(February 11, 2013 at 5:25 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(February 11, 2013 at 4:14 am)Tiberius Wrote: The people who run corporations are not usually stupid.

Guided by their wallets does not equal fair minded

Not to mention that a disturbingly large amount of high level bosses are sociopaths.

(February 11, 2013 at 5:30 am)Kayenneh Wrote:

(February 11, 2013 at 5:25 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Guided by their wallets does not equal fair minded

Not to mention that a disturbingly large amount of high level bosses are sociopaths.

I think a fair assessment of the data will show this to be an exaggeration. To my view, the skew towards psychopathy in higher levels of management is very minimal. (I can provide references if you like.)

(February 11, 2013 at 5:53 am)apophenia Wrote: I think a fair assessment of the data will show this to be an exaggeration. To my view, the skew towards psychopathy in higher levels of management is very minimal. (I can provide references if you like.)

Power corrupts. History attests to the fact.

(February 11, 2013 at 4:14 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(February 11, 2013 at 3:12 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Well the real bad guy is the consumer, because they have no morals when it comes to lower prices. Only government, it seems, is capable of acting on behalf of the moral minority.

...and the problem you get when you give government this power is called corporatism. Government can't, and shouldn't, be trusted to do the right thing.

Neither should corporations of course, if the system is set up so that it is more beneficial for corporations to do the right thing, I believe most of them will. The people who run corporations are not usually stupid.

And what about when the workers are represented by unions?

(February 11, 2013 at 8:04 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(February 11, 2013 at 5:53 am)apophenia Wrote: I think a fair assessment of the data will show this to be an exaggeration. To my view, the skew towards psychopathy in higher levels of management is very minimal. (I can provide references if you like.)

Power corrupts. History attests to the fact.

Being corrupt and being psychopathic are completely unrelated. The former is a result of choices under the influence of personality, the latter an ostensibly permanent condition resulting from genetic or developmental factors.

(February 11, 2013 at 8:27 am)apophenia Wrote: Being corrupt and being psychopathic are completely unrelated. The former is a result of choices under the influence of personality, the latter an ostensibly permanent condition resulting from genetic or developmental factors.

And I want to know that why?

(February 11, 2013 at 8:33 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(February 11, 2013 at 8:27 am)apophenia Wrote: Being corrupt and being psychopathic are completely unrelated. The former is a result of choices under the influence of personality, the latter an ostensibly permanent condition resulting from genetic or developmental factors.

And I want to know that why?

Oh I forgot. You're a rationalist. Your worldview doesn't require that your responses have any rational relationship to what they're responding to, or to make rational sense in any other conceivable way.

Who's talking about psychopaths? Oh, you. No one else. What has that got to do with the discussion??
No complaint about you going off in a tangent. But you seem to think you should be holding me to it for some reason. Please explain, for after all, I like to understand.

(February 11, 2013 at 8:51 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Who's talking about psychopaths? Oh, you. No one else. What has that got to do with the discussion??
No complaint about you going off in a tangent. But you seem to think you should be holding me to it for some reason. Please explain, for after all, I like to understand.

(February 11, 2013 at 5:30 am)Kayenneh Wrote: Not to mention that a disturbingly large amount of high level bosses are sociopaths.

Right as always Fr0d0. Now, why don't you go play with the dog. You seem to have a similar attention span.

My political views tend toward the liberal end of the spectrum, despite being a city councilman and open atheist in the most conservative part of the most religious state outside the Bible Belt (Nebraska).

Moreover, I was appointed to the job, nominated by the Chairman of my village's trustees (approximately equivalent to a mayor), who openly states he hates liberals, distrusts atheists, and found me the "least divisive" of those who stood forth for the job. (That makes me wonder who the other people were.) We'll have to see if that stands up in the next election (2014-I am planning to run for the election.)

Such phrases as "fiscally-conservative" are in fact meaningless, as there is no definition for that, and no one could define it. (How does one determine conservative spending on education, for example, when education is an investment? Or roads, or the military?) I have found those are usually buzzwords for "cut social programmes."

I am a liberal by its classic definition: a person who stands for the greatest amount of freedoms for the most amount of society commensurate with a civil society. I do not view corporations as persons. I do not view the government's business as private affairs of its citizens when they are behaving lawfully.

There are "litmus tests" which some use to define a liberal or a conservative that are also mostly meaningless:
On abortion, I oppose it, but prefer it to the alternative (unlawful abortions). I find the first ethically troubling, but the second more so. Unless and until someone can come up with an alternative to abortion that does not drive women to quack abortionists and concomitant death and destruction by said quacks, I do not see an alternative. Plus, as a male, I don't really think I have much of a horse in the race, anyway.

On taxes, I find it ludicrous that there are those who hold that by reducing the tax rates one can reduce the public debt. We tried that already and it was a monumental failure. My own state proposes repealing the income tax for both corporations and individuals, and financing the state budget solely on sales tax (which disproportionally affects the poor).

On guns, I think a better method can be found than "arm everyone." I am absolutely opposed to Wayne LaPierre's proposal to make a list of the mentally ill (and besides, the NRA claims it is opposed to background checks for weapons, a total reversal of its position in the Eighties). I find that to be abhorrent, much like McCarthy's list of communists. Moreover, since the mentally ill are much more likely to be the victims of violent crime rather than perpetrators, and I guarantee such a list will become publicly available, it would provide to criminals a list of people prohibited from owning guns; very much like a checklist for burglars.

I am also opposed to privatising everything in the interest of reducing governmental costs. Nebraska, though a conservative-minded state, is quite socialistic in some things. Power and water are state enterprises and corporations are not allowed to compete in those areas. The state operates public libraries in even the tiniest of villages (my town of 130 people has a library).

It depends on the issue: on some thing I tend to lean to issues conservatives claim, on others to those liberals claim, and others yet I have my own ideas. But "centerist" is not how I would describe my politics.

Nebraska prohibits identifying by political party within the government, though membership in parties of course is not prohibited. Thus, our governor, a Republican, is identified as such in the press but cannot identify himself that way, or on a ballot. (That seems a bit strange to me coming from another state originally, but it seems to work well enough.) As for myself, I belong to a third party (the Modern Whigs) but again, I am not permitted to identify myself that way in either my village trustee seat nor on a ballot (should I run for election in 2014).