Reply With Quote
Some human beings are ed up.
Really. Wally world was just about to bend this brain damaged lady over and stick it up her pipe just because the fine print said they could.
Just beacuse they can legally do it doesn't make it right.
Some human beings are ed up.
An important tenet of 21st-century conservatism is that the large multinational corporation is always right. If it is technically legal for them to do something, nobody has any right to criticize them on moral grounds.
For example, if the executive branch passes an order that says a company's employees are immune if they gang-rape a 23-year-old woman in a storage container, then it's perfectly fine! Who are you to say it's wrong? That company provides jobs! Shut up, you bleeding heart socialist!
Also, if a major investment bank consistently makes so many stupid, high-risk decisions that it teeters on the edge of bankruptcy, and the government decides to bail it out, stop your Marxist whining about "moral risk." So what if the investment class makes the same unethical and irresponsible decisions as the underclass does? It's not that their vast resources and corrupt influence insulate them from the consequences of bad decisions unlike the poor, it's... their productivity! They generate value... somehow...
Look, the investor class is just more important than you, 'K? Deal with it. And God Bless America!
Hmmm ... you might be correct in saying that some conservatives adhere to the principle of "might makes right." I'm not sure, however, that large corporations are always right in conservative thinking. I'm sure the reasonable minds at the Heritage Foundation and in the pages of the National Review would disagree with you, and each other, on that one. Perhaps you mean to say, "conservatives tend to side with large multinationals, but not always."
On the other hand, who says the "little guy" is always right, as liberal orthodoxy generally assumes?
I'm not sure when doing what was right ceased to be a part of the conservative tradition. Often, it was central. If we privately and freely do not apply common sense and seek to do what is right on our own then inherently the government will lay claim. Further, helping out your neighbor, your friend, your employee, , the stranger on the street was part of how a free, civil society should function. Nothing compelled you to do so legally, other than a concern for your fellow citizen, and of course the notion that someday you may be in need of help.
Right. The Heritage Foundation tends to be concerned when the big multinational extends some employee benefit to the partners of sexual employees. Then morality and ethics matter.
As for National Review, I recall a book by Buckley written about 20 years ago en led Gra ude. In it he proposed a system of public service for youth. Had the name on the cover been, let's say, Bill Bradley, then naturally it would have been regarded as a socialistic tome by the staff of today's National Review.
To the extent that the powerful shirk any sense of duty, of ethical behavior in business dealings, the greater will be the call for the government to intervene and counter this imbalance.
Yes. What is needed is virtue. In the absence of virtue, people suffer and clamor for power to correct the problem. Hence, more government control, which government is more than happy to do. I think the Founding Fathers understood this concept beautifully -- self-rule only works when the ones doing the ruling (us) are morally virtuous.
Now ... how are we to regain this "virtue," especially after the Left has so effectively deconstructed it, and some on the Right have visibly failed to pursue and live it?
That is the million-$ question.
Wal Mart still wins, now it can justify a medical insurance rate hike passed on to its employees to make sure they get that money back one way or another.
Retail giant drops controversial injured worker claim
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/WalMar...laim_0401.html
Just another business expense.
You are just dead wrong. I am not naive, but open minded. I don't believe the story being national made a difference, but I acknowledge it might have. Can you at least acknowledge there could be merit to the viewpoints I shared? If not, you are hardheaded and not open to possibilities that do exist.
This is pretty much what Chrstianity is all about. And Conservatives claim to be Christians.Further, helping out your neighbor, your friend, your employee, , the stranger on the street was part of how a free, civil society should function.
Something is not adding up.
"helping out your neighbor, your friend, your employee, , the stranger on the street was part of how a free, civil society should function."
True only at the level of the individual. Silly at any other level.
It doesn't hold for corporations, which have no moral, ethical, religious objectives, or responsibilities to the stockholders, have no conscience. They exist to make profit, everything else is secondary. If profit is at risk, everything else is sacrificed.
