Just in the same way Margaret Thatcher left government here and went to help tobacco companies discover new markets in India and other less developed countries because people in the west were too aware of the risks of smoking.

Can you provide some evidence of this?

the money they save or make is going to be greater than any fines they have to pay.

DRAT! BNSC didn't even make it into the top 100. No wonder I have too much month at the end of the money. ;)

Rush said that prices were falling because of corporations like Walmart who were cutting prices.

I made the point that someone is paying the price for these price cuts..we just might not realise it, and Walmart was bound by law to make a profit.

Corporations often go ahead and break the law..knowing that the money they save or make is going to be greater than any fines they have to pay. Because their first duty is to their shareholders, as long as they can afford it they can go ahead and cause suffering, damage to the environment and death and still go on trading without changing their ways.

THE TOP 100 CORPORATE CRIMINALS OF THE 1990's

...

25) Iroquois Pipeline Operating Company
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $15 million
10 Corporate Crime Reporter 22(1), June 3, 1996

...

100) Samsung America Inc.
Type of Crime: Campaign finance
Criminal Fine: $150,000
10 Corporate Crime Reporter 6(5), February 12, 1996

....
But be that as it may, corporations are no different, for the most part, than human beings in general. They sometimes (often) break the law because they know that enforcement is difficult and expensive, and the chances of getting caught are often relatively slim. This doesn't mean that they don't often get caught, but that noting that they do is just a reflection of human nature in general--humans avoid and evade laws as a matter of course.

Es you are totally awesome....

I'll come back to the rest of your post later when I have more time..but this bit stands out because I was thinking about it earlier today.

You seem to think I got upset with you for some personal reason over the babymilk debate. I didn't.

I got upset because I suddenly realised the way you think.

You genuinely believe that if people could get away with doing bad things, then they would do them...and not only that..you seem to think this is ok and the natural way of things.

In other words..it is right that corporations screw people over, destroy the environment, exploit people, cause deaths etc etc because they can get away with it. If they can make a profit doing it then it somehow makes it ok. Justifiable. If people don't stop them, then it's there fault and the corporation is blameless. It is only doing what is 'natural'

I just can't fathom how you think this is ok. It's like meeting an alien species on my own planet. I don't see how we can ever resolve this argument when the foundations that we are arguing on are so different.

Every argument you come up with appears to rest on the foundations of "Do what you can get away with be the whole of the law".

Where is the individuals responsibility not only to themselves..but to others? Have you really done away with that in your philosophy?

I'll come back to the rest of your post later when I have more time..but this bit stands out because I was thinking about it earlier today.

You seem to think I got upset with you for some personal reason over the babymilk debate. I didn't.

Hmmmm? No, I really didn't think that at all, I have no idea how you would have reached that conclusion.

I don't really understand why anyone gets upset over differences of opinion--I know it happens, of course. If someone wants to drive their blood pressure up and get all crazy because I disagreed with, and gave them reasons for why I disagreed with, whatever inane comment they posted here, well, that's on them. If they want to get all nutz because they insist on bringing me into it and I reply in kind, that's on them too. I don't give it a second thought.

There's almost nothing I've said here that I wouldn't say word-for-word to anyone's face. Nothing. Fundamentally, people don't have to think as I do. I don't have to think as they do. Anymore than the people that run Nestle have to think as you do. They don't. They never will.

But the question begs itself: What happens then? What do you do when x group of people doesn't agree with you or reach the same conclusions that you do, and similarly couldn't care less what you think or how you reached those conclusions?

What then?

I got upset because I suddenly realised the way you think.

This ought to be interesting.

You genuinely believe that if people could get away with doing bad things, then they would do them...and not only that..you seem to think this is ok and the natural way of things.

Nope. I think that generally people will continually disagree about the definition of "bad" and therefore, as a rule, some people will always do bad things. Even in instances when x agrees with y about what is bad, x or y may still do those things. I don't think it's OK to screw others, I just think that some people always will do it. It is the way reality works. I don't "genuinely" believe that "doing bad things" is OK, it just is.

