Could as easily had a government taxing air you breathe. - Doctor Who (2006) Discussion

[–] adam-176 (32) 7 years ago

The way things currently are, it's more likely that it will be corporations having large scale space operations because governments can't afford to fund them to sufficient level (hence NASA no longer going to the moon). It would therefore be down to the company supplying, transporting and storing the oxygen to determine pricing.

The baffling thing about the episode from that perspective is that the company bothered to send people there at all - with the suits being programmable and clearly being able to operate without human interaction, there was no need for the expense in manning the station to begin with.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

I agree with your second paragraph. The plot was absurd. But governments can concentrate vastly more resources than corporations can. That's why NASA is the only entity to put men on the moon, and governments are the only entities with the ability to do so now. No private company can or will be able to by itself any time soon. Eventually hopefully, but that's far off in the future. Manned space programs beyond low earth orbit require hundreds of billions of dollars.

In the long run, as technology improves (thanks to profit motive-driven technological innovation), there will probably be both private and government actors in space. My point, however, was about the shallow hypocrisy of the leftist writers' attack on capitalism. It wasn't really about space. They were feebly trying to make a point about free market economics itself as it pertains to the real world. They didn't think their own argument through.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 7 years ago

Corporations are scarier than governments. The public has less control over them, their power structure is less visible, and their devotion to pure profit removes all human qualities and weaknesses.

Politics aside, corporations make very effective villains.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

Governments have the power of violent, physical coercion. Businesses (corporate or not) don't. The line about those who work for corporations lacking any "human qualities" is childish nonsense. The people who work for corporations are people, with all the same strengths and weaknesses as the people who work for government. The biggest difference is that corporations are often held accountable, while government employees usually aren't. Corporations are even somewhat democratic in that anyone can buy an ownership stake. Even one share makes you part owner. They're also at least as concerned with their public image as governments are, and lack the same power to abuse.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 7 years ago

Actually, in situations where corporations have absolute monopolies or great power, such as when they own all the property and are the only provider of employment in an area, they can have the power of violence and physical coercion, as well as absolute economic power over everyone there. There are places in the world where corporations have more power over governments than governments have over corporations, look up the history of the term "banana republic". In such environment there is zero accountability to the law or to the local population, only to a distant corporate office and more distant stockholders, and when that happens ethical concerns can be completely suborned to the profit motive.

This episode took a situation that exists on Earth, and exaggerated it greatly to make it scary. Too bad some corporate fanboys can't take a little satire.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

That's what passes for "satire" among socialist fanboys, lol? And no, like Moffat, you're displaying a basic misunderstanding of these issues.

First, governments ARE a form of corporation. That's why you hear people talk about "incorporating" a town. These cheesy (often Canadian) sci-fi shows where the villains are "the corporations" (e.g. Continuum), and the premise is that "the corporations" now rule instead of the government, are written by people who haven't even thought through the concepts involved. If a corporation gets to the point where it usurps governmental powers like violent coercion, taxation, etc., then it has become a government. It might be a government where stake is apportioned by number of shares owned rather than equally among citizens, but if it's ruling over you then it's a government. And even a stockholder based government would be more democratic than the vast majority of governments in history, since anyone could buy stock and become part owner with even just one share. Individual liberty probably wouldn't be at any more risk from such a stakeholder based government than it is from "one man, one vote" democracies (tyranny of the majority, or the mob), even the ones with representative filters like modern Western countries.

I'm not advocating a stockholder based government, but then neither is anyone else. It's a straw man argument. That wouldn't be "capitalism". The free market is about free, voluntary exchange, not violent coercion. Socialism involves the latter, not capitalism. Showing corporations murdering people in unrealistic ways that more resemble real life governments than private businesses isn't a mature critique of capitalism. It's cartoonish claptrap.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 7 years ago

LOL that's a new one - dismissing the excesses of capitalism and corporate power as "another form of government"! I've never seen anyone fanboy giant impersonal corporations before, which I admit is a test of my belief that "love is never wasted".

But yes, making decisions solely based on the profit motive will always cause harm to someone, somewhere. Unchecked capitalism is not the answer to everything, nothing is the answer to everything. There's only finding the best options, a form of balance that works.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

That's more a collection of fortune cookie lines than an argument.

reply

[–] Martoto (4467) 7 years ago

Not unless you were attributing it to a totalitarian government.

Since capitalism has defined the ruling ideology, to varying degrees, in UK society since its establishment, regardless of the ruling party and their professed ideology, you would still be making an apolitical statement. Because you'd be critiquing all political regimes equally.

"This episode even had the Doctor calling capitalism a "mistake" and talking favorably about its eventual end."

Completely reasonable and not propagandist. Based on the results of capitalism presented in the show, and which are not unrepresentative of the vagaries of that ideology and the iniquities that are historically, and accurately, attributed to capitalism.

