The mistakes they make when philosophizing. — Marchesk

Some philosophers are praised by one group and excoriated by another. Some people think some philosophers are RIGHT and others think the same philosopher is NOT EVEN WRONG. So, when you say "mistakes they make" are we to suppose they make glaring errors that even their admirers would call mistakes?

Ability to correct our mistakes over time. — Marchesk

Correct 'old mistakes' or catch and correct 'new mistakes'? Haven't the old mistakes been pretty well identified and corrected? Or not? If not, what the hell has philosophy been doing for the past 2500 years? If philosophy had progressed, wouldn't the number and gravity of new mistakes be quite minor by this time?

Is literature a field that progresses? I don't think it's the goal of writing to advance the field. It's like asking whether art progresses. New forms are introduced, and people may or may not value the new over the old, but there isn't an objective criteria for what counts as progress. Maybe the accumulation of works could be considered a sort of progress?

If philosophy is an art form, then okay, progress doesn't matter. — Marchesk

Some people think that literature is a field that progresses. I'm not one of them. Successful literature changes with and satisfies the readers of the author's time, and if its very successful, it satisfies centuries afterward--Dante, Boccaccio, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, et al. What pleases people in literature doesn't "progress" it changes, and of course some people's standards are higher than others. Some people like trashy bodice ripper romances, others like a novel by Henry James or Dickens.

Some people think philosophy is a complete waste of time, let alone it being able to progress.

Once upon a time, but not recently, philosophy was the hot zone of human thought. The various fields which philosophy spawned (like physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) over time became the new and current hot spots.

To what extent can one live a full, productive, intellectually rich life without studying philosophy beyond knowing something about its classic works? Had philosophy "progressed" wouldn't it still be the keystone of human thought? It isn't. New "arches" have been built above the ancient arch, and new keystones are holding up these much larger arches.

Oh, sorry, embarrassing proofreading error. That was supposed to be, "You can not derive an ought from an is". Like, "many people are murdering other people" doesn't produce "people ought to murder each other". They ought not murder each other.

Otherwise, you should definitely go to the store.

There are real fascists in the world, but let's define what "fascism" is, once again:

an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. Look at Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco and such like as exemplars of fascism. Fascism is generally characterized by:

authoritarianism
totalitarianism
dictatorship
despotism
autocracy
nationalism
militarism
xenophobia
racism
anti-Semitism
jingoism
isolationism

One might be an autocrat, but not be a fascist. One might be a nationalist, and not a fascist. One might be antisemitic but not be a fascist. But when these are added together -- a nationalist, despotic, antisemitic, racist, xenophobic, totalitarian, then you're in within the nature of fascism.

Trump is proving to be a poor high-level political operative, which makes sense because he has zero experience in that area. He is an ambitious opportunist. He doesn't seem to be very insightful about the job he acquired last November which many of us now deeply regret (and more will in the future). BUT, IF Donald Trump and the Republican Party are imbeciles, reckless fools, classist lick spittles in service to the rich, etc. (and this applies to numerous Democrats as well) they are not fascist.

Yet.

Are people bad at philosophy? — Marchesk

How would you decide that people were either "good" or "bad" at philosophy? Would one look for "progress"?

Are people bad at literature? Literature has made little "progress" beyond the achievements of the first surviving works we have (just my opinion). Greek tragedy is pretty good (ref: the Oresteia), and Greek comedy is pretty funny (Lysistrata, for example). Some of the Psalms date back 3000 years and are still in daily use. We have lost most of the ancient literature; only a fragment remains. The quantity of literature we have since 1400 is much, much larger -- because we haven't lost much of it, yet. Is it "better" because there is more of it?

Then, nobody is good at everything. Some people are great poets and lousy physicians. Some people are great at making money but bad at ethics. Some individuals were on the right track in science over the last few millennia, but they were frequently one-off insightful geniuses. It took us a long time to accumulate enough insight into biology, physics, chemistry, geology, etc. to ignite the scientific revolution.

What we are really not good at is overcoming our biological and mental limitations. We don't seem to be able to plan for the long run--50 to 100 months, let alone 50, 100, or 1000 years into the future. We don't seem to be able to perceive the desperate straits we get ourselves into until about 15 minutes after it is too late.

