I think that part A of paragraph 1 does not go well with part B. I think that paragraph 2 is very optmistic, in that the incentives for corporations to pollute and generally behave badly are much better than they are for altruism, and corporations by definition are profit-seeking entities.
I think that paragraph 3 is a) overly naive and b) irrelevant to my point. On 2/22/07, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I care about chavez because I care about the cause of liberty and > democracy gnerally, and I think you overstate our loss of liberty at > home. > > as for corporations, they are neither good nor bad. they are legal > entities. sometimes the people who run corporations do good, and > sometimes they do ill. that's just human behavior. > > having said that, I think the advent of corporations has done more to > spread wealth and opportunity than almost any other development in > human history. > > On 2/22/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Give me a break. > > > > 1) Chavez is somewhere else, we have homegrown loss of liberty to > > worry about. Let the Venezuelans be Venezuelans. > > > > 2) This is possibly the most specious argument I have ever seen. Some > > company has potentially useful products therefore corpporations are > > good?? > > > > 3) It's pretty far from random. > > > > Dana > > > > On 2/22/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Dana wrote: > > > > yanno... almost as much time has been wasted on this as on Hugo > > > > Chavez. I just don't see why reducing emissions would be a bad thing, > > > > whether they are responsible for global warming or not. Big > > > > corporations would have us believe otherwise, but since when did they > > > > have our best interests in mind? > > > > > > > > > > (1.) Chavez. If you're unconcerned about new dictatorships and the > > > death and mayhem that will inevitably ensue, then Chavez is > > > unconcerning. If, on the other hand, needless suffering bothers you, > > > then Chavez does concern you and discussion about his is not a waste > > > of time. > > > > > > (2.) Corporations. While the conceptual organization doesn't care > > > about people, the practical organization does. I'd bet if you looked > > > at charitable contributions including both money and time you'd find > > > that corporations are quite generous. And further the *promise* of > > > *becoming* a corporation is responsible for untold advances in > > > science, medicine, and technology that have increased all of our > > > lifespans. As one quick example, take Sirtris: > > > > > > "if it succeeds, its medicines may retard the onset or progression of > > > a whole slew of age-related diseases, from diabetes to Alzheimer's to > > > cancer. The drugs may also have an extremely provocative side effect: > > > They might extend life span. You have to go back to the advent of > > > antibiotics in the first half of the 20th century to find such broad > > > therapeutic potential. > > > > > > (3.) Emissions. There's probably all kinds of things humans "emit" > > > that we could cut. Your point is that we should just randomly pick > > > something and then spend billions eliminating it for no apparent > > > reason? > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| ColdFusion MX7 and Flex 2 Build sales & marketing dashboard RIAâs for your business. Upgrade now http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2 Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:228729 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
