Excessive Censorship

uscitizen said:
It buys more wealth for the corps. 1 million of so of donations can get a law passed that will save the companies tens of millions. Happens all the time.
Click to expand...
Even with that, it is not the same as the power of government to put you in prison. Pretending that that is "weak" in comparison to two chains in way over 5 of them saying they won't show a movie? Total rubbish and pretense to attempt to "scare" people into believing your baggage. It is total hogwash and is easily shown to be so.
 
The corps have the power to put you in prison by proxy if they can buy laws.
the only reason they don't buy more laws of that type is that there is no profit in it for them.
the power is there if they choose to use it. And the religious corps do choose to use it, because they are not interested in profit, only control.
 
uscitizen said:
The corps have the power to put you in prison by proxy if they can buy laws.
the only reason they don't buy more laws of that type is that there is no profit in it for them.
the power is there if they choose to use it. And the religious corps do choose to use it, because they are not interested in profit, only control.
Click to expand...
Except they don't. They want money, you can't buy their stuff if you are in prison.

This is inanity. Pretending that government power is "weak" is silly "scare-tactic" rhetoric when it can be so easily shown incorrect. Prison is a lot more power than making you drive a bit farther to see a movie.
 
My point is that the decision made was a moral one, and had no reference to making money. This was a political move.

Oh? How do you know this? It has been my experience that business is amoral especially on the corporate level. Don't you leftists always rail against corporations because they act without consideration of morals or ethics. Now they do so and you complain. I actually agree with the lefties that large corporations are amoral and do not consider ethics in their business decisions unless it affects the flow of money.

I'll be consistent here since what I have observed does not cause me to think regal entertainment is deviating from this paradigm now.

The point you libertarian capitalists are missing is an innate weakness with capitalism. The acquisition of wealth has allowed these cinema chain owners the power to dictate moral terms to others.

This is a fundamental weakness in capitalism that is ignored by its apologists, placed particularly in contrast by the same apologists berating of the abuse of power within government.

Any you have debated this broad topic with me many times. You know why I have the stance I do. I am fully aware of the flaws of capitalism. I find the alternative however more unpleasant. Conscripting citizens into showing films against their will is a more negative outcome than people being denied easy access (and its only about easy access since the movie is not banned or anything) due to the free actions of those who provide a service.

Let me ask you this. Artists provide a service oftentimes a unique one that cannot be offered by anyone else. Thus the product of their artistic ability is a monopoly as there is no other source of it. Can we dictate to the artist who they cater to and demand they grant equal access to their art? I doubt you would suggest this.

However it has been my observation that leftists do not rail against business on a matter of basic principle but rather do so because they are powerful. Many tend to ignore the rights of those they perceive as strong yet would defend a party that is relatively weak when it is guilty of the same thing.
 
LOL Capitalist apologists have always denied the failings of capitalism and the power of wealth, ignoring them, whilst emphasizing the same failings in government.

And so the western world sleepwalks into a technocratic nightmare, simply because it doesn't hold judgemental criteria evenly for all.

It reminds me of the Israel / Pal problem. People criticise Pal terrorism, yet create excuses whenever Israel commits terrorism.

The atrocities of communism are rightly highlighted, yet the atrocities of capitalism (slavery, Dickensian Britain, the depression, Russia circa 1990) are all either hidden away or explained away by the 'no true Scotsman' defense, stating it 'isn't true capitalism.'

Seems Aldous Huxley was far more accurate of the future for western society than Orwell....

Please you know Damo and I well we are well aware of all the things you are talking about.

Also comparing Communist regimes to Dickensian Britain or 90s Russia is a rather asymetric comparison.

It would be like saying people always highlight how murder is bad but never speak about the horrors of muggings.
 
Prison is not "weak" in comparison to having to drive three miles to see the movie!

BINGO!

That the difference between capitalistic oppresion and goverment oppression.
 
Damocles said:
Except they don't. They want money, you can't buy their stuff if you are in prison.

This is inanity. Pretending that government power is "weak" is silly "scare-tactic" rhetoric when it can be so easily shown incorrect. Prison is a lot more power than making you drive a bit farther to see a movie.
Click to expand...

You ignored the Religious corps aspect in your reply Damo.
They are non profit corporations. and have lots of money to rent votes with.
And they are not interested in profit, only our souls ;)
 
Watermark said:
Well, the souths a rather unique matter in that we have all these people spread very evenly about just so that nothing ever gets big enough to have a movie theater. I have to drive thirty minutes to get to a movie theater, and I live near the most prosperous area of the whole damn state (well, except for DeSoto county... famous for gambling).
Click to expand...
It definitely will NOT be screened in Twiggs County, GA.
 
Damocles said:
LOL. It has allowed no such thing. Had they a monopoly then they could dictate such a thing. That they do not have that and they have competitors who consider playing the flick pretty much makes your point worthless. "Capitalism" is not the enemy here, it hasn't allowed anybody any "censorship". I know this is your baggage as a socialist, but you aren't convincing even the lefties that this is truly "censored".
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how much "morality" it takes to think that, though in a mocumentary, showing the asassination(sp) of a sitting (non-fictional and contemporaneous) President is unacceptable.
 
Oh I don't know about that what about that movie with Charlie sheen where the bomb drops in Sadams lap ? Ohhh you mean our president ;)
 
uscitizen said:
Oh I don't know about that what about that movie with Charlie sheen where the bomb drops in Sadams lap ? Ohhh you mean our president ;)
Click to expand...
Sorry, I didn't see, so I can't comment. The only two Charlie Sheen movies I've seen, and I liked both, were "The Outsiders" and "Wall Street."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top