But by extension, I think that rational people act in their own self-interest, almost universally. And that their conclusions about self-interest may differ wildly from yours. Even examples such as Mother Theresa--she did what she did because she felt wonderful about herself. She didn't do it because it made her feel sick about herself or because it made her feel as if jeebus was ticked off at her and was going to send her to hell. She did it because it made her feel good. Since she was free to think for herself, she decided that she valued that feeling of goodness more than she valued personal wealth or whatnot. So since she valued that feeling of goodness, she went and got it for herself. In other words, she acted in her own self-interest according to what was valuable to her. She didn't care what I thought about it, either, she just went and earned her own "profit" if you will.

But to take it a step farther, there is a framework for deciding when something is right and something is wrong, or "bad." As long as you aren't initiating force (or fraud) against others, there is no issue. If I volunteer to help Mother Theresa feed someone, that's fine. If she tries to force me to do it, against my will, that's wrong.

In other words..it is right that corporations screw people over, destroy the environment, exploit people, cause deaths etc etc because they can get away with it. If they can make a profit doing it then it somehow makes it ok. Justifiable. If people don't stop them, then it's there fault and the corporation is blameless. It is only doing what is 'natural'

I don't think any of this. I think individual people and corporations do such things, they always have done such things, and they always will do such things. That doesn't make it right, it's just a comment on reality, and they don't care what you think about it.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. You have the right to do whatever you wish, as long as you do not initiate force or fraud against others.

I just can't fathom how you think this is ok. It's like meeting an alien species on my own planet. I don't see how we can ever resolve this argument when the foundations that we are arguing on are so different.

You don't have to fathom about me thinking that it is OK because I don't think that. We don't have to resolve a completely erroneous statement of the way I think, because I do not.

Every argument you come up with appears to rest on the foundations of "Do what you can get away with be the whole of the law".

Then you aren't reading carefully, or you are willfully missing the point. Every argument I make on the boards is consistent and stems directly from the statement I have made 1000 times: You have every right to do whatever you please, except initiate force against others.

You may be confusing the comments I have made concerning the law here--law is by it's very nature the initiation of force against others. Of course, there are rational and reasonable roles for gov't and law (national defense, police powers, courts, protection against force and fraud). However, gov'ts have long since stepped over those lines and seek to initiate force against others, just because x group managed to get the gov't to do so.

I'll say it again: If it's OK for you to use force to make people pay for your health plan, it's OK for others to use force to make you pay to slaughter the people of Iraq. If it's OK for you to use gov't force to make others pay for some school system, it's OK for them to do the same to you to make you pay for corporate welfare. The principle in both examples is the same: convincing the gov't to use force against others is OK as long as I agree with it.

Since law is ALWAYS the initiation of force against others, individuals and corporations seek to avoid and evade it, like water seeks the lowest point. That's a rational position.

Where is the individuals responsibility not only to themselves..but to others? Have you really done away with that in your philosophy?

The individual's responsibility is to themselves and to the others they freely choose to do something for, family, friends, winos, poor people, whoever they wish to, whenever they wish to, they can be Mother Theresa for all I care. They can do all that they want, or as little as they want. That choice is theirs.

They, however, do not have the right to force anyone to think as they do, or do as they would not otherwise have chosen freely to do. Why? Because if the initiation of force is the only standard, then anything goes.

"Do what you can get away with be the whole of the law".

Hmmmm? No, I really didn't think that at all, I have no idea how you would have reached that conclusion.

From something you posted about me taking things personally.

Normally I wouldn't get upset about a difference of opinion..but in this case there are two reasons why I would:

1) I like you, you are my friend. To discover that you are possibly a person who has such callous disregard for human suffering upsets me for your sake.

2) There is something deeply disturbing about some of your opinions. I sincerely hope it is because i have misunderstood them, but I worry that I have not.

I don't expect anyone to think as I do. However.. Nestle are deliberately selling a product that in the context they are selling it in, IS harmful.

They should not be allowed to do that.

I don't care that they don't care.

They clearly don't care (although maybe some of the board directors do..but as board directors they cannot act against the interests of the company and therefore are stopped from changing the way they sell their product).

Your comment that Nestle doesn't care is the core of it. Nestle cannot care, it is not a person. Yet it has been given the rights of a person with none of the morals and checks and balances that stop people from doing harm to others.

This isn't about people agreeing or not agreeing. The facts are that Nestle's actions are causing death and harm to others. In then end the facts speak for themselves.

Nope. I think that generally, people will continually disagree about the definition of "bad" and therefore, as a rule, some people will always do bad things. Even in instances when x agrees with y about what is bad, x or y may still do those things. I don't think it's OK to screw others, I just think that some people always will do it. It is the way reality works. I don't "genuinely" believe that "doing bad things" is OK, it just is.

Some things aren't relative Rush. That's just a cop out. You're an Objectivist. You can't suddenly decide that you are going to be a relativist halfway through an argument.

There are several givens I think that most sane people will go with when it comes to right and wrong. Deliberately pursuing a course of action that will cause harm to others for your own financial benefit is one of those givens.

Murder, theft..things like that are also considered wrong by sane people.

However..Corporations although given the legal status of a person..are not sane. In fact they have many of the traits of a psychopath.

But by extension, I think that rational people act in their own self-interest, almost universally. And that their conclusions about self-interest may differ wildly from yours. Even examples such as Mother Theresa--she did what she did because she felt wonderful about herself. She didn't do it because it made her feel sick about herself or because it made her feel as if jeebus was ticked off at her and was going to send her to hell. She did it because it made her feel good. Since she was free to think for herself, she decided that she valued that feeling of goodness more than she valued personal wealth or whatnot. So since she valued that feeling of goodness, she went and got it for herself. In other words, she acted in her own self-interest according to what was valuable to her. She didn't care what I thought about it, either, she just went and earned her own "profit" if you will.

Just like the capitalists of the 1980s misunderstood 'survival of the fittest' to mean the fittest individual. You have misunderstood the foundations of the self-interest theory (which also has it's roots in biology and social theory) and you have pinned it down to the self interest of the individual to mean that they are not part of a society in a meaningful way. This is rubbish.

It is in fact in the self interest of the individuals to live in a society that is caring, supportive, and where people take moral responsibly for everyone...not just themselves.

For example. It is in an individuals self interest to have a planet that can sustain life. Yet Capitalism only survives through the plunder of those very resources that are needed to support life. It is NOT in the individual's self interest to burn fossil fuels, drive fuel guzzling cars, use disposable bags, support deforestation through consuming countless beef burgers...etc etc..yet individuals do these suicidal acts everyday. Why do they do this when it is really not in their interests?

But to take it a step farther, there is a framework for deciding when something is right and something is wrong, or "bad." As long as you aren't initiating force (or fraud) against others, there is no issue. If I volunteer to help Mother Theresa feed someone, that's fine. If she tries to force me to do it, against my will, that's wrong.

Well I already showed you how Nestle was committing fraud against people in 3rd world countries by selling their product as safe for them to use…

…by pretending to be nurses when giving out samples…

…by not putting instructions on their products written in a language the people can read…

…by getting mother's 'addicted' to the product (ie causing their milk to dry up because they were giving the free samples to their babies).

All these are immoral practices and I don't care what framework you are using...

Nestle is knowingly causing the death of babies.

In other words..it is right that corporations screw people over, destroy the environment, exploit people, cause deaths etc etc because they can get away with it. If they can make a profit doing it then it somehow makes it ok. Justifiable. If people don't stop them, then it's there fault and the corporation is blameless. It is only doing what is 'natural'

I don't think any of this. I think individual people and corporations do such things, they always have done such things, and they always will do such things. That doesn't make it right, it's just a comment on reality, and they don't care what you think about it.

Your comments on reality can easily be mistaken for tacit support of that reality.

I know Corporations do these things. You clearly know it. The real issue is should they be allowed to. Why don't you actually give an opinion on that?

You don't have to fathom about me thinking that it is OK because I don't think that. We don't have to resolve a completely erroneous statement of the way I think, because I do not.

I am not so sure.

Then you aren't reading carefully, or you are willfully missing the point. Every argument I make on the boards is consistent and stems directly from the statement I have made 1000 times: You have every right to do whatever you please, except initiate force against others.

So trickery, lies, taking advantage of, withholding vital information, destroying the water supplies, stealing people's lively hoods, having people work in slave like conditions and generally behaving in a way that is detrimental to human life on the planet is ok with you then?

You may be confusing the comments I have made concerning the law here--law is by it's very nature the initiation of force against others. Of course, there are rational and reasonable roles for gov't and law (national defense, police powers, courts, protection against force and fraud). However, gov'ts have long since stepped over those lines and seek to initiate force against others, just because x group managed to get the gov't to do so.

..and Corporations knowingly without guilt (because they are not a person and don't feel guilt) step over these lines and break the laws because it is cost effective to do so.

I'll say it again: If it's OK for you to use force to make people pay for your health plan, it's OK for others to use force to make you pay to slaughter the people of Iraq. If it's OK for you to use gov't force to make others pay for some school system, it's OK for them to do the same to you to make you pay for corporate welfare. The principle in both examples is the same: convincing the gov't to use force against others is OK as long as I agree with it.

Totally irrelevant to this topic.

Since law is ALWAYS the initiation of force against others, individuals and corporations seek to avoid and evade it, like water seeks the lowest point. That's a rational position.

The position once set up may appear rational..but the framework that caused that position to arise is NOT rational.

That is my point. It is like those computer languages that were created to appear logical and are..but only within that framework. The overall effect is not rational or logical. Corporations are not rational and logical and it is wrong for us to have given them so much power.

The individual's responsibility is to themselves and to the others they freely choose to do something for, family, friends, winos, poor people, whoever they wish to, whenever they wish to, they can be Mother Theresa for all I care. They can do all that they want, or as little as they want. That choice is theirs.

They, however, do not have the right to force anyone to think as they do, or do as they would not otherwise have chosen freely to do. Why? Because if the initiation of force is the only standard, then anything goes.

Then what do we do to stop Corporations like Exxon, Nestle, Walmart, and so on for committing crimes?

If it's OK for you to use force to make people pay for your health plan, it's OK for others to use force to make you pay to slaughter the people of Iraq.

Totally irrelevant to this topic.

Hmmmm? No, I really didn't think that at all, I have no idea how you would have reached that conclusion.

From something you posted about me taking things personally.

I have no idea; you would have to quote me.

Normally I wouldn't get upset about a difference of opinion..but in this case there are two reasons why I would:

1) I like you, you are my friend. To discover that you are possibly a person who has such callous disregard for human suffering upsets me for your sake.

I’m not. I would do anything within my power to alleviate human suffering. However, I also understand the direct cause of most human suffering: the initiation of force against others, and a great deal of the time the cause is gov’t use of that force.

2) There is something deeply disturbing about some of your opinions. I sincerely hope it is because i have misunderstood them, but I worry that I have not.

Your hope is well founded; your worry is not.

I don't expect anyone to think as I do. However.. Nestle are deliberately selling a product that in the context they are selling it in, IS harmful.

You keep repeating this as if it is further evidence of your position. Here is the argument: Nestle is selling a safe and effective consumer product that when used correctly, is demonstrably safe and effective given its use with millions, if not billions, of children over the decades of its existence.

Since it is a safe and effective product, the onus for proper use is on those who choose to use it. Similarly, there are extremely dangerous products that are hazardous by their very nature, gasoline, POL, paint, any number of household chemicals, baseball/cricket bats, hammers, et cetera. Those, again, are safe and effective products when used correctly, even though they can have terrible consequences when they are not.

Since these things are inanimate objects, the law holds those that use the product responsible for their use thereof, e.g., the mob boss is charged with murder when he uses gasoline to set someone on fire, even though Shell knows and profited off that gallon of gas before the mob boss does it. The person who has life-threatening allergies is responsible for avoiding peanut butter, even though Peter Pan knows that people will die, worldwide, every day for ingesting peanut butter. The law holds persons that cricketbat another person’s skull open responsible even though Gray-Nicolls or Canterbury profits and knows their bats will sometimes cause massive and often fatal injury.

The argument is the same for Nestle: Since Nestle sells a safe and effective product that when used properly does what it is intended to do; therefore, the responsibility for the use of that product lies with those that choose to use it. Therefore, Nestle is not responsible for the use of that product when consumers use it incorrectly or irresponsibly.

Since Nestle is not responsible for the use of that product when consumers use it incorrectly or irresponsibly, the only argument you have demonstrated is that you consider their marketing techniques to be aggressive.

They should not be allowed to do that.

They are, for the reasoning demonstrated above. The verb “to allow” does not apply—see below.

I don't care that they don't care.

This is an endless circle: they don’t care that you don’t care that they don’t care. However, you can’t make them think as you do regardless so the point is moot.