No, we're great at philosophy, and a dozen other fields. Sadly, it may not save us.

Some people say you can derive an ought from an is. Is that true?

ought (v.)
Old English ahte "owned, possessed," past tense of agan "to own, possess, owe" (see owe). As a past tense of owe, it shared in that word's evolution and meant at times in Middle English "possessed" and "under obligation to pay." It has been detached from owe since 17c., though he aught me ten pounds is recorded as active in East Anglian dialect from c. 1825. As an auxiliary verb expressing duty or obligation (late 12c., the main modern use), it represents the past subjunctive.

The "to can" refers only to the food preservation sense. There is no "to can" in the other sense as it's a modal auxiliary. It doesn't have a non-finite form, i.e no "to can", no "canning" etc. — Baden

Infinitive: to can
Participle: could
Gerund: canning —

This was provided by a website, http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/English/can.html . It could be that it's conjugations are computer-generated, and what would a computer know about it? There is a reason for giving "to can" as the infinitive, however (but I don't think the computer was cognizant of this reason).

can (v.1)

Old English 1st & 3rd person singular present indicative of cunnan "know, have power to, be able," (also "to have carnal knowledge"), from Proto-Germanic *kunnan "to be mentally able, to have learned" (source also of Old Norse kenna "to know, make known," Old Frisian kanna "to recognize, admit," German kennen "to know," Gothic kannjan "to make known"), from PIE root *gno- (see know).

Absorbing the third sense of "to know," that of "to know how to do something" (in addition to "to know as a fact" and "to be acquainted with" something or someone). An Old English preterite-present verb, its original past participle, couth, survived only in its negation (see uncouth), but see also could. The present participle has spun off as cunning. — Online Etymology Dictionary

So, in the Old English (and other) sources, cunnan from which "can" is derived, would have had an infinitive form. I am quite sure whoever cooked up "to can" was not writing from depth of knowledge but was applying a formula.

All this to show that "what, when, where, which, who, how, and why" are not sufficient to nail down all knowledge, and no matter how many words one employed in the list, problems would leak out all over the place, oozing from ever seam.

Well, dearest, you had made up a list of interrogative words (who, what, why...) and you invited comment. I thought perhaps, following on Time Line, that perhaps words like must, shall, will, should, would, can, could, may, and might could possibly be of use to you in your project -- whatever the hell that is. Then you said...

However, isn't there any aspect of our present reality that demands a new line of questioning? — TheMadFool

and I suggested that perhaps must, shall, will, should, would, can, could, may, and might might, may, could, would... possibly be useful to you.

Think about it.

Could is past tense. — TimeLine

English is strange. The infinitive of 'can' is 'to can'. Outside of food preservation, I've never come across "to can" until a few minutes ago in a dictionary entry. At any rate, 'can' is a modal verb. Maybe it had a more sensible infinitive form in Old English.

Modal verbs are auxiliary verbs that expresses necessity or possibility. English modal verbs include must, shall, will, should, would, can, could, may, and might.

So, is necessity or possibility accounted for by what, when where, which, who, how, and why?

Can humans get outside their conceptual schemas?

Is 'the self' part of a 'conceptual schema'? I think I am self, which comprises all of me in various media (meat, ideas, memories, perceptions...). I think I am one self among many other selves, but the only self I know is me, and I can not escape me. I can't step away from my self to think about who I am. I cannot get outside this schema.

Maybe I am not a self; maybe I am part of a larger schema which 'projects' nonexistent selves on a wall. If the projector went dark, then those selves would cease existentng. I can not get out of this schema either.

Has Professor Searle been exhibiting irrational heterosexual exuberance (ref: Alan Greenspan)?

What is the point of rising to the top of one's department (Professor Emeritus) and field (famous philosopher) if one can't even use the income and prestige to leverage a little sex before one's career is intercepted by the grim reaper or an investigation and prosecution, whichever comes first?

Suppose Ms. Ong had calculated that bedding Prof. Searle might have professional advantages for herself, and suppose it did. Lots of people have advanced their careers between bed sheets as well as between proof sheets of their scholarly articles. Is that so terrible? Leveraging power, sex, money, and other assets to get ahead is SOP. Such approaches fly in the face of Equal Employment Opportunity law, of course. My guess it is still a workable approach, EEO not withstanding.

