• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

How would you fight terrorism?

ebola? said:
To a VERY minor extent. We can choose what to buy (within our budgets), but we cannot choose the array of available businesses or their practices. Consumer choice is not enough to transform society.
Click to expand...

It depends how you view it. I guess you could call it minor if you view the whole colossal shebang of problems that corporations cause. But if you take several areas of interests, you will see consumer clamor making significant changes in the manner (or, to a larger extent, products) of companies. A lame symptom of this would be the mushrooming of "CSR"... companies are recognizing a new way to "add value to their brands".

I also think that with consumer choice blowing in a certain direction, there will always be enterprising noses to follow. Certain niches are being filled by smaller companies now that had never existed, and large companies are beginning to pay attention.

Um, but this still takes me back to the basic characteristics of corporations. I don't believe that the total lack of accountability and disregard for any non-monetary capital will hold up long enough. It should be interesting to see what happens. Aren't we lucky.
 
Dtergent said:
Um, but this still takes me back to the basic characteristics of corporations. I don't believe that the total lack of accountability and disregard for any non-monetary capital will hold up long enough. It should be interesting to see what happens. Aren't we lucky.
Click to expand...

With governments in their pockets, what can stop them? People? We're too apathetic and too distracted by trivialities to do much.
 
^ There's the key.

I've watched the thread to see how it evolved. i saw may good points, and a few good deas that may work. I do think the best idea was education, but then again the one mentioning capital stats and nation states made a very important point about terrorism. Terroism is about an idealism, and a sepration of people. The biggest problem in all of history has always been sepratism, and internal conflict leading to war on a large scale. WWII was the prime example in this case. It was a war started against people in the same country that rolled into neighboring regions. In fact almost all European wars to have this same background. It doesn't help that almost all European peoples have a related ancestry though, and actively choose to deny it.

In my personal belief, we can only be rid of all of these problems when human race unites as a whole. Instead of bickering about whose people's should have what. The biggest example, and on going case is the conflict between the Semitic people's over the "Holy Land". They all hold the land as their own, and don't take into consideration that no matter the religion, they are the same people. They all came from the Seminites.
 
Just manufacture about a cubic kilometre of liquid LSD and strategically dose every single water supply on the planet with it. It'll certainly give people a different perspective on things, if it doesn't psychologically fuck them over completely...
 
L2R said:
With governments in their pockets, what can stop them? People? We're too apathetic and too distracted by trivialities to do much.
Click to expand...

Well, if you're talking about corporations that provide basic services like utilities, etc, then it is more difficult. Not to mention if the company lives off government contracts. But consumer goods are a much easier field to influence, or companies that accumulate most revenue from sales to individuals.

The will to make a change and change your lifestyle is surely lacking though.
 
Terrorists? I don't think they'd like it very much if we destroyed their entire side of the planet. Like elementary school, everyone loses recess priveliges all because of that one group of kids that just can't stop acting up. Too bad it's going to have to work that way... life's just not fair.
 
dtergent, you said yourself that changing marketing trends will simply be exploited by other opportunists.

The solution i've been alluding to is as simple as it is fanciful: destroy the stock market! ;)


Either that or restrict personal (individual or business) wealth. When one's personal assetts rivals those of governing bodies, corruption and exploitation is inevitable.
Tax those that can afford it.
 
Big corporations have power because they have money.

They have money because people give them money.

If people stopped giving them money...they would quickly loose all of their power.

Am I missing something here?
 
Yes.

Corporations have power because they run to the demand of stock owners who care nothing about escalated returns, and therefore do not care about nor is accountable for the way the business makes it's money. It's the blind leading the blind. This entity in turn makes much money for both the local economy in their staff and local governing bodies in taxes and therefore it is in the governing body's best short term interest to play ball by creating tax breaks, fringe benefits and even go so far as changing industrial relations laws (as in aus at the moment) for the interest of the businesses.

but what good is a strong economy when you have no rights to earn more than minimum wage?


Simply not supporting big business is like putting a band-aid on someone crushed by a train.
 
no one buys products from a company ---> company losses all of its money and its stock price heads towards zero ---> company no longer rules the world.

I recognize that companies get totally hooked up by the government. However, I fail to see why a government would cater to a company with no money. If no one bought anything from a company, the company would surely go bankrupt (is this an incorrect assumption? I'm preatty sure it is basic economics) and the major stock holders would loose their shirts.

maybe I'm still don't understand something...
 
You forget that:
a) You need to rely on a lot of people for this type of cause to make any difference, and people are incredibly unreliable when it comes to anything that even hints at self sacrifice; and
b) Companies are just as dynamic as they want to be, so any slight change in demand is countermeasured.

So, 2 more likely scenarios to that strategy:

1- You do not buy company's product but other's still do = no change
2- Everybody stops buying product from company. Company buys out other businesses in other industries to take up the slack, until they find something everyone feels they need. = no change

I repeat: band aid solutions = useless.

In order to have any hope of impacting on such massive problems, one must investigate to the true root cause of it.

Looking at big business in relation to the terrorist issue, as we are, is immesurably more productive than what our governments have been doing with their pathetic school yard bully mentalities: aka dehumanisation and counterattacks.

