Re: [SLUG-POL] Can making legal profits be immoral?

From: Paul M Foster (paulf@quillandmouse.com)
Date: Thu Jul 24 2003 - 23:57:50 EDT


On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 08:44:17PM -0400, John Pedersen wrote:

>
> >>Each of us has to decide for themselves, but I do think that people who
> >>profit, legally, and KNOWINGLY do great harm to the entire nation, are
> >>somewhat evil.
> >
> >
> >I'm assuming you've misspoken here-- "people who profit, legally, and
> >KNOWINGLY do great harm...." If you didn't misspeak, then there is the
> >crux of the matter-- profit is evil, the more of it the more evil.
>
> Nope, didn't misspeak, but you need to parse the boolean logic out of it.
>
> Like: People who
>
> a) profit legally
>
> AND
>
> b) KNOWINGLY do great harm to the entire nation
>
> are evil.
>

Ah, my apologies. My mistake. I see now.

> The point that I was trying (and obviously failed) to make, was that
> they are evil (IMHO) IN SPITE OF the fact that they are carrying on
> their business legally.
>

Stipulated.

> I guess it's a question of whether you think it's ok to do harm to the
> nation. Suppose there was some legal loophole that permitted you to
> legally sell a package to the Chinese, consisting of all the latest
> secret military technology, and a trainload of the latest super-duper
> 10,000 mile-range, pinpoint accuracy, nuclear missiles. Of course,
> the Chinese would pay you $100M for such a nice deal. Perfectly legal,
> in this hypothetical example. Would that make it ok?
>

Of course not.

> Pet rocks? Great! I would get in on that in a heartbeat. That does
> no national harm. I agree with ALL your examples. Yes, it IS very
> subjective, as I said in my earlier post. I think the only place we
> disagree is on the degree of harm that international megabrokers have
> done, and are doing, to the country.
>

Yes, I can't even begin to see how megabrokers are the proximate cause
of all this, or even major players in it. I don't follow their exploits.

> I think we are under attack, long-term, from China, in three ways:
>
> militarily, economically, and polically.
>

_Now_ I'm with you.

Interesting story. There was a set of objectives that the communists
made up to destroy capitalism and the American nation. It was read into
the congressional record back about the time of the McCarthy hearings, I
believe. You'd be shocked and stunned to realize how much of it has been
accomplished. (Or maybe you wouldn't. ;-) Also interestingly, if you
track down the funding for the antiwar rallies which occurred just prior
to the most recent Iraq war, you find that communist organizations
represented the vast majority of the funding and organization of these
rallies. Few people who attended them were aware of this, which was as
intended. And sadly, when you yell, "Communist!" these days, people
think you're quaint or anacronistic.

However, I'm not convinced the communists are the only ones attempting
to destroy America. They have willing helpers in the environmental
movement and elsewhere. There's a strain of humanity which will always
work to destroy that which is good, often covertly. They come in all
shapes, sizes and political affiliations. They are most effective
because people simply refuse to believe there is such a thing as _evil_.
When you use the term, people think you go to church too much, when in
fact evil has little to do with God or religion. We're too civilized to
actually believe in "evil". Whistling past the graveyard, indeed.

> They made great strides at infiltrating the political system during
> the Clinton years. And they have basically taken us by storm
> economically during the last twenty years. And they are steadily
> building up their military assets.
>
> I think this is a big problem. Hence, when I see people who make $50M
> a year for brokering deals to manufacture ever more and more in China,
> I consider it pretty much the same as a spy who helps them by selling
> military secrets. Legal or not.
>
> If you KNOW that you're destroying your country, and you do it anyway,
> for the money....well, the legality doesn't mean much to me. You've
> crossed that subjective line. Just my opinion.
>

Agreed.

Paul



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:27:03 EDT