Tonight’s thoughts on Corporate Amorality

Paying special attention at the 21-22 minute mark onward, culminating in the hallelujah moment coming at 24:15.

Did you catch that? “When people call corporations evil, what they’re really saying is that they’re simply completely amoral … compared to a shark.” Yup. That’s exactly what I mean when I refer to corporations as amoral. Having listened to the video up to this point while tending to laundry, and also as a big fan of the documentary “The Corporation” since several years back (even gave it as a gift a couple times — go. watch it. now.), this discussion has me nodding along in agreement. And most especially on that point. I do use the word “evil” because it is still extremely relevant. What is evil? Are all forms of amorality evil? No, it doesn’t make sense to accuse the natural world of being evil though its processes strike us as impersonal and oblivious to our moral concerns. Yet when it comes to human beings and human constructs, morality absolutely does factor in, and must. That corporations operate amorally while they affect all of society and everyone and everything in it, gone global — this is a problem. A legal fiction now dominates our economy and is determining legal policy swayed in its favor. It is a legal fiction that tremendously impacts and has radically altered societies across the world, changing the ways we live and work and eat, yet it claims to be above and beyond morality. How so? How can that work long-term? Insanity is required to place faith in a gameplan like that.

Just the myth of perpetual growth becoming somehow a sustainable strategy going forward, forever, was your first clue that someone’s loopy behind the wheel and hell-bent on driving economies into a straightjacket. It’s not science, folks — it’s just economics. Big egos are at play here. This is not the land of microscopic particles or predictable scientific theories. No, this is about people. Art and life in motion, hustling and bustling. We people function within moral codes in our social settings, from societies on down to neighborhoods to nuclear families to individual persons. That’s the way it goes. We are naturally moral beings, which is to say everything we create that is of the realm of people cannot help but be influenced by our moral sphere. It is a human construct, therefore we are responsible for it. The dream that we can create something that we can set and then forget is gimmicky cheesiness that we’ve not evolved far enough to deserve to entertain the notion of.

People don’t like to hear that, but it’s true. We’re still a rowdy, greedy lot. We’re fallible, and that means everything we touch can wind up misused, even if we never saw it coming and were mistaken in thinking we knew perfectly well what we were doing. As humans, we fuck up all the time. Such is life. Moral failings are a part of life. Yet when it comes to the corporation, created and managed by people, employer to and provider for people, we want to pretend it should be treated as if on the level of natural phenomena beyond our control? Completely unregulated? Allowed to roam around free to monopolize and oligopolize, to buy political power for prices collectives of ordinary citizens couldn’t possibly compete with, to produce products that turn out to be dangerous without government or citizen collectives’ oversight?

Sounds like a brilliant plan. Bet it won’t work. People who imagine something like this working are dreaming of some well-oiled machine that functions in a predictable fashion, yet they can’t seem to follow the predictions to their unsavory end. It’s become a centralization of power scheme, plain and simple, and it affects us all profoundly. And it openly admits to being amoral by design to boot. What a hell of a conundrum. I’m just surprised so many people continue to cling to this as if it’s really a long-term-sustainable plan. That’s Disney fantasy, folks. We’re talking about the accumulation of power here. People are working through this construct — this is no act of nature, this is a product of humankind. We live interdependently in societies.

There’s a very weird and disturbing trend of people jumping on board, blindly, backing this notion of “progress,” as though it’s a given. It must occur, right? Things must continue getting better and better, right? Like that too is something predetermined by…what exactly? A god? No. The universe? Thought that was supposed to be amoral too. Karma? Good luck? What makes people so sure that the future will be an ascension in terms of progress that will truly benefit humankind? Technological progress doesn’t automatically equate or positively correlate with human progress, not in the way people like to think. We’re deluded. Been fed a steady diet of bullshit for so long that most of us can’t figure which way is up any longer.

But that’s all I have time for at the moment.

MRM vs. Feminism & Additional Thoughts

In a video I created in January 2013 with the same title, I attempted to argue for why I see the MRM behaving not unlike the feminist movement. It wasn’t a great or well-planned video, but I went ahead and posted it up on YT because the sentiments expressed are true to how I feel. Some further details unfortunately were left out and were added in a follow-up video, which I’ll also post below.

Okay, so to spell out the comparison being made in the first video.

Feminism

  1. Has encouraged a spike in the divorce rate, in part by convincing women that they don’t need men and by helping elevate the status of the single mother in the eyes of society.
  2. Is instrumental in creating a situation where women increasingly depend on the State to meet their financial needs. Examples include economic assistance for single-mother-headed households and affirmative action legislation creating incentives for the hiring of women in choice positions. Women also depend on the State to provide for their defense, as in the case of domestic violence situations (because feminism asserts a non-violence stance that excludes the right to self-defense via the utilization of firearms or other weaponry).
  3. Women’s studies courses have abounded on university campuses over the last few decades.
  4. Granted women the right to abandon children (up to a certain age, depending on state laws) at hospitals or “safe havens” without requiring any further involvement, financial or otherwise, in their children’s lives and upbringing.

Men’s Rights Movement

  1. Discourages men from marrying, citing that the law benefits women at the expense of men and claiming that prenuptials don’t provide enough enough certainty when it comes to protecting one’s assets.
  2. Men are turning to the State in an effort to have laws drafted in their favor or to have existing laws enforced against female offenders proportionately. This seems fine and reasonable on the surface, but underneath we see the same drive toward creating a legal contest of one-upmanship. I argue that more laws on the books doesn’t ensure “equality,” whatever that terms stands to mean anymore.
  3. Men are dissuaded from acting without legal backing for fear of the law being used in turn against them and their interests.
  4. Men’s studies courses are now being proposed on a few college campuses.
  5. Given rise to men proclaiming the right to abandon children created without their express verbal consent (nevermind their sexual consent), leaving the mothers solely responsible for the children’s care and upbringing, which would lead more mothers toward greater dependence on the State in the absence of fathers.

I went on to say that both “camps” appear to share the goal to relinquish women and children to become financially dependent on the State. In such a scenario, the powers of the State are expanded to meet these expectations, which is a major concern for those of us who are libertarian-minded and strongly believe the government is already encroaching too much into our lives and families.

Feminism and the MRM sow seeds of distrust between the sexes and encourage battling it out through introducing legislation and in the courts. Both use children as a means of punishing and/or extorting partners. Both promote agendas that assuredly will expand the role and scope of government interference in our personal lives. Both proclaim to be about promoting “equality under the law,” even when taken to absurd extremes that are proving undesirable to most of us, male or female.

Leaving aside the notes I had written up for that video, I went on to talk about the grave and obvious difference between terminating a pregnancy and abandoning children already brought into full existence. And of course my views proved controversial and unacceptable to some who accused me of “using” the plight of children to defend women maintaining the upper hand in this ordeal, as is a popular feminist tactic (so I was told). So let me attempt to break it down like this. Here is my position in a nutshell:

  • As much as male and female adults and their rights do matter, those rights do not automatically trump concerns for any offspring they may bring into existence.
  • Children ARE NOT items or objects to be compared with a boat or house or any other non-living thing. Children are human beings in their own right and have needs that differ from those of adults that if not tended to may very likely result in children growing up into resentful, poorly adapted, emotionally stunted adults whom we all must live with. Poor quality upbringing affects the child in question, first and foremost, but over time it comes to affect those he or she comes into contact with and wider society as well. That’s no small matter.
  • There is much more to caring for children than providing for them financially. If this is not deeply grasped by prospective parents, I urge you (man or woman) to not breed. Love asks of us to 1.) genuinely care about, 2.) be responsible for, 3.) gain knowledge of, and 4.) respect the individuality of the person we claim love for. Simply providing child support payments does not qualify as love any more than simply coming home to someone every night. Love is a much deeper experience, and I find it is rarely if ever even mentioned in discussions of this sort, despite it being an integral component in the development of any person’s well-being.
  • If we can’t resolve these matters among ourselves, interpersonally and as communities, we will invite more government involvement in our lives and especially in the lives of our young. This is unacceptable for a great many reasons and most assuredly will not improve the situation for anyone, save for the selfish few of child-rearing age at this point in time who care more about doing what they want than tending to their responsibilities to persons they help generate.
  • Rights DO entail responsibilities, and the two concepts cannot be divorced from one another. To attempt to do so is to make both rights and responsibilities hollow ideas that no longer hold water.

Rights are protected by us — that entails us making responsible choices in defense of our rights. Take for example the right to vote. You can claim to have it all day long, but how do you ensure your vote is counted? If you cannot do this, the notion of having a right to vote means little. Take as a second example the right to bear arms. If one doesn’t bear arms or defend others’ right to do so, it becomes a moot point. Another example is the right to free speech. If we tolerate some speech being labeled as “hate speech” and thence outlawed, how free can speech really be? So circling back, we have the right to protect ourselves to the best of our ability from unwanted pregnancies. But so too do children have the need to be raised up with people who want and care about them, because otherwise what quality is there in an unwanted, unhappy existence? If you realize you do not have any interest in caring for a child, it is your responsibility to do everything in your power to ensure that unwanted pregnancy doesn’t become the outcome. Men do possess options here, as many if not more than women possessed prior to the legalization of abortion and the availability of modern contraceptive options. On that end, it is a practical consideration, much as I understand some people think it to be unfair and lacking. But the alternative to seeing it this way is to shirk responsibility and to allow the bulk of consequences to fall onto the only innocent party in the equation: the child created. That is truly unfair and unnecessary.

People speak of the importance of agency, and yet when it comes to sex it’s as if everyone puts their blinders on. Women currently have more options at their disposal to protect against unwanted pregnancies and should do better with putting them to use, but knowing that does not absolve men from their own responsibility in protecting themselves and children they don’t wish to co-create.

We each work with what we can. Nobody promised us a rose garden. Life isn’t perfect, nor will it ever be, nor can it be made 50/50 between the sexes at all times and on all levels. That’s not a world I’d even wish to see, because that would require a form of extremism that undoubtedly would drive us all up the wall. My goal wasn’t to be mean to any of you out there on the internet, but I have to take a stand and argue on behalf of the silent party in this battle between the sexes, because children lack a voice and can’t make an appeal to you until after being brought into existence.

My final argument on this subject is that this is no world to bring people into who will have no one to rely on, no one to protect them and their interests, no one to place their needs as a top priority. To simply assume that one parent or the other will suffice, that your involvement is not necessary, is a lie people are telling themselves to be absolved of guilt. If you’re not there, how will you know if the child you helped create is being raised right? How will you know if your child’s needs are being met or if Momma is off with her boyfriends, leaving baby at home neglected? It is a horrible lie to pretend that you, as co-creator, have no stake in that and no responsibility for allowing that reality to go on unexamined. I can completely understand people’s desire to not father children unless it is expressly intended, and this is why I urge you to do what is in your power to safeguard your decision and to prevent a new life from coming into being and potentially winding up damaged and full of despair. Because that’s no life for anyone to have to live. Not anyone. We, adults of today, have the power to do better than that.