ITT Fined $100M For Illegal Exports

I think this is great. It's rather amusing how Americans react so violently to things like this. It seems that you (Americans) still feel that you have "manifest destiny" or some absolute (moral?) superiority. I guess you feel betrayed, but the thing is, a corporation's (in capitalism, at least) role is to produce profit. That is all.

Personally, I'm in favor of total global equalization of technology, infrastructure, political power, labour costs, standards of living, etc. As various services are outsourced, eventually there will be no compelling reason for any part of the world to make notably more (relative to living costs) than any other part. It just makes sense, as this both increases maximum (and practical) utilization of resources (natural, renewable, non-renewable, people) and reduces overall disparity tension.
 
Neuffy said:
I think this is great. It's rather amusing how Americans react so violently to things like this. It seems that you (Americans) still feel that you have "manifest destiny" or some absolute (moral?) superiority. I guess you feel betrayed, but the thing is, a corporation's (in capitalism, at least) role is to produce profit. That is all.

Personally, I'm in favor of total global equalization of technology, infrastructure, political power, labour costs, standards of living, etc. As various services are outsourced, eventually there will be no compelling reason for any part of the world to make notably more (relative to living costs) than any other part. It just makes sense, as this both increases maximum (and practical) utilization of resources (natural, renewable, non-renewable, people) and reduces overall disparity tension.
Click to expand...

Wow,
You posted all that and still don't get the point. Well here, a morally superior American is going to explain it to you again..

This was EXPORT restricted information. Certian technologies that are developed by the goverment with the help of private companies, are restricted because first of all the government either owns the technology or paid large sums of money to have it developed, second of all the technology is classified. We do control the right what is exported outside of our borders.
Classified Military Technology is one of those things.
 
Heh, you have to admit that it's kinda funny how your name has 'Spaz' in it and he mentions how funny it is that we Americans are reacting so violently.

In any case, a corporation exists to make a profit, but there are still restrictions put in place by the government under which the corporation operates. Corporations are not above the government, although their money does talk in most cases.
 
What you just said is the point. That you have classified technology in the first place, and then are upset when it is distributed.

The point is that you are attempting to maintain technological disparity, notably in military areas. In this case, a company broke one or more laws regarding the export of classified technology, and is not being punished as severely as you wish. I just think that the level of anger, the aggressive labelling of "traitors" and the high levels of patriotism are all...excessive.
 
We aren't supposed to get upset when a company breaks the law and potentially puts our soldiers at risk?

You're right. Let's just slap them on the wrist and let them carry on.
 
Well.. lets look on the 'good' side. At least they didn't pull a Clinton and give China some of our nuclear secrets. :p
 
LOL I love it. These guys get fined for selling night vision technology, I wonder if the Government fines itself for selling nuclear technology or chemical weapons.
 
I guess this is going off topic a bit. To clarify, I don't agree with what the company did at all. Actually, I'd say the company should be hit by fines sufficient to effectively guarantee bankruptcy.

But... there's a line: "Puts our soldiers at risk". Who puts soldiers at risk? Are only those soldiers from one's own nationality important? Is "winning" conflicts the important thing, or is choosing which conflicts to partake in? Is doing what is right for your country always the same as doing what is right? Does putting your country first result in what is best (for your country? For the world?) Is nationalism a duty above all others, or do duties to all humans come first?

I am dreadfully sorry, but nationalism and patriotism are, for such powerful forces, delightfully amusing. Perhaps I'm just totally mistaken, and I misinterpret everything I hear/read/see, but it does seem that Americans (either to a further degree, or more vocally) endorse an "America First" attitude.

[I'm not arguing that this attitude is exclusive (Heaven forbid) to Americans, just that it is most noticeable among Americans.]

Back on topic, what are the best ways of dealing with things like this? It looks like this judgment isn't going to do a whole lot to prevent similar recurrences, so: what would? I think suitably large fines, necessitating full-on bankruptcy, hopefully with a near-requirement to default all assets to government agencies for resale (to another "trusted" company, I'd assume) would likely do the trick, but then again, perhaps companies just assume they won't get caught, regardless of what the consequences might be? Proving peronal liability/responsibility is unlikely, however, and is far too prone to simple scapegoating.
 
