Post #28,545
2/15/02 4:34:56 PM
|
Corporations and evil
I'll start this here because it relates to the long political thread about taxes.
Both BePatient and Screamer more or less implied that the concept that big corporations are evil is wrong because they know many people that work at big corporations that are not evil.
Which misses the point entirely. The reall neat thing about big corporations is that they can be and are evil even if none of the people that make up the company are evil.*
You see, when a person goes to work for a company they are setting aside their personal morality and making decisions based on what is best for the company. The company exists only to make money.
The company lawyer that suggest settling a case rather then fighting it out because it will be cheaper is doing something that makes financial sense. But is probably doing something that is bad for the country.
The company lobbyist that donates money to a politican because that politican favors policies that the company desires is doing their job. That their job is mearly a legal and polite form of bribery is irrevelent.
The company executive that closes an unproductive factory is doing exactly what they are hired to do. That the factory closing destroyed a small town somewhere has no bearing.
Companies are amoral and greedy. This is evil, nothing more need be said.
Jay
|
Post #28,546
2/15/02 4:36:28 PM
|
Thanks for cutting through the bull.
With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere.
|
Post #28,658
2/16/02 1:22:19 PM
|
Figures you'd say that.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #28,715
2/17/02 1:45:45 AM
|
Nickel.
With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere.
|
Post #28,667
2/16/02 3:58:57 PM
|
Bull? BULL???? My posts were NOT BULL!!!
|
Post #28,549
2/15/02 5:12:33 PM
|
But does it have to be that way?
Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream is a good example.
Corporations >CAN< be moral and have ethics.
I see it a different way. Corporations allow ALL of their people to be a TINY bit evil and this results in large, "evil" actions.
|
Post #28,557
2/15/02 7:13:44 PM
|
I love those ethics.
Contribute money to a fund to free a convicted cop killer.
Give me Dupont any day.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #28,559
2/15/02 7:30:20 PM
|
Jawohl!
The State is never wrong!
|
Post #28,561
2/15/02 7:32:37 PM
2/15/02 7:36:18 PM
|
You obviously know zero about this case..(added link)
...or you wouldn't even bother.
Most of the people for >the cause< don't have any clue.
Read the transcripts.
Look at the evidence.
Guilty as charged.
[link|http://www.danielfaulkner.com/|Start Here]
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
Edited by bepatient
Feb. 15, 2002, 07:36:18 PM EST
|
Post #28,566
2/15/02 8:18:43 PM
|
Hmmmmm, maybe you're right.
So, why don't we let a jury settle it?
Hmmmmmmm?
Or is it that you're afraid that another trial will find him not guilty?
Your fear makes you weak.
|
Post #28,770
2/17/02 8:23:52 PM
|
A jury did settle it.
They found him guilty 20 years ago.
Do yourself a favor. Read the transcripts.
Even his own brother has never come to his defense. And he was there.
Or are you content to be like Mike. Mike Farrell that is. Support the cause without any clue of the evidence against the man. Gun in hand. Bullet match.
How many different judges have to affirm this? We're at about half a dozen so far.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #28,825
2/18/02 1:52:33 PM
|
I've read the case.
And if you're right, then there's nothing you have to be afraid of.
But you are afraid.
You're afraid that he might be found innocent.
Really, what's the harm in another trial?
Your fear speaks.
|
Post #28,832
2/18/02 2:52:36 PM
|
So...
...we should let everyone convicted of capital murder sit around and wait for 20 years...then give them a brand new trial?
What makes Wesley Cook so deserving of a new trial? Please...give me the reason that every Judge has missed so far that would make him deserving where so many others are not.
5 eyewitnesses saw him cross the street from a parking lot (his cab was there...award winning journalist???..no...cab driver)...raise a weapon, fire, then lean over after the Officer was down and fire another shot into the officer's face. He was identified as the shooter at the scene. The spent casings in the charter arms 38 match the bullets pulled from the dead officer's body.
So please...can you tell me what makes Mr Cook deserving of a new trial?
Don't tell me I'm afraid...give me a reason he should be retried...a reason that both State and Federal Judges seem to have missed. A reason that makes this case special where so many others are not.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #28,861
2/18/02 7:52:52 PM
|
Just giving you enough rope.
So you can hang yourself. Contribute money to a fund to free a convicted cop killer. You see, it wasn't the Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream company that gave ANY money to that cause. Ben Cohen signed a petition supporting another trial for Abu-Jamal. Ben & Jerry's (the company) did not. Once again, you've proven your inability to research a topic. Now is when you tell me to go to recess or some other dismissive and refuse to discuss the issue further. Sux to be you, dude.
|
Post #28,871
2/18/02 9:21:14 PM
|
Answer the question.
Or can't you?
You cited B&J's as a company that operated with morality and ethics.
One of the co-founders signed a petition in support of freeing a convicted cop killer. He then felt compelled to explain himself a tad more completely later...maybe he finally read the court transcripts.
But, I'll grant you that the "company" has denied any involvement...and that Ben acted as a private citizen. So, it is quite possible that Ben & Jerry's Inc. operates morally and ethically and that my beef is only with one of the company's officers.
But that doesn't absolve you.
On what grounds do you grant a new trial?
I'm really interested...considering how many different Judges have looked over this case and not been able to come with a reason.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #28,880
2/18/02 11:27:39 PM
|
You're just hanging yourself higher.
Answer the question.
Or can't you?
You must have missed my point about your "question" being based upon ignorance of the facts. Ha ha! You cited B&J's as a company that operated with morality and ethics. That's close enough. One of the co-founders signed a petition in support of freeing a convicted cop killer. He then felt compelled to explain himself a tad more completely later...maybe he finally read the court transcripts. And you >STILL< have a problem understanding that he did not state that was official company policy. Oh, allow me to QUOTE YOUR ORIGINAL ALLEGATION BACK IN YOUR FACE!!! Contribute money to a fund to free a convicted cop killer. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!! Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream Company DID NOT DO THAT!!! Ben Cohen signed a petition. Ben Cohen != Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream Company. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!! Go ahead! Hang yourself again! Take some more rope! But, I'll grant you that the "company" has denied any involvement... Oooooohhhhhhh! So, do you have ANY evidence that the COMPANY had an offical statement supporting that petition? No. I didn't think you did. Do you have any evidence showing that the COMPANY contributed money to that cause LIKE YOU HAD ORIGINALLY CLAIMED!!!!! No. I didn't think you did. But >NOW< you're going to weasel and twist and (what the definition of "is" is....) so you won't look like the IDIOT you are. Too bad, soo sad. You're an idiot that's that. and that Ben acted as a private citizen. And, given that I was discussing CORPORATIONS, what the fuck are you trying to prove by pointing to someone doing something on his own time? Hmmmmm? So, it is quite possible that Ben & Jerry's Inc. operates morally and ethically and that my beef is only with one of the company's officers. Great. Whatever-the-fuck! I'm happy you like beef with Mr. Cohen. You >DO< realize that this has NOTHING to do with my original statement, right? But that doesn't absolve you. Of what? I'm sorry, Mr. Bill Patient (GOD!). I wasn't aware that I had committed a sin. Could you tell me what sin it was??? On what grounds do you grant a new trial? At which point we discover that Bill really IS an idiot. You don't get it, STILL!!! Your ORIGINAL point was FUCKED UP! It was INCORRECT!!! You were WRONG!!! I was giving you space so you could make a total FOOL of yourself. Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream Company NEVER GAVE MONEY TO THAT CAUSE!!! You didn't do the most basic research before shooting your idiot mouth off AGAIN!!! I'm really interested...considering how many different Judges have looked over this case and not been able to come with a reason.
Bill? Are you listening? HE'S FUCKING GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!! HE KILLED THAT COP!!!!!! I was giving you a trail to follow BECAUSE YOU ALWAYS WEASEL ABOUT WHAT YOU'VE SAID. So, I give you something that is obviously false and you'll admit that your previous statement was wrong SO YOU CAN PURSUE THE OBVIOUSLY FALSE ONE. You're so pathetically easy to manipulate. Remember your regressive == progressive tax stupidity? Go ahead and run now. Yes, I do realize that, this time, my post is juvinile and snotty. And it was intended as such. Allow me to remind you that you were wrong and Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream Company did NOT contribute money to freeing a convicted cop killer. You were wrong. And the only way to get you to admit that was to let you believe you were trapping me on some tanget issue. And do NOT try to claim that you'd have admitted you were wrong if I had pointed it out. In the other thread I quoted you and you still wouldn't admit it.
|
Post #28,899
2/19/02 9:39:57 AM
|
Childish little prick
Jawohl!
The State is never wrong!
Hmmmmm, maybe you're right.
So, why don't we let a jury settle it?
Hmmmmmmm?
Or is it that you're afraid that another trial will find him not guilty?
Your fear makes you weak.
I've read the case.
And if you're right, then there's nothing you have to be afraid of.
But you are afraid.
You're afraid that he might be found innocent.
Really, what's the harm in another trial?
Your fear speaks. There. The entire contents of your three responses to Bill before revealing that you were just "giving him enough rope." And, not so incidentally, your entire contribution to this thread to that point. Where in there does it say anything about the company not being responsible for the actions of what of its officers. I'll answer for you. Nowhere. Here, I'll quote you again, since you seem to think that's meaningful. Jawohl!
The State is never wrong!
Hmmmmm, maybe you're right.
So, why don't we let a jury settle it?
Hmmmmmmm?
Or is it that you're afraid that another trial will find him not guilty?
Your fear makes you weak.
I've read the case.
And if you're right, then there's nothing you have to be afraid of.
But you are afraid.
You're afraid that he might be found innocent.
Really, what's the harm in another trial?
Your fear speaks. See? Still nothing about your supposed "real point." Three posts in a row insisting that your "point" had something to do with the case Bill mentioned. Nothing at all about your other point. Did you change topics in the middle of the discussion? Oh no, not you! You were merely "giving him enough rope" so that you could say, "HA HA HA, that's not really what I was talking about!" So much for your right to ever criticize anyone for changing topics mid-stream. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html|Thomas Friedman]
|
Post #28,901
2/19/02 9:41:45 AM
|
how do you know he's little ? ]:->
"I'm selling a hammer," he says. "They can beat nails with it, or their dog."
Richard Eaton spy software innovator
|
Post #28,939
2/19/02 1:16:09 PM
|
You can quote, but you lack understanding.
Duh! Did you not read my last posts? Did you not SEE where I said that the posts you quoted we intended to manipulate Bill? Yet you think they have some value other than that? Let me clarify this for you. They don't. Did you miss that? Let me say it again. They don't have any value OTHER than manipulating Bill. I posted them to manipulate Bill into admitting he was WRONG on his INITIAL statement. Where in there does it say anything about the company not being responsible for the actions of what of its officers. Hello? *knock* *knock*! Any one home, Drew? Tell you what. Let me quote MYSELF to you: I was giving you a trail to follow BECAUSE YOU ALWAYS WEASEL ABOUT WHAT YOU'VE SAID. There. Do you remember that? I know it might be hard for you. It was so long ago (in the post you replied to). Now, do you want to know WHY I did that? I don't think you do, but I'll tell you anyway. [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=28120|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=28120] Look at that exchange. See how I directly quoted Bill's words back to him showing the contradiction in plain english and he still denied it. So, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, (you do understand what "comprehension" is, don't you), I was giving Bill the tangent he wanted that was obviously WRONG(do I have to state that AGAIN? You CAN read, right?) so he could, comfortably, admit that he was wrong. That's ALL that those postings were. Can I make this any PLAINER to you? Well, I know I can't. I remember that you're also one who likes to get lost in tangents instead of addressing the original statement. So sad for you. But you have Bill for company. Allow me to summarize the discussion. I said that B&J are an example of how a company can be operated with ethics. Bill said that B&J's "ethics" allowed them to contribute money to free a cop killer. *****THIS STATEMENT BY BILL IS INCORRECT***** Now, let's look at Bill's past with regards to obviously incorrect statements he makes: [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=28120|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=28120] So, I feed Bill a line I know (from past experience) he'll fall for. The exchange goes until I have him hooked. Then I point out that his original statement was incorrect. He admits it (A FUCKING FIRST!!!!!!) but wants to pursue the incorrect statements I made. Drew, THAT'S WHY I MADE THOSE STATEMENTS. Deal with it. You don't like to see Bill manipulated into admitting he's wrong. That's very commendable of you.
|
Post #28,941
2/19/02 1:35:34 PM
|
You don't need to be manipulated
You prove on your own that you can be a raving asshole without the common decency to hold a civil discussion. So I won't try.
We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html|Thomas Friedman]
|
Post #28,943
2/19/02 2:00:23 PM
|
Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.
Hate me because I'm better than you.
You don't like my public demonstration of the techiques for manipulating the small minded?
Deal with it.
Bill is not interested in holding a civil discussion with me. Support for that statement can be found in the url I referenced in my preceeding post.
Review it.
Learn from it.
And try to work on your comprehension skills.
|
Post #28,949
2/19/02 2:32:38 PM
|
Oh, no wonder you're so upset
I finally read that link you pointed me to. Looks to me like Bill refused to accept your requirement of stating a binary position. When he insists on a nuanced position you accuse him of weasling. When he acceptsyour proposed binary deinition for the sake of argument, you accuse him of a binary worldview and shoot down your own straw man.
You: "I just want to see you say that a sales tax is non-regressive."
Bill: "By itself, a sales tax, even one that exempts clothing and food, >is< regressive.
However, I did not say that sales tax alone should be used, did I?"
See? He uses your definition for the sake of argument, then points out that it was, in fact, your argument, not his.
We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html|Thomas Friedman]
|
Post #28,953
2/19/02 2:56:20 PM
|
Let's go over that again.
So, he admits that a sales tax is regressive.
Then he wants to combine a REGRESSIVE tax with a FLAT tax and have the RESULT be a PROGRESSIVE tax.
Would >YOU< care to explain how that is possible?
A regressive tax PLUS a flat tax == a progressive tax.
Feel free to explain this. He couldn't. Then he ran away.
|
Post #28,958
2/19/02 3:19:37 PM
|
Don't bother DK...
He apparently has a bug up his ass about me.
It must be love.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #28,959
2/19/02 3:20:01 PM
|
Don't bother DK...
He apparently has a bug up his ass about me.
It must be love.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #28,907
2/19/02 9:59:23 AM
|
Yeah...sure...
Bail.
Since it was >Ben< of >Ben< & Jerry...I'd say its safe to say that >his< morality and ethics are present in the company.
You say the company can be separated from the people that run it. Considering that runs counter to EVERY FUCKING POST I'VE MADE HERE...we'll let you have your fun.
Corporations are no more moral nor ethical than the people who run them. That has been and will continue to be my point. And since that is what I think...then the actions of a founder and officer of the company certainly have bearing on what I think of that company. Official statements notwithstanding.
And since you can't seem to back the assertions you made in every post subsequent to the initial B&J post...well...its alright to be afraid. Especially when you're wrong.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #28,940
2/19/02 1:29:06 PM
|
*SCORE*
Since it was >Ben< of >Ben< & Jerry...I'd say its safe to say that >his< morality and ethics are present in the company. And that is >EXACTLY< the way you weasel on these things. No, Ben Cohen is also a PRIVATE citizen. You're stupid BINARY mind can't handle this. If Ben has an opinion, it MUST be the opinion of his company (what about Jerry's opinion)?
|
Post #28,942
2/19/02 1:59:52 PM
|
Somebody needs to lighten up and get laid.
You are much too tense.
With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere.
|
Post #28,955
2/19/02 2:59:06 PM
|
Whatever.
My binary mind? I've been very consistent in this point. A corporation is no more good or evil than the people that run it.
So, you moron, there really is no difference to me between the statement of >Ben< of Ben&Jerry's...and Ben&Jerry's. I don't support the actions of a company founder. Thus, I don't support the company. Very simple POV. Sorry you don't understand.
In addition, the signature of Ben Cohen, the man, was conveniently explained on the petition....Ben Cohen of Ben&Jerry's Ice Cream.
So if it was Ben Cohen >the man<...why did he add "of Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream"?
But thats ok. You made 3 completely unrelated statements that you cannot answer for. So now you invent this scheme. Its ok. Really. You can be wrong.
Even with the "game" you were wrong...because if you would have taken any time to bother reading my posts about corporate behavior, you would have known my position already.
Hope you had fun.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #28,960
2/19/02 3:24:09 PM
|
Weasel weasel weasel....
A corporation is no more good or evil than the people that run it. Since a corporation doesn't really exist, how could it more evil than the people in it? BUT! A corporation allows the small amounts of "evil" to be consolidated in large amouts of "evil" (or "good" for that matter). So, you moron, there really is no difference to me between the statement of >Ben< of Ben&Jerry's...and Ben&Jerry's. I understand that. And that is where YOU are WRONG. But, as always, you have a problem admitting that. Allow me to illustrate this more fully. Did B&J give money to free him? No. Did B&J provide any support for his cause? No. Did B&J do ANYTHING AT ALL to IN ANY WAY help this guy? No. So, no matter what Ben Cohen did AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, B&J did nothing. And that is where your binary logic breaks down. Ben Cohen did something. Therefore, B&J has those ethics. But there is no tangible proof OF ANY SORT that B&J, in ANY WAY supports that cause. But that doesn't matter to YOU. Because Ben is the "B" in "B&J", that means that "B&J" as the same ethics as Ben. And this makes sense to you. I don't support the actions of a company founder. Thus, I don't support the company. Very simple POV. Yep. Very simple. Very binary. Just as I've been saying. Sorry you don't understand. And I keep telling you that I do understand. You're operating in binary mode, again. It's very simple to see. But you can't accept that you were incorrect about B&J contributing money to that cause. That's your problem, Bill. One of many. As for those other statements that I can't answer for........................ Do you know what the "fishing" is? How about "fly fishing"? The "fly" is NOT a real fly. It is NOT something that is good for the fish. It is a "lure". It is "fake". It is used to "hook" the fish. Those posts were "lures" and you were the "fish". I don't have to answer to the fish because I'm using a "fly" that isn't as yummy in reality as it looked before you swallowed it. I just hook the fish and cook it. You've been lured, hooked, filleted and cooked.
|
Post #29,000
2/19/02 8:57:51 PM
|
The officers of Enron thank you for your support!
Enron, the company, never gave any politician any money. Civic-minded officers and PACs did that.
Alex
"Of course, you realize this means war." -B. Bunny
|
Post #29,055
2/20/02 11:28:56 AM
|
Why oh why oh why.
You'd be correct.
>IF< none of the money was from Enron's budgets. Only from the paychecks of the individuals involved.
Now, a trivia question. What other systems/agencies utilize a system similar to this?
|
Post #29,152
2/21/02 12:17:14 AM
|
Re: Why oh why oh why.
Companies expect their upper management to be "civic-minded" and use some of their wealth in "positive" ways. That's one reason they are paid so well. The pay comes with "responsibilities".
To some degree it happens to all employees. Ever see the gentle coercion in a United Way campaign at a large firm? I can imagine what goes on in corporate management meetings.
On the trivia question: State employees, for one, are often "encouraged" to support the re-election of their agency head or else the person who appointed him/her.
Alex
"Of course, you realize this means war." -B. Bunny
|
Post #29,014
2/19/02 11:45:22 PM
|
I'm so happy for you.
You apparently are enjoying yourself.
Good.
I'm not surprised you cannot understand my POV. Applying your binary style to it doesn't work.
Ben supports a position that I do not. Ben will manage the company according to his beliefs. Thus the company will be managed in a way contrary to my beliefs.
It doesn't matter to me which "entity" is credited for the behavior. I see no difference...because the corporation itself is NOTHING without the people who run it. Just a legal document in a file cabinet in Delaware or some other state.
Sorry that concept seems to be beyond your ability to comprehend.
As for your "fly" argument. Suit yourself. The folks here can make their own decisions about the validity of this claim.
It sure looks to me like a cop out.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #29,051
2/20/02 11:18:45 AM
|
Hey, I'm not the one with the problem.
