[foxhill]

i don't like it. in fact i think it's the most abhorrent practise we do as humans.

> The point of a corporation is to allocate resources more efficiently than could be done by legal individuals.

noise. tell me - which is more "efficient" (i.e profitable), avoiding paying out insurance claims over insignificant inaccuracies, or caring about the family of 5 with a household income of $30,000, who's dad broke his arm whilst cycling to work, by a driver who was on their phone and caused them to run a red light?

> We can expect corporations not to facilitate mass murder.

oh, so we should abolish arms manufacturers?

> We should expect corporations not to facilitate mass murder.

you should tell this to BAE, or Lockheed Martin, or.. well, literally anyone on this list; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defense_contractors

> The argument that we should not punish transgressions just because some corporations are not punished for transgressions is cowardice in the highest degree.

absolutely not. there is no cowardice in that statement at all. it's a recognition of what companies in this world behave like. look at the actions of pretty much every big company. ask yourself - is your world view more accurate, or is mine?

again, i don't like it. it's sickening. but to hate these creations for doing exactly what they are made to do (again, make cash) is just.. senseless.

[sroerick]

I'm telling you the economic justification for a corporation. I don't like it either, but denying economies of scale as a reality of our world is silly.

I would be fine with abolishing arms manufacturers. Have you stopped using Google yet? Because they are the Lockheed Martin of the 21st century.

I agree with you that corporations are psychopathic. But to suggest that fact abdicates us from all responsibility of trying to return agency to the individual is foolish.

We have the power to say no. We have the ability to reshape the world whatever way we want it. Recognizing the evil that is conducted isn't cowardly. But refusing to do anything because "That's just the way things are" is.

EDIT: a don't

[foxhill]

> I would be fine with abolishing arms manufacturers.

why though? it's people that fire the guns. there will always be someone out there with a sharper stick. i mean this is literally where the term "arms race" comes from..!

> Have you stopped using Google yet? Because they are the Lockheed Martin of the 21st century.

do google do bad things? yes. but comparing them to Lockheed Martin? either you vastly underestimate the terrible things that company has done, or you really dislike google..! (or i'm woefully ignorant of google's inhumane actions)

> I agree with you that corporations are psychopathic.

no, they are not psychopathic. psychopathy implies that idea of empathy existed to begin with.

> But to suggest that fact abdicates us from all responsibility of trying to return agency to the individual is foolish.

no, absolutely not. the problem is in the formulation of the system. there is an incentive to break the rules (more reward). because there is an incentive, some individuals will attempt to break the rules. and corporations almost always get away with it.

replace corporations with gangs, and you have the problem with the war on drugs in a nutshell.

> We have the power to say no.

and yet, unfortunately, we exercise the power of apathy almost exclusively. all of our personal data on facebook is sold to advertisers, sold to whoever wants to buy it. we could just not use facebook.

> Recognizing the evil that is conducted isn't cowardly.

oh i whole heartedly recognise it.

> But refusing to do anything because "That's just the way things are" is.

that is entirely not what i'm saying. i'm saying we need to stop immoral behaviour when it is happening. we can't define morals in law, and the law is the only thing corporations understand. we can't change laws and retroactively apply them.

[knz42]

> i'm saying we need to stop immoral behaviour when it is happening. we can't define morals in law, and the law is the only thing corporations understand. we can't change laws and retroactively apply them.

Two things:

a) you can definitely capture part of your morals in law, like "don't kill". Our anti-genocide legal system is built for this purpose and applies to corporations as well as to individuals.

b) at the time of the Apartheid, unlike during WWII, crimes against humanity were already prosecutable "anywhere on earth". In other words we can definitely prosecute IBM now for a crime they committed under a law that was already active when the crime was committed, and which has no statute of limitation.

[foxhill]

> you can definitely capture part of your morals in law, like "don't kill"

ah! but you can't!

for instance, if someone was about to kill your partner - is it illegal to kill them before they succeed? yes. immoral..? grey.

the law is a rough cookie cutter shape that somewhat follows the edge of the fractal-like surface of morality. you can't capture morality in it's entirety into a legal document.

> at the time of the Apartheid, unlike during WWII, crimes against humanity were already prosecutable "anywhere on earth".

i don't know much about apartheid, but at the time, the SA gov't believed it to be legal (of course). the US didn't recognise it as wrong for a long time (late 80s?), and even then, that doesn't necessarily mean it was recognised as a crime against humanity. and it's hard to see from the article the dates of the specific actions that EFF are complaining about.

[sroerick]

Laws can only be applied retroactively. That's how laws work. That's why courts exist.

[schoen]

If you suppose that companies only ever respond to financial incentives, then you can imagine changing that behavior by creating a financial disincentive for it, such as legal liability and payment of money damages. The companies don't have to have a sense of morality for this theory to work.