[52-6F-62]

I'm sorry but that just sounds absurdly reductive to me. It makes a gross assumption that people are incapable of keeping their government in check.

Perhaps, in spite of my own cynicism, I believe people are capable of deciding how they want their societies to run (also in spite of our hiccups here in the Western world).

So again: why do such businesses deserve to operate with such impunity? A natural function of business is risk. Subverting reasonable social good is an active harm that is reasonable given the circumstances (like an ambulance or fire truck asserting the right of way on a city street), but I fail to see why that should apply to any and all business.

I'll be happy to be convinced otherwise—but I doubt I will be.

I know you're speaking out under the condition of anonymity, so I won't ask which business you're operating or employed by but I am immensely curious about which industry you're representing. It would help much in understanding your perspective.

[Concrescator]

I'm going to be honest. As an American it feels like my government is not in check. Not at all. They are failing to represent the wishes of constituents.

I too feel like the person you replied to. Why can't our goverment get with the times and create infrastructure to support the new global economy.

[CaymanCruiser]

>It makes a gross assumption that people are incapable of keeping their government in check.

There is a difference between keeping a government in check, and ensuring governance stays relevant. Western democracy usually ensures the former, but is not very good on the latter.

>Subverting reasonable social good is an active harm that is reasonable given the circumstances (like an ambulance or fire truck asserting the right of way on a city street), but I fail to see why that should apply to any and all business.

This is more of a political argument than anything else, and I'm not too keen on going into my political views on this matter (although I'm sure it is not too difficult to infer them from my posts). What I will say however is that I think you are conferring an arbitrary civic duty on corporations, with the dutiful obligations of which being up for a significant amount of interpretation across societies and jurisdictions.

[52-6F-62]

Yeah. I don’t think we can avoid the breach into politics on this subject, though, since it seems inherently political and I can tell we have some fundamental philosophical differences!

Anyway I appreciate the thoughtful responses regardless.