[lit-ideas] Re: Further to Economics Not
- From: Andy <mimi.erva@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
I don't understand your last sentence. First comes figuring out that something
is wrong, then comes figuring out the alternatives. I'm not sure humans are
capable of anything better, actually. That's an unemotional statement of
fact. I read a book recently that made a case that sociopaths (formerly called
psychopaths) are by some estimates 1 out of every 25 people. They're charming
beyond words, think con artist, and they routinely find their way to the top of
corporate ladders because they have no conscience, they have criminal minds,
criminal brains. As corporate leaders they're not prosecuted; in fact they're
rewarded in a big way, including with adulation. That's not a ray of light for
corporations as people, and they're certainly not going to change themselves.
Andy
________________________________
From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 2:05 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Further to Economics Not
________________________________
From: Andy <mimi.erva@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, 29 September 2011, 18:35
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Further to Economics Not
>Donal is correct generalizations are always wrong.
IIRC, this was not my claim, which would itself be a generalisation and,
according to itself, wrong.
Generalisations may be true, even in the law: but a kind of generalised
criticism is rarely valuable in assessing the merits of our current laws
against potential alternatives, since virtually all law is open to this kind of
generalised criticism without that necessarily grounding something else as a
relative improvement.
Donal
London
Other related posts:
