From: one-if-by-land@concord.com
"Edgar" wrote in message
news:47c441f0$0$25977$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> "Don" wrote in message
> news:fq1aao012uq@news5.newsguy.com...
>>
>> "Kris Krieger" wrote in message
>> news:13s6f4o59joh603@corp.supernews.com...
>>> "Don" wrote in
>>> news:fpv9me02bbq@news5.newsguy.com:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Warm Worm" wrote in message
>>>> news:fpv4ii$2an$1@aioe.org...
>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>> "Warm Worm" wrote in message
>>>>>> news:fpthn6$ca3$1@aioe.org...
>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>>>>> Why change the rules halfway into the game?
>>>>>>>> He works for the state so he can be punished by the state.
>>>>>>>> Overall though I agree with the sentiment.
>>>>>>>> Abolish the state, turn all incarcerations over to private
>>>>>>>> entities and let them figure it out.
>>>>>>>> We'd all be better off.
>>>>>>> Exactly: We could properly take care of that woman without the
>>>>>>> hassle of videos, public cops, public scrutiny, freedom of info,
>>>>>>> state shitcans, or anyone knowing anything about anyone's business
>>>>>>> in that case or any other. People should do 100% what they want. ;D
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You keep saying *we* and I don't see how that figures into it.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you just said, "We'd all be better off."
>>>>>
>>>>> Make up your mind.
>>>>
>>>> ???
>>>> I think we'd be better off without a tyrannical monopoly on force, and
>>>> from that you transpose that we should take care of people?
>>>> Amazing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think that what's mroe interesting is the question of hwat sorts of
>>> people enter various security services. THere are some poeple who
>>> relaly
>>> do think it's the right thing to do because they honestly are at least
>>> *trying* to assist innocent people (i.e. people who are not out to harm
>>> others). OTOH, you also get a fair number of agressive types, and a
>>> fair
>>> number of people who simply want to exert power, however temporary and,
>>> really, petty it might be, and then you alwayse get some who want to
>>> harm
>>> others but seek to do so from behind a smokescreen of legitimacy.
>>>
>>> Some people are protective by nature and really do try to "protect and
>>> serve", and there is nothing worng with that. THe problem is that,
>>> whetehr in law enforcement, business, politics, and every other sphere
>>> of
>>> life, they seem to be fighting a losing battle agansit those who use the
>>> smokescreen of legitimacy to hide their lust for power and control.
>>
>> What you're finding is that when there is little to no accountability to
>> a bad behavior that behavior will expand.
>> In the private sector bad behavior is not routinely ignored or rewarded
>> as it tends to effect the bottom line negatively of the company.
>> In the gov't there is very little in the way of accountability and in
>> many cases the perpetrators of bad behavior are rewarded.
>> The gov't steals what it wants and bad behavior has no effect on its
>> bottom line.
>> (ask yourself, 'Is a thief concerned that one or all of his employees are
>> also murderers?')
>> Its pretty much routine in these cases for the police chief to stand up
>> in front of the cameras and claim some silly excuse as to why something
>> happened.
>> The most common word used is *misjudgement*.
>>
>
> Sorry but even in the private sector bad behavior is routinely ignored.
> There are plenty of CEOs making millions while their companies do poorly.
> The only accountability in the private sector of corporations are the
> shareholders, and all you have to do to keep them happy is make them more
> money, any way possible. Whether that means outsourcing to poorer
> countries, laying off thousands of good workers, or thrashing the
> environment, future be damned. Yet this doesn't even necessarily curb bad
> behaviors, and in fact IMO encourages it. As long as the shareholders get
> their cut, they don't care how the company makes it's money, i.e. no
> accountability. The ONLY measure of success for these companies is money,
> so any way you make it is fine and dandy, and that is what capitalism is
> all about right?
No, thats not what its all about.
The business has to please the customers otherwise the CEO will be replaced
by the shareholders.
So, in a way the CEO is getting it from both directions.
He has to please his customers and he has to please his shareholders.
Sounds like his burden is heavy, so maybe thats why he gets paid the big
bux.
But then, you never get to hear that side of the story in the MSM.
All you get to hear is the same old shit about greed, boatloads of money and
envy.
Sort of one sided don't you think?
> It's pretty much routine in these cases for a CEO to stand up in front of
> the cameras and claim some silly excuse as to why something happened.
>
> --
> Edgar
I personally don't care what CEO's say or how much money they make.
If a product or service doesn't live up to my standard I just fire them and
then I'm done with it.
I do it all the time.
A large company thought they had me by the balls recently, and they did -
while I was a noob, but I educated myself then promptly fired the whole
business.
I don't know, or care, who the CEO is or how much he makes.
I only cared about the shitty service they were providing.
Unfortunately I don't get to do the same thing with the public security
establishment that forces me to pay for it whether I want it or not.
So I just do my best to ignore it and stay out of its way, much like the way
I treat retarded drunks and krakho's and various other ne'er do wells.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
