Originally Posted by La Texican
It's because history's unfolding before us and corporations are the canary test for the rest of us in becoming true Planetary Natives. On one hand you say corporate leaders are supposed to be good decision makers, or why? So leave them alone, let them do their thing, and hope they remember to pay their employees. On the other hand just because some crackhead doesn't make the right planned parenthood decisions are we really going to say her children shouldn't eat? All of that was complicated enough before corporations became increasingly international. Now you have these corporate leaders deciding what's best for their employees and customers and living in this global country instead of a homogenous melting pot like America. Meanwhile the US government is trying to exert authority over the rights and responsibilities of these international companies and their siblings the American people. Which is why government leaders are supposed to be good decision makers, or why?

I know. It is complicated. I love ideas of small government, but I don't trust corporations to make responsible decisions and set good examples(they've let me down so far) and I don't want children suffering because their parents can't get it together. And I don't want people dying because they can't afford health care!


I was just thinking about a good analogy to describe why I am not in favor of all the political correctness. Because I am coming off as rude and very insensitive...

If I'm a smoker and I hear people want to ban smoking in restaurants- they BETTER not do it based on feelings or political correctness. I want them to look at all the available evidence instead.

Because if they do it based on feelings, the policy makers could either say "Non-smokers hate smelling like smoke so we should ban it" or "Smokers might feel bad and like social pariahs about their decision to smoke if we ban it and it is their right to choose how to live!"

But if the policy makers simply choose to use statistics and the evidence from well-run studies and avoid being PC or considering the feelings of individuals very much, then they'd likely come to the conclusion that secondhand smoke endangers the health of bystanders. And so the reasonable decision would be to ban smoking in public places filled with lots of people.

Smokers can't argue with it and neither can non-smokers. Because it doesn't matter how they feel about it.

(You can obviously take "the good of the community" way too far and then completely destroy the rights of individuals, but I only support the rights of individuals if they don't take away the rights of others. Deciding what those rights are and all of that is tricky, of course, and is the root of the problem here.

Individuals may have a right to smoke in their own home if they feel like it, but should the people in power accept it as a valid lifestyle choice even if we know that it increases medical costs and can affect growing young children living at home?)

The thing is, it really depends more on what is fashionable at the moment than on whatever the science or statistics say at any given time. And that is why I don't like how much political correctness plays into how things are done.
Edit: However...as mentioned above, the fact that the scientific community even doesn't always agree with itself kind of does put a wrench in my point.

Last edited by islandofapples; 02/20/12 01:43 PM.