Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[GE Morton]

The only way monopolies can endure in a free market is when they are explicitly protected, and competition forbidden, by governments.

[Sy Borg]

As I was saying, monopolies, duopolies and cartels are flourishing. Large corps are not breaking up into small businesses, taher the latter are being swallowed up by the giants.

. . .along with his obviously-wrong belief that fossil fuel companies bear no more responsibility than anyone else for climate change, as though decades of sowing doubt in climate change didn't happen.

Er, Sy, "sowing doubt" about climate change does not render the "sower" responsible for climate change. That is merely free speech. The persons responsible for climate change are the persons who burn the fuel --- a point you can't seem to grasp.

No, you are the one who cannot grasp the situation.

Climate change is actually real. It's not a political game. This is a physical phenomenon that seriously endangers those who are not very wealthy and connected.

There is no doubt that climate change has been worsened by the lies used by fossil fuel companies to slow the advent of renewable energy. Now they expect many billions more in subsidies to clean up a problem they helped the exacerbate.

Further, fossil fuel companies been aware of the implications of burning fossil fuels since the mid 20th century. Yet, instead of adjusting their model, they obfuscated and abused their power to distort and distract from climate change discussions.

You are a great example of an unsophisticated person who has been sucked into doubting the severity of climate change as indicated by science. If you took the issue seriously, you would not be bickering in a slippery way like a paid stooge. Rather, you would have recognised the obvious fact that fossil fuel companies have been bad actors in climate change discussions and moved on to the actual topic of the thread.

It's terribly boring for me to have to defend the obvious. Shall we next debate whether fire trucks are red or not? If I said that fire trucks were red you would point out that Hawaii has yellow fire trucks, and thus disproving my claim - and ignore the fact that the vast majority of fire trucks are red.

That is what it's like being caught in these dull back-and-forths with you, having the explain and re-explain the very, very obvious because it juts up against the cognitive dissonance of your libertarianism.

[GE Morton]

This should be factored in when governments consider subsidies. You disagree with this because of ... reasons.

I agree that governments ought not subsidize fossil fuel companies --- or anyone else. But allowing them tax deductions identical or similar to those allowed businesses generally are not subsidies, except in the leftist lexicon.

Question: What new tax powers you would give governments to reduce endemic corporate tax evasion?

There's that lefty lexicon again. Taking advantage of income tax deductions allowed by the tax code is not tax evasion. Tax evasion is illegal avoidance of taxes.

Corporations, and all citizens, should be taxed in proportion to the value of the government services they utilize or which benefit them. And for the most part they are. They pay local property taxes, which pay for local services such as police and fire protection and streets; they pay fuel taxes on the fuel their vehicles use; they pay utility taxes (in many jurisdictions) on electrical, gas, sewer and water services; they pay state taxes for unemployment insurance and workmen's compensation; they pay state income taxes on income earned in their states, and to the feds for income earned in the US, in accordance with the Internal Revenue code.

You have to keep in mind that all taxes levied against businesses are costs, which are ultimately passed on to the consumers of their products, in their prices. If those taxes are paying for services necessary to produce the product, then it is perfectly appropriate that the consumers pay them. If they're levied to deliver free lunches to assorted noisy constituent groups of pandering politicians, then they're not justified.

Yet, if governments cannot raise money through taxation - and you believe that tax is theft - then how are governments supposed to regulate companies that are much more more powerful and well-resourced than the governments supposed to regulate them?

Again, you put words in my mouth I've never uttered. Taxes which pay for government services from which the taxpayer benefits are not theft.

The idea that corporations are "just people" - implying that they are indistinguishable from a group of unorganised individuals - is a surprisingly naive claim.

No, that does not imply that organized groups of people are "indistinguishable" for unorganized groups. Nor did I say any such thing. Of course such groups are distinguishable. But their status as moral agents --- their rights and moral obligations --- is the same, whether considered as individuals or as members of a group.

Corporations are independent entities with their own particular interests that may or may not intersect with the interests of their constituent employees. Again:

"You can replace any number of human employees of a corporation and the company remains largely the same, based on their governing algorithms (aka policies) more or less like the ship of Theseus. Emergence is real and it applies to humans as it does to other species."

Well, first, the employees of a corporation are not constituents of the corporation; the stockholders are. The employees are hired by the owners to perform specific work for specific compensation. They are no more constituents of their employer than a roofer you hire to fix your roof is a constituent of your household.

And corporations do not remain the same over time; their products change, the methods of producing them change, their markets change, their geographical footprints change, their market shares change, even their names change --- every one of those changes originated and instituted by some new employee, board, or CEO. A corporation at any given time reflects the interests, talents, and competence of the people currently running it.