Suppose Ms. Ong had decided to inquire of Professor Searles, "Precisely what are you going to do for my career, Johnny, in exchange for us becoming lovers? I want it in writing, and I want some substantial cash in advance as surety that you will deliver on the stated benefits."

Not all academic screwing is the same, of course. Coach Jerry Sandusky's screwing adolescents in the showers of Penn State was more exploitative and involved more 'straight forward' coercion and exploitation, probably. It's difficult for a 15 year old to calculate or negotiate long term advantages from getting screwed in the showers.

Hamilton dropped out of college. — ernestm

So? Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg and Oprah Winfrey dropped out of college too.

I did write something on that but it is 20,000 words and I am not allowed to share a link. — ernestm

The gods are merciful.

But is it always like that? — Pierre-Normand

No.

The Nazis launched Kristallnacht on November 09, 1938. This was allegedly in response to the murder of a low-level German diplomat in Paris by a 17-year-old Polish Jew, Herschel Grynszpan, who allegedly wanted revenge for his parents’ sudden deportation from Germany to Poland.

I don't know for sure what Herschel Grynszpan's motives were for shooting Ernst vom Rath. Perhaps it was because his parents were being deported, perhaps it was because of the severe antisemitism being promoted in Germany. Whatever the motive, it was officially murder in 1938, and not an act of war. "The war" was underway but it hadn't been clearly declared. In any event, Herschel Grynszpan can not be listed as a cause of Kristallnacht. Killing Rath wouldn't help his parents deportation; he was, most likely, just the first German to walk into the crosshairs of Grynszpan's gun (unless Grynszpan was singling out Rath for some other, unknown, reason). Further, vom Rath's death wasn't worth anything even remotely close to a reprisal like Kristallnacht.

Kristallnacht was, most likely, planned in advance and vom Rath's death was simply a convenient excuse.

Many people in France (and elsewhere) were dreading the outbreak of war. Some were fairly sure that war between Germany and France was unlikely. Some thought that war would break out and that the French armed forces would successfully defend France. Some were oblivious to the possibilities. Some people favored German antisemitic policies. So, we can not be sure what strain of thinking might have been influenced Herschel Grynszpan's actions the most.

So, what I know about string theory could be written on the back of a postage stamp in none-too-small lettering. Any thoughts I have about string theory are fourth hand and not worth your time.

Take Hilary Clinton's e-mail server and as Sanders put it, "her damned e-mails". Gallons of ink have been spilled on this case, from 100% pro to 100% against, and every minute interval in between. Why was Hilary using a private e-mail server for official business? I don't know. Is the truth somewhere in the middle? My guess is that the truth is closer to one end than the other, maybe quite close--but I don't know which end that would be. I'm not entirely sure that Hilary Clinton herself knows the answer to the question.

A lot of questions are like the server problem: They seem to begin in dark, murky water and go down hill from there. It may be that very bad motives are driving an act, or it may be that the really good motives and acts just don't look great in bright daylight. It may be that critical pieces of information about [the issue] are missing. Or, it may be that many people (for and against) are lying. It may be that the whole shebang is just a token for something else that has stuck in somebody's craw.

The indeterminate nature of so many questions is real enough, but it doesn't mean the answer is "somewhere in the middle" (though, of course, that's where it might be).

I do not have a position on Newtonian Mechanics vs. Quantum Mechanics. Sorry.

A murder spree is a murder spree and war is war. If the French Resistance shot 10 Nazi officials one day in occupied Paris, neither the Nazis nor the Resistance should call it murder (though the Germans might want to tell the story that way). Similarly, serial murders are not confused with war, and their perpetrators are not confused with soldiers. The Butcher of Brooklyn who extended his trade to his fellow man could be said to have "waged war on Brooklyn" but that was only a figure of speech. The couple of dozen victims who ended up on his cutting board were murdered in cold blood.

Was the German invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa) an act of war or a psychopathic killing spree? Some psychopaths may have participated, but from both sides' point of view, the extreme savagery of the fighting (and the behind-the-lines liquidation of millions of people) was war. War is very bad, and very bad things happen in war. Operation Barbarossa was planned, prepared for, and executed as state policy by the Third Reich. So was the retribution that the Soviet Union visited on the Germans, starting a couple of years later.