Neuffy..

You discount and flirt with a condemnation of national pride and recycle the overly tired notion of "the Ugly American" for amusement?

playing devil's advocate and attempting to place your self as one of the rare and insightful neutrals, and it begs so many questions.

you have no sense of patriotism? no pride in your homeland? do you feel saddened when your country acts foolishly in the name of the people? or rejoice in a victory of a sports team, and feel connection to the others reveling in the win? and your use of english, lends to the notion you are from an english speaking country (an assumption to be sure), but you never give your country. i am almost certain there are emotions tied to your homeland.

I find it difficult if not impossible to accept the notion of a complete neutral, unless you happen to be Dalai Lama, and even he seeks to return his nation of birth to its people. nationalism and patriotism are not all bad or blind with zealots.

splitting hairs over "putting our soldiers at risk" and diminishing the cost to people we know and may never see again. Ok, maybe it would have been more correctly stated "...increasing the risk our soldiers face...", but your bank shot off of quotes seems at best flame bait and at worst a reduction of the sacrifices made.

for the record, NO I do not believe the United States of America should be in Iraq. I believe my president is wrong (among many other things I think about my president), but the lives of our soldiers were further endangered by greed. and the notion that the market will always sort itself out is equal to manifest destiny. moral and ethical considerations are not entered into the equation of capitalism (or rarely so, I should state...imo). and I do feel saddened by the loss of civilian lives as well.

I went from angered by your posts to simply annoyed with an idealistic philosophy which in an attempt to level, or make all things/people equal, is blinded by a bias inherent in its formation. in your attempt to humanize those who present very clear and present danger to US soldiers, you reduce Americans and American soldiers to less than, and possibly a pinch of "well, you deserve to be put in your place".

I want my family and friends HOME, in my country NOW. but I am not in control of that.
[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]
 
the government says they can work off their debt by producing more advanced goggles.... something about this company getting its hands on even more advanced stuff than it sold to china makes me queasy.

the proper punishment for this is to jail whoever is responsible for this for the same term a traitor double agent would get for selling classified secrets
 
Actually, I have essentially no sense of patriotism. The emotional response thing for sports teams? Local, barely. I do not understand the manner in which people respond to team sports. To me, it's...uninteresting. Live sports are decent, and the experience with a crowd is exhilarating. But it might as well be Liverpool as a local team.

I do have a (limited) sense of civic pride, notably for my city relative to its rival. I feel a somewhat greater attachment for the region of the country that I live in/grew up in compared to the rest of the country, but other than that, I'm not particularly patriotic. I much prefer looking at people as, well, people rather than as members of their nationalities (not to say that nationality can or should in some cases be ignored). I honestly feel the same thing when (in, say, Afghanistan) Australian, British, Canadian, Dutch or Estonian soldiers are killed. Quite simply, human suffering is what I care about, not who is suffering.

I'm not claiming to be a rare and insightful neutral. I'm simply claiming to be amused (and perhaps a little confused/lacking understanding) by patriotism. I truly do not understand it. (And no, this isn't a claim of superiority. I just don't get it.) Like as not, it's my lack, not yours.

Honestly, I don't see where I humanized anyone. That's probably because I don't think anyone should have to be humanized, since we start off as human to begin with. All people are equal (ly deserving of rights, freedoms, basic needs, etc). If we're going to start categorizing some (broad groups) of people as "good" or as "bad" then we've got some pretty major problems (eg. see eugenics in NA from ~1900-1970+)
 
Neuffy said:
If we're going to start categorizing some (broad groups) of people as "good" or as "bad" then we've got some pretty major problems (eg. see eugenics in NA from ~1900-1970+)
Click to expand...
Not to mention that good and bad are entirely subjective. More so in our current times, when people we once supported for their ways, we now consider bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top