Weasel words to avoid admitting that the private sector has taken control of society.

I gave you the definition of "control." You apparently choose to ignore it.

Here's the undeniable evidence: For decades now, governments not closing tax loopholes that allow many corporations and their billionaire owners to pay either zero or minimal tax, year after year, pushing the tax burden ever more on to the middle class. Why? Because governments are not in control, corporations are.

Governments write the tax codes; not corporations. THEY control what taxes citizens pay. The "middle class" elects those pols.

[Sy Borg]

GE, I am ignoring more than just your naive definition of "control", I am ignoring much of your off-topic, half baked, wrong-headed commentary because you seem unable to understand what is being said to you.

You blithely ignore the close relationship that's developed between governments and fossil fuel companies, whose former executives end up as government appointees more often than Fox presenters ended up working for Trump. https://www.accr.org.au/news/climate-ch ... lobbyists/

As for corporate tax avoidance (since you are playing legalistic games with "evasion"), my point was that loopholes used by corporations to avoid tax should be closed. However, governments cannot close them because they are not in CONTROL of tax policy. Yes, they can change the law, but the ensuing Murdoch media storm would ensure a change of government, to someone who would reverse the law.

I also note that you throw ALL responsibility for elections on to the middle class, as though Murdoch and other players aren't cynically manipulating public opinion, as though they were not major factors. Apparently 61% of Republicans still believe that Trump actually won the last election - a direct result of cynical manipulation.

[GE Morton]

As I was saying, monopolies, duopolies and cartels are flourishing. Large corps are not breaking up into small businesses, taher the latter are being swallowed up by the giants.

Yep. That has always been the case, and always will be. All firms wish to expand their market and enlarge their market share. Those most successful at it are able to do so by buying up less successful ones --- acquisitions which benefit both parties. As markets mature they tend to become dominated by a small number of firms, who retain dominance until consumer interests and preferences change, or some new technology undercuts their markets, as occurred with AT&T, IBM, Eastman Kodak, Microsoft, Sears-Roebuck, and many others.

Er, Sy, "sowing doubt" about climate change does not render the "sower" responsible for climate change. That is merely free speech. The persons responsible for climate change are the persons who burn the fuel --- a point you can't seem to grasp.

No, you are the one who cannot grasp the situation.

Climate change is actually real. It's not a political game. This is a physical phenomenon that seriously endangers those who are not very wealthy and connected.

There is no doubt that climate change has been worsened by the lies used by fossil fuel companies to slow the advent of renewable energy. Now they expect many billions more in subsidies to clean up a problem they helped the exacerbate.

Oh, there is a great deal of doubt about that. The only thing that "worsens" climate change is continued use of fossil fuels. Anything that anyone says about it has, at best, minimal effect on it. Those whose interests would be adversely affected by restrictions on fossil fuels understate the problem; those whose interests would be advanced by a change overstate the problem. The actual magnitude of those risks is still an open question. Consumers --- those who actually buy and use those fuels --- largely dismiss those arguments as background noise, and base their decisions on pragmatics --- availability, versatility, convenience, and price.

Further, fossil fuel companies been aware of the implications of burning fossil fuels since the mid 20th century. Yet, instead of adjusting their model, they obfuscated and abused their power to distort and distract from climate change discussions.

They have no "power," other than the power to speak, as does Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Al Gore, NASA, NOAA, the various academics whose doomsday predictions have been aired regularly on the MSM over the past 2 decades, et al. That is what a discussion is --- an exchange of divergent views.

And, of course, neither fossil fuel companies nor any other businesses have any duty to change their business model in order to accommodate critics. As I said, private businesses are NOT public institutions. Their duties are to their stockholders, not to "the public." Only the government has that latter duty. Managing natural commons falls within its purview, but in a democracy the only policies which will be adopted are those politicians can be sure will win them votes.

You seem not to be aware of the implications for democracy of your demonization of fossil fuel producers. If the public is susceptible to the "lies" of those companies, "controlled" by them, and unable to weigh the arguments and evidence objectively and reach rational decisions, should they even be allowed to vote?

Rather, you would have recognised the obvious fact that fossil fuel companies have been bad actors in climate change discussions and moved on to the actual topic of the thread.

However "bad" they may be, the fact remains that the responsibility for CO2 emissions rests entirely with those who burn that fuel.

[Sy Borg]

As I was saying, monopolies, duopolies and cartels are flourishing. Large corps are not breaking up into small businesses, taher the latter are being swallowed up by the giants.

