[alphapapa]

> Unless the destruction occurs outside of the realm (spatial or temporal) of the shareholders, in which case the destruction can rightfully be modeled as an externality and ignored. ... It's more dangerous to assume that corporations can be held to task than it is to assume that they are amoral profit-seeking entities. Only in the former case are you unpleasantly surprised if you're wrong.

You are missing the point just as the gp did. I never said that corporations can be held to task for such things.

I'm talking about what they _should_ do, i.e. right vs. wrong, i.e. morality. And such hypothetical destruction cannot _rightfully_ be ignored, because to do so is _morally wrong._

_That_ is the point. By continuing to miss it you are further illustrating the problem. Please wake up.

[angersock]

What part of "morality doesn't apply to businesses" don't you understand? Do you blame a cat for catching a mouse? Do you blame a cruise missile for destroying a target? Do you blame a tornado for eviscerating a house? There are things to which the lens of morality offers very little.

What you want to claim is that corporations should view their actions morally, and what everyone is telling you is that no they shouldn't. You present (as a sibling comment) the notion that a company given a choice between the "wrong but profitable" and the "right but less profitable" should choose the "right" thing.

And we're telling you, we're all telling you, that you cannot evaluate a corporation through such a calculus!

Is the corporation going to Heaven or Hell because of how it's lived its "life"? No. Is the corporation going to have more friends because it's been "nice"? No. Is the corporation going to have better credit because, goshdarnit, it really tried to "help"? No. Are consumers going to change their buying habits because of what the company has done to its workers? Probably not--just look at Nike.

Look, I dig the whole rage against the machine thing you're going for--I've been there myself. "There's morality in the world, goddamnit, there's right and wrong! We can't let the corporations run amok and ruin our nation and communities! This is a democracy! This is America!" you cry.

There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only Facebook and Google and Apple and IBM, Haliburton, GE, Tata Group, Phillip Morris, Alibaba, Mitsubishi. Those are the nations of the world today--or at least as far back as Network!

Is it monstrous? Absolutely. Is it something we should find an alternative to? Certainly. But is it something to which it is useful to apply human morality to? No, and it never will be--you must engage the beast where it lives, on its terms.

[alphapapa]

> What part of "morality doesn't apply to businesses" don't you understand?

What part of "businesses are comprised of and run by human beings" don't you understand? What part of "businesses have legal, ethical, and moral responsibilities to government and society" don't you understand? These are not wishes, these are reality.

> Do you blame a cat for catching a mouse? Do you blame a cruise missile for destroying a target? Do you blame a tornado for eviscerating a house? There are things to which the lens of morality offers very little.

Cats are not human beings, they are animals. They cannot think, speak, or reason.

Cruise missles are not human beings, they are machines.

Tornadoes are hot human beings, they are weather phenomena.

What is wrong with you? Are you just trolling or do you really think like this?

> And we're telling you, we're all telling you, that you cannot evaluate a corporation through such a calculus!

Certainly I can. And I will. And this is nothing new. This is why there are laws regulating corporations in a million ways, from financial regulations to the EPA to the FCC. For example, if morality had no bearing on corporations' actions, there would be no laws against insider trading, or price/wage fixing, monopoly abuse, etc. (And you can cry "ethics, not morality!" all you want, but ethics are ultimately based on morals. The principle of right vs. wrong remains.)

Where do you come up with this idea that corporations can do whatever they want in a mindless pursuit of profit? This is not the case, it never has been, and it continues to become less the case as more and more laws and regulations are enacted.

> There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only Facebook and Google and Apple and IBM, Haliburton, GE, Tata Group, Phillip Morris, Alibaba, Mitsubishi. Those are the nations of the world today--or at least as far back as Network!

Oh please. There is some truth to that idea, but it is not done, as you seem to think.

> Is it monstrous? Absolutely. Is it something we should find an alternative to? Certainly. But is it something to which it is useful to apply human morality to? No, and it never will be--you must engage the beast where it lives, on its terms.

If everyone thought like this, the United States (and many other nations) wouldn't even exist. It's because of those who had the courage to stand up and fight for change that we are having this conversation today.

Your attitude is useless. It is part of the problem. We need principled leadership that stands up for what is right, regardless of the status quo (or the perceived one).

[angersock]

For example, if morality had no bearing on corporations' actions, there would be no laws against insider trading, or price/wage fixing, monopoly abuse, etc

If you look at the history of such regulations, they're typically more about protecting the assets of the rich than they are about helping anyone else. They're still somewhat rampant--just look at Google and Apple cartel behavior re: engineer hiring, or the continual monopoly abuse of Comcast and AT&T.

It's only when the behavior becomes so egregious that it causes trouble for other stakeholders will legislators finally get around to stepping in.

Where do you come up with this idea that corporations can do whatever they want in a mindless pursuit of profit? This is not the case, it never has been, and it continues to become less the case as more and more laws and regulations are enacted.

History. Dutch East India Company, United Fruit Company, Union Carbide, Ford Motor Company, British Petroleum, Blackwater, Walmart, Pinkteron, Standard Oil, Enron, and on and on and on.

The laws and regulations only protect the existing companies--Sarbox has hurt smaller companies and startups more than its protected anyone else.

~

Look, we're on the same side here. You just need to make arguments that don't blindly ignore reality and history. If you want to continue this discussion, hit me up on email with your best rhetoric. Let's quit taking up space on this thread.