You're the one who has to be manipulated into admitting that an OBVIOUSLY incorrect statement you made is incorrect. Then you weasel around it by claiming that the "ethics" of ONE of the people in the company are the "ethics" of that company. Even when I've shown you that B&J did NOT give money to or any support to them. And you accuse ME of being "binary"? Sorry, but YOU are the one who cannot see Ben's company and Ben's personal life as two distinctly different items. But, once again, you'll never admit that you're wrong. Even though you can't show that B&J's ever gave money to them (as you originally claimed). Nor did they give any other support to them. But none of that matters to you 'cause you KNOW you're right and ONE signature by ONE person in that company (acting as a private citizen) is the "ethics" of that company. Live your life whatever way you want to. Those of us without your binary limitations can see that such is not the case. Of course, you will also claim that I have that binary limitation (doesn't "binary" mean "two states" or something?) even when I can see B&J as a company distinct from Ben and distinct from Jerry (wow. I see three states, Ben, Jerry and Ben & Jerry's). You see two states. Ben's ethics == Ben & Jerry's ethics. What about Jerry? Oh, your binary mind can't handle a third state so you can't even consider him. It doesn't matter to me which "entity" is credited for the behavior. I see no difference... Exactly. You operate in a purely binary mode. You CAN'T see any difference. This is a psychological limitation on your part. You can't see that there's a Jerry in Ben & Jerry's. You can't see that there is a COMPANY that is NOT Ben. All you see is Ben and Not-Ben. Like I said, binary. Sorry that concept seems to be beyond your ability to comprehend. Ummm, I seem to be the one telling >YOU< that the company is distinct from Ben. You seem to be the one who is unable to comprehend that. Like I said, you originally claimed that B&J's gave money to that cause. That is easily shown to be incorrect. Now you weasel about how Ben's ethics are B&J's ethics. Completely disregarding Jerry's (the "J" in B&J's) ethics not to mention the ethics of every other person in that company. Again, because your binary mind can only see Ben and not-Ben. There is no partial-Ben or Ben's-company-he-started-with-Jerry. As for your "fly" argument. Suit yourself. The folks here can make their own decisions about the validity of this claim. I hope they do. Otherwise, they're mindless sheep. For reference, look at how this thread is right-shifting compared to the other. You're still weaseling on whether you were right or not in this thread while you've admitted you were wrong in the other thread. Hey, if you don't like being a small-minded, easily manipulated idiot, then do something about it. Why don't you start with the realization that YOU CAN BE WRONG! And that you can ADMIT it. That's what makes you so easy to toy with. You cannot admit that you were wrong. Instead you have to abuse semantics to get to a position that you can blame on me. Sorry, dude. You were wrong. B&J did NOT give money to "free" any "cop killer". That is a fact. You were wrong. Now you're arguing over whether B&J's "ethics" are the same as someone who signed a petition in support of another trial for a convicted cop killer. Why? Ethics are NOTHING without actions. And there have been NO actions from B&J in support of him. But that does NOT MATTER TO >YOU<! Because you HAVE TO BE RIGHT! Whatever. You'll eventually right-shift this to the point where you will accuse me of being immature and then you'll run away again. And you will not have learned anything. I'll lure you again. And again. And again.
|
Post #29,056
2/20/02 11:29:22 AM
|
say what?
legally B&J is distinct from Ben and Gerry individuals.
Why are corporations formed?
to protect individuals from personal liability.
B&J protects Ben and Gerry from actions taken by B&J the company=Ben and Gerry the individual shield B&J the company from personal liability.
One of the individual's likes cop killers!=B&J likes cop killers
B&J as an artificially created legal entity cannot like or dislike anything, it is amoral.
Ben and Gerry (whichever one contributed) is immoral (for sake of argument)
the company being amoral is being run by immoral
amoral(neutral(0))+immoral=?
punt
thanx,
bill
"I'm selling a hammer," he says. "They can beat nails with it, or their dog."
Richard Eaton spy software innovator
|
Post #29,063
2/20/02 11:51:11 AM
|
Um, okay. "What".
Practially complete agreement right up to the end.... amoral(neutral(0))+immoral=? As this assumes only one person has influence in that company and is completely immoral. Which brings us back to my earlier statement that a corporation allows lots of people to do a little "evil" (or "good") and results in the corporation doing a LOT of "evil" (or "good"). In other words: amoral(neutral(0))+((total "evil" actions by employees)+(total "good" actions by employees))=? Corrections?
|
Post #29,065
2/20/02 11:53:33 AM
|
thats fine
"I'm selling a hammer," he says. "They can beat nails with it, or their dog."
Richard Eaton spy software innovator
|
Post #29,059
2/20/02 11:46:46 AM
2/20/02 11:47:52 AM
|
Are you even trying anymore?
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=29051|Your words] You're still weaseling on whether you were right or not in this thread while you've admitted you were wrong in the other thread.
Hey, if you don't like being a small-minded, easily manipulated idiot, then do something about it. Why don't you start with the realization that YOU CAN BE WRONG! And that you can ADMIT it. That's what makes you so easy to toy with. You cannot admit that you were wrong. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html|Thomas Friedman]
Edited by drewk
Feb. 20, 2002, 11:47:52 AM EST
|
Post #29,070
2/20/02 12:12:50 PM
|
Clarification.
As I stated in an earlier post, Bill will admit he's wrong on one point, if he thinks he can get me on another point.
Which was why I was feeding him the lure about a re-trial.
Once I told him that was a lure, he switched back to his standard abuse of semantics to show that he was "right" when he said that B&J's ethics support a cop killer (through monetary donations).
To rephrase, Bill can only admit he's "wrong" if he can show that I am "more wrong".
If he cannot show that I am "more wrong", then he will abuse semantics to show that he is "right".
Again, Bill admitted he was wrong in the other thread (when he thought he could catch me on something else) but denies he is wrong in this thread (where he cannot catch me on something else).
Similar to the tax thing. Sales taxes are regressive but sales taxes are progressive (accourding to Bill). Do you care to address that, yet?
|
Post #29,170
2/21/02 8:21:58 AM
|
Sure...
...but, you know, the first step to recovery is recognition.
Your lack of understanding of my position is not my problem.
The "other" situation is also your problem. Because you are using terminology over intention. Its the same tactic you have used in many debates here. Use charged language make the discussion into more than it is. Then claim "victory" because the point has grown beyond the first post.
Also not my problem.
You call my thought process binary...yet you continue to try and force my position into "Its either A or B".
So, you see, we're back to the first line in my post.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #28,560
2/15/02 7:31:04 PM
|
B & J are eeeeevil!
Have you ever looked at the fat content on their ice cream? Their New York Super Fudge Chunk is probably going to send me to an early grave. And it tastes so good I can't quit. I'm addicted. I'm just a working stiff that's being exploited.
But then again, I work for one of those evil corps. so if B & J can knock me off they're probably doing the world a favor.
However, if I'm not around, I can't spend my evil corp. paycheck on their ice cream. That would be bad too. The world is so complicated...
Ray
|
Post #28,666
2/16/02 3:51:47 PM
|
Ben and Jerry's is GONE.
|
Post #28,555
2/15/02 6:47:36 PM
2/15/02 7:24:06 PM
|
Mom & Pop shops too?
So, the mega-multi-national companies of the world are evil...
So are small mom and pop shops evil too for wanting to make a buck?
How about companies with a couple hundred employees?
How about a few thousand employees?
Apparently I'm doing the devil's work and exploiting the working class for my company so I can put food on the table. Selfish me. I'm such a hypocrit for putting a percentage of my take home pay into the offering plate on Sundays.
The saintly thing to do would be to quit and go on welfare....
Ray
Edited by rsf
Feb. 15, 2002, 07:24:06 PM EST
|
Post #28,556
2/15/02 7:12:53 PM
|
Thank you for that. One point down.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #28,587
2/15/02 11:49:09 PM
|
That depends
Every action and situation must be judged for itself. Making a living is not evil, intentionally hurting others to make your life better is.
A store owner that sells drinks is not evil.
But if the store owner jacks up the price during a heat wave he is getting greedy.
And if he intentionally limits supply so he can jack the price up even further then he's stepped over the line.
And if he refuses to give water to somebody collapsed from dehydration inside his store then he's out and out black hearted.
But a corporation would never consider it that way to begin with. Rather a group of managers would sit around a table with charts of statistics to figure out the number at which the corporation would make the largest profit.
Apparently I'm doing the devil's work and exploiting the working class for my company so I can put food on the table. Selfish me. I'm such a hypocrit for putting a percentage of my take home pay into the offering plate on Sundays.
You didn't read what I said clearly enough. Did you see the part where I said that a company can be evil even if none of it's employees are?
The corporate employees that are just doing their jobs are not necissarily evil. As a matter of fact they are not in general evil, the out right evil people make up a very small percentage of the population.
But that doesn't stop the consequences of those employees actions from being evil. The people that work for tabbaco companies are largely not evil, but the tabbaco companies themselves certainly are. Most of the people that work for Microsoft are not evil, but the companies products are. Most of Enron's employees where not bad people, but in doing their job they helped Enron damage the industry.
Jay
|
Post #28,558
2/15/02 7:15:52 PM
|
So...
...by your logic...any >for profit< enterprise is evil, regardless.
The pizza shop down the corner charges $9 for $1 worth of ingredients. Not making enough money so he fires the deliveryman.
That makes him evil.
I love this logic.
How about the company that closes a factory in that small town? Was that its only factory? Or maybe it has factories in 20 other small towns. Should it keep running the unprofitable facilities, go bankrupt and kill the other 20 towns too?
Sorry. Can't follow you down this path.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #28,570
2/15/02 8:39:09 PM
|
Just more sympathetic magic
imbuing the inanimate with attributes that, in reality, can only apply to people.
Guns are evil, right? Four pounds of star manure that's been pounded into an odd shape. Pure evil.
SUVs are evil, right? Three or four thousand pounds of star manure pounded into an odd shape. Pure, unmitigated evil.
Corporations are evil, sure. A theoretical entity whose primarily and most desirable characteristic is nonexistence, called into being by an act of Government. True evil.
.....
The nice thing about this sort of squishy thinking is that it provides an excuse to shove weapons in people's faces, for their own good. Git outta that Lexus, Bubba, afore hit kerrupts y'all entire...
The other wonderful thing is that it allows excuses, along with the nonsense notion that "all people are nice, after all". That way you don't need to ::shudder:: punish anyone. Blame the demons.
Works for me.
Regards,
Ric
|
Post #28,580
2/15/02 11:22:20 PM
|
Your making my point for me
Your making my point for me, and yet missing it entirly.
Corporations are not evil because they have some magical trait that makes them evil. A gun is not in and of itself evil. A gun is a tool, it is only the person that pulls the trigger that can be good or evil.
Corporations are evil when they act in an evil manner. And unlike the various things you mentions, corporations can take actions on their own. This is what gives them the capacity to be good or evil in and of themselves.
But corporations are also by design totally amoral and dedicated only to making money.