They clearly don't care (although maybe some of the board directors do..but as board directors they cannot act against the interests of the company and therefore are stopped from changing the way they sell their product).

I’m not sure what experience or knowledge you have concerning corporate law and management and the resulting powers and liabilities—but this suggests you have none, because it is utterly incorrect on its face. The good-faith duty is not to earn profit at any or all cost, the duty is to do what reasonably calculated, again in good faith, to benefit the company, which in turn maximizes profits. Boards can and do change the way products are sold every day. Generally, there is nothing whatsoever preventing the board of any company from changing its management practices, changing advertising and marketing choices, creating, or discontinuing product lines, or any number of the endless decisions involved in running a corporation. Your statement is simply wrong because Nestle could change its marketing tomorrow without fear of repercussion if it felt the change was in the best interests of the company.

Your comment that Nestle doesn't care is the core of it. Nestle cannot care, it is not a person. Yet it has been given the rights of a person with none of the morals and checks and balances that stop people from doing harm to others.

Of course, gov’t bestows some individual rights on corps because those rights must exist in order to create the products and services that make individuals lives significantly better. Of course, there are no moral checks a) because people disagree about what is moral and b) because the gov’t cannot hold an inanimate object morally responsible for its use. That is the purpose of law in this instance—rational and reasonable laws limit how people/corps can act.

This isn't about people agreeing or not agreeing. The facts are that Nestle's actions are causing death and harm to others. In then end the facts speak for themselves.

Nope. This only holds true if one accepts the conclusions that you have drawn about Nestle. The only fact you have shown conclusively is that you consider their marketing techniques to be overly aggressive.

Even if you made the case that Nestle’s product can cause harm to others, it is a nearly insurmountable burden to demonstrate that individuals at Nestle conspired and intended to cause ruinous harm to their primary consumer base, thus harming the company. Especially given that the behavior in question involves using the product in unintended and irresponsible ways.

Nope. I think that generally, people will continually disagree about the definition of "bad" and therefore, as a rule, some people will always do bad things. Even in instances when x agrees with y about what is bad, x or y may still do those things. I don't think it's OK to screw others, I just think that some people always will do it. It is the way reality works. I don't "genuinely" believe that "doing bad things" is OK, it just is.

Some things aren't relative Rush. That's just a cop out. You're an Objectivist. You can't suddenly decide that you are going to be a relativist halfway through an argument.

I didn’t say that anything is relative in that statement, nor did I cop out because I made a true statement of reality: people disagree about the definition of good and bad and then act accordingly. I did not make a relativist argument that either side was right, or that I agree that this is a rational way for individuals to live life; I simply stated that it is.

If you happen to disagree with the statement that people disagree about what it right and wrong and act accordingly, or if you happen to think that I did more than reiterate a true statement of reality, your best bet would be to present an argument as such.

There are several givens I think that most sane people will go with when it comes to right and wrong. Deliberately pursuing a course of action that will cause harm to others for your own financial benefit is one of those givens.

Some people will always do this, you are correct. Many of them will not, that is also correct.

Murder, theft..things like that are also considered wrong by sane people.

Sure, because generally these are the initiation of force against others.

However..Corporations although given the legal status of a person..are not sane. In fact they have many of the traits of a psychopath.

I don’t understand your point. This is true why, because you said it is? This is relative why, because you made the statement? How about this “The issue of sanity should be applied to a non-living legal fiction because x x x x… Corporations are not sane because x x x x…. Their relative sanity or insanity matters because x x x x….”

But by extension, I think that rational people act in their own self-interest, almost universally. And that their conclusions about self-interest may differ wildly from yours. Even examples such as Mother Theresa--she did what she did because she felt wonderful about herself. She didn't do it because it made her feel sick about herself or because it made her feel as if jeebus was ticked off at her and was going to send her to hell. She did it because it made her feel good. Since she was free to think for herself, she decided that she valued that feeling of goodness more than she valued personal wealth or whatnot. So since she valued that feeling of goodness, she went and got it for herself. In other words, she acted in her own self-interest according to what was valuable to her. She didn't care what I thought about it, either, she just went and earned her own "profit" if you will.

Just like the capitalists of the 1980s misunderstood 'survival of the fittest' to mean the fittest individual. You have misunderstood the foundations of the self-interest theory (which also has it's roots in biology and social theory) and you have pinned it down to the self interest of the individual to mean that they are not part of a society in a meaningful way. This is rubbish.