The classic work is "Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics" Reinhold Niebuhr, 1934
Because you are a liberal. And liberals want everything done by emotions. I have never met a liberal in my life, that could use logic to reach a conclusion. To a liberal 2 plus 2 only totals 4, if your heart and your emotions tell you that is right.
There might be a class of conservatism that believes this way, but many certainly do not. Wal Mart's actions, as has been described in this thread, have ramifications far beyond this individual case. Medical espense payments by group insurance plans DO NOT happen in a vacuum; especially plans under ERISA - regulated by the DOL. Comparing that to gang-rape? C'mon.
Also, much of modern conservatism relies on a specific distrust of almost all govt. action; whomever it is designed to benefit or punish.
To the extent that the powerful shirk any sense of duty, of ethical behavior in business dealings, the greater the consumers ought to be paying attention to such matters, and force the corporations to feel it where in the only place they care about - the bottom line! Continuing to frequent those corporations, and give them money simply gives them more power to weild influence over the amoral, incompetent government you are looking to for salvation.
Well for all you folks worried about wal-mart doing the right thing:
The brain damaged lady can keep the money.
Wal-Mart story
I'd like to see the wording they come up with for that amendment; it could be useful.On Tuesday, Wal-Mart said in a letter to Jim Shank that it is modifying its health care plan to allow "more discretion" in individual cases."
I'm a liberal? That's a new one (unless you mean in the classical sense, but I assume you do not). I guess that's why my voter registration card is stamped "Republican."
Try again.
Not really when you consider that most large companies have set up charitable foundations and many do provide employees with the flexibility to engage in charitable activities.
try to keep up ray.
this is killer comedy
This is the reason that I have formed the opinion that the "conservative" movement in the US has become morallly bankrupt somewhere along the way.
My take on what "conservatives" tend to say and do, is that they seem to be more concerned with money than human beings. They also take rather short-sighted policies that seem to invariably miss the wider picture.
To be fair, there is no shortage of people on the left that do this as well, but they seem to be far outweighed/outnumbered on the left/center-left by people with a bit more common sense.
I love how people are so programmed to respond. Good dog! You've listened well! If any of you say anything bad about a large corporation, obviously clearly you are a godless liberal who wants the government to intervene. There are only two possible positions:
1) Trust the perfect virtue and selfless love of corporate executives
2) Profess Marxism
No, that is not a false dichotomy. You're just a stupid liberal thinking with your emotions if you say that.
Don't suggest "If they're going to try to recover the money, because of some legal precedent it would set if they didn't, then this would be a great opportunity for their charitable foundation to step in and make things right."
No! Doing what's right is not the issue here! What's important are arcane legal issues nobody can understand except us smart people who understand how what appears to be screwing over a disabled lady is really authentic Christian ethics!
Really, we should be lamenting that Wal-Mart caved on this lawsuit, even though apparently it will have no impact whatsoever on the health coverage of the rest of their employees. It's the principle of the thing. "I'm en led to what's coming to me, and I'm going to stop at nothing to get it" is the heart of the Christian message.
Also, in the hypothetical case that a large multinational corporation were to screw you over, it's still your fault because even though corporate executives are perfect in their selfless love, you should have been paying attention.
My point exactly.
Many Evangelicals and other deeply religious people have begun to realize that when the Republican party spends more energy on "gay marriage" than they do on say, helping abused children or the severely handicapped, something is awry.
It almost seems at times that the priorities of the Hilsburo Baptist Church seem to be driving things, rather than what Jesus actually said and did.
It is totally the responsibility of the consumer to call corporations on the carpet if they were to misbehave (theoretically, since it practice it never happens). However, each individual consumer needs to stumble upon evidence of that misbehavior independently through rigorous personal research. It is wrong for anybody to speak ill of a large corporation or communicate its malfeasance to others in an effort to persuade them not to patronize said corporation. To do so is exactly the same as having the government run the economy!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions