Not sure, but I'm way more scared by corporations than by democratic governments — bert1

Yes. Unfortunately, they essentially own the government. So in practice they run the state. They need a strong state to survive.

It’s a brilliant move, too, because anything wrong with society can be blamed on the government. The private sector gets a free pass. People began to take notice around 2009, when the private sector needed a huge bailout from the state.

Taxing the rich more is common sense, yes.

They should be paying even more. Or production should be nationalized— better than what we have now. My own aim is to have the workers take over production.

Political correctness has nothing to do with it.

Syād — Agent Smith

You’re overusing this. FYI.

Spain does the common sense thing. Good for them.

Oh, and:

Taxation isn’t theft.

The problem is plutocracy. All the rest is window dressing.

We can be agree here that he was put in prison because of corrupt judges. Nevertheless, it still be a negative mark in his political career. — javi2541997

I don’t see it as negative at all. In fact I think overcoming being falsely imprisoned is a merit.

“I’m feeling relatively optimistic that resilient democracy comes through,” says Zimmerman. “But it’s been a really difficult time for the country and I expect the remaining days, and weeks depending on what happens on Sunday, to be tumultuous.”

— Time magazine



Bolsonaro doesn’t give a damn about the environment. He’s yet another climate change denier who, like most right wingers, wants to actively make it worse.

What a shocker that the Fed's raising interest rates and sucking up money from the economy is having almost no effect on inflation. It's certainly affecting stocks, bonds, and the housing market.

It's almost as if there were other factors involved beyond monetary policy. :chin:

I have a feeling there is a punchline to this OP? — I like sushi

It does. I kind of threw it in there without much fanfare, but it's here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/742619

90% of profits go back to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks. That's really the answer.

The rest is reinvested in the company through increased wages, new equipment, new research/development, etc. A sorry state of affairs. In the 50s and 60s and most of the 70s, this wasn't the case.

A major change was 1982, when the SEC created rule 10(b)-18, which provides a "safe harbor" for share repurchases -- meaning that it won't be investigated as manipulation. This was overseen by John Shad, himself a product of Wall Street.

Which is the greatest advantage to control?
Brute force, money, or opinion.
Opinion. — Yohan

Yes. It's what Hume talks about in the opening of his "First Principles of Government":

NOTHING appears more surprizing to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular.

I think that's exactly right.

Philosophy rules them all, obviously, and adjudicates between them, and in the darkness binds them. — unenlightened

This had me laughing. Nice Lord of the Rings reference.

In seriousness though, I think it's true. I let "church" be the representative for religion, and religion (in my view) asks similar universal human questions that philosophy does. Religion also pre-dates philosophy -- at least the type of philosophical questions we're used to.

Most people in power are sincere individuals who believe they’re doing good in the world. That’s what I see. I don’t begrudge anyone their power, status, or wealth. I take issue with their actions, decisions, and judgment.

I think of the categories provided, the church is the most powerful. Everyone — in whatever class, in whatever position of power, and whether a politician or king or CEO, has a religion. This serves as a basis out of which their attitudes and actions flow.

It means it’s a sign from the universe to read something more interesting.

Added a poll. In reviewing some of my older posts, I think this is worth revisiting and I'd like to see -- if forced to choose -- what forum members think about power.

How would you see the differences? — Tom Storm

The rise of the corporation and technology, mostly.

The corporation is a legal fiction created by states, and has become the vehicle of plutocracy. Its “owners” are also major employers. It’s talked about as if it’s a person— which legally it is. A nice scenario for those who own lots of shares.

The start of the industrial revolution, where people went from mostly working in their homes, on their property, or in a small business to working in factories / mills was brought about by a change in technology.

Of course so do relationships between workers and owners - in feudalism, say. — Tom Storm

Not employer and employee, however.

How do we decide what matters? — TiredThinker

It's a matter of values and the prioritizing of those values. What do you care about? What do you like or love about life?

I think actions speak much louder than words (or thoughts...or professed beliefs), so looking at how we spend our time is, in my view, important. Not the time that we experience, per se, but the time we've standardized through the agreed upon duration of a "second" and a "day" -- so we can be a little more objective about it. How many non-sleeping hours are we spending on x, y, and z? That will tell you a lot about where your priorities are -- i.e., what "really matters" to you.