If you encountered any person that was such, you would correctly consider them evil. How can it be different for a corporation? Just because the blame can not be pinned on one person does not make the action any less evil.
Jay
|
Post #28,589
2/15/02 11:58:54 PM
|
Evil is as evil does
Forrest Gump couldn't make it any simplier.
If a Corporation does something that causes suffering, then it can be labeled as Evil. If it continues to do things that cause suffering and misery, and does nothing to correct these things and the management knows about it, then it is true evil. Some people and corps make mistakes, but as long as they are willing to correct those mistakes or take steps to not make them again, they can be forgiven. If they refuse to correct the mistakes or take care not to make those mistakes over again, and only care about profit, then they are true evil and the world would be better off without them. If a corp reforms and becomes better, then it is not true evil, and had made some mistakes.
If I was a truely evil person, I would have taken a machine gun to my former employer about two years ago, kill everyone, then jump out of a 35 story window to my death afterwords. Why? Because of all the evil things they have done to my coworkers, ex-coworkers, to me, my family, and their clients, and the consumers and corps they have harmed by continuing to do their evil works. Evil would then kill evil, and beg forgiveness from God before the big splat on the ground. I chose not to do evil, and instead try to do good things instead and hope that the corp reforms and becomes better. I turned the other cheek at least a million times. But I ask you, what do I do after turning the other cheek so many times? Right now I am trying to get my life back togeather and recover, and try to work at another job even if it is low paying and barely enough to pay my house bill.
If I kill myself, my friends and family suffers, if I allow myself to live then I suffer and I make mistakes that makes others suffer. Am I evil, or just sick in the head? I estimate that over half of our country is evil in some form, and the rest just make big mistakes that cause evil and suffering.
"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
|
Post #28,595
2/16/02 12:11:46 AM
|
I wouldn't have said it quite that way
But you did make the case.
Where each demon is slain, more hate is raised, yet hate unchecked also multiplies. - L. E. Modesitt, from his Recluse series
|
Post #28,677
2/16/02 6:52:29 PM
|
Re: Evil is as evil does
> Forrest Gump couldn't make it any simplier.
>
> If a Corporation does something that causes suffering, then it can be labeled as Evil.
Faugh. Another person who can _not_ understand that the map is not the territory, because all his emotional capital is tied up in the reverse assertion.
A corporation is a synthetic, fiat entity. It exists because some government, somewhere, has declared it so. Its single most valuable attribute, from the point of view of the people who establish and use it, is its nonexistence. There is nothing there. It has a name, but the name is not the corporation. It has a charter; the charter establishes that the corporation exists, but it is not the corporation. It owns things, but the things it owns are not the corporation. It is a void, a vacuum without even vacuum energy, a nothingness, a convenient accounting trick, a name we give to a particular sort of organization people can participate in, like "democracy" or "club".
A corporation cannot "act" in any way, for good, evil, or snerg. It's as sensible to say that wistfulness could act, or idleness, or some other existential condition. People who are wistful can act; people who are idle can act, though they're more likely to be inactive (which is itself an action). The people who establish, populate, and use a corporation can act; they can even act "in the name of" the corporation, but the corporation itself cannot act, any more than beauty or patriotism themselves can act. There's nothing there to perform the act.
When you say a corporation is evil, you are excusing evil -- evil done by the people who establish, populate, and/or use the corporation. You are allowing an abstract notion to serve as a shield behind which evil can flourish, and trying to impress people with your righteous actions against evil. In my experience, people who do that do it either from stone ignorance, or (more likely) from a combination of cupidity and left-liberal fuzzymindedness. Cupidity, because the corporation has something you want, probably money; fuggheadedness, because you want to be able to be all warm and fuzzy about how people are the same everywhere and basically good.
The result is that evil does, indeed, flourish.
Congratulations.
Regards,
Ric
|
Post #28,688
2/16/02 8:42:53 PM
|
Then it is the evil managers
and evil employees of the Corp that do the evil. Happy now? Got a Corp full of Vincent McMahons, Charlie Mansons, Ike Turners, Mike Tysons, and Wanna be Satans committing all the evil that is related to the Corp.
Can I sue the Corp, the evil people who work for the Corp, or both?
"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
|
Post #28,711
2/17/02 1:05:26 AM
|
Trying to set some basis
I suspect that the only major disagreement we have here is a difference of opinion on how the word "evil" is to be used.
You seem to be holding to the posistion that only self aware entities are capable of being good/evil. I however apply the word more broadly, using it in connection with processes, events and in rare cases even objects.
Thus I would describe Nazi party in Germany as being evil without having to make reference to the specific people that made it up. I might go so far as to refer to Facism itself as being evil.
But I get the impression that you would not, since you reserve the word evil to people.
Am I making sense here?
Jay
|
Post #28,772
2/17/02 9:17:31 PM
|
Relativism
The Nazi Party was composed of individuals, many of whom were evil. The Party itself... is a nonentity, a label. Nazis did evil; the Nazi Party formed a framework, just as XYZ Inc. forms a framework for, yes, evil deeds.
Fascism is a political philosophy. I'm divided in my own mind as to whether to call it "evil" or not; if followed, the ideology of Fascism certainly results in evil.
And yes, I consider it not merely incorrect, but itself evil to ascribe evil to other than a thinking being, a "person". The "personhood" of a corporation is a legal fiction, not a reality. Assigning evil to the gun rather than the wielder, the corporation rather than the executives, or the party rather than its members, excuses the wielder, the exec, and the members -- and if you excuse it, you participate in it.
Hypothetical example, which somebody may be able to find a concrete version of: the X Corporation, in obedience with the new ordnances, forbids smoking in the workplace. The smokers among the workers evade the new regime by sneaking out the fire exits to grab a smoke. The managers of the plant, concerned by the resulting decrease in productivity, order the security section to chain the fire exits shut. There is a fire in the plant, and several workers die because the fire exits couldn't be used.
What's going to happen?
Well, the X Corporation is obviously gonna get sued, right? And they'll lose, because X Corporation is obviously "guilty". So the widows, widowers, and orphans of the dead workers get a nice piece of change.
But who's really guilty? The _actor_ who caused the deaths is the security guard who physically chained the doors shut; and, under any reasonable definition of the terms, the exec who ordered that action is accessory before the fact and probably a conspirator, in other words just as guilty as the guard is; to my mind, more so, since he effectively extorts misbehavior from the guard by threat of dismissal if the doors aren't chained toot-sweet.
Under the existing system, the investors and stockholders of X Corporation -- many, if not most, of whom knew nothing of the action and would not have condoned it if they did -- get a substantial portion of their wealth taken away, to pay the WWO and their lawyers. The security guard who obeyed orders gets fired. And the executive who gave the order gets a bonus for constructive contributions to the legal effort, and goes home happy.
In other words: Hammer the uninvolved, punish the hapless, and let the real author of all those deaths go free with a fat check to console his conscience. If you want evil, as far as I'm concerned that's it.
Regards,
Ric
|
Post #28,785
2/18/02 1:23:24 AM
|
Re: Relativism
> And yes, I consider it not merely incorrect, but itself evil to ascribe evil to other than a thinking being, a "person". The "personhood" of a corporation is a legal fiction, not a reality. Assigning evil to the gun rather than the wielder, the corporation rather than the executives, or the party rather than its members, excuses the wielder, the exec, and the members -- and if you excuse it, you participate in it.
I am not labeling corporations evil to excuse the actions of individuals. Rather, what I am talking about is the capacity for corporations to inflict harm even when the actions of none of the employees could be considered evil themselves.
To put together an example, lets say company Z sets up a factory in some third world country. They want to minimize the number of factories they have, so they have built a very large one. The size of the factory is such that they have to offer higher wages to attact employees, but also means that they are by far the single largest employeer in the country.
Several years later they decide to move on to another country that has a larger unemployeed population, so they can hire more people at a lower wage.
This causes the economy of of the first country to collapse, destroying the lives of thousands.
The question is, who, if anybody, could be considered evil here? The managers of company Z can not really be blaimed for minimizing company expenses, nor can the citizens of country be blaimed for taking the highest paying job. The government of that country does carry some fault for letting all their eggs in one basket, but they can't be said to have to much.
This is the sort of evil I am ascribing to the company as a whole, evil that can not be reasonably ascribed to any individual.
However, the above does not excuse intentional acts of malice or corruption. If some manager at company Z bribes a local offical to shut down compeating factories to free up employees at a lower rate that is direct evil by that manager and anybody at the company that knew of it.
> Hypothetical example, which somebody may be able to find a concrete version of: the X Corporation, in obedience with the new ordnances, forbids smoking in the workplace. The smokers among the workers evade the new regime by sneaking out the fire exits to grab a smoke. The managers of the plant, concerned by the resulting decrease in productivity, order the security section to chain the fire exits shut. There is a fire in the plant, and several workers die because the fire exits couldn't be used.
>
> What's going to happen?
>
> Well, the X Corporation is obviously gonna get sued, right? And they'll lose, because X Corporation is obviously "guilty". So the widows, widowers, and orphans of the dead workers get a nice piece of change.
>
> But who's really guilty? The _actor_ who caused the deaths is the security guard who physically chained the doors shut; and, under any reasonable definition of the terms, the exec who ordered that action is accessory before the fact and probably a conspirator, in other words just as guilty as the guard is; to my mind, more so, since he effectively extorts misbehavior from the guard by threat of dismissal if the doors aren't chained toot-sweet.
>
> Under the existing system, the investors and stockholders of X Corporation -- many, if not most, of whom knew nothing of the action and would not have condoned it if they did -- get a substantial portion of their wealth taken away, to pay the WWO and their lawyers. The security guard who obeyed orders gets fired. And the executive who gave the order gets a bonus for constructive contributions to the legal effort, and goes home happy.
>
> In other words: Hammer the uninvolved, punish the hapless, and let the real author of all those deaths go free with a fat check to console his conscience. If you want evil, as far as I'm concerned that's it.
That the manager in this case gets off without punishment is wrong, I would agree with that. But I would not hold the investors and shareholders blameless in a situation like this. They knew (or should have) what sort of company they where investing in. As the owners of the company they have responsibility to see that the people under them are not breaking the law.
As a matter of fact, I believe that much of the problem with the current situation is that investors and shareholders do not share sufficent blame in these cases. Because they can not lose more then their original investment, they are encourged to invest their money in the company promising the highest return, even if the company is obviously shady or questionable, they pick managers based on who seems to promise the greatest cash flow, not which will keep the company out of court.
