Philosophy topic: the global society

[zabu of nΩd]

VS

Many would say that we now live in a "global society" thanks to our communication networks and information technologies and cool shit like that. Do you think this global society is making the traditional geographically bound societies and institutions (i.e. ethnicities, nationalities, educational institutions, religious institutions, or even governments) obsolete?

Could technology be said to have put a sort of anarchist system in place that allows people some measure of economic independence and a way of getting around all the problems in politics and the "sphere of institutions"?

Also, would you say technology is working more "for" or "against" the current economic crisis (i.e. debt and unemployment problems)? Could it potentially save us from the crisis? Will the bulk of society be able to escape disaster under a "service-oriented market economy"?

Discuss!

 

[divine_torture]

Global society followed by cult-style ritualistic suicide. Mmm... I rather like Kool-Aid (if it ain't grape), but if it's Pepsi, count me a statistic!

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Gah, wanted to tack one more discussion question on there:

Can corporations take over the role that governments have traditionally served in maintaining social order (i.e. by regulating the flow of capital)? In many ways they have become the new "agents of worldwide change" in managing the infrastructure and economies of the world, and even if there's a lot that sucks about them, having them around is possibly preferable to leaving 'sovereign' governments to run us into the ground. I am assuming, of course, that this question has significance from a political orientation / public policy perspective.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Corporations vs governments running everything is basically no change at all.

 

[Dak]

Corporations vs governments running everything is basically no change at all.

This. Governments are agents of the corporations and vice versa. Ghadafi was just killed and Libya subjugated using taxpayer funding on MIC bombs and Al Qaeda mercenaries to secure the resources of that nation for the wealth of Us and European governments/corporations.

Technology has led to so many increases in living standards, while simultaneosly handing the oligarchs the tools to extract extra created capital from the masses in ever more inconspicuous ways.

Technology has also hidden an actual decline in quality of life, while "living standards" have increased. I submit that people in first world nations are worse off now than they were in the 1950's, as those who work are taxed more than ever, and the many who do not work are locked into mental slavery to the hand that feeds. They do not understand that their status as "useless eaters" will eventually land them in a coffin by the same hand.

Technology is not causing the economic and unemployment problems. Governments are, and the most egregious offender is the fractional reserve central banking system.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Corporations vs governments running everything is basically no change at all.

I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that corporations, motivated by greed as they are, are actually delivering a lot of useful and life-improving products for us consumers. This is a case of "absolute power" not actually "corrupting absolutely", like we see with a lot of governments.

A hopefully relevant example: Big Corp A makes a medicine that gives people random AIDS. Big Corp B runs a TV news station that airs stories mainly to attract advertising dollars, so Corp A pays them not to air the AIDS story, and Corp B is like "okay, whatever, more money for us" since it has enough extra stories to fill its programming.

But Corp C is a web software company that makes their ad dollars by airing stories that users want to read, and it turns out the AIDS story brings them lots of money-generating webpage hits. Corp A cannot pay Corp C enough to implement content filtering that might annoy users and hurts Corp C's brand, so Corp C instead makes a profit off of Corp A's costly public relations fiasco, while inadvertently performing the beneficial service of raising an important public health issue.

So in that example, all 3 companies are acting out of "corruption", but the result is not a complete assrape of The Ninety-Nine Percent as it often is with corrupt governments.

 

[Dak]

Many corporations are only able to do what they do because of government collusion, and the products and profits are available at value prices for some because of the death and suffering elsewhere. So yes, corporations are more legitimate than government, but I doubt corporations want the abolishment of government. It's too good for business.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Of course not, corporations are amoral creatures for the most part. They just happen to be able to be kept in check by consumer communication and other corporations. Some of them may discover a loophole (or maybe 100) in this system of checks and balances, but it's a pretty hard one to wiggle out of entirely.

 

[Dak]

More like create vs discover. It's called office appointments/bribes/lobbyists.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

c'mon, you're playing semantics

 

[Rick Parry]

This. Governments are agents of the corporations and vice versa. Ghadafi was just killed and Libya subjugated using taxpayer funding on MIC bombs and Al Qaeda mercenaries to secure the resources of that nation for the wealth of Us and European governments/corporations.

Technology has led to so many increases in living standards, while simultaneosly handing the oligarchs the tools to extract extra created capital from the masses in ever more inconspicuous ways.

Technology has also hidden an actual decline in quality of life, while "living standards" have increased. I submit that people in first world nations are worse off now than they were in the 1950's, as those who work are taxed more than ever, and the many who do not work are locked into mental slavery to the hand that feeds. They do not understand that their status as "useless eaters" will eventually land them in a coffin by the same hand.

Technology is not causing the economic and unemployment problems. Governments are, and the most egregious offender is the fractional reserve central banking system.

 

[Dak]

What is your point?

 

[Rick Parry]

You think people are getting taxed more then ever which is false.

 

[Dak]

Your ignorance of how inflating the money supply taxes the people at the bottom of the economic ladder is not surprising.

 

[SentinelSlain]

A lot of people say that since the world "opened up" around 1989-1991, people have clung to their ethnic, religious and national identities like a child to his teddy bear on a dark night. Quite a few catastrophic massacres took place just after that period that at the time were understood to be ethnic conflicts that were part of a long intractable conflict. Now, the point here is that was how the average participant in those conflicts (Rwanda, Bosnia, central asia etc) saw it. The actual people behind those conflicts made tactical decisions to consolidate their power and for financial gain. How quickly people jumped to the bait of these supposed ancient hatreds and rivalries demonstrated certain human tendencies though.

Anyway, on the subject of the internet, I think people like Rupert Murdoch have kind of been fucked by it. People, I imagine starting with my generation, will get sick of media that is not interactive which kind of fucks over propaganda, to a degree.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

You think people are getting taxed more then ever which is false.

I hate to break this to you, but you need to do a lot better than showing the percentage history of the top income tax bracket for that claim to mean anything.

 

[Dak]

Also, the percentage is irrelevant considering all the tax loopholes built in specifically for those with enough money to hire lobbyists and fund the think tanks who write the legislation.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

I'm sort of surprised by Grant's seeming (it could be him playing devil's advocate) support of laissez faire capitalism. I support free markets, but I feel that regulation is necessary, especially from the top down. It's my opinion that starting a small business is too difficult, what with all the the licensing and taxation that is required. However, in the world of big business, anti-trust regulations (as an example) have basically lost their teeth.

 

[Dak]

Anti trust regulations would be unnecessary without government enabling.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Competition in the free market would not be enough on its own to reign in multinational conglomerates.