Philosophy Discussion Forums

chewybrian wrote: ↑November 18th, 2022, 7:59 pm So, the question is, should we ever let someone have this much unchecked power? We have all sorts of checks and balances in government (the wisdom of these safeguards has been made crystal clear in recent years!). So, why do we not have some sort of check on the power of the uber-wealthy? Why do we just assume that he has the 'right' to cause so much destruction just because he is already wealthy? Perhaps this incident could shine a light on the need for some safeguards. I'm not sure what they could or should be. Further, I have no hope that they are coming soon, as we don't even make the wealthy pay taxes or follow many laws. Still, if we could reign them in a bit, should we, and how would you say we should proceed (just pretending that we would)?

It is interesting that you question the limits of power of wealthy individuals in their private businesses in the name of the common good, while candidly assume there's no unchecked power from the wealthy at the level of the state. The US has been described many times as a "corporatocracy".
Corporatocracy (Wikipedia)"

Economist Jeffrey Sachs described the United States as a corporatocracy in The Price of Civilization (2011).[10] He suggested that it arose from four trends: weak national parties and strong political representation of individual districts, the large U.S. military establishment after World War II, large corporations using money to finance election campaigns, and globalization tilting the balance of power away from workers.[10]

In 2013, economist Edmund Phelps criticized the economic system of the U.S. and other western countries in recent decades as being what he calls "the new corporatism," which he characterizes as a system in which the state is far too involved in the economy and is tasked with "protecting everyone against everyone else," but at the same time, big companies have a great deal of influence on the government, with lobbyists' suggestions being "welcome, especially if they come with bribes."[11]

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 20th, 2022, 8:47 pm

chewybrian wrote: ↑November 18th, 2022, 7:59 pm So, the question is, should we ever let someone have this much unchecked power? We have all sorts of checks and balances in government (the wisdom of these safeguards has been made crystal clear in recent years!). So, why do we not have some sort of check on the power of the uber-wealthy? Why do we just assume that he has the 'right' to cause so much destruction just because he is already wealthy? Perhaps this incident could shine a light on the need for some safeguards. I'm not sure what they could or should be. Further, I have no hope that they are coming soon, as we don't even make the wealthy pay taxes or follow many laws. Still, if we could reign them in a bit, should we, and how would you say we should proceed (just pretending that we would)?

It is interesting that you question the limits of power of wealthy individuals in their private businesses in the name of the common good, while candidly assume there's no unchecked power from the wealthy at the level of the state. The US has been described many times as a "corporatocracy".

I'm not sure you got what I said or vice versa. I was referring to the checks and balances within the government that prevent one part of the government from running over the other parts, or one person gathering up too much power. I don't think we have much in place to enable the government to check the power of the wealthy or corporations. The government is much more likely to bend over backwards to enable the wealthy to carry on with their plans. Sometimes the politicians receive contributions from those they enable, and sometimes they just want the secondary taxes from their investments in their community or state.

I don't think our government is doing much to check the power of the wealthy at all. It could, but it would require an informed and motivated electorate and we don't have that. Instead, a lot of people (at least enough of the ones inclined to vote) are convinced that limiting Elon's freedom will destroy theirs. Their have been convinced that the wealthy cannot create jobs and pay taxes at the same time, and that their jobs are always on the chopping block.

chewybrian wrote: ↑November 20th, 2022, 3:41 pm
And...you are stuck in your own loop. For the hundredth time, you conflate morality and legality.

I take a "morality" to be a set of principles and rules governing interactions between moral agents in a social setting. Whether they are enacted into laws enforced by the State is a separate question. I never confuse the two.

Nobody will arrest you because you don't hold the door open for the lady with her hands full of groceries, but you are something less than human if you don't. I don't believe that society has any particular traits. I think PEOPLE do.

Oh, societies have many traits, e.g., the US has a population of ~330 million. They are not moral agents, however, and have no moral duties.

I think people need to learn that being good is better for them and for society.

Of course; that's a truism. The rub, of course, is deciding what counts as "being good."

Elon and the rest are just Pharaohs building pyramids and wasting everyone else's time, resources and very lives with their trivial pursuits that amount to nothing. To enable or glorify their pursuits is bad form.

