This is a part of official mythology that very few americans escape. I also noticed seemingly intelligent people bending their brains to explain how something that business does is less evil than the same thing done by government. Apparently because businesses do not use guns. They are missing the fact that majority of people never encounter/use guns in their life, and that the principal way of behavioural control is propaganda/ideology. Most of the people in the industrial world are directly and tightly controlled by corporations, not governments. I have seen people that fear their bosses/corporate policies/landlords/ creditors more than they ever feared government - simply because they never had to deal with government on adverse terms. Their lives are not shaped by governments - business does that. That is the reality. But corporations did a great job of propping up the government as the target for frustration, and it shows. Long time ago I read a story about the guy whose job was to be fired: a company would screw up something, and the guy was hired, presented to be the company exec, and then humiliated and fired in front of the customer. Sounds familiar ?
At 09:58 PM 11/23/00 -0500, Anonymous wrote:
But the threat of coercion is not so abstract: you *do* see guns on the hip of every cop or park ranger you run into. And 'cop shows' detail the paramilitary forces ready to knock down your doors. I have yet to see free-ranging IKEA police threatening the citizens or constitution recently.
David Honig wrote:
that's because corporations work more efficiently than governments. they use whatever does the job with the minimal cost. at the moment, it's armies of lawyers sueing critics to hell and back for some bogus shit. the government thoughtfully provides the weapons and thugs once you won in the courtroom. rest assured, once the government stops doing so (e.g. by disappearing), corporations *will* start to raise armies of their own.
At 12:01 PM 11/27/00 +0100, Tom Vogt wrote:
Hmm. Corporations are the equivalent of wealthy individuals. Nothing special about 'corps' as synthetics. So equivalent to, say, criticising a Mafia Don. In a Gibsonian future where governments aren't strong enough to defend everyone's rights, you'd have strong anonymity so the ability of wealthy entities to sue for slander would be gone. Corporations that make products would remain succeptible to tampering as well as bad press, though the tampering would be in a tamperer vs. tamper-resistant fox & rabbit technological arms race. ("I'll see your watermark and raise you two reverse engineers" :-) But yeah, everyone would have their own police if there were no common one. Hmm, That's an irony of anarchy, that it turns into a tessellation of police(d) microstates real quickly.
David Honig wrote:
not quite on the first point, but the 2nd comes closer. the difference between individuals and corps is that the corp has far more assets and activities to protect and that it usually has more than one mind. every large corp is at least a little shizophrenic - look at IBM for a good example.
it' just a logical step. if robbing your electronics storehouse is no longer illegal because there's no law, or no government to enforce it, then you have to take steps yourself. I wonder whether taking over the government is economical. i.e. if the government were to disappear, would it be more cost-efficient for the corps to take over as rulers or to hire armies and only defend themselves?
David Honig wrote:
You might. It's not like that where I live. I don't think I'd ever seen a handgun other than on TV until I was over 20, & that was in a foreign country. I've still never held one. Shotguns yes, people kill birds with them. Rifles - very occasionally with the military or armed police, but most people don't live near military bases & most police don't carry rifles in public. I doubt if I see more than one or two a year (*). Heck. I've had more to do with moonrock than revolvers. Not everywhere is as gun-obsessed as the USA. (Ducks & waits for flammage...) Ken Brown (*) Contrary to popular belief British police *do* use guns, quite a lot, but they don't carry them openly (but check out the patrol cars), they tend to be rifles rather than handguns, they only issue them to specially trained officers (about 1 in 5 in London I think, fewer in other forces), & they always try to ensure that the "first contact" with a suspect is an unarmed police officer. If they think the suspect is armed they tend to try to have a sniper out of sight. Fewer cops get killed that way - 17 in the last 35 years I think. The USA can lose that many in a bad summer.
At 02:22 PM 11/27/00 +0000, Ken Brown wrote:
I don't see the point of such celibacy when there are such pleasures...
Shotguns yes, people kill birds with them.
I'm all for banning all non-military arms from private possession. The right to bear arms isn't about ducks. Of course, there are military applications for shotguns. Rifles - very occasionally with the military or armed police, but
most people don't live near military bases & most police don't carry rifles in public. I doubt if I see more than one or two a year (*).
I was impressed by the fellow with the full auto submachine gun facing the street, guarding the bank in Spain. And the teenagers with mil rifles at stops in Mexico, kleenex in the muzzle to keep sand out. I guess in the UK you'd have to go up north to see those nice soldiers with their friendly checkpoints and heavy rifles. Never been to Israel or Africa or Switzerland but I hear they know what firearms look like. But of course, Brits don't see their policers' guns. After all, it is becoming known in the animal husbandry industry that sheep produce more if they are not stressed. See "Livestock Behaviour, Design of Facilities and Humane Slaughter" at www.grandin.com.
participants (4)
-
Anonymous -
David Honig -
Ken Brown -
Tom Vogt