Yep. That has always been the case, and always will be. All firms wish to expand their market and enlarge their market share. Those most successful at it are able to do so by buying up less successful ones --- acquisitions which benefit both parties ...

But not the public, who an extra price competitor. Hence the need for regulation.

There is no doubt that climate change has been worsened by the lies used by fossil fuel companies to slow the advent of renewable energy. Now they expect many billions more in subsidies to clean up a problem they helped the exacerbate.

Oh, there is a great deal of doubt about that. The only thing that "worsens" climate change is continued use of fossil fuels. Anything that anyone says about it has, at best, minimal effect on it.

You ignore the way that media shapes the way the public responds.

Like most tribal righties, you ignore physics. Climate change imbalances have a cumulative effect, like compound interest (to use a language you understand). That is, the problems we have create today are not for just today. Thus, what you (arguably) see as "small" impacts of the lies used by fossil fuel companies to slow energy adaptation, will accumulate over time.

Consider the bizarre recklessness at this time of so many drivers switching to huge gas-guzzling SUVs (not to mention far more greenhouse gases generated by building vehicles twice the size of small cars). This wildly irrational behaviour - akin to protesting about masks in the middle of a dangerous pandemic - could only be possible when considerable doubt has been cast over the science by bad actors.

Further, fossil fuel companies been aware of the implications of burning fossil fuels since the mid 20th century. Yet, instead of adjusting their model, they obfuscated and abused their power to distort and distract from climate change discussions.

They have no "power," other than the power to speak, as does Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Al Gore, NASA, NOAA, the various academics whose doomsday predictions ...

If you had any credibility left, you have just destroyed it.

ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, BHP, Rio Tinto and so on are giant corporations with assets worth trillions and you compare their power with Greenpeace?

What a waste of time.

[GE Morton]

But not the public, who an extra price competitor. Hence the need for regulation.

Private businesses have no duty to benefit the public. But they do benefit them, of course, by supplying them with goods and services they desire. If they did not they would not remain in business.

You ignore the way that media shapes the way the public responds.

The "media," in the broadest sense, delivers every imaginable opinion and perspective on every issue that comes along. Any particular media channel will present those perspectives and opinions most agreeable to its own owners, writers, and editors. Your job, as a citizen, is to sort through those various subjective reports and try to extract the facts.

But as I said, most people base their decisions regarding fossil fuels on pragmatic considerations relevant to their daily lives, not on hypothetical future risks. They pay little attention to those arguments.

Consider the bizarre recklessness at this time of so many drivers switching to huge gas-guzzling SUVs (not to mention far more greenhouse gases generated by building vehicles twice the size of small cars). This wildly irrational behaviour - akin to protesting about masks in the middle of a dangerous pandemic - could only be possible when considerable doubt has been cast over the science by bad actors.

Not irrational at all, once you realize they base their decisions as what type of vehicle to buy on pragmatic factors, not on the speculations of scientists. And you give far too much credit to the role of the fossil fuel industry in influencing public opinion. I have no statistics in hand, but would be willing to bet that far more people could tell you what Al Gore and Oprah Winfrey had to say about climate change than what Exxon had to say about it.

https://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/d ... report.pdf

ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, BHP, Rio Tinto and so on are giant corporations with assets worth trillions and you compare their power with Greenpeace?

Those assets are irrelevant to the question of who has the most influence via the media (which I believe is the current point of contention). You measure that by how much face time someone gets on teevee and how many op-eds they get in newspapers and web sites, not by the value of their assets.

[Sy Borg]

Morton, none of your above arguments cut it. It's not worth responding.

Here is the GEM worldview in a nutshell:

The wealthy and powerful have rarely acted improperly or abused their power to mislead the public. They are not responsible - only the public - because they are only doing the right thing by their executive and shareholders.

Praise Exxon. Amen.

[Pattern-chaser]

If the public is susceptible to the "lies" of those companies, "controlled" by them, and unable to weigh the arguments and evidence objectively and reach rational decisions, should they even be allowed to vote?

The consequences of this view are well-known in philosophy, and in all manner of other debating circles. It comes down to this: who will decide who is fit to vote? Most people accept that this is not a profitable speculation, and leads only to problems. Major problems.

[GE Morton]

Morton, none of your above arguments cut it. It's not worth responding.

I think you mean to say, "I can't refute any of your arguments, so I''ll ignore them and post a few ad hominems instead."

[GE Morton]

If the public is susceptible to the "lies" of those companies, "controlled" by them, and unable to weigh the arguments and evidence objectively and reach rational decisions, should they even be allowed to vote?

