Isnt conscience and guilt the oldest form of exploitation...?
I dont see how labelling one activity as "charity" and the other as "profit" ...makes one better than the other. It seems to assume that "charity" is inherently good / better than profits.... at least there are market forces of demand and supply to regulate the business of making profits... i dont hear of regulatory mechanisms to control the business of charity - when X assumes that Y needs help, and creates a reality where the very existence of X is dependent upon Y being helped, is to me sociopathic behavior.... there was a recent film called 'grizzly man', about this guy (a failed actor, who tried for the barman role in 'cheers'... ) who wanted to help the grizzly bears in alaska, so he went and lived with the grizzly bears - 'to protect them and live as they did', of course he believed he was doing the right thing - even at the point where he was eaten up by the bears..... this to me was an extreme illustration of what someone described as "assuming intellect".... On 2/2/07, Biju Chacko wrote:
On 02/02/07, Ingrid wrote: > If corporate entities enjoy the rights and protections of citizens they can > and should, IMO, carry commensurate responsibility. Oh, I agree with you. What I was trying to say is that with individuals appealing to their consciences has some chance of success -- for example, make me feel guilty enough and I'll buy CRY cards. :) Heck, I may just buy 'em because I think it's the right thing to do.