There is no middle here.

How did Hamilton create legal nightmares?
How many lawyers in Hamilton's day (or Lincoln's, for that matter) were NOT self taught, and had not gone to college?
Only 300 people in the US understand Jefferson's natural rights?
What have you got against Common Sense?

Was Hamilton a better thinker than Jefferson? In what areas? Jefferson was a very poor financial manager; Hamilton was a very good logistics and financial manager. Jefferson was a profligate spender in his private life, and was bankrupt when he died.

Why do you suppose that "People frequently challenge my thought on that in no uncertain terms"? It's OK to have unpopular opinions -- why do you need a poll to prove that 8% agree with you, and 6% do not, the rest not giving a rat's ass one way or the other?

The more common version of this is "The truth is somewhere in the middle", which is also problematic.

"The true is somewhere in the middle" is an example of waffling. The speaker doesn't know what the truth is and doesn't want to admit it.

Sometimes the truth is somewhere in the middle of two extreme opinions, such as "Capitalism is the perfect economic system" vs "Socialism is the perfect economic system". The adjective "perfect" rarely applies to human affairs, so we have a clue that the truth is not in either extreme position, but somewhere in between. On the other hand, the truth of string theory in physics is not somewhere in the middle. The theory either works or it doesn't. In the Soviet Union's debate between Lysenko's theories about evolution and Darwin's theories, the truth was way over on Darwin's side, not 'somewhere in the middle".

Responsible news editors often want to present "both sides of the issue". Sometimes this makes sense (ObamaCare should be repealed) and sometimes it is absurd -- giving both sides of the the serial murderer's crimes (in a news show, not a trial court). There are no "two sides" to a murder spree.

Right - you actually love someone only if you freely choose to do so. And obviously we are not talking about romantic love here (eros), but self-sacrificing love (agape) - putting the interests of others ahead of our own. — aletheist

I'm all in favor of free will, but I don't think we just freely choose to love anyone, whether that love be eros, agape, or philia. What we can will ourselves to do is remove inhibitions to agape, for instance, and we can will ourselves to act out agape until we feel agape. We can decide to seek out the teaching of agape, and so on. One use of the word 'grace' covers that inability to will unconditional love. Sometimes (through the good offices of our limbic system or grace) we do feel unconditional love for others, but we definitely didn't just decide to feel that way.

What prevents us from willing love? Love originates in the systems of the brain where will has little sway. The exercise of will can prevent us from acting on our feelings, but it is practically unable to prevent feelings (emotions) from arising.

it's not like you can tell me they weren't actively involved with human events throughout the entire Bible — Marchesk

God has interfered, intervened, got involved with, the affairs of this world much like the US got involved in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria: The intentions may have been good, but the results were not. For all the interventions of the triune god, the world is in pretty bad shape.

Your alternate ideas for god are good. You might also consider adding "a god who is good but not all powerful". Or, as some have proposed, a good god who is actually not very powerful at all -- a deity who just isn't in charge of everything. (This weak god won't make many people happy either.)

You know people who are really very fine people, but they can't solve their own difficult problems, or other people's difficult problems. That kind of god would have to put up with evil, just like we do. That kind of god would make better company for us.

If there is such a thing as a god that is all knowing, eternal, perfect, perfectly free, and so forth, we would be quite unable to apprehend this god. The kinds of gods we could apprehend -- the fertility gods, the hearth gods, the god of the grapevine, etc. were put out of business by the Judeo-Christian-Islamic triad. What we were left with is a god of superlative features which we put together to be quite out of reach.

Why? Because the god who is all unknowable mystery can not be convicted of anything. He's the all-purpose cause, the all-purpose reason, the all-purpose excuse. Very useful, really, but bogus.

If parents allowing their kids to have free reign over the neighborhood is considered immoral, then God doing the same thing can't be good. — Marchesk

Indeed, it would not be good. Free will is no excuse for bad behavior, whether on the part of a deity or the brats next door who ought to be straightened out with a big stick.

Metaphors are not to be taken literally.

I don't see any omni-perfect beings on or off the hook.