On a side note, is it just me or is the style used by the Quote button clumsy? It makes it hard to tell what is a quote and what is not.
Jay
|
Post #28,827
2/18/02 2:05:31 PM
|
Interesting.
So, it's "evil" when the employees die.
But................
What if there wasn't a fire? What if no one died.
Was the action still "evil"?
Does "evil" only apply to the consequences of an act?
A gun is not "evil".
Ever read "Deadeye Dick"? A boy shoots a rifle into the air. The bullet kills a person. Is he "evil"?
Relativism: Not that everything is equal. But that "good" and "evil" are viewpoints. And these viewpoints change.
|
Post #28,593
2/16/02 12:06:33 AM
|
Evil is as evil does
Forrest Gump couldn't make it any simplier.
If a Corporation does something that causes suffering, then it can be labeled as Evil. If it continues to do things that cause suffering and misery, and does nothing to correct these things and the management knows about it, then it is true evil. Some people and corps make mistakes, but as long as they are willing to correct those mistakes or take steps to not make them again, they can be forgiven. If they refuse to correct the mistakes or take care not to make those mistakes over again, and only care about profit, then they are true evil and the world would be better off without them. If a corp reforms and becomes better, then it is not true evil, and had made some mistakes.
If I was a truely evil person, I would have taken a machine gun to my former employer about two years ago, kill everyone, then jump out of a 35 story window to my death afterwords. Why? Because of all the evil things they have done to my coworkers, ex-coworkers, to me, my family, and their clients, and the consumers and corps they have harmed by continuing to do their evil works. Evil would then kill evil, and beg forgiveness from God before the big splat on the ground. I chose not to do evil, and instead try to do good things instead and hope that the corp reforms and becomes better. I turned the other cheek at least a million times. But I ask you, what do I do after turning the other cheek so many times? Right now I am trying to get my life back togeather and recover, and try to work at another job even if it is low paying and barely enough to pay my house bill.
If I kill myself, my friends and family suffers, if I allow myself to live then I suffer and I make mistakes that makes others suffer. Am I evil, or just sick in the head? I estimate that over half of our country is evil in some form, and the rest just make big mistakes that cause evil and suffering.
"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
|
Post #28,657
2/16/02 1:20:04 PM
|
What acts in an evil manner?
Corporations don't do squat unless the people involved in them do it. A "corporation" with no officers, employees or shareholders isn't going to much of anything, good or evil. It won't do anything at all except sit in some filing cabinet in a registrar's office.
If a corproation is "doing" anything, it's because the people invilved in it are doing something. People are real. People do things. Don't distract from this fundamental truth.
P.S. Naturally, I find the concept of limited liability morally questionable.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #28,581
2/15/02 11:22:26 PM
|
Re: So...
..by your logic...any >for profit< enterprise is evil, regardless.
Nice way to setup your straw man there.
But you know, generally small buisness, such as pizza shops, are not publicly held corporations. And of the minority that are many are done that way simply because our tax and legal system heavily favors such.
Nor did I say that every action of a corporation is evil. The question of any specific factory closing being evil depends on many factors. The point is that the questin of the morality of the closing won't even be considered the managers of the company. Their only concern is the profit margin of the company.
It may be that closing one factory might save the company and there for save other small towns. But insofar as a manager let such thinking guide their actions they would be a bad manager.
Jay
|
Post #28,586
2/15/02 11:48:33 PM
|
Another "by that logic"
I work for a corporation. That corporation strives to make money, therefore it is evil. Therefore I am evil for taking money from them. Eh? You see, when a person goes to work for a company they are setting aside their personal morality and making decisions based on what is best for the company. The company exists only to make money. Excuse me, but I work for a company and I try to make the company's customers' lives better. I often fail, hideously, but my goal is, really, honestly, although I am evil, to make their jobs easier or better to do, or to fix their problems. Jay, you are playing generalist and are plain fucking wrong. End of story. There are some corporations that exist to screw their customers, or some generic consumer. With employees that willfully participate in the screwing. I damn them. But not all corporations are like that. I'd say not even a good percentage of corporations are like that. If I were working for a company that I thought was trying to screw its consumers, I'd resign, effective yesterday. The company I'm currently with has made some bad decisions sometimes, but they're more along the lines of brain cramps than trying to squeeze the consumer. Where each demon is slain, more hate is raised, yet hate unchecked also multiplies. - L. E. Modesitt, from his Recluse series
|
Post #28,596
2/16/02 12:16:14 AM
|
How many times must I hammer this
I work for a corporation. That corporation strives to make money, therefore it is evil. Therefore I am evil for taking money from them.
How many times must I hammer this down? Did I say that? Did I imply that?
No
I said exactly the opposite. That in many cases the goodness or evilness of the employees of a company is unconnected the nature of the company. That many people working at companies are just trying to make a living and trying to do their jobs.
But that doesn't stop those things from having evil consequences. That doesn't stop the company from being evil as whole. Even if the employees have the best of intentions the company as a whole might be evil.
There are some corporations that exist to screw their customers, or some generic consumer. With employees that willfully participate in the screwing. I damn them. But not all corporations are like that. I'd say not even a good percentage of corporations are like that. If I were working for a company that I thought was trying to screw its consumers, I'd resign, effective yesterday. The company I'm currently with has made some bad decisions sometimes, but they're more along the lines of brain cramps than trying to squeeze the consumer.
Few companies are set to outright screw their customers. But it's not generally a moral decision, it's just the knowledge that if you treat your customers well they will remain your customers.
But that really isn't what I am talking about here.
What I am talking about is when simply doing your job and making a living can result in evil, even if you have done no evil your self. That companies can corrupt the system, even though no person involved is directly or intentionally evil.
Jay
|
Post #28,612
2/16/02 2:12:21 AM
|
I must have overlooked it
Almost everything you've posted in this thread seems to postulate that corporations are money-making grubbers of corporate evil.
Pardon me if I have misread the posts you have made.
Where each demon is slain, more hate is raised, yet hate unchecked also multiplies. - L. E. Modesitt, from his Recluse series
|
Post #28,650
2/16/02 11:53:04 AM
|
If you get scared you must overlook it, besides you knew
the job was dangerius when you took it!
Most Corps are greedy, money-grubbing, employee abusing, lying, cheating, manipulative, backstabbing, evil machines that just exist to get as much money as they can for themselves and the stockholders. Everyone else be dammed besides the stockholders and the managers that get the majority of the money after expenses. If it means destroying the evironment, or killing employees or customers slowly to make that money, then you better believe that they will do it! My former employer tried to kill me or force me to kill myself by piling on the workload, harassing me, and doing whatever they could to stress me out so that I could be gone. After I wouldn't kill myself and got three months off for the stress, they took me back for three weeks and then made up a bogus reason to let me go. Now they gave all of my workload to one person and are trying to get that person to quit. If that isn't evil, I don't know what is!
"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
|
Post #28,660
2/16/02 1:40:08 PM
|
Norm, you gotta get over this...
First: the generalizations are a bit much. I work for a BigAssedRouterAndNetworking company. Their avowed purpose is to make money for shareholders (employees are shareholders also, by the bye.) Their primary focus is customer satisfaction. They also hammer on ethics. Mind you, they are known everywhere for not paying any taxes that they can afford (see avowed purpose.)As far as I know, "employee abusing, lying, cheating, manipulative, backstabbing" is pretty much at a local level and can be dealt with there. I'm pretty sure that I do not work for evil. I'm pretty that the company I work for does not work for evil. They probably cut as close to the law as possible, that being their function, but they are still a responsible social entity. (I have exceptions with some of their policies, but that's not really pertinant here.)
Second: Indentured servitude was abolished long ago. If you kept a job where your employers required you to destroy yourself (functionally, if not literally), it's your problem. You've been doing this for *YEARS*, not just since the economy crashed. I can't speak for others, but I'm getting a little tired of hearing about how your previous employers buttfucked you on a regular basis. You stayed in a good economy. I gotta draw my conclusions from that. Your participation was voluntary. Please don't bitch about it any more. Please?
Listen up: I am not your enemy. I have no agenda regarding you.
Item: You are not doing yourself any good in the mode you are in now. The pathetic bit does seem to keep people in this community from picking on you. In the real world, nobody in their right mind is going to give a responsible position to someone who relies on excuses rather than results. "They were so bad to me" is not a useful arguement, unless you are in court, in which case all bets are off. The real world requires accomplishments or gains garnered from failure (blue sky research projects for example.)
Item: If you link your self to a language or an operating system, you are pretty much fucked, even if the language or system is currently the cat's meow. That's my personal observation; no hard data to prove it. I haven't lived that long... I'm still waiting for kernel code to be written in visual basic... but I digress...
Item: You may want to analyze your current marital sitiuation. It's supposed to be a 2 way street. My wife and I regularly fight over major and minor things in our lives, but if either of us is hurting, the other is there without reservation. I don't know how your home runs, but if you don't have backup in time of need, then you are probably screwed... If you stay, it your choice again (see above.)
Norm, you need to get better. Trying to maintain a miserable existance will cause you to tank. I read your posts and oscillate between annoyance and pain for you. I don't like vicarious pain. Please get your self some help.
Best regards,
Hugh
|
Post #28,674
2/16/02 5:11:27 PM
|
Did you even bother to read my posts
from two or three years ago? I tried to get out, but couldn't find anything. The best I could do was come in 2nd or 3rd place, and only one position was available.
The only way to end my misey is to kill myself, no brain, no more pain. A friend of mine did that in 1999, and I am starting to see why he did it. His employer screwed him as well, made him work several jobs at once, no pay for overtime, etc. He had other issues, but I won't go into them. I think that the job was a big factor, when they let him go it was because of his depression and alchaholism getting in the way of him working the extra hours they wanted him to work. His widow was denied his pension, his profit sharing, his 401k, and other things that were due to him. She couldn't afford an attorney. so she couldn't get those things. I've seen people destroyed by corps, or worked so hard and under so much stress that they just snap. My mother's friend had her husband set a trashcan on fire, after the way his managers had treated him. I am not sure why he did it, but he never was the same again. Before he worked for that company, he was one of the sanest men alive, afterwords, he couldn't hold a job and was disabled mentally. This is the type of evil that I am talking about. Companies should be held liable for causing mental health issues with their employees from overworking them and stressing them out.
Let me tell you more about my former employer, I told them about my health issues, and I told them they are putting too much stress on me. I had notes from my doctors, and had proof that I was ill. What did they do to accominate me? After being out on sick leave for three months they took me back and after three weeks they let me go. Nothing was done to accomidate me, I was not given help on my projects, and they kept piling on project after project on me until I could no longer work at a pace they wanted me to work at.
Am I crazy? Most likely, if I could afford to go back to my doctor I would, but I was screwed out of my old health insurance and I am waiting to get my 401K and profit sharing rolled over to an IRA and the firm is dragging their feet to do that. I sent it certified mail to make sure that they got it. They'll most likely use the "It got lost in the mailroom" routine as someone from the mailroom signed for it and not the lady I addressed it to. I have my wife's insurance, but it may not cover mental health issues because it is minimal coverage.
Since 1997, my resume has been at just about every company in the Saint Louis area. Why won't companies hire me? I am not sure as they don't tell me why. But I was able to get a job anywhere until I worked for this lawfirm. I wasn't suicidal before I worked for this lawfirm, and I wasn't this bad mentally before I worked for this lawfirm.
All I want is true justice, I want them to own up to their mistakes, and I want them to admit to their misdoings and take action to prevent it from happening to other staff members.
"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
|
Post #28,727
2/17/02 8:13:15 AM
|
Re: Did you even bother to read my posts
Sorry about the delay in responding. I was called away... something about having a life without computers...
Yes, I have read your posts back on IWE when you were being Cable4k or something. I seem to recall that some of those posts could be construed as just a bit whiney in tone. This perceived attitude trait could possibly be part of your employment difficulties.
I'm familiar with suicide. It seems to run on my father's side of the family (one uncle, two cousins.) In my experience, it helps nobody who remains behind. I wish you wouldn't dwell on it; nothing is accomplished and it screws up your attitude.
I really don't want you to tell me more about your previous employer. See my original post. They are in the past. They are history. This is your problem now and crying about past injustices is not going to help you (unless you take the American way out and sue everybody who has accumulated enough to be targeted by a lawyer...)
I notice that in response to another post, you speculate that my employer uses loop-holes in the law and is therefore evil. I submit that in obeying the law, loop-holes and all, they are maintaining their contract with society. Their behavior is responsible, not evil. If you feel strongly about the tax laws, work to get them changed. Representative government and all that, y'know?
I hope you can put your bad experiences in the past where they belong and get your attitude together. I do wish you the best.
Regards,
Hugh
|
Post #28,748
2/17/02 3:12:48 PM
|
Reform!
I have pushed for reform, and voted for people who I believed could reform the US government. But they never get elected to office. I try to get support for laws that will close out tax loopholes and employement loopholes, but they always get voted down.
Whine? I am complaining because something needs to be done to change things! I don't want someone else to suffer as I have, or suffer worse than I have. But nobody seems to care, nobody seems to notice, and nobody wants to do anything about it. Just get their riches and screw the other people as much as they can. I don't want to live in a world like that, and would rather end my life than end up like those jerks(*ssholes).
"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
|
Post #28,697
2/16/02 9:19:15 PM
|
Interesting phrasing there.
I'm pretty sure that I do not work for evil. I'm pretty that the company I work for does not work for evil. They probably cut as close to the law as possible, that being their function, but they are still a responsible social entity. A responsible social entity that cuts as close the the >LAW< as possible. Quick question. Pure opinion. If the laws was changed to be more lax, do you think they'd still cut as close to it as possible? -OR- Do you think they'd hold their current behaviour (being the responsible social entity that they are).
|
Post #28,703
2/16/02 10:40:49 PM
|
Hmmmm interesting!
They cut it as close to the law as they can without breaking it. Sounds like they use loopholes to me. Like loopholes to get out of paying taxes, or loopholes to get out of having discrimination and harassment lawsuits filed against them by doing things to change the facts? Since being a jerk is not against the law, management can do these things by being a jerk to their employees. This, in itself, makes the company management out to be a bunch of high school bullies that never grew up. In my mind that makes them evil, EVIL, I tells ya!
"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
|
Post #28,882
2/19/02 12:17:46 AM
|
Hmmm
When the speed limit was 55, I drove 55. When it was raised to 65, I started driving at 65.
Are you saying I should be driving around at 55 when everyone else is going 10mph faster?
Ray
|
Post #28,885
2/19/02 12:47:53 AM
|
We seem to have come full circle - back to the daleross(?)
thread at IWE - "if it's legal - it's ethical".
Or: how is an arbitrary speed law (most often intended to raise revenue, under the rubric of 'safety') - anything like a decision about - "what constitutes ethical behavior" ?
If.. one is Good at 55, but becomes Evil at 56 mph (a sop to those who like precision, even where it is inane) - do you see also some digital ethical / not-ethical decision, just as simplistic? And does that discrimination come from some statute of this or last year - or from within?
(Surely you never meant to imply, "if everybody does it - so can I". Surely.)
A.
|
Post #28,891
2/19/02 7:57:58 AM
|
Not as stoichastic as you suggest...
Speed limits are a fairly simplistic law with absolute boundaries. 55 mph is fairly easy to distinguish. Good and evil do not really apply to incremental changes in speed either. Neither do ethics.
Tax laws are ostensibly promulgated by our representatives and are screwy enough to confuse some tax lawyers. Now, this discussion can go at least one of two ways: either we are arguing that the company was unethical in getting unfair tax laws past, or they have an ethics problem for using the tax laws as written to minimize their tax bill. Since there has been no suggestion of impropriety,("if it's legal - it's ethical"), I assume we are discussing the latter.
I suggest that they would be behaving against stockholders interests if they deliberately paid more taxes than necessary. I don\ufffdt know that it would be unethical, but a publicly held company is supposed to have a responsibility the stockholders. In this instance, I believe that behaving legally is sufficient.
The problem I see with this model is that too many CEO\ufffds have evidently seen \ufffdHighlander\ufffd way to many times and have adopted the \ufffdIn the end there can be only one\ufffd mentality. To maintain constant geometric growth, which is what Wall Street seems to expect, companies seem willing to crush all competition to pick up whatever trace amounts of profits the might have taken away. This behavior, which may be legal and/or ethical, appears to be ugly in the extreme to me.
So what\ufffds the solution?
Go head to head with Wall Street? And face all the people who lose money though restraining the trade of the Big Guys? That\ufffdll go over big, especially since our representatives in government will lose a lot more than most of their constituents (private people, not the businesses.)
Maybe regulate monopolistic corporate behavior? Sure, we\ufffdll start with Microsoft. We\ufffdve already got a conviction\ufffd They are going to skate eventually. So maybe we\ufffdll get the next one\ufffd
Sorry Ashton, I have no easy solutions to propose. It would be nice if everyone would just live nicely together, but I remain less than optimistic.
Regards,
Hugh
|
Post #28,978
2/19/02 5:42:58 PM
|
Allow me to clarify.
The original post was about a company with ethical standards.
That cut as close as the law allowed.
I asked what said company would do if the law was changed to be more lax.
Allow me to phrase that in speed limits.
You have an ethical standard regarding speed (assume that it is because you believe that more people die when the the limit is 65 as opposed to 55).
When the limit is 55, you drive 55.
When the limit is 65, the law is more lax than your ethical standard so you drive 55. You adhere to your ethical standard.
If you drive 65 when the law is 65, and 75 when the law is 75, and so on........ What is your ethical standard? Do you have one?
Which brings us back to Ashton's recital of Dale's "legal == ethical".
|
Post #28,828
2/18/02 2:27:32 PM
|
I think you've hit on the REAL problem...
I work for a BigAssedRouterAndNetworking company. Their avowed purpose is to make money for shareholders (employees are shareholders also, by the bye.) Boy, am I a dunce! Put a cork in it, Beep!...at least until I'm done with my rant! ;-) Here all this time, I thought the "avowed purpose" of BigAssedRouterAndNetworking Co. Inc. was to make the best damn BigAssedRoutersAndNetworks they possibly could, thereby making their products the most attractive in the open marketplace, thereby insuring a healthy profit, thereby insuring that their shareholders got a reasonable return on their investments. How could have I been so silly as to believe this Capitalist tripe?!? I guess nobody needs to do Commerce anymore, when the first derivitave of Commerce will do good enough! OK, Beepster...your turn...jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #28,830
2/18/02 2:35:50 PM
|
Once that may have been true
Here all this time, I thought the "avowed purpose" of BigAssedRouterAndNetworking Co. Inc. was to make the best damn BigAssedRoutersAndNetworks they possibly could, thereby making their products the most attractive in the open marketplace, thereby insuring a healthy profit, thereby insuring that their shareholders got a reasonable return on their investments All of the different corps I have worked for have expressed that the main purpose of the company was to "maximise shareholder value". That may involve making a better product. But the product is the means, not the end. I may be wrong about BigAssedRouterAndNetworking Co. Inc., but I suspect not. With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere.
|
Post #28,856
2/18/02 6:14:49 PM
|
Sadly, I believe you are correct.
Twenty years ago, or so, when I was getting out of engineering school, they were a struggling router company. They focused on absolute quality in their product and nearly got their ass handed to them. Now they focus on customer satisfaction and were doing quite nicely until the economy went crunch.
I stand by my statement that the avowed purpose is to make the shareholders profit. Producing a product pleasing to the buyers is the means. I still take professional pride in my contributions to the product and therefor the end product. When I can't take pride in my work, it's time to move on. Whores can be fickle that way...
The focus *IS* changing from doing a thing right because fine craft is a good thing to doing a thing in the manner that will product the most profit. I can't help regarding the transition without a sense of loss.
Regards,
Hugh
|
Post #28,903
2/19/02 9:48:38 AM
|
Putting the cart before the horse
One can also "maximize profits" throught stock market manipulation[Enron], "cooking the books"[Enron, Micros~1], illegal marketing practices[Enron, Micros~1], monopolization[Micros~1, IBM, AT&T], lobbying to hamstring or outright outlaw your competition[any NTSA body shop], fraud[the list is too long to put here],...or by making the best damn product at a reasonable price and competing fairly in an open marketplace[ ]. (Notice the size of that list...)
hnick, I wasn't in BigAssedRoutersAndNetworks board room (or in their marketing dept, thank Ghod), but I sincerely doubt that BAR&N "nearly got their ass handed to them" simply because they "focused on absolute quality". There were other problems in their bizniss plan if they "nearly got their ass handed to them". Perhaps they "nearly got their ass handed to them" because they didn't give a rat's ass about customer satisfaction, or their prices were too high, or their routers were a pain in the ass to keep working, or whatever. Your premise is just too simplistic to be accurate.
