Bottom line rules!

My old friend Corvin Huber shared the article and his comments on Facebook which I think worth reading for everybody. Here it goes:

“The definition of so-called “conservative” right wing politics is expanded beyond authoritarianism into frivolous bull-shittism for the sake of being contrarian. Pied Piper has come home.

And is erasing decades of hard-won checks and balances based on civil discourse and an understanding of the nature of cooperation.“

Quote from Nick Cohen’s insightful article: “The label that has stuck to the demagogues who dominate British and American politics is “the alt-right”. But, as Brexit is proving, it is as much a “bullshit right”.

I am not being vulgar but am drawing on the work of Harry G Frankfurt. Unlike liars, who at least know the truth when they deceive, the philosopher explained, bullshitters have no concern for truth. They don’t care if they are lying or not. They just say whatever it takes to win. “By virtue of this,” Frankfurt ruled, “bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.”

Truth is not bullshit’s only enemy. The frivolity with which a generation of rightwingers treated politics leaves them without an idea of how to govern when they become the establishment they once despised. Even when they are in power, they still do not think they should have something as boring as a workable plan.”

Even when it comes to safeguard the life of students in classrooms.

Why are we allowing this to happen?“

I (Nick) could not resist sharing my view on the matter.

I think it is caused by the big companies and business in general reaching the level of influence on par with many nations.

And they bring with them the worldview and experience they used successfully – obviously! – all the time before. It is based on the bottom line mentality when nothing else counts unless it is good for the bottom line.

There were times when many market players competed against each other and provided benefits for society as a side effect (according to the famous, but quite misinterpreted as it has turned out, Adam Smith’s invisible hand). They demanded the freedom to be more creative and productive. This demand stopped to be justified after their influence became such that freedom for the few became a prohibitive barrier for entering the market for the majority.

Yet, they continue to claim their rights to be free from any social obligations, working for the bottom line only, by any means – legal, barely legal and … if something is not legal yet, they have enough influence to make it legal or at least not easily indictable.

Now we have it. They achieve anything they want using any means. And they want it not because of some lofty humanitarian goals, but because they know how to achieve anything – by ruthless pursuing the bottom line no matter what. Nothing else matters.

To answer Corvin’s question, it seems the only venue left for us is voting. Provided we are going to have a candidate that expresses our views. I hope we will have one.

P.S.
1) Harry G Frankfurt used to be a philosopher from Princeton.
2) I did not know who Pied Piper was and looked him up too. It turned out I knew him, but not by that name. He was a piper tasked with luring rats out of the town. He did his job but was not paid, so he lured all the children out of the town too. Here is the link. I am not sure how Corvin sees the analogy of the current situation with that story. Do you?