I haven’t misunderstood anything, nor have you presented a case that I have. You’ve just stated your opinion about the conclusions of others, and then characterized those conclusions as “rubbish.” I have no idea what millions of individual “capitalists” (whoever that is) thought or didn’t think, a) because collectives don’t think—they cannot, b) because you haven’t presented a basis for this belief you hold that they did, and c) because no matter what case you present concerning them, it is not relevant to anything I have said because I did not quote that group, cite that group, or even raise that group.

It is in fact in the self interest of the individuals to live in a society that is caring, supportive, and where people take moral responsibly for everyone...not just themselves.

This is only a fact if you accept your conclusions.

I can make a similar statement without coming to conclusions. “It is also in fact in the self-interest of individuals to defend themselves against those that prey on them relentlessly, that define morality on a whim, and that initiate force against them without hesitation.” My statement notes that self-interest does not include being a victim, buying into empty whim, or submitting to force. I, and others that think as I do, do not see society as caring or supportive when it has to use force against me in order to show me how much it cares. Similarly, I will never take any responsibility for what others do, be that rape, murder, or the initiation of force.

For example. It is in an individuals self interest to have a planet that can sustain life. Yet Capitalism only survives through the plunder of those very resources that are needed to support life. It is NOT in the individual's self interest to burn fossil fuels, drive fuel guzzling cars, use disposable bags, support deforestation through consuming countless beef burgers...etc etc..yet individuals do these suicidal acts everyday. Why do they do this when it is really not in their interests?

You are confusing your opinion about the viability of the planet over millennia versus the use of said planet by the individuals that live on it. The planet can sustain life, and has done so for millions, or billions of years. Capitalism, socialism, communism, whateverism are just ideas that survive in the minds of people. However, all of those systems comprise individuals, that must survive using resources that support life because reality has dictated that life must use resources to exist. Since that is true, it is in the individual’s self interest to burn fossil fuels to live and make their lives better, to heat and cool their homes, et cetera. It is in the individual’s self-interest to drive a vehicle that, although using more resources relative to other vehicles, will protect their life and the lives of their family in a collision. It is in the individual’s self-interest to use disposable bags because the cost to the individual is less than the benefits they derive from them. It is in the individual’s self-interest to eat cheap and nutritious protein that is easily and readily available at orders and orders of magnitude less cost than if they had to raise cattle themselves.

Not one of the things you have stated is in the least bit suicidal to individuals—in fact, I have given you reasons why individuals conclude that such things are in their best interest. You *may* be able to make the case that given complete and utter technological stagnation (extremely unlikely) that *maybe* the earth will become incapable of sustaining life. Good luck trying to convince others that they must live a significantly lesser or miserable existence because of your opinion concerning what might happen sometime in the future.

But to take it a step farther, there is a framework for deciding when something is right and something is wrong, or "bad." As long as you aren't initiating force (or fraud) against others, there is no issue. If I volunteer to help Mother Theresa feed someone, that's fine. If she tries to force me to do it, against my will, that's wrong.

Well I already showed you how Nestle was committing fraud against people in 3rd world countries by selling their product as safe for them to use…

The product is safe for them to use, if they use it correctly. Just like gasoline, sharp knives and machetes, and nearly everything else. Fraud, in this case, would be "This product is safe to use even with water that will otherwise result in the death of your children," or "This product is better for your children no matter what vicious chemical you mix it with."

…by pretending to be nurses when giving out samples…

We used to dress up in kilts like Scotsmen to give out samples of scotch, too. But we could have dressed up like nurses, it just wouldn’t have been as effective. Funnier perhaps. They could have dressed like jeebus himself or the Pope if they wanted to—that does not give anyone the license to use the product in irresponsible ways. Hell, they could have used actual, licensed nurses—that STILL does not mean the product can be used in disastrous ways. That, however, would probably fall into the fraud category.

…by not putting instructions on their products written in a language the people can read…

The responsibility for feeding oneself or one’s children lies with the individual and no one else. If one cannot read the instructions on any consumer product, for whatever reason, then it is irresponsible for that person to proceed to use it because the risks to themselves are substantial. If they do still choose to do so, the onus is on them, not the company that produced it.

…by getting mother's 'addicted' to the product (ie causing their milk to dry up because they were giving the free samples to their babies).

If mothers used free samples to such the extent that their breast milk dried up, again, that is on them. The formula could just have easily sat on the shelf until the mother decided to use it or not. That she used a free sample, as compared to her free breast milk is her own choice, just as nearly all of her choices about what is best for the life of her child are. Free is free, and she chose to use one free thing over another free thing because to her the benefits outweighed the costs—that choice is hers alone, and since it is, Nestle is not responsible for her choices.

All these are immoral practices and I don't care what framework you are using...

In reality, it is your opinion that these are immoral practices, and those that use them don’t care what framework that you would use either.

Again: What then?

Nestle is knowingly causing the death of babies.

No more than any company is knowingly causing the death of (insert whomever you want to in here). Using that argument, BMW is knowingly causing the death of drivers. Shell is knowingly causing the death of people. Peter Pan is knowingly causing the death of peanut allergy types. Caterpillar is knowingly causing the death of people like Rachel “The blessed holy st. pancake” Corrie. This list is endless, and none of it is true because, as noted above, there is an inanimate object between the company and the injury that can only happen when individuals act irresponsibly. Our spelling errors are not the fault of the pen or pencil company, or of the pen or pencil itself, they are the fault of the person using it. Scoring in cricket or murder with a cricket bat is not attributed to the company that made the cricket bat, nor the bat itself—murder and scoring are a result of a person’s choice to use the bat. These, like baby formula, are inanimate objects that can only do harm when an individual chooses to use them in ways inconsistent with their everyday usage.

In other words..it is right that corporations screw people over, destroy the environment, exploit people, cause deaths etc etc because they can get away with it. If they can make a profit doing it then it somehow makes it ok. Justifiable. If people don't stop them, then it's there fault and the corporation is blameless. It is only doing what is 'natural'

I don't think any of this. I think individual people and corporations do such things, they always have done such things, and they always will do such things. That doesn't make it right, it's just a comment on reality, and they don't care what you think about it.

Your comments on reality can easily be mistaken for tacit support of that reality.

Maybe easily by you, I wouldn’t reach that conclusion in the face of my express statements to the contrary. Most simply: reality is. A is A.

I know Corporations do these things. You clearly know it. The real issue is should they be allowed to. Why don't you actually give an opinion on that?

I don’t know what you mean by “should they be allowed to” in the sense that human beings and the corporations that they form can do nearly anything, except that which is expressly forbidden by law. Even then, human beings and corporations will always exploit weaknesses in that which is forced upon them unwillingly. So “should they be allowed to” doesn’t have any real meaning in that sense.

For example, some restaurants have sharp steak knives. Inevitably, someone in the restaurant will use such knives to stab someone else. But do we say stupid things like “the restaurant acted irresponsibly by not only allowing people to stab anyone they please, but by also providing the weapons.” No, instead we note that the verb “to allow” does not apply in that instance. The restaurant is not “allowing” something simply because they haven't taken steps to forcibly prevent it.

So, should they be allowed to do what? I think that BMW, Shell, Caterpillar, Nestle, Peter Pan, and Gray-Nicolls can make and produce cars, gas, armored bulldozers, baby formula, peanut butter, and cricket bats, and market them generally, however they wish, yes.

You don't have to fathom about me thinking that it is OK because I don't think that. We don't have to resolve a completely erroneous statement of the way I think, because I do not.

I am not so sure.

As I am the final arbiter of my ideas, thoughts, and feelings, your best position is to accept what I say about myself. Anything else is just a waste of time.

Then you aren't reading carefully, or you are willfully missing the point. Every argument I make on the boards is consistent and stems directly from the statement I have made 1000 times: You have every right to do whatever you please, except initiate force against others.

So trickery, lies, taking advantage of, withholding vital information, destroying the water supplies, stealing people's lively hoods, having people work in slave like conditions and generally behaving in a way that is detrimental to human life on the planet is ok with you then?

What part of “you can do whatever you want, as long as you do not initiate force or fraud against others” are you simply incapable of understanding???

Trickery = fraud = force = not OK. Lies = fraud = force = not OK. Destroying the water supplies = force = not OK. Stealing = force = Not OK. Slavery = force = not OK.

The rest are a bit too general to comment on.