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #29,036
2/20/02 7:07:44 AM
|
Ok, you have a point
I've been with the company about 2 years since we were acquired. I have no idea what the business plan or products were like in the late 80's. My statement was a short version of what I was told during an indoctination speech immediately after the acquisition.
Yeah, it's simplistic. Your point.
Hugh
|
Post #28,872
2/18/02 9:28:36 PM
|
Now this may sound silly
but making the best product means jack squat if your company is not profitable. Hire some PHBs to "maximize profits" by getting rid of the people who made "quality products and services" and replace them with recent college graduates who will earn below average for their job positions and do a sloppy job at it. As long as the products works (somewhat) and the customers are happy (d*mmit I'll teach you to be happy!) about the product and the stockholders earn tons of buckazoids, who gives a rat's *ss if the product goes defective after the warranty expires or blows up in the customer's face?
As in "Tommy Boy" 'I can sh*t into a box and write "guarantee" on it, but all that means is that I've given you a guaranteed piece of sh*t. Wouldn't you rather have a part that works and doesn't need a guarantee?'
Making parts that last a lifetime only works for Maytag and Craftsman, the rest just can make it as sloppy as they can and then sell them another one later on. The more defective the better, just contract the helpdesk out to an India or Pakastan firm to handle the complaints. The more thick-accented phone operators, the better. Get some that don't even know how the product works, and just pawns the caller off to other companies, or place blame in other areas so your company isn't liable for anything.
"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
|
Post #29,043
2/20/02 9:27:45 AM
|
And your point is...?
Norm, even I'm having trouble following here. Are you being sarcastic, or are you purporting to explain the Corporate Mindset behind all Corporate Decisions made these days?
And what is your point if either of these are true?
(I know you're pissed and disillusioned, and with good reason. But remain focused, and you'll remain coherent. Remain coherent, and people will have to deal with you! ;-) )
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #29,148
2/20/02 11:50:13 PM
|
My point, dear JB,
is that the Corporate System which most managers are using is basically f*cked in the head. Even a 6 year old can run a better company that most managers out there. I am not sure what in the seven levels of H*ll they teach them in college, but one thing is for sure that management does not know how to manage employees correctly, and end up abusing, harassing, and overworking them, etc.
Ever notice when layoffs happen, the top management get to keep their jobs despite being the ones that allowed the mistakes to happen or that made the mistakes themselves? There is no responsibility amoung the top brass, and they just blame the people working too hard under them for management's own shortcommings.
Our US Corp system needs a big overhaul and reorganization and reform is all I am saying.
"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
|
Post #29,158
2/21/02 2:05:38 AM
|
Not necessarily true
about layoffs in the upper management that is.
One example:
I was a low level developer at Yahoo until I got laid off this past December. I was one out of about 300 - 400 employees let go. After I left, I found out that some of mid-level managers that I knew were escorted out too later that day. And still later I noticed that senior executives were 'resigning' enmasse to 'spend time with family'. This past year we've seen the 'resignation' of most of executive management, including the CEO and COO. IMHO, I think the board is laying them off but allowing them to officially resign so as not to panic the stock holders.
Ray
|
Post #29,365
2/22/02 10:39:23 AM
|
What you fail to mention...
..is that those "resignations" to "spend more time w/ their family" are, without exception, accompanied with "golden parachutes" equal to well over their salary for a year.
What was in your golden parachute?
(Yeah, It's really none of my damn bizniss; I'm just trying to make a point. Norm is correct on this point...)
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #29,398
2/22/02 1:38:29 PM
|
I know, I know...
my parachute wasn't golden but it was enough to carry me through (3 months pay up front) until I got my next job. Since I started interviewing before the lay offs - I new odds were against me - and got a new job about 1.5 months later, I ended up fattening my bank account a little instead of taking a loss.
As for the execs at Yahoo that left, I don't think their parachutes mattered much to them anyway as most of them got rich from their stock options long before. Most of those guys had salaries in the $100-300k range but cashed out tens or hundredes of millions in options from '98-'00. When you're that rich, I think the power and prestige of being a CEO or co. president is more of a lure than the base salary.
I think both Norm and I are right. It's just our perspectives are different. Norm worked for a horrible company, a sweat shop. Yahoo did their best to make the situation tolerable. Everyone got severence pay and a continuation of medical insurance. They paid for one-on-one job counselling with Spherion (it really helped too!). There were no guards to escort people out; I had time to go say 'goodbye' to friends that remained, get my last free mocha, and steal some office supplies. My manager called some of his friends at other companies to setup interviews. The vp of my division came by to apologize for not being able to keep me on (Incidentally, my vp's boss was let go too). And so on.
Ray
|
Post #29,460
2/22/02 10:23:37 PM
|
At the very least
your former company helped you to get a job. I couldn't even get my former employer to reconmend me to anyone, and not say anything beyond that I worked for them on the dates that I worked.
"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
|
Post #29,045
2/20/02 9:28:37 AM
|
And your point is...?
Norm, even I'm having trouble following here. Are you being sarcastic, or are you purporting to explain the Corporate Mindset behind all Corporate Decisions made these days?
And what is your point if either of these are true?
(I know you're pissed and disillusioned, and with good reason. But remain focused, and you'll remain coherent. Remain coherent, and people will have to deal with you! ;-) )
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #28,670
2/16/02 4:38:03 PM
|
Must you hammer this???
Would you also classify and "not for profit" Corporation as evil then?
Would you classify an educational establishment funded by public moneys and tution as evil then?
You see there are ALOT of evil people in those institutions, largely, faculty only view themselves as the REAL reason to have classes there, and that they are the biggest reason to get what they want.
I work for a College and see many, many, many, many actions that should and do go heavily punished in the Public sector. But in these arenas they go on just as though nothing ever happened. I happen to work for one of those "justifiably evil" persons that recently "discovered" christianity. Reason I say, they now use christianity to "judge" things by. But mystically NONE of thier actions are judged that way. No of the using of "documentation" to inform certain people they knows certain things about peoples activities either using the phone or computer systems in general. Be it infidelity or other things... it is amazing how this person gets thier way a highly inordinate amount of the time.
Now, Jay after this little tidbits of info, I would also tell you there are alot of other people in those educational establishment and other not for profit corporations that are indeed evil. Take a look at Greenpeace, they out and out do BAD things to PEOPLE not to Corporations, and they do it consistently and without duress. They usually have thought it out carefully on how to COST the most money or inflist the most pain or to get the biggest piece of propaganda, all while using the same "remove themselves from liability" thinking you are talking about.
Hope you get my picture I am trying to paint. If not... ask for clarification.
I tolerate the person in question here at my place of work, mainly cause I believe I can change things from the ground up, using the TOP down appraoch!! (been getting some headway as of late)
greg, curley95@attbi.com -- REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!
In 2002, everyone will discover that everyone else is using linux. ** Linux: Good, fast AND cheap. ** Failure is not an option: It comes bundled with Windows. ** "Two rules to success in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know." - Sassan Tat
|
Post #28,712
2/17/02 1:24:40 AM
|
The part I was hammering
The part I was talking about when I mentioned hammering is the bit about personal morality and corporate morality not being tied. More then one person that replied to my orginal post reacted as if I had accused them of being evil because they worked for a big evil corporation.
But the point I was trying to make is almost exactly the opposite, that a corporation can be evil and do evil, even if nobody involved is evil.
As for not for profit corporations, they are a legal absurdity. They are charities that are organized as a corporation because the legal and monetary advantages of being a corporation.
As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure what point your trying to make. I am not nearly stupid enough to think that any human endevor is free from evil. But at the same time I'm not willing to fall into the idiot relativist trap of thinking that all things are equal either.
Jay
|
Post #28,654
2/16/02 1:14:12 PM
|
Setting aside their personal morality for the company?
That doesn't sound very virtuous to me.
And just what is "personal morality" anyway? Isn't morality concerned with interpersonal matters? Whatever this means, it can't mean much, if it can be set aside this easily.
Any company that I'd have to set aside my moral convictions for isn't worth working for. Yes, I've tested this empirically. And no, I'm not going to repeat the experiment just to make sure.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #28,681
2/16/02 7:18:25 PM
|
been there done that
quit more good jobs over bs that conflicted with my world view. I wont lie to a customer but I might bs them with my edikated guess if I thought I could back it up by deadline, I wont cross certain lines and will haul ass if a company expects me to.
thanx,
bill
Mike Doogan
"Then there's figure skating and ice dancing and snowboarding. The winners are all chosen by judges. That's not sports. That's politics. And curling? If curling is a sport, pork rinds are a health food."
|
Post #28,701
2/16/02 10:21:42 PM
|
'Evil' Corporations..?
Oddly, I find myself in complete agreement with.. marlowe! in this: indeed a 'Corporation' is not even the map, let alone the territory - it's a random legal construct, meant to facilitate "the common Good (??)" at least - one may suppose that such honorable intentions lie behind the origin. Long long ago.
But only People 'do Evil' - yet that idea sucks too, for all the personalized theological freight attached. No two people would try to define it in exact same synonyms.
Maybe a better idea might be to spend some time filling out a list of things a Healthy org. Would do, Not do - Tolerate as behavior.. Not tolerate. Positive examples can illustrate. Here's one:
Working for a "Nat'l Lab", my fiefdom was somewhere within the overall hierarchy. At one point I noticed that some targets to be exposed to particle beams - brought in by another Nat'l Lab - arrived in sealed (Heliarced!) boxes. No need to go into my rationale, except to say that This NL was a military-sponsored org.
Point: I refused to send them beam until I could inspect, determine the er 'fissionable' possibilities of the object(s). They bounced this up to the Director. He understood the nature of my reservations, but also could not 'assuage' these doubts ~~ "what might they willingly risk for er 'Nat'l Security'..?"
I was supported. They also had to make some changes before being accommodated at other "spaced out" times. (I don't cite this because.. maybe I was ~ right?? - but because of how easily I might have been countermanded, or simply weaseled around. And that didn't happen.)
I believe the same litmus might be applied to various 'creative financing' in the Enron / tip of iceberg, many suspect. All life experience to date tells me:
Most US Corps would fail the litmus, such as these Corps are today and.. such as we are. Forget Evilness - go for Integrity and its absence (it doesn't count when, like M$, there's an Integrity Clause in their {choke, retch} Mission Statement. Natch.)
