Monday, March 14, 2016

but if we do that, we can't run our shell game!

Not gonna do it.

If we did that, it would put attention back on white collar crime/criminals, who presently sail smoothly and never get turtled, and never commit protocol breaches of the type that force them to do 360s on marks or DQ them from the race.

How many people follow big sailing racing anyway?  You think ESPN gets their highest web-view click counts and telecast view tallies when the wind-riders are scooting across water?

***************

I'd like to feel some burning, somewhere besides my piss canal anyway, but white collar crime isn't captured in Citizens United nor properly reined-in by blaming corporate.  Lots of well-dressed criminals make money however they can, however the scene requires or enables.  It can be done without corporate forms, and often is.

Let's assume we abolish both Citizens United and the corporate form.

What happens then?

Re Citizens United abolished/vacated/vitiated -- NOTHING.  See Buckley v Valeo.

Re business w/o corporate form -- Same old operators pursue profits in other business formats.  Formal change without substantive difference.

So it seems the only burning one might feel is when one takes a whiz, even if we follow Herr Marxkopf's whims on fixing America.

I think I'd rather pee freely.




















--Paul Behrer, still amused at what passes for well-educated, well-informed and/or knowledgeable in your world.


7 comments:

Chet Redweld said...

"...in your world."

Pablo, whose world is that? Who is the "you"?

Paul Behrer said...

Chet, always the stickler for precision. I guess it comes with the territory when you're a law jockey.

No, I didn't leave out an N there, but that's a half-decent joke unused isn't it?

***************

"Your world" would be the world of whomever actually believes Citizens United has mighty irreplaceable power without prior well-respected and dutifully followed precedents in anything like Buckley, and the world of whomever actually believes that white collar crime is because of "corporate" and not because of human nature playing out in a society where people value image, the appearance of power/wealth/status, and other entirely man-made constructs in full ignorance of the natural world's operation. So it's the world of political idiots, scientific morons, and social psychology cretins.

I hope that clears things up, Chet.

Chet Redweld said...

Don't the libertarians, or at least the Silent T practitioners of cosmotarianism, insist that white collar crime exists because of regulations, which force honest businessmen to cheat lie and steal in order to retain a footing equal to the favorite players whose operations are protected by Big Govt's regulatory practice (enforcement, etc)?

How do you handle that claim, Pablo?

Paul Behrer said...

As a lie, as a smokescreen, as a misdirection.

Because that's what it is.

It's one of those ouroboros arguments that seems logical and rational on its surface, because people have a general "common knowledge" feel for bureaucratic whimsy and regulatory cluster-copulations.

But it's smokescreening the tendency to lie, cheat and steal if you want to do business, and the reason for that tendency is a similar impulse to deny reality (the natural world) and say there's a difference between business and personal, and really it's terrible to lie to a friend but fine to lie to a business customer.

Because economics.

Chet Redweld said...

Sounds like there's a parallel in DFW's reference to little grey men turning cranks in the arts.

Paul Behrer said...

Marxkopfs like to ignore the many historical accounts of socialist-ish systems producing greedy powermongers who live in a disparate fashion, like emperors khans rajas and uberlords surrounded by exquisite fineries and numerous concubines, while the peasantry "equals" stand in line for bread and cheese and toilet paper.

Because corporate.

Paul Behrer said...

Sounds like there's a parallel in DFW's reference to little grey men turning cranks in the arts.

Well... YEAH.

I sorta thought that obvious enough to pass without explicit mention.