Here Thar Be Monsters!

From the other side of the argument to the other side of the planet, read in over 149 countries and 17 languages. We bring you news and opinion with an IndoTex® flavor. Be sure to check out Radio Far Side. Send thoughts and comments to luap.jkt at gmail, and tell all your friends. Sampai jumpa, y'all.

14.12.10

Ethics Are Immoral

You can tell Al Gore is warming the planet. His mouth is moving.

This is one of those issues that has become so knee-jerk that almost no one ever thinks rationally about it. We have all been told that carbon dioxide is the key substance that is causing a trend towards global environmental warming. We are told that in order to combat this situation, we must trade carbon credits, limit release of carbon dioxide and create global taxation and bureaucracy to combat the problem.

In other words, we must impoverish ourselves to support an unelected and unaccountable group of individuals whose job it is to limit all life on Earth to control a natural process in order to stop a problem that doesn't exist.

Do I have that right? The only way we can combat this supposed problem is by sterilizing ALL LIFE ON EARTH?

If I remember my high school biology correctly, all life on Earth are CARBOM-BASED. We need carbon to exist (with the possible exception of NASA's bullshit arcenic microbes). This is the biggest pile of excrement from the backside of a male bovine I have ever heard! The whole global warming/climate change issue is based on research that has been shown and admitted as rubbish, and to offset our BREATHING, we must buy "carbon credits," which basically amount to promises to plant some grass somewhere in the world to absorb the breaths I take. In other words, I can take a picture of some plants and show them as evidence that my 'carbon footprint' has been ameliorated.

But wait! What's this?
Respiration rates of plants are sensitive to temperature changes. Plants take in carbon dioxide during photosynthesis in the day, and release it during respiration at night. But they don't necessarily photosynthesize and respire at the same rates. Eventually half of the CO2 they use in photosynthesis is released back to the atmosphere by plant respiration

In other words, we must offset our carbon bootprint by planting organisms that also release carbon dioxide. Am I just stupid or what? It there something I'm missing here?

The whole global warming issue is a farce. Hackers got hold of email and documents that included communications from one of the leading 'scientists' in the field, which admitted that the data did not show global warming and in some cases even admitted falsifying data to make it fit the story. Furthermore, Al Gore told us that all scientists in the world were in complete agreement on the issue, but if I remember my schience training right, issues are never settled but are open to investigation at all times.

Of course, the whole thing has been repackaged as 'blimate change,' because global warming has been shown to be bogus. In fact, global temperatures have not risen, and have in fact fallen over the last 15 years. So, as 'climate change,' we can now outlaw seasons and deserts and even oceans, since they cause changes in seasons and climates.

Hell, you can drive across Texas and watch the climate change at least five times between Orange and El Paso. That's right, in 24 to 48 hours (depending on speed traps), you can change from coastal plains to diciduous forests to foothills, to alpine to high desert to mountains. Each one is, by scientific definition, a 'climate.' And each of those climates change on an annual cycle called 'seasons.'

One of the prophets of 'climate change' is a man who owns half of dozen mansions, several private aircraft, a fleet of private cars, and flies around the world, using piles of kilowatt hours of electricity to flap his jaw releasing pounds of carbon dioxide to tell us that we are the problem. "Mr. Internet" should be reforesting North America in order to offset his activities to tell us that life is the problem.

By that measure, BP should be reforecting the entire Earth to offset just one of the environmental assaults it has carused.

In fact, the whole issue is related to corporate efforts to patent DNA. 'They' want to tax and control not only the building blocks of life, but the very products of life itself. 'They' can therefore charge you to live, eat, reproduce, and deficate.

There is only one solution to the whole problem: remove legal codes that make corporations legal 'persons' and make all members of a corporation personally liable for any and all crimes committed by the organization. Simple. You'd see the world change overnight. That one single act would defang every evil on the Earth in one fell swoop.

The cause of all the problems in the world today come down to one simple concept: the corporate veil. This is a legal concept that says that the individuals who make up a corporation are not personally responsible for the actions of the corporation as a whole. Yet, who makes the decisions that control the actions of corporations? This one concept protects the CEOs and CFOs from personal responsibility for the damages caused by the organizations they control.

Don't you wish you had that personal protection from the results of your actions?

The corporate veil is further enhanced by the legal concept that corporations are legal 'persons.' Under western law, 'persons' are legal entities, not living, breathing human beings. 'Persons' have no conscience and therefore must be regulated in order to enforce 'ethical' behavior. Remember that ethics and morals are not the same. Morals are tautologies that exist across time and space. Ethics can change according to trends and fads. Morals have esoteric and philosophical implications, while ethics can change on a whim.

That's why things like carbon credits, genetic modification and abortion can meet the strictest ethical scrutiny and still be immoral. Ethics are situational and morals are not. Corporations can be completely ethical and moral travesties at the same time, and not be contradictory.

Ethics are subject to rule of the majority, morals are not. That is the basis of our natual rights. It can be ethical to disarm individuals, but it is immoral. It is ethical to license an individual who is operating a personal travel machine, but it is immoral to restrict the right to travel. It is ethical to institute a 'Fairness Doctrine,' but it is immoral to limit the free exchange of ideas. Taxes can be ethical, but are never moral. The list goes on.

Destroy the corporate veil and you destroy the ability of organizations to behave ethically while ignoring moral considerations. When individuals are personally liable for their actions, and unable to hide behind legal constructs, they will default to the strictest interpretation of their actions so as to avoid direct liability.

The very legal foundation of our laws is, in fact, the cause of our greatest woes. Recall the 'butterfly principle,' where a single small movement in one part of a dynamic system causes huge effects in another part. The corporate veil is that one small movement. By destroying that, we are able to dramatically change the outcomes in other parts of the system. If the heads of Merck, BP, ExxonMobil, McDonald's, and other mega-multi-national corporations were personally libale for the outcomes of their actions and decisions, do you think we would see major changes in the way the world works? If the boards of JPMorgan/Chase or GoldmanSachs or Lehamnn Bros. were personally responsible in a court of law for the damage they do, do you think we'd have the economic mess we have today?

It all boils down to being precise in our definitions of ethics and morals. As anyone knows who has planned and executed a major project, it's the smallest detail overlooked that will bring down the greatest of plans. We need to correct the small detail now, and that detail is the 'corporate veil.'

As the old saying goes:
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Feel free to leave your own view of The Far Side.