maybe the world isn't upside down. Actually I already think it is upside down, and the attitude expressed by Corn is just a small indicator of that fact.
Here is the quote:
Just because there are a few criminally intentioned executives does not change the fact that the compensation system required to recruit talent is somehow "unjust" because the truely talented (and not so talanted) earn a significant income--or a stake in the business they are running.
What is obvious is that you, like all good liberals, are ruled by your envy of those that you perceive have more than you--and it's your own self-centeredness and greed that causes you to believe this to be "unfair".
I guess I think that Corn's point of view, (addressed, I think to Infos in an other thread) and I think, shared by most people, is really all well and good only if you take it as a given that the structure of our system is a fixed and immutable fact of reality. But I don't think it is. I would call it a myopic viewpoint, applicable only in the 'sick system' we have created. The problem, of course, is in what we mean by 'just and unjust, fair and unfair'. How we define these terms colours everything else we conclude about this matter. They are value judgements and if one comes to ones values via a different route than a capitalistic, market , supply and demand, model as currently imagined, then yes, you can make this statement. What is implicit in the Corn quote, however, I think, is the assumption that alternative valuations are locked in only one out of many possible boxes, ie that ithey can come only from ' self-centeredness and greed'.
We see this kind of myopic market view with environmental issues, valuing a forest by board feet instead of the salmon that will no longer be caught at sea when it's cut down. The point is that when you have a limited view, and who doesn't, your sense of value is limited too. This is essentially a matter of the holistic verses the linear, really, I think, the imposition of small minded limited practical (so called) thinking against dreamy eyed idealism. The Indians had a philosohyy not to do anything that hurt anybody seven generations forward in time. We do what we want and pretty much let the next generation worry about itself.
School teachers are not valued. Stay at home mothers don't earn a salary. The old, the wise, the spiritually advanced aren't valued, but CEOs earn millions and millions. I'm just envious. Hehe
Of course it could be that people feel so bad about themselves that they have created a false substitute for self love called money, and if you have it by whatever sick means you can get it you are really a somebody. Right, sure you are. In a sick unsocialized world where it's dog eats dog, you get this kind of thinking. The lucky dogs, born statistically to other lucky dogs who already have the money to launch careers, like the brilliant George W, CEO extrordinare, and millionaire, find ways to attain not open to a more talented black grownig up in a ghetto somewhere. But maybe he wants to paint or try to uplift his neighborhood. Bad idea if you are looking to be valued. No there is nothing special, talented or valuable about CEOs. They are small people with small gifts. They are the blind masters, playing the piano of death, the capitalistic system that is driving the world to catastrophe. They are the people without vision, who care for a buck and know nothing about visionn, about love of the universe, about tenderness and caring. They are the people who get high on a phoney sense of self accomplichment, the envy of the envious. But when you shake them, you find only empty shells.
Nobody has anything who does not have himself.
Well I thought I'd throw out a small alternative frame of reference to stimulate discussion. I gave a limited point of view, but one exposing some major unexamined assumptions to the more prevelant one, I hope. If you choose to reply, please try to support your ideal with, well with something.
Here is the quote:
Just because there are a few criminally intentioned executives does not change the fact that the compensation system required to recruit talent is somehow "unjust" because the truely talented (and not so talanted) earn a significant income--or a stake in the business they are running.
What is obvious is that you, like all good liberals, are ruled by your envy of those that you perceive have more than you--and it's your own self-centeredness and greed that causes you to believe this to be "unfair".
I guess I think that Corn's point of view, (addressed, I think to Infos in an other thread) and I think, shared by most people, is really all well and good only if you take it as a given that the structure of our system is a fixed and immutable fact of reality. But I don't think it is. I would call it a myopic viewpoint, applicable only in the 'sick system' we have created. The problem, of course, is in what we mean by 'just and unjust, fair and unfair'. How we define these terms colours everything else we conclude about this matter. They are value judgements and if one comes to ones values via a different route than a capitalistic, market , supply and demand, model as currently imagined, then yes, you can make this statement. What is implicit in the Corn quote, however, I think, is the assumption that alternative valuations are locked in only one out of many possible boxes, ie that ithey can come only from ' self-centeredness and greed'.
We see this kind of myopic market view with environmental issues, valuing a forest by board feet instead of the salmon that will no longer be caught at sea when it's cut down. The point is that when you have a limited view, and who doesn't, your sense of value is limited too. This is essentially a matter of the holistic verses the linear, really, I think, the imposition of small minded limited practical (so called) thinking against dreamy eyed idealism. The Indians had a philosohyy not to do anything that hurt anybody seven generations forward in time. We do what we want and pretty much let the next generation worry about itself.
School teachers are not valued. Stay at home mothers don't earn a salary. The old, the wise, the spiritually advanced aren't valued, but CEOs earn millions and millions. I'm just envious. Hehe
Of course it could be that people feel so bad about themselves that they have created a false substitute for self love called money, and if you have it by whatever sick means you can get it you are really a somebody. Right, sure you are. In a sick unsocialized world where it's dog eats dog, you get this kind of thinking. The lucky dogs, born statistically to other lucky dogs who already have the money to launch careers, like the brilliant George W, CEO extrordinare, and millionaire, find ways to attain not open to a more talented black grownig up in a ghetto somewhere. But maybe he wants to paint or try to uplift his neighborhood. Bad idea if you are looking to be valued. No there is nothing special, talented or valuable about CEOs. They are small people with small gifts. They are the blind masters, playing the piano of death, the capitalistic system that is driving the world to catastrophe. They are the people without vision, who care for a buck and know nothing about visionn, about love of the universe, about tenderness and caring. They are the people who get high on a phoney sense of self accomplichment, the envy of the envious. But when you shake them, you find only empty shells.
Nobody has anything who does not have himself.
Well I thought I'd throw out a small alternative frame of reference to stimulate discussion. I gave a limited point of view, but one exposing some major unexamined assumptions to the more prevelant one, I hope. If you choose to reply, please try to support your ideal with, well with something.
I always seem to experience the phenomenon that what is justifiable is what I happen to think is right. Nsaturally that leaves your argument wanting. Please try again. 
Facebook
Twitter