What's the point of assassinating anyone after the documents (Panama Papers) have already been leaked? Surely the cat's long out of the bag. Just ask Nawaz Sharif (ex-PM of Pakistan).
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Minorca_(1756)
"In this country, it is wise to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others."
She was doing the latter, and still producing new revelations through it.
Second, revenge.
Third, keeps others from coming forward (e.g. witnesses when the papers-related cases come to courts, etc).
If you see another vague reference: "In this country, it is wise to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others." it's from the same battle.
Note to those who leave these drive-by vague quotes, they're nearly pointless. Not everyone knows what you're talking about. Those that are familiar with the quote are already familiar with the reference. It's just a circle jerk of "I get that reference". Congratulations, you educated no one.
Sure, I looked it up but that's rare. Most people will see the comment, dismiss it and move on. It's especially frustrating on mobile where it's not as easy to explore.
Here's a little bit from the wiki on the battle
> The Battle of Minorca (20 May 1756) was a naval battle between French and British fleets. It was the opening sea battle of the Seven Years' War in the European theatre. Shortly after the war began British and French squadrons met off the Mediterranean island of Menorca (historically called "Minorca" by the British). The French won the battle. The subsequent decision by the British to withdraw to Gibraltar handed France a strategic victory and led directly to the Fall of Minorca.
> The British failure to save Menorca led to the controversial court-martial and execution of the British commander, Admiral John Byng, for "failure to do his utmost" to relieve the siege of the British garrison on Menorca.
edit: added rant. edit: added more rant.
More accurately it's a famous quote from the satirical novel Candide by Voltaire, published in 1759. It is about The Battle of Minorca, not that the battle matters much in this context.
The point of posting this old quote in French is to indicate that this question, and the answer, is nothing new to this time and place. In fact there are famous witty quotes about it.
It means "too encourage the others" - in the sense that if you want some people to run faster, shooting at the slowest would "encourage" the others. That kind of satire.
Those who don't know it are welcome to google it and educate themselves.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4650
In English: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19942
Unless you're using the humanities definition of capitalism by which it means "everything bad in the world".
Were these problems caused directly by capitalism? No. We're the criminal activities described in the Panama Papers facilitated by the structures that have to be in place for capitalism to work. Yes, I think that is arguable.
The Panama Papers are an argument for more effective regulation, not against capitalism.
So you conclude with agreement despite disagreeing in each premise?
As I said. Capitalism =/= the way the world is set up. Capitalism is an economic model. This humanities use of the word obfuscates more than it clarifies.
The regulatory environment of the world is not "capitalism". At a guess, I'd say its vaugely semi-feudal. But certainly, there is no transnational court system to make the kinds of rights-based guarantees you'd need.
That's charming.
People have great appreciation of "it was a wonderful little scheme but it doesn't work nowdays".
What's really charming to them is your cynicism, it's what they invested in.
Never underestimate several milenia of human history.
>What's really charming to them is your cynicism, it's what they invested in.
If only.
And that if society is no longer governed by laws, it quickly falls apart. Indeed, societal failure is no stranger in a course of history than beehive colony failure.
Here is how you change a system: 1 - you replace the people in charge; 2 - if the new people don't change it, you go back to item 1.
It's simply not possible. And look through history. We already went through many systems and in all faced this same issue. The people in charge where replaced multiple times already, because the previous generation died. And it's not always the blood related children who pick up the crown either.
People somehow pressure them out. It is always messy and specific, so, it's pointless to ask for generalities.
> Who takes care of the people in charge not getting corrupt themselves?
Nobody. You follow the steps.
> Who takes care that the most logical action for a leader is not a corrupt one?
I don't understand this question.
Anyway, if you take a look at history, you will see that the only thing that ever solved a rotten top are those steps I outlined. Waiting for the old people to die off is a way of doing it, but quite slow and unbiased; it works much better with societal pressures biasing it towards keeping the more honest people.
lol. then give an example. If my argumentation is true this should basically never happen.
