@Jamie
"I supplied you with some reliable figures which show that developing countries lose more to tax evasion than they gain in aid."
Evasion is illegal so no-one tells anyone what they "saved". Therefore any figures are estimates which cannot be then considered "reliable" especially when they come from an organisation which has a vested interest in sexing up the value.

"And PLEASE stop boasting about how wonderful your company is, if you still refuse to tell us which company you are talking about."
No, you can choose to disbelieve me but I do not see why I should censor myself because it does not suit your beliefs.

"It's not a valid example if it's not verifiable."
It is my personal experience so you cannot verify it anyway. Do you ignore all personal experiences that people describe on this site for that reason?

"You could just be making it all up."
Perhaps, but what would be the point in a forum like this?

"It's tiresome."
If I am tiring you go and lie down under a damp copy of the Communist Manifesto.

@ diplomat:

The point is, this all started when Sicarus gave a number of examples of abuses and bad practices by a number of major Multinationals. In each case, he gave details of the companies involved, so that, if you wanted to be sure, you could investigate further for yourself.

You then responded to this side of the argument by saying "oh, but my company is the loveliest, fluffiest, most wonderful company ever.... but I won't tell you who they are so you'll just have to take my word for it." This means nothing you have said about your company is verifiable. Thus, your arguments are paper-thin.

See how you respond to me doing the same thing:

People often criticise my communist views because they think communism is a failed experiment and that there are no good examples of communism being made to work in practice. Well I can now reveal that those people are WRONG. Oh yes, because I have visited a major communist country where the principles of Marx, Engels and Lenin have been applied very successfully.

This communist country has a flourishing economy which has bucked the trend of the credit crunch. In fact it is one of the world's best-performing economies over the past 20 years. Thanks to communism, this previously poor country now has state-funded education and healthcare that are second to none. The population has been lifted out of poverty, and the average family in this country has a standard of living 20% better than the US average. In addition, the country has a world-leading science community, a pioneering space program that will see a man walk on the surface of Pluto by 2020, and many other brilliant achievements.

"What is the name of this wonderful country?" I hear you ask.

But of course, I'm not going to tell you that. It's not relevant.

@Jamie
You CANNOT tell me the name of this country as we all know that no such place exists. You have created this example to make a point.

I do not WANT to tell you the name of my employer for reasons already stated. Even if idid it would not help you validate the examples I gave all if which are from my personal experience. That these experiences conflict with your personal view, derived from questionable sources, is what gets on your tits. Tough. You can always move to your fantasy land and enjoy The Truth unburdened by contrary opinions.

"But of course, I'm not going to tell you that. It's not relevant. "

I know it i know it! Your comunists are coming right from Uranus!? :-)

Diplomat my friend, our issue here is that unverifiable and anecdotal evidence is useless when analyzing a large group. Particular when it is the only example given. We cannot evaluate your statements or see any credence to them because it's all at your word and we no idea of embellishments or anything else.

In any case, it doesn't allow for contradictions of any kind if the sole interpretive authority.

Completely and utterly useless for a genuine argument.

So,

I am not saying you are wrong or lying, but if you are not willing to give A) Other examples or B) The name of the multinational. then you are wasting your time using it as your central argument.

@ diplomat: I'll happily come and live with you in the fantasy land you're currently inhabiting.

My example of a wonderful communist utopia existing today is just as valid (and just as INVALID) as everything you've posted. The point I was trying to make was that if I posted about "a country" that I'd visited where all these great acheivements were taking place, the first thing everyone would want to know is "where is this great country?" and rightly so, it's very relevant and very important information.

Likewise, you cannot claim that the identity of your company is 'not relevant', if you intend to make reference to them in support of your arguments.

(In other words, what FS just said)

FS +1
Me -1 for repetition.

@JamieT & FS
It would be easy to tell you that I work for the Acme Paperclip Corporation but would you believe me? I doubt it. As I have already pointed out telling you the name of my employer would not enable you validate my personal experience because these are stories from the 'coalface' not headline matters.

You have asked me for names of other companies with strong CSR ratings. As I have not worked for another MNC in developing countries I cannot give you personal experience, sorry. But do not despair as Google is your friend, for example http://ethisphere.com/wme2010/.

You have still not answered my question: why would I lie?

There is nothing more that I can say or do to "validate" my experience. Disbelieve me if you wish. Personally I have always found it valuable to listen to people who have a different position or experience than I do.

Close your ears, sing "la-la-la" or "The Red Flag", and see where it gets you.