Yet the God of monotheistic religions is said to permit this sort of behavior from us because of free will. Slavery, genocide, war, child soldiers, rape, etc. is allowed to take place, even though God is good and able to prevent them. — Marchesk

To be fair, you ought to mention the good actions of the alleged god of monotheistic religions (whom I doubt you believe in) allows or (allegedly) aids and abets. You should mention liberation movements, emancipations, wonderful life-enhancing inventions like Nintendo and vibrators, peace making, Straight Guys Against Rape, great art of all kinds, cancer cures, Ben and Jerry's great flavors of ice cream, high quality rapid transit systems, fine gin, whiskey, and bourbon, kind humble people (millions of them--count 'em!), smart, polite children and pets, and so on.

Keep in mind that Yahweh flooded the Earth in Noah's time, because it was full of evil, but he didn't' see fit to prevent WW2. — Marchesk

Of course, Yahweh didn't flood the earth in Noah's or anybody else's time. Are you trying to sound provocative?

God didn't make Adam and Eve, put them in a zoo, and tell them not to eat certain plant products, either. You know as well as I do that much of the Bible is a mythopoetic account of the alleged actions of an alleged god toward his alleged favorite group of people, who are apparently quite ungrateful for his alleged efforts on their behalf.

God neither started nor failed to prevent WW2. That was, as usual. human folly at work.

Imagine parents who permit their kids to torture animals, terrorize neighborhood kids, steal and vandalize, etc. They do this because they value the free will of their children, which is considered a higher good and more loving than constraining their will. — Marchesk

Let's give God a break. The problem is parents and their children. The parents exercise their free will by allowing their children to behave like monsters (which is an act of commission). Their monster-children have a vague but strong id which drives all kinds of behavior, some of it pleasant, some of it not. In the case of many younger people, I wouldn't even call it "will" yet. It's more like "urge".

Parents have the capacity, duty, and responsibility to curb the urges of their offspring. This is what parenting is all about: civilizing id-driven savages so that the are socially acceptable, socially useful, and capable of being happy without mayhem.

Having free will is no guarantee that things will work out well.

Some superstitions become obsessions. Don't know why, exactly, people start doubting that they locked the door, but they HAVE to go back and check it. Doing so doesn't prove the door is locked. So, back down on the street, they feel compelled to climb back up to the third floor and check it again -- maybe 3 or 4 times (this is autobiographical). One is rewarded for this ridiculous behavior by becoming quite fit from all the stair climbing.

The cause of obsessions is probably some sort of anxiety about losing control of one's life. Pigeons, of course, lost control of their lives once they were put in the cage, so it's a miracle that they aren't all stark raving mad.

Let's put Wosret in a Skinner Box and see what we can accomplish for SCIENCE.

Ah, the EMP scenario. Quite popular as a apocalypse inducing event.

One Second After is a 2009 fiction novel by American writer William R. Forstchen. The novel deals with an unexpected electromagnetic pulse attack on the United States as it affects the people living in and around the small American town of Black Mountain, North Carolina. Wikipedia

The sequel is One Year After, and the second sequel is The Final Day.

EMPs are a good plot device because, as you note, they would obscure the evidence of what happened.

I haven't read these yet. EMPs open the door to some fairly spooky plot possibilities, whether it be human- or alien-produced.

Kung pao, perhaps?

a totally free market. I think we'd agree that's a fair description of the global economy. — Mongrel

I'd agree to no such malarky.

Mongrel Enterprises, Inc. makes her contaminating windmills by not merely exploiting labor, but by exploiting the most vulnerable labor in the most degraded economic settings. She externalizes the environmental costs by flushing all of the toxic wastes from the factory into the Long Dong River, thus fucking over her unfortunate employees a second time around. The various toxic fumes which outgas from the plastics and glues used in her repellant product are not even pushed out with a fan. She just let's the miasma build up in the plant. The kiddies are dead meat anyway. (What does Madam Mongrel care? She wouldn't think of ever actually walking through this toxic shit hole.)