LOL. "Wasting everyone else's time"? He's wasted the time of all those people driving his Teslas? Wasted the time of all those NASA folks whose satellites he's launched for them, at 1/10 the cost of NASA's own launches?

https://medium.com/geekculture/spacex-v ... ae454823ac

I'm not calling for the guillotine for Musk and the like, just a little fair play, like paying taxes and paying the rest of society back, in small measure, for enabling them to become so obscenely rich.

Ah, the ubiquitous lefty "paying back" meme. First, societies, not being moral agents, can have no debts, nor can anyone be indebted to them. No one "owes" them anything. If Musk delivered a Tesla to each person who paid him for one, and launched the satellites for which NASA paid him, he "owes" no one anything. This "debt" you imagine is spurious, imaginary, deriving from your tenacious embrace of the organic fallacy.

chewybrian wrote: ↑November 18th, 2022, 7:59 pm https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-mu ... ip-2022-11

This is a wild but sad story that seems to be getting worse by the minute. Musk (eventually) bought Twitter and then fired thousands of employees and threatened the rest such that now many key employees are choosing severance pay over the idea of working in his shadow. He seemed to think he could intimidate everyone into working double time in order to boost profits, and this strategy has clearly backfired on him to the most spectacular extent imaginable (he is on record as saying the company may go bankrupt, though he was willing to buy it for something like 40 billion just weeks ago!).

I think it is clear that these developments have not been good for customers, employees, the company or the rest of humanity. It looks like he's destroyed billions in equity and disrupted thousands of lives for nothing but perhaps ego.

I find all this hand-wringing over the tribulations of Twitter, as though its fate is somehow matter of transcendental importance, amusing. I've never used Twitter, never even visited their web site. If it, along with Facebook, Tik-tok, etc., etc. were to disappear tomorrow I'd never know until I read it in the paper.

chewybrian wrote: ↑November 18th, 2022, 7:59 pm https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-mu ... ip-2022-11

This is a wild but sad story that seems to be getting worse by the minute. Musk (eventually) bought Twitter and then fired thousands of employees and threatened the rest such that now many key employees are choosing severance pay over the idea of working in his shadow. He seemed to think he could intimidate everyone into working double time in order to boost profits, and this strategy has clearly backfired on him to the most spectacular extent imaginable (he is on record as saying the company may go bankrupt, though he was willing to buy it for something like 40 billion just weeks ago!).

I think it is clear that these developments have not been good for customers, employees, the company or the rest of humanity. It looks like he's destroyed billions in equity and disrupted thousands of lives for nothing but perhaps ego.

So, the question is, should we ever let someone have this much unchecked power? We have all sorts of checks and balances in government (the wisdom of these safeguards has been made crystal clear in recent years!). So, why do we not have some sort of check on the power of the uber-wealthy? Why do we just assume that he has the 'right' to cause so much destruction just because he is already wealthy? Perhaps this incident could shine a light on the need for some safeguards. I'm not sure what they could or should be. Further, I have no hope that they are coming soon, as we don't even make the wealthy pay taxes or follow many laws. Still, if we could reign them in a bit, should we, and how would you say we should proceed (just pretending that we would)?

With respect to those in power with an inflated ego, they do in fact have a duty to act fairly and reasonably regardless of their people management/style (as there are already laws against price fixing, anti-trust laws, etc.) and if they don't, among other things, their stockholders suffer. It's all a calculated risk. Nevertheless, it seems that his egoist attitude, will more than likely come back to bite both him, and the majority of all stakeholder's involved. Maybe his intentions are to dismantle it so he in-turn can personally benefit from it. Kind of like what Trump does (casinos/bankruptcy/trump university, moving money around, used the GOP policies for his own personal gain, stole documents for his own personal gain, paid off porn stars so he wouldn't look bad during an election, etc., etc.).

I could be wrong, but he sounds like a guy who would advocate yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater so long as it somehow made him a profit. Forget about the heart attacks and other public safety concerns relative to causing people to panic, right?

Perhaps Musk and Trump will find themselves in a cell together! Stranger things have happened!