Miro, if you happen to see this, I lost the thread last week and I can't find the responses now. >_> My apologies. I'm sure you had some great points that would make for riveting discussion, unfortunately I cannot find them. As much as I dislike the phrase in general, "agree to disagree" seems an acceptable premise, since you I'm sure defended your side well and I (like to) think I did for mine. Hope you see this, and apologies for the belated reply.

@ diplomat: "You have still not answered my question: why would I lie?"

We're not accusing you of lying - we just want to know what you're telling the truth about.

@JamieT
"We're not accusing you of lying"
That is something, thanks.

"we just want to know what you're telling the truth about."
As I have explained, it doesn't matter.

@Jamiet"@Ghostmaker: "Also, the point about freedom of speech is irrelevant. You can give an opinion, but you cannot lay down a judgement legitimately."

Neither can you then. So by your logic, everything you have posted is meaningless, because you are also making judgements."


You make a category error. As the context of the quotation you take implies, I refer to a legal judgement, i.e. prohibiting someone from carrying out certain actions which have an effect only on himself and other consenting parties.

I can say, and agree with you, that drugs are bad for person X; I may advise him strongly not to use them, but I may not forcibly prevent him from so doing if he chooses to under any circumstance *except* if he is a minor whom I am responsible for.

@Ghost - you personally can't lay down a judgment, but a society, especially a government "of, by, and for the people" most certainly can. We do it all the time.

diplomat
"You CANNOT tell me the name of this corporation as we all know that no such company exists."

@Sicarius
Why would I make up personal experiences and write them here? Telling you the name of my employer will not help you confirm/refute those experiences so there is no point doing so.

Do you expect every person posting here to be able to validate what they post? Do you treat people in RL the same way? ("I know it is a ham sandwich, but what was the name of the pig?").

My experiences do not square with your world view so you have a choice: a) revise your world view or b) deny the truth. It is very human to go with b) because it is the easier option.

Asking you to name the company you are making reference to is NOT the same as asking the name of the pig the ham in your sandwich came from, and you know it.

"@Ghost - you personally can't lay down a judgment, but a society, especially a government "of, by, and for the people" most certainly can. We do it all the time."

By what right do you suppose as a group to tell me as a grown man, "don't do that"?

By the fact that you were given the opportunity to vote for the lawmakers or even become one yourself, at least in my Society.

@JamieT
"Asking you to name the company you are making reference to is NOT the same as asking the name of the pig the ham in your sandwich came from, and you know it. "
Yes, it is an extrapolation of Sicarius's point showing the ridiculousness of his request.

"By the fact that you were given the opportunity to vote for the lawmakers or even become one yourself, at least in my Society"

Why is that relevant, it is still a tyranny, even if it is one perpetrated by a majority of the electorate.

If there are 3 people on an island, by what right can 2 of them order the 3rd to do what the 2 think is best?

You are naive to think that each person, if given the power to completely control their own destiny, will always respect the rights of every other person. This is not so and therefore we have laws. People steal and murder. It happens. You idyllic society cannot exist. Therefore, laws which tell you what you can and cannot do must be put in place. As far as your "affects only the person and others who have agreed to it" is bogus. You cannot know what the butterfly effect will be behind some agreements. As such, all agreements come under scrutiny of law. Additionally, some agreements are made under duress or without full knowledge and consent. Say I get a 16 year old to agree to let me make a movie of her fucking some old dude. They both signed off on it. Does that mean I shouldn't be busted fopr making kiddie porn? What if she were 17? 18? That's suddenly legal. But what if she had a mental handicap and was emotionally and mentally only 15 or 16?

So we have these laws that say what can and can't be put in a contratc to protect the poeple within them as well as the people outside them.

Let's look to employment... Ohio, where I used to live, is a right to work state. No one can rescind an offer of employment because you refuse to be part of a union. The unions have a lot less power in right to work states because they can't forcibly take money and make people members, therefore they can't cajole the votes they want and force the hands of the owners of union shops where non-union people work nor can they force their way in the door at union shops because every one who voted against going union has the right to not participate in that union. Their job will never be at risk for that or, if it is, the courts will see to it that someone pays... Liekwise, in right to work states, unless a person has a specific trade secret or skill unique to that company, non-compete clauses are of no use. You can sign them as part of the contract and then promptly ingore them and go to work for a competitor as long as you don't steal IP and/or customers from your former employer.

As far as your 2 on 1 on an island... If the one person wants to take all the coconuts and burn them in a bonfire, the two have every right to tie him up and take away his matches if they feel the coconuts are more useful for sustenance because there is nothing on the horizon. And I know you are going to argue that he has a right to burn his third of them. Fine, but then he has *no* right to their remaining two thirds yet they know when he is about to starve, he will try stealing the coconuts, maybe even killing one or both of them in the process. So they have a right, out of self preservation, to deny him doing that which might risk their safety in the future.

I need to be brief bc of time...

“You cannot know what the butterfly effect will be behind some agreements.”

This argument is bogus, if no causation can be inferred, how can the government possibly act to prevent bad, indirect consequences.

“Additionally, some agreements are made under duress or without full knowledge and consent. Say I get a 16 year old to agree to let me make a movie of her fucking some old dude. They both signed off on it. Does that mean I shouldn't be busted fopr making kiddie porn? What if she were 17? 18? That's suddenly legal. But what if she had a mental handicap and was emotionally and mentally only 15 or 16?”

It is proper for the law to be involved in cases where consent is not properly reached. If I point a gun to your head and ask you to give me your property, that is not legitimate consent.

You haven’t moved away from third party effects.

“As far as your 2 on 1 on an island... If the one person wants to take all the coconuts and burn them in a bonfire, the two have every right to tie him up and take away his matches if they feel the coconuts are more useful for sustenance because there is nothing on the horizon. And I know you are going to argue that he has a right to burn his third of them. Fine, but then he has *no* right to their remaining two thirds yet they know when he is about to starve, he will try stealing the coconuts, maybe even killing one or both of them in the process. So they have a right, out of self preservation, to deny him doing that which might risk their safety in the future.”

Self defence is not an issue at stake in the question of legalising drugs.


You haven't progressed from third parties here... which is a point I readily concede in general

Drugs can have third party effects when looked at in view of:

a) what they can do to your body and mind.
If you have become addicted and can no longer hold down a job, society has to pay for you and, if you are married and have kids, you family suffers from your inability to support not only yourself but them.

b) potential actions outside your own home that may risk others not related to you.
Say you are totally wasted and decide to go hunting the imaginary snarks with a very real hunting rifle...

And as far as self defense and legalizing drugs: so you are hooked and need another fix but the (now legal) drug dealer says you gotta pay him, however you can no longer hold down a job because you don't do good (or any) work and you are a danger if operating anything more than a telelphone to your coworkers, so you rob a liquor store for the $100 you need to buy your smack and kill the clerk in the process. Did the clerk agree to your contract with the smack dealer? Even if it was sold at the drug store, the Walgreens is still your dealer. Yes, they may be a lot cheaper and safer than the illegal drug dealer's we have now, but the effect of the drug is still detrimental to your physical and mental state which means it still puts society at risk.

Draugnar, bear in mind that in Ghostmaker's Minarchist utopia, the drug addict you mention in (a) would not recieve any state support and as far as the state was concerned, could be left to die.

I think the State is just another corporation. And like any corporation the State can can do good and bad, just as any individual can do good and bad. Corporations are people working together for mutual benefit (when they work properly; of course, there are failed states and corporations). Sicarius vision of a world without governments and without corporations would not make life better for most of us. Instead of corporations doing evil, you just have lots of individuals doing evil (and really you won't just have individuals doing evil - people will always organize themselves into groups, whether that be hunter-gatherer groups, or tribes or whatever). Plus you would lose the benefit of mass-team work that the modern state and corporations give us.
Contrast Europe of the early middle ages, where, what are now modern states, you had constant fighting between warlords (to use a general term). Most people in Europe today are far better off than they were in the middle ages. Alternatively look at countries like Somalia, where the government has collapsed. Where would you rather live, Europe, America or Somalia?
Governments are necessary but they are not good at everything. Preserving law and order, yes. But producing most of the goods and services we need and desire - governments are not so good because some productive activities are much more efficient within a free-market. Contrast China the planned economy of 1970s with the period precipitated by the reforms of Deng Xiaoping, where farmers were freed from the collectives and allowed to farm their own block of land (for profit), with those reforms evolving into China today. It was only when the state relaxed its control of the market that the people began to prosper.

Jamiet99UK, what sort of communist are you. Is there any room for a free-market or would all economic activities be organized by the State?

@Spyman: Good question. In the form of Communism that most appeals to me, there is actually some leeway for people to set up their own small businesses, but there would need to be strict controls to prevent them from growing into the exploitative corporations of modern capitalism. There would certainly not be a 'free' market in the way it's usually meant, however - but then I don't think the free market is a positive thing.

But you do think the free-market is a good thing for small enterprises? No? How small is small. Imagine i have a small business: I design and make websites. How many employees am I allowed before I am too large.