clearing out the undergrowth

I’m not saying there are a few bad apples in the corporate system. I’m saying the corporate system is inherently, in its structure, evil. But I am really not saying that it is evil, because, as I said previously, I don’t believe in evil. I am really just saying that it is immoral.

I am not talking about business in general, only about the corporate system, and by the corporate system I am not necessarily talking about big business, because many big businesses are not corporations, and many corporations are small.

What I am saying is because the ceo is driven by the stock prices, and this is not like people investing in some company because they admire their business practices, it is only for how fast the stock rises and therefore their income, that is important to them. The corporation has no interest in the fate of the world or the state of the union, or whether they provide a good product, or they treat their people well, their only motivation is stock prices.

If they had a human owner then that human might feel bad about despoiling the environment or whatever, and he might, in the mellowness, of age, decide to fund some nice project like the Carnegie libraries or whatever. Of course he might be a sumbitch and never feel guilty and never endow anything, but at least there is that chance.

I wonder about corporations. It seems like I remember hearing in high school how great their invention was, like how great it was that the nation states arose, and I am not so sure that I am a fan of either development.

So that’s the gist of my argument against corporations. Not all that strong because many other systems are immoral, but it just seemed odd that people look up to corporations for leadership. It’s like these guys who stand up for capitalism as if it were a moral force, like Christianity or communism, when in fact it is simply the law of the jungle.

That thing about how the GOP might be trying to squash legal marijuana, and therefore run afoul of states rights, and business I might add, illustrates something that happens in politics all the time. For instance how when they were fighting civil rights in the south, rather than admit that they were oppressing black people they claimed that they were for a higher cause, namely states rights, and that made them seem more noble, they were merely protecting the constitution. Or like some of the gun nuts who claim they are defending the second amendment, when in fact they don’t give a shit about the second amendment. If somebody proved the second amendment really applied only to militias or that it was written when all the founders were drunk, it wouldn’t change a thing for these guys, because all they really want is to provide a loving home for Old Betsy and all her lovely sisters. And I suppose the gun control nuts could find something in the constitution that went against guns and claim that they too are defending the constitution.

Guns galore may be a good idea or it may not be, but to pretend that you are only walking in the founders’ footsteps is a bunch of baloney. I just picked the gun issue at random, it could be any issue, and my guys do it all the time too, we should just stop it.

Another issue I don’t like is, so is your mother, like when some candidate gets his teat in the wringer he replies that his opponent has done the same thing or something similar. The question then is well if it was wrong for your opponent to do it, isn’t it wrong for you to do it too?

And that’s kind of version, of look over there, to distract from an issue you don’t want to talk about. When somebody points to a peculiarity in your income taxes, the common rejoinder is look at my opponent’s income taxes. The wise response is very well, we will when we are done talking about yours.

There are a lot of arguments that just in their logical structure are bogus, we should toss them out like so much undergrowth clogging the pure prairie of Beaglesonia so that we may pursue our lofty discussions without tripping over weeds.