X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |
|
Enzoblue Member Profile  Member Since: 2006-08-26 Last Power Points used: never • Available: now Max Power Points: 1 • Get More Power Points Now Comments 1 |
Subscribe Navigation
Member Stats Rank: 532 Rating: 13 star points #1 Videos: 1 Top 15 Videos: 1 Votes Received: 355 Average Votes Per Video: 44.38 Votes Cast: 1432 Comments Posted: 597 • browse Comments Applauded: 7 Sifted Videos: 8 Sift Talk Posts: 1 Dead Pool Fixes: 5 Profile Views: 4862 Highest Ranked Comments Member's Highest Rated Videos |
Canada Videos Submitted by Enzoblue
These days I'm not sure if I wouldn't be on the bank robber's side.
Then you'd leave us with no other choice but to tackle you.
Ok, I'll do it.
What you guys are failing to understand is that pure capitalism regulates itself. Every problem we have now is because of government intervention in the free market. Most of the very big companies we have today got there by enlisting the governments help. The "winds of history" tell a sordid tale of large companies using the government to help them meet their ends. Even to the point of using the military against civilians as in the Pullman strike and the Ludlow massacre.
Monopolies would only exist in the free market if that company consistently had a better quality products at better prices than any single smaller company, which is virtually impossible without stuff like government enforced patents etc. (Imagine a world without patents for a minute, it's fun.) What big companies do now is quash smaller companies by using the government to, for example, get laws past that favor their model or labor laws passed that favor their workers over their competitors - tons of ways. Also by enlisting the government to work internationally, sometimes with wars, sometimes assassinations, coups etc as with Exxon and United Fruit.
It's a racket, pure and simple. Why make a better product at less profit if you can force people to buy what you have with an FDA ruling? Why pay top dollar for a quality forest when you can get it in a deal with a friendly government installed by your government? Stuff like that.
Edit:
Ask yourself why orange juice is so damned expensive. 3 to 4 dollars a gallon? The stuff grows on trees, the trees grow like weeds, you can get what.. 20-30 gallons a tree?? The answer is that orange juice owners want to be filthy rich. The asked for the governments help and they got it. Our government uses YOUR tax dollars to pay orange tree farmers to destroy parts of their crops in order to reduce supply and keep the prices up. If the government wasn't involved, orange juice would be 50 cents a gallon and the orange juice owners would only be moderately well off. Think about it.
fucking right on man.well said.
In reply to this comment by WaterDweller:
Here's one that isn't region blocked. Thumbnail, length and title is the same, so I'll take a leap and assume it's the same video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ3HziB8YmQ
In reply to this comment by Enzoblue:
In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
they aren't sending work overseas, they are sending work back in time.
Is that where we need to go though? Why should we be forced back in time? The corps are richer than even imaginable back then, and they won't be going back anytime soon. Why is it up to us to take the brunt?
In reply to this comment by Enzoblue:
"Unions are why companies are taking their business to other countries. It's a failing system. 40 hours a week... people should be working more than 40 hours a week. Workers comp. well that should be more dependant on circumstances. too many people take advantage of work comp in dishonest ways."
They're sending jobs overseas because the workers there are forced to live like dogs and are therefore cheaper and they can get richer.
So what you're saying here is that we should be working like they do overseas. 18 hour days, almost no pay, living in cardboard hovels, starting to work at age 8, etc etc. Is that right Gunter? Careful how you answer, judging by your insight you'll probably be one of them.
Here are a few quotes from "The Virtue of Selfishness" which may help illustrate this:
"Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another, the spiritual payment given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another man’s character."
"“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. Thus, altruism gauges a man’s virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, renounces or betrays his values (since help to a stranger or an enemy is regarded as more virtuous, less “selfish,” than help to those one loves)."
"Love and friendship are profoundly personal, selfish values: love is an expression and assertion of self-esteem, a response to one’s own values in the person of another. One gains a profoundly personal, selfish joy from the mere existence of the person one loves. It is one’s own personal, selfish happiness that one seeks, earns and derives from love.
A “selfless,” “disinterested” love is a contradiction in terms: it means that one is indifferent to that which one values.
Concern for the welfare of those one loves is a rational part of one’s selfish interests. If a man who is passionately in love with his wife spends a fortune to cure her of a dangerous illness, it would be absurd to claim that he does it as a “sacrifice” for her sake, not his own, and that it makes no difference to him, personally and selfishly, whether she lives or dies.
Any action that a man undertakes for the benefit of those he loves is not a sacrifice if, in the hierarchy of his values, in the total context of the choices open to him, it achieves that which is of greatest personal (and rational) importance to him. In the above example, his wife’s survival is of greater value to the husband than anything else that his money could buy, it is of greatest importance to his own happiness and, therefore, his action is not a sacrifice."
In reply to this comment by EnzoblueI don't feel my ultimate goal is pursuit of my own happiness. I also can't feel happiness when others around me suffer, so I'm somewhat altruistic at base and have been since I was a toddler, (so my mother says), and I find it a hard pill to swallow when she tells me I should defy that instinct.
Just to let you know, I watched your vid and sent it through to someone else and we've got it to 9 for you, maybe you should beg it, it should be seen. Take care
You liked it enough when I sifted it, now DotDude's got it up...
http://www.videosift.com/video/Mrs-Hughes-Live-at-the-Ice-House
In reply to this comment by Enzoblue:
Definitely, but every single one of these visionaries just fade away. I've seen so many world changing ideas in TED talks etc, and at the end of the day they're depressing because there's no hope in them actually changing anything in our lifetime or the next. Not so long as theirs profit in coal and debt and war and and and...
I just turned 43, it's really showing huh.
That only this got posted might be due to the fact that most people here prefer the quick media snack to heavy political meals...
In reply to this comment by Enzoblue:
This is a dupe, and quite pathetic that of all the really important stuff he did say that this is the only thing that gets sifted.
In reply to your comment:
“that freaked me out you should have said more. i thought you were some chinese hater
In reply to your comment:
“
In reply to your comment:
“God Bless the Dupont Chemical Corporation!” what do you mean”
Dupont Chemical Corp manufactured Napalm, and Agent Orange. There's a semi-infamous picture of a napalm bomb where a solder wrote the what I said on it.”
In reply to your comment:
“God Bless the Dupont Chemical Corporation!” what do you mean