So we better try our best to align our time with our values. If we spend excess amount of time (A) alone, drifting, watching TV (or screens), overeating, being sedentary, or working a job we hate rather than (B) spending time with family and friends, or generally being sociable, or working in the community, or spending time getting healthier by being active and eating well, or doing creative, productive work voluntarily -- than we're likely in real trouble, because in this case B > A in terms of what matters, but A > B in terms of what we actually do.

To reverse a lot of this requires real reflection, an awareness that there's a problem, a desire to want to change, and the wherewithal to formulate a plan and stick with it. It means overcoming unhealthy habits of mind and body that we've developed, and which says something about our society as well.

Not an easy task. But an important question.

Good thread. It's a great question.

Like many things in political science, sociology, and economics, it's one of those words that is used a lot but is very rarely defined -- I think of something along the lines of "God", although that's admittedly an extreme example.

Capitalism is a socioeconomic system. Like other socioeconomic systems -- e.g., feudalism -- it has some unique features which differentiate it from others. What is the unique feature?

Many say it's markets -- but those have been around since time immemorial.

Some say it's the profit motive -- but profit has been around a long time indeed.

Others say it involves ownership, particularly the ownership of the "means of production." The idea of ownership and the control over production seem to pre-date "capitalism," though.

Perhaps it's a combination -- one which seems to have arisen after the middle ages and especially with the industrial revolution.

Personally, I like Richard Wolff's tentative definition: capitalism is defined by the relationship between the employer and employee. Like the Lord and vassal/serf, or the master and slave, a unique relationship is the defining feature.

I’ll continue to dismiss ridiculous claims with no evidence, with zero apologies.

The issue is evidence, not sophomoric ideas about what “science” is.

Maybe we’re wrong about the teapot orbiting Mars, or about goblins. I suppose “dismissing” these things is also being “unscientific.” Give me a break.

More silly justifications for belief in magic and general nonsense. I hear it from creationists, astrologers, psychics, and flat earthers all the time. Same arguments.

I suggest growing up. A good antidote to childish beliefs.

A "return" to Thatcher and tired neoliberal policies. What a pity. But the Tories might as well go all-in while they can, before they're booted out a la 1997. Hopefully you don't end up with another Tony Blair. Starmer seems like a joke, but anything is an improvement over Truss.

I like that -- thanks.

There's no easy way to convert the system from manufacture for profit to manufacture for need. — Bitter Crank

Agreed.

And yet you are not willing to consider me to be sincere when I have made such claims. — dclements

On the contrary, I think you're very sincere. I'm sure you think you've seen ghosts and ouija boards move, etc.

attacking straw men (with your arguments arguing against goblins and zombies which I have said nothing about) that you don't even know what I'm saying. — dclements

I know you haven't mentioned them. There's as much evidence for goblins and zombies as there is for ghosts.

All I said was I was at a cemetery on night (the actual cemetery happened to be Union in CT which has a history of things happening), one of the people I was with decided to walk further in than the rest of us, and when I shined a flashlight on him for a brief second I could see what appeared to be a combination of white and black shadows surrounding him and then they where gone. To me it would have been nothing more than a "trick of the light" (other than perhaps the sensation that there was a crowd surrounding the guy in the cemetery), except the person that brought us there said "Yes" when I asked him if he saw what I saw and he was visibly shaken from the experience. — dclements

And you conclude from this what exactly?

Do you know how many physical phenomena there are where something is able to move do to physical forces we can not see? For instances there is magnetism that allow objects to be either drawn together or apart by "invisible forces that can not be seen by the naked eye". — dclements

Sure. Gravity is a force -- pulls objects towards the earth all the time. I can't "see" gravity itself. True enough.

And it's also true that ouija boards don't move on their own.

It isn't heresy for someone to merely comment on the things they have seen in heard in their lifetime. — dclements

Stop with the victim act. I never said I considered it heresy — in fact I’ve said I think many people who make such claims are sincere.

And yet: there are no zombies. There are no ghosts. There are no goblins.

Since I have already stated that Ouija boards don't use magic, — dclements

So they can move “on their own”, but that’s not magic?

Again: ouija boards don’t move on their own. There’s no evidence for this, and it contradicts everything we know about the world and physics.

On the other hand, maybe trying to be a little more open-minded about certain things may not be something that a person such as yourself is ready for and/or might help you in your life. — dclements

True, I’m not very open minded when it comes to childish nonsense.

But you have every right to go on believing in fairytales. That’s your business.