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 2:24 pm

chewybrian wrote: ↑November 18th, 2022, 7:59 pm https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-mu ... ip-2022-11

This is a wild but sad story that seems to be getting worse by the minute. Musk (eventually) bought Twitter and then fired thousands of employees and threatened the rest such that now many key employees are choosing severance pay over the idea of working in his shadow. He seemed to think he could intimidate everyone into working double time in order to boost profits, and this strategy has clearly backfired on him to the most spectacular extent imaginable (he is on record as saying the company may go bankrupt, though he was willing to buy it for something like 40 billion just weeks ago!).

I think it is clear that these developments have not been good for customers, employees, the company or the rest of humanity. It looks like he's destroyed billions in equity and disrupted thousands of lives for nothing but perhaps ego.

I find all this hand-wringing over the tribulations of Twitter, as though its fate is somehow matter of transcendental importance, amusing. I've never used Twitter, never even visited their web site. If it, along with Facebook, Tik-tok, etc., etc. were to disappear tomorrow I'd never know until I read it in the paper.

Newspapers. Hilarious.

chewybrian wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 12:34 pm

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 20th, 2022, 8:47 pm

chewybrian wrote: ↑November 18th, 2022, 7:59 pm So, the question is, should we ever let someone have this much unchecked power? We have all sorts of checks and balances in government (the wisdom of these safeguards has been made crystal clear in recent years!). So, why do we not have some sort of check on the power of the uber-wealthy? Why do we just assume that he has the 'right' to cause so much destruction just because he is already wealthy? Perhaps this incident could shine a light on the need for some safeguards. I'm not sure what they could or should be. Further, I have no hope that they are coming soon, as we don't even make the wealthy pay taxes or follow many laws. Still, if we could reign them in a bit, should we, and how would you say we should proceed (just pretending that we would)?

It is interesting that you question the limits of power of wealthy individuals in their private businesses in the name of the common good, while candidly assume there's no unchecked power from the wealthy at the level of the state. The US has been described many times as a "corporatocracy".

I'm not sure you got what I said or vice versa. I was referring to the checks and balances within the government that prevent one part of the government from running over the other parts, or one person gathering up too much power. I don't think we have much in place to enable the government to check the power of the wealthy or corporations. The government is much more likely to bend over backwards to enable the wealthy to carry on with their plans. Sometimes the politicians receive contributions from those they enable, and sometimes they just want the secondary taxes from their investments in their community or state.



I don't think our government is doing much to check the power of the wealthy at all. It could, but it would require an informed and motivated electorate and we don't have that. Instead, a lot of people (at least enough of the ones inclined to vote) are convinced that limiting Elon's freedom will destroy theirs. Their have been convinced that the wealthy cannot create jobs and pay taxes at the same time, and that their jobs are always on the chopping block.

OK, I get it, you're right. Still, my point is that the power of corporations in government is more worrisome than the power of individual capitalists in society in general.

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 9:24 pm OK, I get it, you're right. Still, my point is that the power of corporations in government is more worrisome than the power of individual capitalists in society in general.

Yes. Elon is sort of a one-off. He's doing a lot of damage in spots, but even unchecked he can only do so much. The power of the corporations is much more widespread and dangerous, and they often profit when others suffer. We would need a Democratic super-majority to change some of the rules of campaign finance reform, media oversight, taxes on capital gains and all that. We'd probably need a new great depression and a new FDR to emerge, or at very least most of the boomers dying off.

Elon is annoying, checked or not. Nestle, Monsanto and the like are existential threats to all of us unless or until their power is checked. I don't know how you begin to do it, as too many people think they are keeping us going rather than holding us back. I suppose the truth is a little of both, and we'd be a lot better off if we at least restrained them from the worst of what they are doing in the name of the future.

chewybrian wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2022, 8:31 am

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 9:24 pm OK, I get it, you're right. Still, my point is that the power of corporations in government is more worrisome than the power of individual capitalists in society in general.

Yes. Elon is sort of a one-off. He's doing a lot of damage in spots, but even unchecked he can only do so much. The power of the corporations is much more widespread and dangerous, and they often profit when others suffer. We would need a Democratic super-majority to change some of the rules of campaign finance reform, media oversight, taxes on capital gains and all that. We'd probably need a new great depression and a new FDR to emerge, or at very least most of the boomers dying off.

Elon is annoying, checked or not. Nestle, Monsanto and the like are existential threats to all of us unless or until their power is checked. I don't know how you begin to do it, as too many people think they are keeping us going rather than holding us back. I suppose the truth is a little of both, and we'd be a lot better off if we at least restrained them from the worst of what they are doing in the name of the future.

