If capitalism needs speech, ergo needs inevitability of speech, is capitalism then wrong to promote choice?

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
trokanmariel
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am

If capitalism needs speech, ergo needs inevitability of speech, is capitalism then wrong to promote choice?

Post by trokanmariel »

If capitalism needs speech, ergo needs inevitability of speech, is capitalism wrong to promote choice, since inevitability of speech isn't supposed to encompass death, which derives from capitalism's stalwart: judgement?
commonsense
Posts: 5116
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: If capitalism needs speech, ergo needs inevitability of speech, is capitalism then wrong to promote choice?

Post by commonsense »

trokanmariel wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 5:51 pm If capitalism needs speech, ergo needs inevitability of speech, is capitalism wrong to promote choice, since inevitability of speech isn't supposed to encompass death, which derives from capitalism's stalwart: judgement?
Speech is produced by a choice of words. It is inevitable that some words will encompass death:
FrankGSterleJr
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:41 pm

Re: If capitalism needs speech, ergo needs inevitability of speech, is capitalism then wrong to promote choice?

Post by FrankGSterleJr »

Powerfully potent business interests can debilitate our high-level elected officials through implicit or explicit threats to transfer or eliminate jobs and capital investment, thus economic stability, if corporate ‘requests’ aren’t accommodated. It’s a political crippling that’s worsened by a blaring news-media that’s permitted to be naturally critical of incumbent governments, especially in regards to job and capital transfers and economic weakening.

In Canada and the U.S., our First Past The Post electoral system, which I find barely qualifies as democratic rule within the democracy spectrum, seems to well-serve corporate interests over those of the general populace. I believe it's basically why those powerful interests generally resist attempts at changing from FPTP to proportional representation electoral systems of governance, the latter which dilutes lobbyist influence.

From my understanding, when it comes to big-business friendly thus favored electoral systems, low-representation FPTP-elected governments, in which a relatively small portion of the country's populace is actually electorally represented, are the easiest for lobbyists to manipulate or 'buy'. A much more proportionately representative (PR) electoral system should create a greater challenge for the lobbyists. A PR-elected government, which much more proportionately represents the electorate as a whole, should be considerably harder for big business to steer — if at all, in some cases.

Here (Canada), big thus powerful corporations actually write bills for our governing representatives to vote for and have implemented, supposedly to save the elected officials their own time. I believe the practice has become so systematic here that those who are aware of it (that likely includes mainstream news-media political writers) don’t bother publicly discussing it.
trokanmariel
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am

Re: If capitalism needs speech, ergo needs inevitability of speech, is capitalism then wrong to promote choice?

Post by trokanmariel »

commonsense wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 9:42 pm
trokanmariel wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 5:51 pm If capitalism needs speech, ergo needs inevitability of speech, is capitalism wrong to promote choice, since inevitability of speech isn't supposed to encompass death, which derives from capitalism's stalwart: judgement?
Speech is produced by a choice of words. It is inevitable that some words will encompass death:

The abstract reality of speech is totally inevitable. However, capitalism promotes death (one business putting another business out of business), yet uses the abstract reality of speech, thus it's inevitable status.

If capitalism is using inevitability of speech, despite requiring as part of its mandate that death be inevitable, isn't this incorrect?
trokanmariel
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am

Re: If capitalism needs speech, ergo needs inevitability of speech, is capitalism then wrong to promote choice?

Post by trokanmariel »

FrankGSterleJr wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 4:29 am Powerfully potent business interests can debilitate our high-level elected officials through implicit or explicit threats to transfer or eliminate jobs and capital investment, thus economic stability, if corporate ‘requests’ aren’t accommodated. It’s a political crippling that’s worsened by a blaring news-media that’s permitted to be naturally critical of incumbent governments, especially in regards to job and capital transfers and economic weakening.

In Canada and the U.S., our First Past The Post electoral system, which I find barely qualifies as democratic rule within the democracy spectrum, seems to well-serve corporate interests over those of the general populace. I believe it's basically why those powerful interests generally resist attempts at changing from FPTP to proportional representation electoral systems of governance, the latter which dilutes lobbyist influence.

From my understanding, when it comes to big-business friendly thus favored electoral systems, low-representation FPTP-elected governments, in which a relatively small portion of the country's populace is actually electorally represented, are the easiest for lobbyists to manipulate or 'buy'. A much more proportionately representative (PR) electoral system should create a greater challenge for the lobbyists. A PR-elected government, which much more proportionately represents the electorate as a whole, should be considerably harder for big business to steer — if at all, in some cases.

Here (Canada), big thus powerful corporations actually write bills for our governing representatives to vote for and have implemented, supposedly to save the elected officials their own time. I believe the practice has become so systematic here that those who are aware of it (that likely includes mainstream news-media political writers) don’t bother publicly discussing it.

I appreciate the response.

If people have to talk, in order for business to function, is it wrong for business to be about trying to bring about annihilation, given that talking isn't arbitrary?
Post Reply