There are other reasons why Mongrel Enterprises is doing well. She located her malignant plants in a country that granted favorable trade deals. This SE Asian Tiger won the race to the bottom, taking away the crown of filth from Bangladesh. Not only that, Mongrel Enterprises' Country of Origin is run by a grotesque conservative party that is virulently anti-working class, anti-union, and (when you get right down to it) anti-human, who grants very favorable tax treatment to companies that assist them in their War on the Working Class.

True enough, Kranking Wind wasn't able to compete with Mongrel Enterprises criminal operations in the US market. Instead, he relocated the company to the European Union where his fine environmental and labor record led to his being showered by laurel crowns and contracts for windmills all over the globe.

In the end he died happy with a halo around his head. He went to heaven (even though he was a socialist atheist) and Mongrel went to hell (even though she was a capitalist evangelical).

If the concept of "corporation", allows for corporations to exist in an immoral way, then it follows that the concept of "corporation" is an immoral concept. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm willing to entertain the notion that the concept of the "corporation" is immoral if it shields its owners, office holders and management from the law. Takata airbags, for instance, were not as safe as advertised, and it may be that this was known for quite some time by various corporations. in the case of VW, diesel pollution control equipment was deliberately made deceptive and dysfunctional. The corporation's treasuries are being depleted by fines, (some -- not a lot proportionate to their profitability) but I suspect that few of the management who aided and abetted VW's fraud, and none of the stockholders who profited by the fraud, will be punished.

Are you saying that corporate law is immoral? — Mongrel

The consequences can be immoral. A law that shields individuals for their immoral acts under the cloak of a corporation, for instance, could be immoral.

A law (or interpretation of a law) which grants to corporations personhood, a right to free speech, and so forth, could be immoral. For instance, consider the case of Citizens United:

What is the Citizens United decision?

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. Wikipedia

The law that says a corporation is an individual is absurd, and may (will probably) have moral consequences. Unions aren't individuals either, of course.

quote="Mongrel;61390"]I mentioned earlier that the concept was a significant factor in the emergence of European nation states. If you do mean to say that the concept of the corporation is immoral, you're indicting the whole global shebang.[/quote]

I am not saying that the corporation is inherently immoral or inherently good. It depends... (as questions of morality always do).

The first corporations, and the first stock issued, and the first stock holders are one thing. Today's corporations valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars, are something else. They have interlocking directorates (they share strategic board of director members), they often have near monopolies on essential products, they have enormous economic, social, and political clout, and they employ million of people. A pea and a watermelons are both fruits, but there is a hell of a lot of difference between the two. Ditto for the first and the latest corporations.

I would counter that it's not corporations. They just act in their own interests. It's the lack of global law that allows them to exploit us munchkins.[/quote]

Exploiting us munchkins is in the best interests of corporations. Making a profit (generally by exploiting workers) is their raison d'être.

All things considered, I'd rather be a decent fellow who drinks a bit too much that a dead sober creep.

Alcoholics have a very bad rep these days; it wasn't all that long ago that the standards for qualifying as alcoholic were pretty high. One had to drink an awful lot and be totally dysfunctional. Now, if one gets drunk a few times a year (responsibly, of course, designated driver and all), or usually has a couple of cocktails after work, he or she is likely to be classified by somebody as alcoholic . I've known a few completely dysfunctional alcoholics. It's a bad state to be in.

But still, let us thank God for fermentation.

If India Inc. doesn't know how to take care of itself, it should hire a lawyer. Of course that kind of conflict can drive potential employers elsewhere, so India might have a hard choice to make. Whining isn't a productive choice. — Mongrel

Really? Amazing.

The law is often not a matter of morality. For instance, laws specifying how real estate property is transferred from one person to another, or rules defining what "jam" is, as opposed to a "spread" aren't loaded with a lot of morality. But the Nuremberg laws which the Nazi's passed to strip Jews of property, access to public places, careers--life itself--can't be described as mere "legal technology". The intent, texts, and implementation of the law was entirely immoral. So also were American laws segregating whites and blacks. So are a lot of laws.

Aliens established themselves on earth quite some time ago. Some of "us" are aliens--from where, how we got here, and what our plans are--is none of your business (for now). But when "scientists at Harvard speculate" about aliens, they are really just leaking closely held insider information. Fortunately most earthlings (or 'dirt things" as we call you) consider these leaks too far fetched to believe -- which is fine. Just keep believing that and all will be well with you (for now).

Benevolent Overlords

A corporation is a group which is treated as an individual in the eyes of the law. — Mongrel

That's right, but... maybe the law is an ass.

Corporations can be a means to at partially or totally shield individuals from the consequences of their acts, and others' acts on their behalf. Take the Bhopal, India gas poisoning:

It occurred on the night of 2–3 December 1984 at the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. Over 500,000 people were exposed to methyl isocyanate gas and other chemicals. The highly toxic cloud made its way into and around the shanty towns located near the plant.

The gas killed thousands and injured scores of thousands of people:

The government of Madhya Pradesh confirmed a total of 3,787 deaths related to the gas release. A government affidavit in 2006 stated that the leak caused 558,125 injuries, including 38,478 temporary partial injuries and approximately 3,900 severely and permanently disabling injuries.[4] Others estimate that 8,000 died within two weeks, and another 8,000 or more have since died from gas-related diseases.

"Accidents happen" but accidents are more likely when maintenance is minimal, when safety systems are turned off, and when large quantities of highly toxic stuff is stored and/or manufactured in densely populated areas.

Union Carbide Corporation's stockholders (and financial beneficiaries) were not held liable, and for all practical purposes, neither were the various employees of the corporation who had a duty to maintain the plant (like managers who approve or deny work orders in corporate headquarters).

Whether morality is involved is debatable. Ciceronianus says no. — Mongrel

Morality is involved regardless of what Ciceronianus says.

like what Bitter Crank says about "eternal vigilance") — jkop

Oddly enough, or not, it isn't clear who actually first wrote or spoke the phrase, "Eternal Vigilance is the price of liberty." Thomas Jefferson may or may not have said it, an abolitionist may or may not have said it, an Irish lawyer may or may not have said it. I definitely know that I didn't make it up, so somebody said it, sometime, somewhere, to someone.

Thanks a lot for stealing all of my thunder. But I did like this highlighted quote in the Monbiot piece

It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice should have been promoted with the slogan 'there is no alternative'

I believe that it should be one of the goals of human society. To be able to coexist peacefully with one another. — MonfortS26

I'll drink to that several times -- "And they all coexisted peacefully with one another ever after. The End." But Globalism as we have seen it in operation over the last couple of centuries, as "peaceful coexistence", has not been very peaceful or even mutually tolerant a good share of the time.

Globalism has become a highly ameliorated euphemism for the same old competition for profits, resources, territory, influence, power, and so forth

That has been on a roll since 1492
When Columbus sailed the oceans blue,
And paved the way for them all getting screwed.

There is an alternate version of globalism that doesn't get mentioned a lot at Davos: "Workers of the World, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains, and a world to gain." Labor still creates all wealth, and the working class of the world (which is just about everybody) also consumes most of the goods it makes. It doesn't need Capitalists to exist, thrive, and prosper. indeed, the sooner we get rid of Capital, the better.

Ok, ok, I get it -- not going to happen in your life time. But, NEWSFLASH global peace, motherhood, and apple strudel aren't going to happen in your lifetime either, as long as a few thousand Apples. Exxons, Archer Daniel Midlands, Volkswagens, Gazproms, and any number of hedge funds are toiling over the world to squeeze out the last dollar they can get.

and "IF the lazy blue collar workers in Indiana won't work for 93¢ an hour, somebody in Asia, Africa, or South America will. So fuck you greedy Hoosier bastards -- not willing to WORK for 93¢! We live in a global economy, now. We don't need you sons of bitches."

And, of course, they don't need them.

What do people expect, for countries to shut their borders down and prevent anyone from coming and going? — Marchesk

It's been done, and in terms of world history, seconds ago. In fact, quite a few countries have closed their borders in various ways--take the Great Fire Wall of China, for example. Or Iran pulling the plug on the Internet when things were bubbling over for a bit, or North Vietnam, or the USSR and the German Democratic Republic et al until 1991 -- not very long ago at all.

An interest in "the Globe" and what else might be over the horizon has been around for a long time, true. But "globalism" is more recent -- like, the British, French, Hapsburg, Russian, and various other empires. And "globalism has a much more complex agenda than finding out what surprises might be over the horizon. Like, making sure there are no surprises.