So kudos to everyone in this thread.
 
Out side of my fanasy land where everyone permaculture's their house, runs their car on biodiesel, and buys local products exclusively..you are totally right. People shop at walmart because its cheep (not THAT cheep if you ask me), its the only place where you can get certain items (in my town anyways), and most importantly, its simply where you go shoping (in their minds). People won't change this mindset unless they are forced to. As things currently go right now, people have every incentive in the world to keep buying everything from big corporations.

Are you suggesting government intervention to change the situation? IE change tax laws, hold execs accountable for the bull they pull etc. I guess this will be a necessity seeing as many "necessary" products (cars, computers, power drills etc.) are only made by fairly large companies.

^unfortuantely, I think this will happen about the time that everone stops buying from corps..
 
Last edited:
Okay, the basic problem is that producing the goods that destroy lives and the environment is CHEAPER than producing goods that don't. To quote some author whose name I have forgotten, in our society, Markets are great at identifying prices, but are total crap at identifying costs (non-monetary). Therein lies the main problem. They have no reason to do so, in the current definition of a corporation.
 
Mehm said:
^unfortuantely, I think this will happen about the time that everone stops buying from corps..
Click to expand...

The sad catch 22 by which we live.

But i must grant, that the current US adminitration's complete retardation to many issues is doing a wonderful job in inciting revolutionaries.

Dtergent said:
Okay, the basic problem is that producing the goods that destroy lives and the environment is CHEAPER than producing goods that don't. To quote some author whose name I have forgotten, in our society, Markets are great at identifying prices, but are total crap at identifying costs (non-monetary). Therein lies the main problem. They have no reason to do so, in the current definition of a corporation.
Click to expand...

So true. CEO's and their managers know they're changing roles every few years, so this encourages extremely short termed focus. It's so funny that they're too stupid to realise that they will be cleaning after other managers just as others will be cleaning up after them :\

ah, the nature of the beast.
 
>>
Am I missing something here?>>

Yes. The current lack of alternative productive infrastructure.
The factories must be seized by the workers.

ebola
 
Why would the factory workers in south east asia put up any resistance when that 5c/year they earn keeps them from crime and peddling their arses to tourists?
 
Mehm said:
no one buys products from a company ---> company losses all of its money and its stock price heads towards zero ---> company no longer rules the world.

I recognize that companies get totally hooked up by the government. However, I fail to see why a government would cater to a company with no money. If no one bought anything from a company, the company would surely go bankrupt (is this an incorrect assumption? I'm preatty sure it is basic economics) and the major stock holders would loose their shirts.

maybe I'm still don't understand something...
Click to expand...


yeah in an economical atmosphere where competition is everything sure, you'd get failing companies all the time and new ones that adapt to the latest practices. But in manopolies that control entire markets and who's stock is owned by members of government, and who offer donations to government projects, jobs to officials or there family members, then its different. Plus, theres only so much resources in the world, if a major US company were to fail and the market seized by foreign investment then thats bad. You'd risk falling a step down the pyramid scheme.
 
First of all i think the word terrorism is just that... a word

Terrorism has been going on in one form or another since the dawn of man.
It is mankinds inate desire to have his own will imposed on others.
The problem is that people think differently...and i dont think you will ever change that....

Terrorism in its current widely accepted definition serves two purposes. The terrorists wish to impose thier will and world view on others in order to become dominant. The "victims" of terrorism are also able to utilise the fear of terrorism in order to control the masses. Feer breeds acceptance of a higher powers authority. I am not saying there is a direct conspiracy to control us with fear... it is more of a social given.

I think the american fight to control terrorism has the potential to work. Allthough I disagree with the realities of what they are doing I think that "taking over the world" and turning the world into a democracy has the potential to work. Just look at countries like Japan and Germany... Incredibly succesful countries built on the bloodshed imposed by a western world view. Globalisation by force.

An entirely democratic world my be somewhat of a solution but I still disagree with the mentality of destroying those who opose such a view. Everyone has the right to thier own opinion...even if that opinion doesnt rub well with your own.

As has allready been said I really think that education and communication are key. The fact that we now have the technology to communicate instantly with anywhere and anyone on our planet is certainly a big step toward a world of understanding and tolerance. Creating a more intelligent and educated populace is also important.... but i think a question that needs to be asked is "what do we teach them?"

America in its current situation appears to be a lot like the roman empire of old. And have no doubt...America is an empire. However as with Rome the sheer size of the empires system means that it is not entirely within the leaders control. You cant keep eveything in check. There are people who think differently to the accepted authoritarian view...and I dont mean the terrorists, I am talking about the free thinkers within. It is these people who have the power to bring the empire down. But what then?

If the american empire is destroyed then we revert back not to an "us and them" mentality...but to an "us and them and them and them" system.

There are two solutions as i see it to the worlds current political state...

Globalistion by force...... a peaceful world that was built on death and destruction.
or
Accepted Anarchy..... A world of free will built on education and communication that accepts peace only as a way of not leading to its own demise.

Terrorism will only be defeated with nothing short of total global social and political change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top