I'm happy to present this in whatever terms you prefer. In fact it's the core of all systems, but people don't like to talk in abstract terms. Think about how people would react if you tell them feudalism, fascism, communism, capitalism is actually not so different.
That's a little opaque. That could include criminal or immoral activity, think money laundering or mass killing of political opposition.
Capitalism, for instance, is silent on types of immoral behavior that it could encourage. Thus classifying that behavior as "capitalist", i.e. as a part of the "system" which you reference may be what people are reacting negatively to.
Second point: In Feudalism you do immoral things to gain land and title. And communism you do immoral things to gain a higher position in the party hierarchy. In capitalism you do immoral things to gain money. That's what I mean. The terms change but not the morality of actions. You always exploit weaker people to compete with other exploiters, or you choose to be an exploited part of the system. You can choose the moral path, but that automatically means being a loser according to the system.
In capitalism the winner is the company owner that makes millions. Think about our celebrities. Steve Jobs is a celebrity, right? And wage slaves, sararimen, are the losers we frown upon and try not be associated with, while actually most people are in fact in this group. This is very capitalism specific.
In Feudalism the businessmen also make lots of money, but they are frowned upon, because they don't have inheritable land and title. Same game, different vocabs.
What makes it capitalist is not the question of whether or not it's immoral What makes it capitalist is that the always occuring exploitation takes the form of money, tax avoidance, and company ownership.
That's my point. You can disagree with it, no problem. Many people do. But please try to understand and accept it as possible point of view first.
I accept your position that even though a system (theoretical) is not immoral in its design, it is very probable to be immoral in its execution. This is something that I think most people don't argue about and only focus on theoretical. I like your directness here.
Now we probably disagree on what is immoral and not.
I, for instance, think that theft of private property is immoral. Therefore the concept of private property is required in a moral society to begin with.
Let me ask you a question and see if I can get an honest response, and let's assume that utopia will never exist.
Which system do you think is best for society at large. (*Best being, least amount of people killed, most amount of people not in poverty.)
If you'd like to argue about the definition of best (it's loose) I'd be happy to.
It's really hard to argue that way for me. How do you set the limit between the never existing utopia, and the best realistic society? This is the fourth version of a response and each previous one included a description of how I see utopia.
If we accept that no matter what utopia we describe, it will never happen, then I think whatever is already there is the best that can be there. To define a difference we would also need to show how to change the current situation to get there. I don't think that is possible.
Taking a card game metapher: You can reshuffle, you can give different people different cards, you can rename the cards. But you can't decide to play a board game instead. To get to the top of skillful card playing, one would need to be a really good card player. So we can assume that all people at the top are good card players. But once you are at the top the incentive to change the system decreases, because you gain most from the existing system. Also you are a really good card player. Changing to board games may even decrease your success rate. It is the logical conclusion, and therefore probably the best that can be.
How would you describe the best system but exclude utopia?
Yes, capitalism raises the monetary value of individuals the most. But if that again is a quality of life is discussable.
Since we are not living in feudalism, you wouldn't say raising the amount of inheritable titles you own is a quality of life. But that is what feudalism is best at. From a feudalist perspective capitalism sucks. You pay taxes on your inheritance, and you can only inherit ownership.
Capitalism also makes people grow apart, so from a communist perspective capitalism really sucks. Owning nothing but a good relationship with your neighbors would be valued highly in communism. In fact ownership doesn't really even exist in communist POV.
You need to evaluate the system from outside the system, or it's not really an evaluation.
Access to sanitation, medical treatment, nutrition, shelter, opportunity (the pursuit of happiness), justice.
(I could go on...)
I believe moral is not a natural constant. I believe it is defined as part of the system, a guideline for acting in the system. In one system it is totally fine to kill another man for being part of another religion. It may even be immoral to keep him alive. In another system a man's life is considered more valuabe than his believes, therefore it becomes immoral to kill him, and moral to accept his different religion. In that regard moral is similar to law, but where law tries to be specific, moral is general on purpose to be applied more widely.