I’d recommend everyone read about stock buybacks. A huge amount of profits go to these. Between buybacks and dividends, roughly 90% of profits go back to shareholders.

Who owns the shares? No surprise: the top 10%, 1%, 0.1%.

The profits should be distributed better — and that means giving workers a place in decision making. The current system is undemocratic and unjust.

The simplest way to change the undemocratic, plutocratic system is to take their property away from them without compensation. — Bitter Crank

Why is this simpler than having workers have a few board seats? I think that’s at least less extreme.

What if we were a species who found working for another individual (or small group) anathema? — Real Gone Cat

I think we already are that species— it’s just been beaten out of our heads in many countries.

An employee is not an owner, so should have no input in this. — noAxioms

They should have input, considering without them there is no company and no profits.

Unless of course we’re in favor of tyranny and slavery. But I’m in favor of democracy — whether in government or in a company.

But it belongs to the company, which in turn belongs to the owners of the company. — noAxioms

Says who?

But my point, I guess, is that much of our thinking amounts to nothing actually occurring. There’s nothing wrong with that, but the assumption that ‘thinking is doing’ is false, and can lead us to this addiction to thinking, a distortion that prioritises thinking over feeling and acting. — Possibility

Any thinking is an occurrence. It’s a happening. We can observe it, we can be aware of it. When I’m imagining something or talking to myself, something is happening. When I’m sitting and planning out something, I’m doing something. It’s a non-physical activity.

It’s just a way to talk about thought. I wouldn’t get hung up on that.

As for the rest of your response— there’s too many problems I have with it to go on about, as it’ll derail this thread. But I agree with almost none of it.

A quick reminder that shareholders are not the owners of the corporation.

I cannot agree that thinking is either physically confined within the brain or directly observable in time as an activity. These are probabilistic conclusions at best - a reductionist account. — Possibility

There’s nothing probabilistic or reductionist about it: thinking either occurs in time or it doesn’t.

You can also observe your own thoughts. You can observe your feelings, too. These are actual phenomena,

Again — what is the alternative besides magic?

what we name ‘thinking’ is evidence of thinking, based on perceived potentiality. — Possibility

“Perceived potentiality” doesn’t mean much to me. What we label “speech” is evidence of speaking, too. That we do that in our heads sometimes without making noise doesn’t strike me as requiring becoming spooky.

I guess I really don’t see your point.

Travels with Charley, John Steinbeck

For the second time.

So Trump can now declassify documents with the power of his very-stable-genius brain.

What are the odds that his defenders are engaging in elaborate satire?

First I think it's fair to point out that science is not a `thing,' it's the result of the work and study of individual human beings. — Xtrix

Why is science not a "thing"? Of course it's a thing. It's a human activity, yes. It's as much a thing as philosophy or art is a thing. It's just the name given for a certain kind of human activity.

So when you say science tries to corner the market on the definition of real do you mean it existed in Aristotle's science, Galileo's science, modern science? — Xtrix

It's not that science tries to corner the market, it's that science's ontology is essentially naturalism, a substance ontology. Perhaps many people claim science is the sole road to truth and "reality" -- that's undoubtedly true -- but science itself, as a human activity attempting to explain the world, assumes an idea about the world that attempts to explain it in terms of natural processes -- i.e., in terms of "nature." If it doesn't, it's not science. At least in my view.

In that respect, yes it existed from Aristotle onward -- all the ways its changed notwithstanding.

Thirdly, are you saying that, again, science tries to corner the market on the definition "real" for us back as far as the greeks, or is this a more recent development? — Xtrix

I'm saying science takes for granted that the world (and what's "real") is what's natural. Almost by definition. It assumes this. Anything "beyond" nature is considered supernatural and beyond science's understanding, and is usually (and rightly) met with skepticism.

Philosophy (and sometimes religion) isn't so restricted, however. In terms of ontology, which itself underlies science (natural philosophy), we can ask about beings in general -- and what "natural" beings are, what nature means, etc., and even inquire as to what being itself means. At the heart of this question is the nature of one being in particular, of course…the human being.

My view is that there is more to thinking than activity — Possibility

Speaking is always an activity: it occurs in time, or it doesn’t occur, and the difference is observable in time. — Possibility

Thinking occurs in time as well. Where do you think it takes place? Outside time?

Thinking takes place in the brain. It's a product of the human nervous system. It's not well defined, but it's certainly a human activity.

Unless of course it's magic. But I don't think it's worth discussing that possibility.

