From: one-if-by-land@concord.com   
      
   "Kris Krieger"  wrote in message   
   news:13sp6lmdn88j1d7@corp.supernews.com...   
   > "Don"  wrote in   
   > news:fqbr1101d78@news4.newsguy.com:   
   >   
   >>   
   >> "Kris Krieger"  wrote in message   
   >> news:13sf2cfceq6tqf3@corp.supernews.com...   
   >>> "Edgar"  wrote in   
   >>> news:47c737cf$0$13845$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:   
   >>>   
   > [snip]   
   >>>   
   >>>> I also   
   >>>> believe there is a thing called "reasonable profit" and ways to   
   >>>> measure it and ways to also measure "reasonable success" but without   
   >>>> a government, there is no way to control/enforce it.  Maybe I   
   >>>> misunderstand "free market" but what IS the controlling factor?   
   >>>> What is it that out of 99 companies that work ethically, keeps that   
   >>>> 100th one from pulluting the water that supplies the other 99?   
   >>>   
   >>> THe people running the company.  It's like tha parable of the trees   
   >>> and fruit - "By their fruits shall you know them"; "A bad tree does   
   >>> nnot yield good fruits, nor can a good tree yield bad fruit".  If a   
   >>> company is killing   
   >>> people with toxic waste, that is because the *individuals* running   
   >>> the company care mroe about having that fifth car or third mansion   
   >>> than they care about whether they're killing people or otherwise   
   >>> harming them.  IOW, greed.   
   >>   
   >> Greed, like selfishness, gets a bad rap.   
   >> The true meaning of those two words have been altered by the media.   
   >   
   > No, greed has a specific meaning.  It goes beyond things like profit and   
   > even self-interest - a person can earn profit, and have self-interest,   
   > without stooping to the sort of rapaciousness that characterizes greed.   
   > A business owner can make  aprofit, yet still pay workers a reasonable   
   > wage.  A manufacturer can make a profit, yet still make capital   
   > investments in things that will mitigate pollution that the factory might   
   > create.   
   >   
   > Greed is what drives a person who cares *only* about profit, an dgives   
   > not one thought to the poeple who might be harmed by the toxins he has   
   > his factory dump into the river that supplies drinking water to towns   
   > downstream.   
      
   I think you are confusing moral values with greed, they are exclusive.   
   A person can be greedy AND have moral value.   
      
   >> The problem in the scenario you described is lack of accountability.   
   >> If someone intentionall or otherwise *harms* another they should be   
   >> held accountable, quickly and with restitution and punishment.   
      
   Agreed.   
      
   > A person who operated in accordance with decent ethics doesn't resort to   
   > the sorts of practices that are known to cause harm.  The first line of   
   > accountability should be *self* accountability - personal responsibility.   
      
   Agreed.   
   But in recent history that is woefully lacking.   
   None the less, the restitution should occur.   
      
   >> THAT sends a signal to others to watch what they are doing very   
   >> closely for if they harm others they too will be held accountable   
   >> accordingly. Today, frequently the system takes forever to resolve,   
   >> accountability is misplaced or inappropriate or flat out eliminated.   
   >   
   > The system takes forever to resolve things because the system itself is   
   > populated with the products of a culture of increasing greed.  If the   
   > poeple who are supposedlt o be making that syustem work, instead take   
   > bribes, or even "only" think that teh factory owner should be bound by no   
   > moral precepts outside fo the desire for ever-higher profit, then of   
   > course the system will take forever to resolve issues.   
      
   If we're talking about the justice system it is bogged down by lots of   
   things that shouldn't even be going on.   
   The state is trying to establish morality through penalty and the real   
   crimes are being mixed in with everything else.   
   If vices were not illegal the justice system could focus on crimes and the   
   US wouldn't have the highest incarceration rate in the entire world.   
      
   > In a way, you're strengthening my statement to the effect that people   
   > whose behavior is ethics-based will be responsible no matter what, and   
   > people whose behavior is only based upon greed and fear of punishment   
   > will find myriad ways of finding ways to *avoid* being responsible.   
      
   I don't think I disagreed with that.   
   I believe that to be true, what you said.   
      
   > Control-by-punishment is, in that sense, backasswards - it's like the   
   > proverbial "locking the barn after the horses have bolted".  IOW, the   
   > harm has been done.   
   >   
   > "Restitution" means very little if your child has been poisoned by dioxin   
   > and lead and so on in the drinking water and will have a short and   
   > painful life becasue of it.  Restitution?  What is adequate restitution   
   > for that?   
      
   I see that all time.   
   People say, 'No amount of money can replace my child'.   
   Thats true, but thats not what restitution is supposed to do.   
   Blacks Law dictionary defines justice as the legal body's way of *making one   
   whole*.   
   Look at insurance companies, they have no problem assigning specific dollar   
   signs to loss of life, why should the justice system be any different?   
   Restitution is punishment to the perp.   
      
   WHat is the dollar-value of a child's enture futrue life   
   > that's lost because of some self-absorbed a-hole's greed and unethical   
   > irresponsibility?  Even if the a-hole loses the fancy cars and what not,   
   > the fact remains that lives are still lost, injury has already been done.   
   > IF you go blind because some business dood wants to save up fotr a boat   
   > and does it by illegally dumping pollutants by your house, sure, the   
   > "restitution" will pay for your food and housing, but it doesn't allow   
   > you to ever see another sunrise, or the faces of your grandchildren.   
   >   
   > No, greed is something very specific, *not* just a amtter of "media   
   > spin" - and punishment after the fact is too often over-rated.  It might   
   > be the best we've got at this point, but the more that society *does* see   
   > greed (and lack of ethics, and irresponsibility) as "just media spin",   
   > the less force will even be behind that.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> 3 days ago Lady pee'd on the laundry room floor but I didn't witness   
   >> it, so she wasn't punished, because she wouldn't have associated the   
   >> punishment with the deed.   
   >> In the past she has done that and I saw it take place and she got   
   >> cracked on the backside and sternly reprimanded, she felt guilty and   
   >> remorseful. Punishment delayed is punishment lost.   
   >   
   > Sorry, but pee on a floor is not parallel to death and severe injury that   
   > result from nothing more than some dood's money-lust.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Another example: Though I'm not in favor of the death penalty, that it   
   >> takes decades to enact the deterrent factor has been eliminated.   
   >> If clearcut murderers were executed say in 90 days of the crime the   
   >> deterrent factor would skyrocket.   
   >> I have a whole nuther *(re)solution* to that sort of thing but I won't   
   >> get into it now.   
   >   
   > What's behind murder is often nothing more than another mutation of   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)