The consequences of this view are well-known in philosophy, and in all manner of other debating circles. It comes down to this: who will decide who is fit to vote? Most people accept that this is not a profitable speculation, and leads only to problems. Major problems.

Yes, the problem of voter ignorance has been a lively topic of debate in political science and political philosophy for decades, It still is. Winston Churchill probably got it right: "Democracy is the worst form of government --- except for all the others which have been tried."

[Pattern-chaser]

If the public is susceptible to the "lies" of those companies, "controlled" by them, and unable to weigh the arguments and evidence objectively and reach rational decisions, should they even be allowed to vote?

The consequences of this view are well-known in philosophy, and in all manner of other debating circles. It comes down to this: who will decide who is fit to vote? Most people accept that this is not a profitable speculation, and leads only to problems. Major problems.

Yes, the problem of voter ignorance has been a lively topic of debate in political science and political philosophy for decades, It still is. Winston Churchill probably got it right: "Democracy is the worst form of government --- except for all the others which have been tried."

No, I'm not talking about "voter ignorance", I'm talking about citizens being "allowed to vote". No citizen is suited or suitable, IMO, to decide if another citizen has the right or the capability to vote. It's a slippery slope, as you must be aware, and it's that that I was warning against.

[GE Morton]

No, I'm not talking about "voter ignorance", I'm talking about citizens being "allowed to vote". No citizen is suited or suitable, IMO, to decide if another citizen has the right or the capability to vote. It's a slippery slope, as you must be aware, and it's that that I was warning against.

Well, no one may be suited to make those decisions, but we make them all the time. E.g., we decide that persons under 18 have no right to vote, that certain criminals have no right to vote, that non-citizens have no right to vote. Presumably, we don't allow children to vote because we consider them incompetent to do so. But, obviously, many adults are no more competent. Hence proposals for "voter qualification tests" before adding people to the voting rolls.

To be sure, a moral argument --- the classical one --- can be made that anyone subject to a law ought to be able to vote for the legislators who enacted it. But we make exceptions for children, non-citizens, etc.

Suited or not, we will make those decisions.

[Sy Borg]

Morton, none of your above arguments cut it. It's not worth responding.

I think you mean to say, "I can't refute any of your arguments, so I''ll ignore them and post a few ad hominems instead."

If you think I want to waste more life on another of your hundred- page threads, you are joking.

I destroy you in argument repeatedly. It's easy because your blind spots are huge. However, since you won't acknowledge when I prove your partisan distortions wrong, there's no more I can do. I mean, you can't even understand that the media influences the middle class, and that this confers responsibility.

[GE Morton]

I destroy you in argument repeatedly. It's easy because your blind spots are huge. However, since you won't acknowledge when I prove your partisan distortions wrong, there's no more I can do. I mean, you can't even understand that the media influences the middle class, and that this confers responsibility.

I destroy you in argument repeatedly.

Well, you can't destroy an argument unless you address it, and you've studiously ignored every argument I've made:

* You claimed that fossil fuel companies receive lavish "subsidies." I provided evidence that all these "subsidies" were not subsidies at all, but tax deductions similar or identical to those available to all businesses. You didn't respond. I even gave you the definition of "subsidy," which you ignored, and continued to mis-use the term.

* You said, "It's fairly clear that his assumption about monopolies naturally being broken down by the free market was wrong."

I gave you a slew of examples of large (near) monopolies broken up, not by government decree, but by market forces. No response.

* You claimed that fossil fuel companies "controlled" the media and "cynically manipulate public opinion." I pointed out that climate change alarmists get far more media "face-time" than fossil fuel companies, and that far fewer people could tell you what was Exxon's position on that issue than what is Al Gore's or Oprah Winfrey's position. No response.

* You bemoaned the tax "loopholes" used by businesses, and argued that they should be taxed to clean up "A problem they helped exacerbate." I pointed out that all taxes on business are ultimately paid by the consumers of their products. No response.

Instead of cogent responses to those arguments, we get false attributions and ad hominems:

"you believe that tax is theft"

"you don't believe in government"

"[you imply] that they are indistinguishable from a group of unorganised individuals - is a surprisingly naive claim."

"off-topic, half baked, wrong-headed commentary"

"A pox on your mindless, tribal ideologies"

"partisan distortions, "blind spots," etc.

You have a visceral animus toward corporations, and fossil fuel companies in particular, no doubt deriving from the "organic fallacy." It compels you to foist blame for the climate problem on them, instead of where it belongs --- on you, and every other consumer of electricity or transportation and heating fuel --- including me, of course.