line of work. She is a social worker and nursing assistant.

You now have a human, which limited cognitive capabilities, which can't make an informed choice. I.e. the person can't control his/her diet and will get severe diabetes, overweight and so on, but he/she really wants the "bad" food.
Here are in the end the 2 "rights" at play. To have a shorter life based on the "bad" habits of the person or to have a longer life based on science in the end.
So how do you ask those questions? Well, it depends on how you value freedom, a good life and so on.

So a dilemma turns up in many places. Here is one for economics in a sense: Should someone by allowed to make computer generated simulations of pedophilia and make money on that?

Further: "... And rights will be kept according to the current ways." If you had studied history, you would know, that there are no current ways of rights. Rights also shift over time. If you want it from history in the western cultural tradition.
Rights belonged to free Greek men, who could serve in the military and who had property.
Today we debate whether animals should have rights. And it goes further. I am in a sense of those experts, because I have studied philosophy. So should trees have rights? I know, but it is not that simple.

I mean it. It is a terrible idea to have a privileged class of people to determine what is right or wrong. Or in your words: To ask the prober and correct questions.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I've seen social media giants censor Donald Trump and ban him entirely. Kind of like something you see in a Communist dictatorship.

So if it's possible that governments can gain excessive power to the point of over-doing it, can the same be said for the corporate world?

If so, what is the middle of these two polar opposites? Is it "the people"..? If so, do the people of the middle have a vehicle for power? If so, what is that vehicle?
I think anything under public user access should have constitutional protection including freedom of speech.

I perceive its going to be a huge issue eventually.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Trump apparently is considering starting his own "news" network, so should the government regulate its bias it he does?

"Freedom of speech" has never been considered to be an absolute here in the States, and court cases have pretty much taken the "do no harm" position as long as the media "does no harm" as well.

However, not all is cut & dry.
I think simple general regulations like that outlined for public access media would be sensible, but not so much that it suppresses one group over anothers objections when it comes to content.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
Great idea, but to vague. Let me explain how. There is no strong coherent set of rights, that add up.
Let me give you a practical example for my wife's line of work. She is a social worker and nursing assistant.

You now have a human, which limited cognitive capabilities, which can't make an informed choice. I.e. the person can't control his/her diet and will get severe diabetes, overweight and so on, but he/she really wants the "bad" food.
Here are in the end the 2 "rights" at play. To have a shorter life based on the "bad" habits of the person or to have a longer life based on science in the end.
So how do you ask those questions? Well, it depends on how you value freedom, a good life and so on.

So a dilemma turns up in many places. Here is one for economics in a sense: Should someone by allowed to make computer generated simulations of pedophilia and make money on that?

Further: "... And rights will be kept according to the current ways." If you had studied history, you would know, that there are no current ways of rights. Rights also shift over time. If you want it from history in the western cultural tradition.
Rights belonged to free Greek men, who could serve in the military and who had property.
Today we debate whether animals should have rights. And it goes further. I am in a sense of those experts, because I have studied philosophy. So should trees have rights? I know, but it is not that simple.

I mean it. It is a terrible idea to have a privileged class of people to determine what is right or wrong. Or in your words: To ask the prober and correct questions.

I have news for you... California already does ballot measures... We do everything as I explained except going further, we have no computerized questioneer... We do it all via written ballot.

So when you say "it's not possible", and "it's a terrible idea", California has already tested it, and it actually works.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Kind of like something you see in a Communist dictatorship.
Not at all. Trump agreed to abide by a set of rules on those sights. He was found to be violating those rules. That in no way is comparable to a dictatorship, as all that happened was Trump broke rules he agreed to follow and he paid the consequences.
Amd this tech power, if you actually take the time to read these agreements and terms of usage it way more resembles a dystopian cyberpunk setting like Robocop (the original/real one) than a dictatorship.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
Here is a place to research every ballot measure ever issued in the United States... Amd what's upcoming in 2021, I believe.

Statewide Ballot Measures Database

One that we tried to pull off here, but failed, was to eliminate the bail system, where those arrested would either be allowed to leave and come back based on the gravity of their crime, and not on money:

From the link above:
Overturn a 2018 Law that Replaced Money Bail System with a System Based on Public Safety Risk
Proposition 25

Election: General - 2020
Type: Popular Referendum
Status: Fail (Yes votes: 44%)
Topic Areas: Criminal Justice
Summary: Click for Summary
 
Last edited:

Cooky

Veteran Member
Not at all. Trump agreed to abide by a set of rules on those sights. He was found to be violating those rules. That in no way is comparable to a dictatorship, as all that happened was Trump broke rules he agreed to follow and he paid the consequences.
Amd this tech power, if you actually take the time to read these agreements and terms of usage it way more resembles a dystopian cyberpunk setting like Robocop (the original/real one) than a dictatorship.

What if citizens decided they wanted to eliminate some of those rules... Would a proposition to be voted on at the federal level, like a CA prop., be out of line?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Because you said: "Kind of like something you see in a Communist dictatorship."

Is Facebook Communism????? Are they against markets and property????
Are they exhibiting a dictatorship-like authoritarianism when they choose who they censor? Is that "free market"? Or more like a communistic market?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Eh... This is nothing new, it's just impossible to ignore now. This is the cost of having business intertwined with government.

If we care about not turning into a dystopian society a la Blade runner or robocop, we need to cut businesses out of our government and dispose of lobbying altogether. No more business led public services like the health system or the penal system we have now.
I am in perfect agreement with you, and a huge part of that is also drastically limiting how much businesses can contribute to political campaigns. (This would have the corollary, and very beneficial, effect of shrinking campaigning overall. Nobody needs electioneering lasting months and months. Canada elects a national government in 37-48 days, rarely ever any longer than that.)

And in such a model, you can still do all the "social" things that governments can, in fact, do fairly well (if they approach them properly), through building a fairer tax system. That includes prisons, of course, as well as the other side, social welfare (which is NOT socialism, folks).
 
Last edited:

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
What if citizens decided they wanted to eliminate some of those rules...
One option is to petition the government to step in and enforce fair, consumer friendly terms. Many nations have already done this, and their terms of service are not long, complicated, confusing, and tend to not trample on consumer-ownership, unlike the profound anti-consumer policies here.
Another option is to just not use those services.

Are they exhibiting a dictatorship-like authoritarianism when they choose who they censor? Is that "free market"? Or more like a communistic market?
Having the rules you agreed to abide by but violated anyways and having the consequences dealt for violating those rules is absolutely nothing an authoritarian state. It's definitely more of a free-market thing, as those business are free to make their user agreements stack very heavily against the consumer.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Having the rules you agreed to abide by but violated anyways and having the consequences dealt for violating those rules is absolutely nothing an authoritarian state. It's definitely more of a free-market thing, as those business are free to make their user agreements stack very heavily against the consumer.
When rules are only applied to those who you disagree with... it is wrong.

When they censor one group but let the Ayatollah on... that is dictatorship.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Having the rules you agreed to abide by but violated anyways and having the consequences dealt for violating those rules is absolutely nothing an authoritarian state. It's definitely more of a free-market thing, as those business are free to make their user agreements stack very heavily against the consumer.
I agree... but you didn't answer my questions.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Are they exhibiting a dictatorship-like authoritarianism when they choose who they censor? Is that "free market"? Or more like a communistic market?
Any censorship is dictatorial in nature. Its why the first thing dictators take over is the media.
 
Top