It's not political. It's ideological.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

With all due respect, that's some extreme self deluding there. It doesn't even qualify as rationalization. You're saying that calling capitalism an evil "mistake" is somehow an "apolitical statement"? First, the biggest British parties aren't equally pro capitalist. They're both somewhat pro socialist (e.g. NHS) and somewhat pro capitalist, but the Conservatives are definitely more free market oriented while Labour still defines itself as essentially socialist, even if they've been forced to back off from things like industrial nationalization in recent years due to socialism's undeniable real life failures (talk about a mistake), so an anti-capitalist message strongly favors Labour. Second, there are a variety of other parties representing different, more extreme views in different directions. Third, isn't the BBC supposed to be non-political apart from just being non-partisan? Doesn't attacking what you call the "ruling ideology" of the UK in a radical way constitute fringe political activism at coerced tax payer expense? Would the BBC be allowed to spew National Socialist propaganda just because the UK is anti-Nazi? If anything it would be the other way around wouldn't it?

Finally, of course it's propagandist whether it's "reasonable" or not. And it's not remotely reasonable for reasons I've laid out. It's asinine; childish even. It was a very dumb episode. One of the worst in the show's history.

reply

[–] adam-176 (32) 7 years ago

The controlling party in the episode could have been one of a few things

* "Evil" corporation
* Opportunistic sole owner (still capitalist-based, though)
* Under-funded Government
* Psychotic loon running the show
* Misprogrammed AI misinterpreting its directives (similar to in I, Robot or the episode Smile)

Other than having already used the "misinterpreted AI rules" option, they may well have used the "evil corporation" angle to tap into the current growing anti-corporate sentiment, rather than to express their own specific opinions. Although it's also often clear that governments are seriously overspending, that's nothing new; the anti-corporate thing is relatively recent and growing, so is a good zeitgeist hook.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

Nah, the zeitgeist is about populist rejection of establishment left leaning assumptions, particularly regarding immigration, nationalism, global government (or rule by distant, unaccountable technocrats), and the various boutique fringe obsessions of social liberals (e.g. LBGTQ/racial whining while largely disregarding day to day concerns of the vast majority of the middle class). The BBC ignores all that and in Doctor Who continues pushing the same, out of touch politically correct crap that the type of people who voted for Brexit and Trump in the US are fed up with. Heck, BOTH the new (already cancelled) spin off show Class and the current Doctor Who season feature gay main characters, and not just characters who happen to be gay, but are continuously having their sexual orientation emphasized in plots. How much gay stuff has that franchise pushed over the past decade? Studies show only about 3-4% of people are gay or bisexual (at least in the US), but watching tv you'd think almost half the population is gay. When watching BBC shows like Doctor Who one wonders if there are any straight people left in London. Bashing business isn't exactly new either.

The episode was most definitely expressing the ignorant opinion of self described "raging lefty" Moffat, and presumably the state subsidized BBC in general. While I agree with the basic premise of your list (or rather you basically agree with me), I wouldn't call an "opportunistic sole owner" killing people like that "capitalist", at least not in the term's usual sense of being synonymous with the free market. "Greed" or wanting more isn't synonymous with capitalism either. Human drives like that aren't bound by ideology; indeed socialism does more to cultivate base emotions like envy and hatred. Which is side is more likely to engage in violence and/or street protests demanding things they haven't earned from other people?

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

I thought it was just about an 'alien' interpretation of productivity - one which exists today and has done so since recorded history.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

He called it "capitalism".

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Yes, The Doctor did. However capitalism has undergone many changes since its inception on the Silk Road and will do more again in the future.

Trade is what brought us war for resources which has led to society as we know it, we'll get over it eventually but how it will look by then is another story.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

Let me get this straight. You're opposed to trade? Between anyone? Would you prefer to live in a primitive hunter gatherer society, or would that involve too much cooperative interaction?

Free market "capitalism" has done vastly more than any other idea to dramatically improve living standards and lift billions out of poverty. If we ever "get over it", it's doubtful we'll be colonizing space, at least any time soon.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

I don't think you could get me more wrong.

I'm all for trade as a basic form of immunity to ignorance of the universe.

Eventually though, it's pointless when society is enslaved to debt and purpose is all but gone bar dreamers and pretenders grasping at the veils of imagination they've been allowed to perceive.

Capitalism is vastly important, but it's not where it ends if we want to continue as a species over the next millennia.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

So you're opposed to credit, or are you just trying to be a poet?

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

I think we are talking different languages here.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

Yep. I'm talking about policy.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Policy, I doubt it will make it more than 20 years more let alone into a space station going at the rate it is.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

You feel socialism will take humanity to the stars, and to greater heights of prosperity and innovation across the board?

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Is that the only two options?

I'd say as soon as universal healthcare isn't seen as a bad thing by anyone we could have a jab at prosperity and innovation.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

Your first line was an anticipated reply, though I was hoping you'd answer by spelling out your own view more clearly than you have. Heck, you didn't even answer my question. As for "universal healthcare" (which doesn't exist), that's a big step in the socialist direction, and it certainly doesn't go hand in hand with prosperity or innovation.

Per Capita GDP PPP (IMF 2016)
USA - $57,440
Canada – $46,440
European Union - $39,320

Since the mid 1960s Americans have received more Nobel Prizes in medicine than the rest of the world combined. The US solely developed or contributed significantly to 9 of the top 10 most important medical innovations since 1975 as ranked by a 2001 poll of physicians, while the EU and Switzerland together contributed to five.

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa654.pdf

From 1989 to 2002, four times more money was invested in private biotechnology companies in America than in Europe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html?_r=1&;

Imagine how much more advanced and better off the world would be now if Europe and the rest of the planet was pulling its own weight rather than Americans having to shoulder most of the burden for progress?

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

As for "universal healthcare" (which doesn't exist), that's a big step in the socialist direction, and it certainly doesn't go hand in hand with prosperity or innovation.

How's free speech working out for your lot?

Seems to be asking for more police and lawyers which all come form the tax dollah. Money which could be spent, like the civilised world does, on ensuring its citizens all have access to healthcare as a right and not some trumped up privilege.

But please, enjoy paying for a show which is solely funded by a society which voluntarily pays an entertainment tax which it can sell to you via a commercial arm which never finds its way back to its investors.

Highly civilised.

I think socialism is just as bad as capitalism and so hold neither over the other. But pointing out the flaws in each shows just how silly followers of either are when it comes to their belief systems.

Money is your god and in god you trust [clap]

Meanwhile..in the 51st century...

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

"How's free speech working out for your lot?"

Why, you're opposed to that too?

"I think socialism is just as bad as capitalism and so hold neither over the other."

So you think the West should lurch in a socialist direction until it's about a 50/50 mixed economy. Got it. I think that blindly disregards the decisive empirical verdict of the last 100 years of history, but you're entitled to your own opinion (for now). I just wish people like you wouldn't seek to force your preferred system on everyone else in the world.

BTW, you're welcome for the medicine, diagnostic machines, and treatments. "Coverage" doesn't do you any good if there's nothing to buy. If the US adopted a socialist healthcare system the world would enter a stagnant medical dark age.

PS - Oh, and I'd rather have to fast forward commercials on shows recorded from non-premium channels than be forced by the government to subsidize an unaccountable network monstrosity like the BBC.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

LOL.

You plebeian. How much did you pay to get educated so?

Your speech isn't free, say nigger or something - I dare you, even try to and I'll be happy that you've free speech. You pay for it every day with your restrictions on what you perceive as freedom. MURICA' FECK YEAH!

I love your perception of what I said about healthcare - really pumping out that top class educational system you're paying for there!

Perhaps looks up penicillin before you try lecturing me on advancements in healthcare you thieving harpy. You'd do well to read over the Hippocratic oath too. You're welcome!

I'm happy you'd rather steal from those who pay AND watch adverts rather than pay for tickets to the show. We are done here heathen.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

Do you always have such a classless meltdown when you get ass-stomped in a debate, or did I particularly aggravate you?

Penicillin discovered - 1928
British NHS ("universal healthcare") established - 1948

You were saying something about "education"? I've been explicitly talking about the past half century or so. Without the American for-profit system then today you'd likely have a hard time finding stuff like MRI and CT machines, ACE inhibitors (blood pressure drugs), HIV testing and treatment, cataract extraction and lens implants, PSA tests (cancer), statins (cholesterol lowering drugs), heart bypass surgery, most anti-depressants, advanced hip and knee replacements, gastrointestinal endoscopy, NSAIDs and Cox-2 inhibitors (pain/inflammation treatment), Tamoxifen (prevents and treats breast cancer), bone density scans, non-drowsy antihistamines, third-generation cephalosporins (advanced antibiotics), bone marrow transplants, Viagra (likely of particular concern to you) (British researchers but working for a US company), recent hypoglycemic agents (diabetes treatments), Capoten (hypertension drug), and maybe things like mammagrams, interferons, advanced chemotherapy treatments, and countless other drugs and treatments. The development of some of these items were contributed to by other countries, but without the US pulling the bulk of the weight it's doubtful they'd be around today, or at least as soon as they were.

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa654.pdf

Regarding free speech, Britain's the country with "hate speech" laws, not the US. We have our own PC nightmare, but at least it's not yet enshrined in law.

Regarding tv, it's not "stealing" if you pay the cable bill, which is at least voluntary. The government doesn't force you to subsidize an unaccountable tv empire run by leftist morons.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

I tried reading, I really did. But the drool from your mouth has somehow made it to your keyboard or something.

I hope you get the education you need lil' buddy. It seems like you are desperate for it.

I'm just now here to proide it to you. The fundamentals aren't in place and I don't deal with early years or teenagers. I expect more from those who would listen to me.

Have you tried the Teletubbies boards?

I'm not sure if they are too mature for you but that's the best I've got as this point.

Good luck to you and I hope capitalist Santa brings you a Michael J. Fox figure from Family Ties.

Sit Boo Boo sit, good dog!

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

My post hit hard enough for you to backtrack on being "done" here and reply again, even though you had nothing to say, moron.

"I tried reading, I really did."

I imagine it's tough given the late start in life you're getting.

"I'm just now here to proide it to you."

You start typing with an accent when you're upset?

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

WOOF!

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

WOOF!

Wanna play fetch, doggie? Is that it? Go get the ball!

reply

[–] ReelReviews14 (1176) 7 years ago

>>> The BBC ignores all that and in Doctor Who continues pushing the same, out of touch politically correct crap that the type of people who voted for Brexit and Trump in the US are fed up with. Heck, BOTH the new (already cancelled) spin off show Class and the current Doctor Who season feature gay main characters, and not just characters who happen to be gay, but are continuously having their sexual orientation emphasized in plots. How much gay stuff has that franchise pushed over the past decade? Studies show only about 3-4% of people are gay or bisexual (at least in the US), but watching tv you'd think almost half the population is gay. When watching BBC shows like Doctor Who one wonders if there are any straight people left in London. Bashing business isn't exactly new either. The episode was most definitely expressing the ignorant opinion of self described "raging lefty" Moffat, and presumably the state subsidized BBC in general <<<<

YIKES. I knew the new season of Doctor Who would suck, but it sounds like it sucks even worse than I could have imagined, and the ONLY people that could possible enjoy this dung are SJW types who want their checklist of political talking points to be broadcast on television.

So glad I boycotted from Day One of this season. :-)

reply

[–] Martoto (4467) 7 years ago

So it's because the Doctor didn't add, "Oh, socialist totalitarian systems of government are also make mistakes. That's evil too." , for balance that it's a a biased political show.

Get a grip of yourself.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

We'll he'd still be wrong, since the free market isn't a "mistake", but it's telling that he didn't say that about socialism, isn't it? Talk about a mistake....

reply

[–] Martoto (4467) 7 years ago

So you don't think that the dead astronauts as a result of capitalism shown in the future depicted in the programme was a mistake.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

I think the episode was moronic and unrelated to real life.

reply

[–] Martoto (4467) 7 years ago

And yet, its supposed political implications are giving your nightmares.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

No, more like annoyance that a show I've loved since childhood has gotten this bad and is spewing this nonsense despite the benefit of seeing how the Cold War turned out in full hindsight. Unfortunately, dumbed down viewers who let shows like this shape their worldviews can very much have a negative real life impact if they vote.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Do you know anyfootball songs about Gazza or Rooney?

Who owns all the debt? Who owns all the debt?

Doctor Who told all the lies!

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

So you've failed at punditry and poetry.

reply

[–] Martoto (4467) 7 years ago

Talk about blowing your own cover. You haven't been watching Dr Who very closely if at all, or your childhood ended 5 minutes before you saw this episode, if you have never seen this kind of thing in the show before.

Do you even realise that capitalism and taxation are nor opposites or even exclusive of each other? I don't suppose you care. It seems you just want to everyone to share your anxiety at perceived threats from a tenuous "political" agenda.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

Your reading comprehension certainly sucks. The Classic Doctor Who only ran through 1989, so it hardly had that benefit I just mentioned of seeing how the Cold War turned out in full hindsight, complete with declassified communist historical documents. And while it sometimes had various political shots here or there (the kind that would leave writers and actors patting themselves on the back in interviews for supposedly being "subversive" while grinning stupidly), I also don't recall (not that I remember or have seen every line going back to 1963), anything as blatant as having the Doctor call "capitalism" a "mistake" that would fortunately end. That's not merely a "perceived" political agenda, LOL. It's as explicit as you can get. Plus, this political complaint isn't the only problem with the current show's quality, hence my broader comment. But I posted this thread to show that the episode's anti-capitalist argument was totally fallacious, with no bearing on real life free market economics, and in fact could apply to government intervention with at least as much validity (especially the very real death tax). I don't have the same megaphone that the state subsidized BBC does, but I humbly do what I can here or there.

Governments levy taxes, which has nothing to do with "capitalism", so it's unclear where you're trying to go that comment. Also unclear is why my post has caused you such anxiety.