IMhO - the US truly Needs some Sterling examples of integrity, if we are to rise from the slime of current ethics-free, TLA meaninglessness and ennui.. where employees are listed as Debits in the Econ spreadsheet. There are just too many Horrible Examples, and more and more people are noticing that the $lime slops over across all life here.
It's killing (what's left of) US.
Ashton
|
Post #28,714
2/17/02 1:43:09 AM
|
Arguing over definitions again, I think
From what I've read, it seems "amoral", rather than "evil" would be a better term. Or, perhaps "sociopathic". Yeah, that's it, sociopathic. Corps are sociopatic almost by defintion. Right and wrong have no bearing on corporate decisions, only profit does. (And no Beep, I'm not talking about mom and pop shops).
With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere.
|
Post #28,773
2/17/02 9:38:57 PM
|
No, "Evil" fits
First off: I do not agree with nking that the corporation may be evil, even though no one in it does evil. It is quite true that each of the people involved only does a little evil, and the vector sum of all those little evils adds up to a noticeable one.
That being said, the things people are being taught to do in business, explicity in MBA programs and by example elsewhere, constitute precisely those little evils whose sum generates horror. The notion that a corporation exists only to make money, and "provide shareholder value", is not only evil -- it's simply wrong, from a philosophical and even a legal standpoint.
A corporation cannot exist without willing cooperation from the State -- the Government, if you will. The people who found and operate the corporation want something; that "something" is financial immunity from losses. The essence of a corporation is that its investors cannot lose more than their investment if the corporation fails; it thus differs from other forms of financial organization in that the other forms have no such limitation on liability. This protection is absolutely necessary, because the function of the corporation is to assemble sufficient capital to do something big from the small driblets of capital available to each of its investors; and the bulk of the capital must come from very small contributions, because there aren't enough "rich" people to collect sufficient contributions from. See the work of the Peruvian economist called Hernando de Soto.
But the State, the Government, must get something in return for extending this privilege. What it got, for many years, was taxes; the structure necessary for collecting a sufficiency of taxes from umpteen small pools didn't exist, so the corporation, which had that structure as a needed part of its operations, took in money, and the government got a cut. That way the government didn't need the bureaucracy neccessary to collect taxes in penny packets. (It could also fool the people into thinking it was collecting less taxes than it was, because they could point with pride to "soaking the rich corporations" and get plenty of support. The other advantage was, and is, that the Government could tax people it didn't rule; anyone who pays, say, Nestle for a chocolate bar, is supporting the Swiss government.)
Nowadays the Government has the bureaucratic structure necessary to collect taxes in small amounts and amalgamate them, so the tax advantages of the corporation are less except for the sleight of hand aspect. But, especially in a government "of the people", it is perfectly reasonable for Government to enact regulations controlling the behavior of the people running corporations, and for the basis of those regulations to be something other than the direct interests of the people involved in the corporation. And that is what we're missing. Something must be done to inform the people running corporations that showing a profit is not the end-all and be-all of the system, and something must be done to slow down the trading system so that it becomes less easy to generate huge fortunes in virtual money by keeping balls in the air.
What those things might be, I don't know. [I have some suggestions (-;] But if you focus on "evil corporations" or "rich corporations", you're missing the point. It's the behavior of people we need to address, and letting the existence of the corporation serve as a shield against the consequences of misbehavior does nothing to discourage the misbehavior itself; rather the contrary, in fact.
Regards,
Ric
|
Post #28,783
2/17/02 11:00:27 PM
|
Seconded in spades.
Yes, the habit of the 'quantitative' in Murican bizspeak - has come to completely overshadow those nuances of daily behavior which distinguish er humans from calculating machines.
Vector-sum is close enough; maybe closer to holographic sum (if we had the foggiest how to Do that ;-). Anyway, your words will do, and I concur: that is the relationship (government tit for tat) needing overhaul.. mindful natch of the problem that - 'govt.' cannot humanize citizens too dense to notice they have become 'calculating machines'. But it can raise incentives toward that end (one hopes).
Ashton
|
Post #28,798
2/18/02 10:02:26 AM
|
Since a corporation by legal definition is an
"artificially created legal entity" precludes thenm from being evil. Any artificially created being is amoral not having any theological grounds to be anything else, so a corp cannot be evil it can only be as moral as the people running it.
thanx,
bill
Mike Doogan
"Then there's figure skating and ice dancing and snowboarding. The winners are all chosen by judges. That's not sports. That's politics. And curling? If curling is a sport, pork rinds are a health food."
|
Post #28,831
2/18/02 2:49:01 PM
|
After a long pause, my reply...
You write:
"Both BePatient and Screamer more or less implied that the concept that big corporations are evil is wrong because they know many people that work at big corporations that are not evil."
I can't speak for Bill, but what I was implying, perhaps poorly, was that not all management types are ill-willed or "evil". Nothing else. I think most all have contributed to a rather good thread here.
The concept that a corporation is good or evil is not really debateable, since we haven't said "which corporation". I would pose to you the question, "is Enron worse as an historical entity on the "evil" scale as say, the Catholic Church"? You see where I would take this and you definately don't want to go there. The Church or the Business is nothing more than an abstract name for a group of individuals, some bad - most good.
Perhaps what you mean, is "companies" are uncaring, bottom line centered, etc... I would give you no argument at all there. Be aware though that most well run companies do - make money. Others have done a good job explaining how companies had better do a little more than just make money (like satisfy their customers, employees and stockholders) or they won't be around very long...
Before you paint me into a "shill for the Invisible Hand", let me make it clear that I feel that the Gov needs to regulate certain aspects of Business... I have had to constantly remind the Invisible Handers that most waterways in this country (USA) are not safe to swim in or eat the fish from. As well, most people (no matter how self righteous they appear) do not want a garbage dump or toxic waste site in their back yard (or even a cell phone tower)...
It's interesting now, that the government is stepping in since we have tons of radioactive waste that's been building up over the last 45 years that is currently being stored above ground (not even close to optimal) and making a tough decision - let's use the FEDERAL LAND which Nevada is almost entirely composed of and build a safer storage area"... Makes a certain amount of sense, no? Answer - "NOT IN MY BACKYARD, BUCKO!". Oh, okay, let's put it in New York instead...
No, Jay, I suffer from not seeing things Booleinly (word?)... The world is neither good nor evil to me, corps are neither good nor evil, courts are not just or unjust, people are not either Democrat or Republican, you get the idea? What I do believe is that when problems get too complex, people want to simplify them and assess blame. I'm guilty of it too...
I keep coming back to my old standard people to blame... If we could find it in our hearts to kill our American desire to be "consumers" first and human beings second, then we might have a chance at reforming our corporate landscape (when's the last time YOU bought an American made shirt or shoe?). If we could find a way to elect officials that are willing to do things that will cause us all great pain and suffering and then have the guts to "re-elect them", then we'll straighten out politics...
Example of last statement. Our government (We) owe over $5,000,000,000,000,000. Will you be man enough to tell the next asshole politician who says we have a "surplus" of any kind, "SHUT THE (*&&* UP!". We should freeze all new spending and pay of the frigging debt now. We also should elect officials to that say, "quit using your freaking cars so much - buy some that get good gas mileage at the very least - etc..." I could go on add nauseum... We won't elect these people because by nature, human beings are hedonistic piggies.
In fact, my friend, I will go as far as to say that I am not even hopeful that we will get much further than the bacteria on the petri dish. We will glutton until we are living on top of the corpses and feces of the others before we even notice the food is gone... Now, you want to talk about taxes?
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #28,855
2/18/02 6:13:57 PM
|
The kudos always go to those who
Notice! the rotting garbage-heap we have created, then Chrome-plated - yet who do not succumb to the self-pity of also..
Noticing.. umm Hey! this is where I live (too). Why *ME* gawd? {ugh}
I share your pessimism ('realism' - is what we call Our opinions ;-) especially in the dead-certainty that, 'we' shall buffer, rationalize, sweep-under ... otherwise obfuscate the fact of the wasteland which exists just below the Chrome-plated mall facade:
Until we are indeed existing on Soylent-S (guess..) and - all the turn-around time has been pissed away: in endless arguments about prayers in festering schools / abattoirs of the mind; debates about how Quickly (?) we ought to execute the neighborhood teen-age pot smoker - to save the cost of that 40 year prison term (for his 3rd reefer).
We may not agree on the epitaph.. but my first draft reads -
Species killed by terminal self-Righteousness and irreversible defacation in the nest. Cause: language murder.
Ashton
The Crimes of Il Papa can be an entertaining New thread, sometime.
So many escaped criminals - so little time...
|
Post #28,875
2/18/02 10:12:31 PM
|
Mostly I agree
Mostly I agree with what you are saying. In fact, after reading this thread, I would say that the biggest disagreement here is not over corporations but over the use of the word "evil."
The concept that a corporation is good or evil is not really debateable, since we haven't said "which corporation".
Why would we have to say which corporation? It is inherent in the design of corporations that they exist to channel money and will work towards channeling ever greater amounts.
Just as there is no need to ask "which one?" when somebody says that guns are dangerous*, I don't much see the point in picking out one specific company when I say corporations are dangerous and amoral.
In fact, my friend, I will go as far as to say that I am not even hopeful that we will get much further than the bacteria on the petri dish. We will glutton until we are living on top of the corpses and feces of the others before we even notice the food is gone.
Very likely, but I refuse to go down quietly.
Jay
* And just as with corporations, there is actually a small fraction that are not really dangerous.
|
Post #28,928
2/19/02 11:48:16 AM
|
It's a love fest then...
Your points are taken. I still have a bit of trouble fully agreeing with your assertion (implied) that by design, corporations are like a loaded gun... Unlike a gun, which is designed for only one purpose (to kill or mame thangs), corporations are not designed for any other pursuit than "channeling money", which is not inheritantly good or evil IMHO. That is the distinction that I would like to make and we can agree to disagree. I do not think that corporations are "inheritantly" good nor evil. Money is merely a medium of exchange, again, not inheritantly good nor evil. Drugs are another example... there's Penicillin and there's crack... it runs the spectrum... and, crack before abused is rather an inane substance (neither good nor evil)...
What I'm getting at is that drugs, guns, money corporations are just things until a human being performs an action upon them. The "evil" that is done, is done by the person, not the noun... That is my distinction. Maybe it's just a semantics exercise at this point? :-)
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
