There are, it seems, Never enough examples to prove something that is not written into fact.
For studied conclusions, no matter how rare the enforcing example; Like Gassim in the Nefud Desert, it is written. For institutions, organizations or poor demonstrations of both who exploit the ‘written’ in writtens, There is a principle that many seem too eager to see everywhere and most see as reading too far into what is written.
Liberties take of actions written.
What I mean is both simple and nuanced. Returning to my initial flawed method to prove this. Take big business, or the more intellectual sounding corporations. (I can almost hear the economic conservatives reading throwing my pages to the ground with confident disgust.)
For these cretins I will nominate their usual fall guy. Coal please come to the stage.
The coal industry exists for two reasons: One to satisfy our lust for fluorescent blue lighting and two to make profit.
I could argue semantics of the later but I won’t. Brand is disposable and about as guided toward a morality as a flea is toward higher reasoning. I’ll trust you are not the same. The coal industry like most pertaining to the public is regulated. Some say too much, some say too little, flea sized perhaps; either way you will create elites of regulators or wealthy coal magnates, respectively.
Now the question becomes, which is more preferable? I believe there is a balance. For my original point of ‘liberties take of actions written.’ The later is more applicable. The sumation of the coal industry’s two functions is ‘sell you more coal.’
That is the singular directive of almost every corporation in the for profit sector without exception, though the product may vary.
Now, say, a particular politician wants to cut regulation on coal mining and sale of the product. Why? Because, simply, the magnates pay pretty bills for ones they’ve written, or influenced, to be past.
Or if you are more conservative in mindset, say it increased productivity of coal and increases GDP while the industry receives a tidy profit for the hard work.
Either liberty assumed to be taken from the action of this politician, has one result I have left out for the sake of suspense and respect of your intelligence, ‘aren’t I sly?’
It’s power transferring. ‘Anti-climactic, right?’ The unspoken and definitely not ‘written’ part of this bill is, in many cases, this deregulation makes it easier for the industry to follow its prime directive:
‘Sell More Coal.’
‘So what? The rich white guys get richer and buy obscene yachts to quell their small man syndrome. So what?’
Problem is this found obscene wealth is partially used for ‘efficiency expanding exersizes’ or in words of someone both literally and metaphorically less tongue tied. ‘cutting regulations.’
And so the politician takes the ‘campaign donations.’ or ‘gifts from friends.’ Etc etc, until we’re back two sentences again, only; ‘So what?’
‘The coal industry makes more money than there are stars, so what?’
Well with each of those regulations that is cut means lost jobs for coal miners, overtime, a for more extra unpaid shifts for the manager. I would mention the climate. Though I fear the fleas it would stur and the ranting and raging I would start.
Suffice to say. It’d be shit if there were no regulations and I’m sure you can tell why. The concern, to put it featherweight at best, I lay at corporations glass feet comes out of the fact that by their own modus operandi they will use any amount of money or manipulation to serve the goal of ‘Sell More Coal’ or generally profit acquisition.
As long as they are in the green the means are encouraged.
This would never make news.
This agreement between politician and coal magnate X would not have minutes, nor onlookers, nor taps, nor bugs, nor records. It would not be ‘written.’
So because of this two things are true the meetings take place outside the public sphere, never understood as ‘written’ it assures that everything that will be written on the subject of such a meeting is secondary or circumstantial. At best.
This is because the only first person evidence holder in such a meeting who must comment, has already been given what will become ‘written,’ law they are about to pass and compensation for that, or his is, more to a conservative read so believing that coal is cool as can be, that the talking points, are just their points. The latter way, to the corporations, even better, less cuts in the bottom-line or more capital to invest in convincing or smearing other politicians, the former ‘no worries. Good thing we cut regulations last time.’
None of this written or explicit, no book will elighten you with stats nor news story convince you with graphics because this no story in secondary or circumstantial, that isn’t sensationalisable. It is merely a logial liberty that could be taken of the possibilities of an action like deregulation contains in very definition. One can’t regulate the definition of deregulation. And there, is just one example that demonstrates there aren’t enough examples to prove, something that is not ‘written.’
This example is mirrored in many fields and industries so watch for what is not ‘written’
Seems I’ve written it.
Do you need another example?