Elon Musk is a spoiled kid from a rich family, just as Trump. They all think they owe their fortunes to being the smartest and they are so infatuated with themselves that often miscalculate their real powers. Of course, the more money you have, the bigger the risks that you can take and the payoff. I guess everyone is waiting to see what happens with Twitter to see if he was just a gambler with luck or the real deal in entrepreneurship.

Twitter is doing fine and employees at Twitter are certainly doing better than employees at the railways or other workers doing actual labor. And Twitter already had unchecked power: blocking sharing of the Hunter Biden laptop story, banning people who go against the government's CoVID and Ukraine narratives. Their censorship was much more oppressive than Musk...who really hasn't changed that that much

Henry Case wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2022, 12:40 am Twitter is doing fine and employees at Twitter are certainly doing better than employees at the railways or other workers doing actual labor. And Twitter already had unchecked power: blocking sharing of the Hunter Biden laptop story, banning people who go against the government's CoVID and Ukraine narratives. Their censorship was much more oppressive than Musk...who really hasn't changed that that much

This is just all wrong. For example, Covid is not a "narrative". We lost as many people to covid as we lost in all our wars combined. Some people realized that they could make money by lying about vaccines. Fear sells. They couldn't care less if they get thousands killed if they make a profit. Vaccines save lives and our top priority was, correctly, getting as many people vaccinated as quickly as possible. Speech has consequences. We should be wary of limiting speech and accept some collateral damage from allowing people speak their minds, but there must be some limits. When you get thousands needlessly killed or try to overthrow the government, you have crossed the line.

You're seriously choosing Trump, Putin and Alex Jones over Biden, Zelensky and Fauci? One side is never 100% right, but if those are the choices...

Henry Case wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2022, 12:40 am Twitter is doing fine and employees at Twitter are certainly doing better than employees at the railways or other workers doing actual labor. And Twitter already had unchecked power: blocking sharing of the Hunter Biden laptop story, banning people who go against the government's CoVID and Ukraine narratives. Their censorship was much more oppressive than Musk...who really hasn't changed that that much

Hello Henry,

As an aside, because I sense you might be in support of Musk's political views, metaphorically, what do you think about locking-up Trump, Hillary, Nixon and Hunter Biden?

Just curious!

Henry Case wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2022, 12:40 am And Twitter already had unchecked power: blocking sharing of the Hunter Biden laptop story, banning people who go against the government's CoVID and Ukraine narratives. Their censorship was much more oppressive than Musk...who really hasn't changed that that much

Twitter, being a privately owned service, may impose any speech or other use conditions and restrictions it wishes. Don't like those conditions/restrictions? Don't use the service. And, of course, if Musk wishes to alter those conditions/restrictions he's perfectly free to do so. Don't like those changes? Don't use the service.

chewybrian wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2022, 5:16 am
This is just all wrong. For example, Covid is not a "narrative". We lost as many people to covid as we lost in all our wars combined. Some people realized that they could make money by lying about vaccines. Fear sells. They couldn't care less if they get thousands killed if they make a profit. Vaccines save lives and our top priority was, correctly, getting as many people vaccinated as quickly as possible. Speech has consequences.

Yes, free speech means that some people will utter false claims, either for some self-serving reason or just because they're ignorant, and others will believe them. It is YOUR job to sort the fact from the fiction --- not the government's. If you eschew COVID vaccines because you've been persuaded they are ineffective or harmful and die from COVID, it is YOUR fault, no one else's. Others have no obligation to do your thinking for you.

We should be wary of limiting speech and accept some collateral damage from allowing people speak their minds, but there must be some limits.

Ah. And who is to define and impose those limits --- Joe Biden? Donald Trump?

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2022, 11:45 am Yes, free speech means that some people will utter false claims, either for some self-serving reason or just because they're ignorant, and others will believe them. It is YOUR job to sort the fact from the fiction --- not the government's. If you eschew COVID vaccines because you've been persuaded they are ineffective or harmful and die from COVID, it is YOUR fault, no one else's. Others have no obligation to do your thinking for you.

Will you ever realise it's not about "obligations", it's about mutual co-operation for mutual benefit. No coercion of any sort; just common sense.