Don't be evil? Google funding a slew of right-wing groups(billmoyers.com)
billmoyers.com
Don't be evil? Google funding a slew of right-wing groups
http://billmoyers.com/2013/12/04/dont-be-evil-google-funding-a-slew-of-right-wing-groups/
3 comments
Really? It's evil to fund "right wing groups"? Grow up. People you disagree with != evil.
Yes. Most of the time, or every-time when it comes to the evil Koch brothers. Think closing down health care clinics providing services for women, just as a start.
There are many other "grassroots" activities they've invented and which are known and documented. Scared to think what we don't yet know.
They're evil. They are the right in the US these days.
There are many other "grassroots" activities they've invented and which are known and documented. Scared to think what we don't yet know.
They're evil. They are the right in the US these days.
This reply very well sums up the pure insanity of our political system today and seems to prove through example my original comment.
No doubt it is insane, more than someone on the right would ever be honest enough to admit. Repealing "Obamacare", defunding "Obamaacare", government shutdown, anti abortion legislation and shutting down of women's access to healthcare services in many states.... for anyone, weather american or not, manipulating people to choose what's bad for them is pure evil.
[deleted]
>> The policies advocated by some of the Google’s grantees are in stark contrast with the progressive image that Google has worked to promote.
Hypocrisy is evil.
Hypocrisy is evil.
But funding the left isn't evil?
Correct. And I should add that what is considered the "left" in the US is what most of the rest of the world considers slightly right of center. The US right, virulently opposed to environmental regulation, basic human rights (e.g. universal health care, a woman's right to control her body), and favoring low taxes for the rich etc is "evil".
Funding the left is every bit as evil as funding the right. Someone once observed that the left wants to control your wallet, and the right your bedroom.
The behaviour of the 'right' in using lethal force to prevent people obtaining abortions is every bit as immoral as the 'left' using lethal force to ensure that people pay for other people's healthcare.
The only moral alternative is to eliminate coercion from all dealings between people, and the only framework I've seen that might have a hope in hell of doing so is anarcho-capitalism.
The behaviour of the 'right' in using lethal force to prevent people obtaining abortions is every bit as immoral as the 'left' using lethal force to ensure that people pay for other people's healthcare.
The only moral alternative is to eliminate coercion from all dealings between people, and the only framework I've seen that might have a hope in hell of doing so is anarcho-capitalism.
"... the 'left' using lethal force to ensure that people pay for other people's healthcare."
WTF?
Here's a message from the civilized world where publicly funded healthcare is an utterly mundane fact of life, on a par with publicly funded policing: Take two Valium America and calm yourself down.
WTF?
Here's a message from the civilized world where publicly funded healthcare is an utterly mundane fact of life, on a par with publicly funded policing: Take two Valium America and calm yourself down.
Lee,
It's interesting that you assume I'm American on the basis of my description of what "public funding" really is, at heart. Newsflash: I'm actually Australian, born in the UK and raised in New Zealand.
You're not exactly addressing the point I raised, though. "Public funding" relies upon coercion. That many people consider such coercion an "utterly mundane fact of life" is irrelevant to the underlying immorality of it: forcing some people to pay for goods and services to be given to others.
I'm not suggesting that people who are through no fault of their own incapable of providing for themselves be left to die or suffer. I'm suggesting that the ends don't justify the means when it comes to the initiation of force.
Edited: here's an open letter, originally written to Rand, that illustrates the coercive nature of Government, and explains a rational, coercion-free alternative: http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/roy-a-childs-jr/objectivi...
Edited: linking to LewRockwell.com does not constitute a blanket endorsement of their content on my part :)
It's interesting that you assume I'm American on the basis of my description of what "public funding" really is, at heart. Newsflash: I'm actually Australian, born in the UK and raised in New Zealand.
You're not exactly addressing the point I raised, though. "Public funding" relies upon coercion. That many people consider such coercion an "utterly mundane fact of life" is irrelevant to the underlying immorality of it: forcing some people to pay for goods and services to be given to others.
I'm not suggesting that people who are through no fault of their own incapable of providing for themselves be left to die or suffer. I'm suggesting that the ends don't justify the means when it comes to the initiation of force.
Edited: here's an open letter, originally written to Rand, that illustrates the coercive nature of Government, and explains a rational, coercion-free alternative: http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/roy-a-childs-jr/objectivi...
Edited: linking to LewRockwell.com does not constitute a blanket endorsement of their content on my part :)
The market selects for amorality; the structure of corporate governance (especially with publicly traded companies) ensures that everything hinting otherwise is really just particularly effective PR.