In my first encounter with ghost — dclements

There are no ghosts. There are no zombies. There are no goblins.

As with Ouija boards, how do you know whether they move on their own or not if you haven't even used them or seen other people try to use them? — dclements

I have used them and watched others use them. It’s long been a claim that they have magic powers.

They don’t.

it could be done through a subconscious act. — dclements

No, it can’t. It’s not plausible, it’s not possible, it’s not worth wasting time on.

Magic isn’t real. Sorry.

opened minded enough to realize that not all the things that associated with "magic" are really magic at all but perhaps are caused by some kind of physical phenomenon we have yet been able to identify and understand. — dclements

Yeah, and maybe Santa really does exist after all. Maybe there really is that teapot orbiting Mars. Maybe I can fly like Superman.

There’s equal evidence for all of it. Which is to say: none.

is factually incorrect by a significant margin. — 180 Proof

It isn’t. I quoted a snippet from the article, and I guess I can’t fault anyone for not reading it and taking my statement as a stand-alone— but the figure was from 2009, and is much more precise than simply looking at national emissions.

Stephen Pacala, director of the Princeton Environment Institute, calculates that the world’s richest half-billion people — that’s about 7 percent of the global population — are responsible for 50 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile the poorest 50 percent are responsible for just 7 percent of emissions.

I think this is likely any underestimate, but that’s another story.

The issue is one of communication. Better communication is necessary. The responsibility for this starts with each individual striving to listen with honesty and speak with honesty. — I like sushi

It may very well be why we’re in the mess we’re in. Perhaps greed as well. I tried listing some concrete problems without focusing on causes, I guess. But if I included those, communication would certainly factor in.

The problem identified is net overconsumption of and/or by national populations as shares of the global population. Why even mention "individual consumption"? — 180 Proof

Populations consist of individuals. So even per capita statistics are misleading. General national statistics or global statistics are even more misleading.

Citing the US, China, and India is fine — they are indeed the largest emitters. But that’s not saying much — and if used to justify the position that overpopulation is a driving issue, especially so.

41% of the world pop. (China, US & India) accounted for 60% of global carbon dioxide emissions (2019). — 180 Proof

Yep.

Important to remember that the issue isn’t individual consumption, however. It’s true that rich individuals consume more than poor ones. Taylor Swift flies her private jet around a lot, etc.

If we compare her to Darren Woods— she’s probably produced more CO2, in terms of individual consumption. That alone should tell you the true story of what’s going on, and why talk about individual “carbon footprint” is mostly the creation of the fossil fuel industry itself.

The issue is power. Power of a handful of people in government and business. They make decisions of production that we all live with. That’s true for China, India, and the US.

The issue is not increasing human populations. Maybe that’ll be a problem one day. It’s not a problem today.

No. We're "addicted" to beliefs. — 180 Proof

I wouldn't put it that way. I don't see beliefs as something like speaking or thinking, which I see as activities and, thus, can be analyzed in terms of habits and addiction.

But as far as our beliefs remain fairly consistent and (usually) immovable, I see what you mean.

However little we know about thoughts, we can't help having them. — Manuel

Sure. I'm talking more about a specific kind of thinking, which I differentiate from the "default mode" type of thinking that occurs all the time.

I rather someone addicted to thought harming no-one, than someone addicted to action without measuring consequences. — Manuel

Certainly.

Yes, they make the decisions, but they make the decisions as the extended power of the people. — god must be atheist

No they don’t. Governments are bought by corporations, and corporations are not governed by “the people” — they’re undemocratic.

If the people really did not like those decisions, then they would vote a government that reversed those decisions. — god must be atheist

Please do some reading. This is embarrassingly naive.

So stop saying that the cause of the world's problems are resting on the decisions of a few people. — god must be atheist

I will not stop saying it, because unlike most of what you’ve written, it has the merit of being true.

Your knowing nothing about corporate power and influence isn’t grounds for abandoning a well-documented analysis— sorry.

Yes, you did. — god must be atheist

No, I didn’t.

Now you say that the 7% is responsible for 100% of carbon emissions. — god must be atheist

What I said was:

"A small percentage of the world is responsible for carbon emissions." — god must be atheist

Which is true. See above about government and business.

If you’re really hung up on whether it counts for ALL emissions..,then no, of course not. Exhaling creates CO2, if we want to be childish and count that. But I’m not interested in childish discussions.