RE: Chalk One up for Laura

[Greg Peisert <gpeisert@jamesgregory.com>]

Hi Laura;

  Well, you make some very good points (as did Margaret). Okay...I'll back 
off on this one. You are correct that unscrupulous, greedy individuals have 
broken the law with impunity, treated workers as so much chattel, abused 
basic human rights and decency, used all manner of deception and 
subversion, all in the name of the almighty dollar. After I slept on it, 
and read Margaret's initial reaction back to me, I realized I have to admit 
it. You're right. Anything else simply ignores the facts. So, in a very 
real sense, drug dealers are "just capitalists" pursuing their own greedy, 
destructive ends in any way they can, without regard to law, rights or 
human decency. And as you point out, there are "legitimate" companies that 
have done the same. Fortunately, as you also pointed out, not all companies 
behave that way. It's just that the "world of Scarface" and the "world of 
business" in which I work every day seem so far apart, so utterly distant 
from one another, that your initial comment struck me as pretty extreme. 
Maybe it is not as "extreme" as I would like to pretend it to be.

  There are some important issues here that I don't have time to dig into 
or question at the moment. As you know, I believe that there is much good 
in Capitalism (although even that premise has been shaken as I think about 
the issues that Margaret and I have been discussing with respect to 
social/Darwinian evolution and the prospects for our survival in the 
absence of some fundamental changes in the way we function with each other 
as humans on this little planet of ours). At any rate, I need to think more 
deeply about it.

  I am still of the opinion that this war on drugs is indeed "insane" (I 
don't think that is too strong a term, although some could argue that I'm 
engaging in hyperbole there myself and need a 'reality check.') But the 
issues around that are being discussed rather thoughtfully by several of 
the subsequent posts. (You know, as much as we seem to get "off topic", 
this IS one of the best lists I've every had the pleasure of participating 
in.)

  At any rate, your logic and arguments are solid, and I defer to your 
reasoning. It may be that the "good" in Capitalism is that which is 
"effective" in that it appeals to what is "worst" in us as humans, and what 
we tend to freely act out. Well, I'm rambling around here, just "thinking 
out loud" and I need to give this a lot more consideration. Thank you for 
your thoughtful and well-reasoned response.

Best,

  --Greg





On Thursday, February 25, 1999 2:58 PM, Laura J. Walker 
[SMTP:LJW6626@worldnet.att.net] wrote:
>
>
> Greg Peisert wrote:
>
> >  This is amazing. You actually appear to be serious. You actually think 
the
> > "world of legitimate business" is like the "world of Scarface". Laura, 
when
> > you try to make those kinds of claims, you exclude yourself from the 
ranks of
> > the rational.
>
> You're putting the extreme face on it, Greg.  I believe that when it 
comes to
> capitalism/profit motives, there is no difference between the "legitimate
> business" and drug cartels.  This is, of course, at the extreme end...
>
> If you'll recall, there have been some pretty ugly true stories about how 
far
> "legitimate" business will go to silence others in order to carry on 
their
> "legitimate" practices.  Karen Silkwood died trying to bring to light the
> practices of Kerr-McGee; the Rockefellers (I know I've used this example 
a
> number of times...) coerced, burned, intimidated and muscled-out small,
> independent oil producers earlier in this century.  How many miners had 
to die
> -- by violence inflicted on them by company goon squads -- before illegal 
and
> dangerous mining practices were changed?  And what about the early GM 
lockouts,
> where workers were not only shut out of the workplace, but beaten 
senseless by
> GM goon squads, to shut them up and keep them from organizing for better, 
safer
> working conditions?  A more recent example is the long-running (now 
ended)
> strike at the Detroit Free Press.  Knight-Ridder used a variety of these 
same
> tactics on the employees who had been locked out, and on employees who 
even
> sympathized with the strikers.
>
> Not every company, of course, goes to the extreme.  But it can and does 
happen;
> it has happened throughout this century and it is only in the name of
> capitalism, control of a product, and the $$ earned from the product that 
it
> does happen.
>
> I don't think I'm at all excluding myself from the "ranks of the 
rational" by
> pointing this out.  Indeed, I think anybody who doesn't believe that such
> practices exist is deluding themselves...
>
> But, then, we'll never see eye-to-eye on many things, Greg.  ;-]
>
> Laura
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > --Greg
>
>