From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Thu, 27 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote:   
      
   >> But sadly I have also heard that polarization and leftists vs rightist   
   >> has infiltrated brazil as well. =( I hope it won't become as bad as   
   >> the US, that would be really bad for the country.   
   >   
   > You can definitely say that.  This theme is very interesting for people   
   > interested in Brazil or perhaps the US.  The US has a huge influence in   
   ...   
   > Brazil today.   
      
   Thank you! Very interesting, I had no idea!   
      
   >> I also imagine that it would be difficult to work from the beach. Too many   
   >> beautiful women, it must be very distracting!   
   >   
   > You're quite right.  It is indeed *very* distracting.  In fact,   
   > observing such things has given the conclusion that visual stimili (at   
   > least in myself) is a really strong physiological thing: it seems quite   
      
   I also imagine that in south america it is still fashionable for women to be   
   women, and that women are feminine? I hope so... I like that!   
      
   > stronger than any will power.  I started out reading at the beach so I   
   > would have something to do there, staying longer in the sun.  So my slow   
   > reading doesn't defeat that purpose.  I also often go during week days,   
   > when the beach is not crowded with people.  It worked out so well that   
      
   Aha... so that's how you get any work done! I imagine if you would go during   
   beach rush hour, you'd not get a lot of things done. ;)   
      
   > it seems to work like a second phase of my work schedule.  I write in   
   > the morning and read in the afternoon, intermixed with walking, swimming   
   > and biking.  I cannot do it *every* day because I need to ``the office''   
   > some days.   
      
   Sounds like you have a very nice job there!   
      
   >> Bad coffee?? Doesn't brazil have the best coffee in the world?? Be thankful   
   that   
   >> you don't have to drink the crap I have here in europe. ;)   
   >   
   > I think we produce wonderful coffee, but I also think that wonderful   
   > coffee is mostly exported.  Makes perfect sense: you sell your best   
   > products to your best customers (those that pay more).  That's a sorry   
   > thing when living in a country with too many poor people: the industry   
   > brings the cheapest things for you.   
      
   Ahhh.... never thought about that. On the other hand, there are counter   
   examples. When I went to japan, I had the best green tea I ever had! Up until   
   that point, I thought I didn't like green tea. It always tasted horrible. Then   
   in japan I went to some kind of luxury tea tasting, and it was really, really   
   good!   
      
   And what about beef? I heard there are wars in south america over whether   
   argentina or brazil has the best beef? Who is right?   
      
   > But I consider coffee---no matter how good quality if might be---a drug   
   > to be totally kept on a leash.  I don't think we should make regular use   
   > of any stimulants---of any drug at all.   
      
   Ahh... and here I drink between 0.5 and 0.7 liters per day! ;) But I don't have   
   to drink it... from time to time I just stop when I get tired of it and move to   
   tea instead, and never experience any negative withdrawal symptoms. My   
   favourite   
   tea is Lapsang.   
      
   > I am probably a naturalist.  If coffee ``accelerates your physiology'',   
   > then we can say that such ``speed'' is not the natural way of your body.   
   > If you do it every day, you're totally not respecting the natural way of   
   > the system.  Not a religious thing at all---recall that perspective I   
   > had on tattoos.  So this is another illustration of why I find myself   
   > more religious than the vast number of very religious people I've ever   
   > met.   
      
   Well, maybe principled? I think religious has many supernatural connotations   
   that I find nto so good to mix up in these kinds of discussions.   
      
   >> It is an interesting thought that kingdoms faded, were replaced by nations.   
   >> Perhaps now, nations are fading (slowly) and getting replaced with   
   corporations?   
   >> Imagine a future were your primary allegiance is to your corporation, and   
   the   
   >> nation of old, just exists in the background as a faint humming sound, that   
   no   
   >> one really cares about.   
   >>   
   >> What do you think?   
   >   
   > I think along these lines.  Today I see most of government as just   
   > employees of corporations.  I think it's very easy to see.  Political   
   > parties cannot do anything without money.  But they're not companies:   
   > they produce no product in the typical sense of the word.  So where do   
   > they money come from?  It comes from corporations.  Who makes decisions   
   > in a company? The owner or the employees?  (Who makes decisions in   
   > society?  The goverment or the real owners?)   
      
   I'd say it depends. The government has one thing that corporations does not   
   have, and that is the right to use violence. Also remember that corporations   
   are   
   not the only taxes that the government rakes in. It taxes individuals, it taxes   
   death, trade, and woe unto you if you don't pay, then they use violence against   
   you.   
      
   On the other hand, you do have a point. Without anyone to tax, the government   
   dies, so it is a balance of terror, although I'd say that the balance tilts in   
   favour of the government.   
      
   On ther other hand... once corporations become international, they become much   
   harder for government to kill. They are immaterial creatures and can easily   
   leap   
   across jurisdictions, in a way that governments cannot.   
      
   > So when people say that governments don't seem to work in favor of the   
   > population, I remark precisely the above---if you owned a company, would   
   > you let your employees have the final say in the decisions?  That'd be   
      
   Depends on the decision. If it is technology, I will let my technical partners   
   have the final say. ;) But then again, I run a small business and not a   
   corporation. =)   
      
   > absurd; it's your company; you call the shots.  Similarly, corporations   
   > (who invest in most of the government officials' careers), should have   
   > the final say in nearly everything.   
   >   
   > What do corporations want?  Almost nothing.  Because they're in power.   
   > The desire of those in power is to keep things as they are.   
      
   This is true. Everyone is progressive until they get into power. Then everyone   
   becomes conservative. Even socialists. ;)   
      
   > We can make a parallel here with the relationship between monarchies and   
   > the church.  The church partnered with kings because they were useful to   
   > each other: kings won their power by the use of force, which attracts   
   > the interest of any other entity of some meaningful power (such as the   
   > church).  Their partnership is then natural: the influence of the church   
   > on the people was useful to install the idea that the power of kings had   
   > divine origins.   
      
   I'd say in europe there was an unholy (pun intended) alliance between the   
   church   
   and the kings. Both want to be on top, but in the end saw advantages to   
   cooperating and dividing up the spoils. See northern europe for instance, the   
   protestant part. Kings could tired of the catholic church and threw it out in   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)