You may be confusing the comments I have made concerning the law here--law is by it's very nature the initiation of force against others. Of course, there are rational and reasonable roles for gov't and law (national defense, police powers, courts, protection against force and fraud). However, gov'ts have long since stepped over those lines and seek to initiate force against others, just because x group managed to get the gov't to do so.

..and Corporations knowingly without guilt (because they are not a person and don't feel guilt) step over these lines and break the laws because it is cost effective to do so.

Often that’s true. It’s true for individuals too, and communists, socialists, whateverists. I don’t know what you want me to say here, again, because this is a part of the human existence. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, I’m not saying anything about any particular situation, I’m saying that people will always do this because they do not agree, for various reasons (some better and some worse) with what you think or would have rammed down their throats.

I'll say it again: If it's OK for you to use force to make people pay for your health plan, it's OK for others to use force to make you pay to slaughter the people of Iraq. If it's OK for you to use gov't force to make others pay for some school system, it's OK for them to do the same to you to make you pay for corporate welfare. The principle in both examples is the same: convincing the gov't to use force against others is OK as long as I agree with it.

Totally irrelevant to this topic.

The relevance is clear because if it’s OK for you to seek to use force against Nestle (because that is the ONLY way they will accede to your wishes), then it is OK for others to seek to use force against you, because that is the only way that you will accede to their wishes.

That isn’t irrelevant at all, and it’s the reason I’ve asked you “what then?” a number of times. Because if you don’t seek to use force against Nestle, they won’t ever listen to you. And if they won’t ever listen to you, then your opinion about their business practices is nothing more than that—an opinion.

Since law is ALWAYS the initiation of force against others, individuals and corporations seek to avoid and evade it, like water seeks the lowest point. That's a rational position.

The position once set up may appear rational..but the framework that caused that position to arise is NOT rational.

It’s a rational position because human beings think freely and therefore they generally have the right to disagree with whatever position is forced upon them, just as slaves had the right to disagree with slavery. For those that could not overtly break the law or change it, they did the rational thing: they sought to avoid and evade the law. They didn’t work hard, they did a worthless job, they ruined resources, et cetera.

If it isn’t rational, then you would have to prove why it isn’t rational because stating your conclusion as if it is self-evident does not present any argument. “The framework that caused that position to arise is NOT rational because x x x x…”

That is my point. It is like those computer languages that were created to appear logical and are..but only within that framework. The overall effect is not rational or logical. Corporations are not rational and logical and it is wrong for us to have given them so much power.

I disagree with you. I glance around at the world around me and see billions of individuals whose lives have been made immeasurably more pleasant, longer, healthier, and happier by the nearly infinite multitude of products and services that are made available to them cheaply and affordably. I see untold numbers of individuals that do not have to labor endlessly to make a cheeseburger and who are so rich that they have the leisure time to wile away with discussions like these. That is a rational, logical, and desirable outcome of what people and corporations do and it is a direct result of the power they wield using simple economics.

You are welcome to disagree, but it is not irrational or illogical, especially given that you typed your response on one of your computers and did not grow your own papyrus, make your own paper and envelopes, create a quill pen and formulate your own ink, scratch it out, and then walk here to deliver it to me.

The individual's responsibility is to themselves and to the others they freely choose to do something for, family, friends, winos, poor people, whoever they wish to, whenever they wish to, they can be Mother Theresa for all I care. They can do all that they want, or as little as they want. That choice is theirs.

They, however, do not have the right to force anyone to think as they do, or do as they would not otherwise have chosen freely to do. Why? Because if the initiation of force is the only standard, then anything goes.

Then what do we do to stop Corporations like Exxon, Nestle, Walmart, and so on for committing crimes?

I don’t know that you can. Ever. Without commenting on the validity of the particular laws that create particular crimes, in the whole history of mankind, no one has developed a way to prevent people from committing crimes. I don’t think they ever will without near total, intrusive, and direct mind control.

Maybe then you can get Nestle to agree with you.

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

Rush, I don't know how busy you are at the moment but Naomi Klein is speaking tonight Naomi Klein at Friends Meeting House, Euston.

I couldn't remember whether you were a fan or not..

Rush, I don't know how busy you are at the moment but Naomi Klein is speaking tonight Naomi Klein at Friends Meeting House, Euston.

I couldn't remember whether you were a fan or not..