3 ms·

We got into this with taxes which are pretty much the opposite of rooted in morality. You successfully strawmanned theft and judges and sentences, I stupidly ro

We got into this with taxes which are pretty much the opposite of rooted in morality. You successfully strawmanned theft and judges and sentences, I stupidly rose to that challenge with perhaps an over literal interpretation of law to make a point, HN encourages downvoting for disagreement, and here we are, having a conversation where you have to be sympathetic to me for being downvoted before you can make your point. Ever ask yourself why? Anyway, it's corporate tax law. The assumption that a corporation is being unfair by using every legal remedy available to it disagrees with how capitalism is supposed to work, or so they tell me, and I really don't care. I literally ran out of steam on making this point while typing this comment because it's 3:30am and matters approximately zero, so I have to ripcord on this. Sorry.

blub 10y ago
I said theft, because tax evasion is ultimately a form of theft. Theft from us, because we pay our taxes and the government uses that to build infrastructure which allows companies like Apple to function. And then they take that and give us 0.005% of their profits in return. Thank you for the generosity? No. This form of aggressive, "everyone for himself" capitalism works, for a definition of works equal to making certain people rich beyond their dreams. Why should the common man support that? For a phone? Good night :)
- jsmthrowaway 10y ago
  Okay, but understand that your entire comment can be translated to "I don't actually want capitalism." Do you understand my point now? You can't have fair corporate expectations and capitalism. They are mutually exclusive and every case of corporate leadership trading value for moral causes can likely be successfully fought on fiduciary grounds. Capitalism is not aggressive. It just is. The incentives are created in a certain way. This is like saying you'd rather play chess if there was a third color; there's nothing wrong with wanting to play that game instead, but let's not call it chess any more. Dig it? I don't even disagree with you entirely (again: liberal! Look at me typing this conservative wet dream!), I'd just rather see you make the anticapitalist case as opposed to appealing to morals. If you ran a corporation in the United States and volunteered to pay more taxes on moral grounds you'd very likely be in breach of fiduciary duty if someone pressed the issue. That's what I'm saying. We have built a certain house and we can debate whether it's a good house, but we also can't be surprised and morally outraged when the incentives of the system are followed to their extremes.
  - blub 10y ago
    I don't think that the system must be in a certain way. We should not be too dogmatic about what capitalism is, but rather ask ourselves what is desirable for a healthy society and work toward achieveing that. Fair corporate expectations and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. If the result will not be called "capitalism" is not so important for me. I don't want to make an anti-capitalist case, because I am not opposed to it, but rather certain aspects and behaviors. I think you're arguing that those are intrinsic parts of capitalism.

blub 10y ago

I said theft, because tax evasion is ultimately a form of theft. Theft from us, because we pay our taxes and the government uses that to build infrastructure which allows companies like Apple to function. And then they take that and give us 0.005% of their profits in return. Thank you for the generosity? No. This form of aggressive, "everyone for himself" capitalism works, for a definition of works equal to making certain people rich beyond their dreams. Why should the common man support that? For a phone? Good night :)

jsmthrowaway 10y ago
Okay, but understand that your entire comment can be translated to "I don't actually want capitalism." Do you understand my point now? You can't have fair corporate expectations and capitalism. They are mutually exclusive and every case of corporate leadership trading value for moral causes can likely be successfully fought on fiduciary grounds. Capitalism is not aggressive. It just is. The incentives are created in a certain way. This is like saying you'd rather play chess if there was a third color; there's nothing wrong with wanting to play that game instead, but let's not call it chess any more. Dig it? I don't even disagree with you entirely (again: liberal! Look at me typing this conservative wet dream!), I'd just rather see you make the anticapitalist case as opposed to appealing to morals. If you ran a corporation in the United States and volunteered to pay more taxes on moral grounds you'd very likely be in breach of fiduciary duty if someone pressed the issue. That's what I'm saying. We have built a certain house and we can debate whether it's a good house, but we also can't be surprised and morally outraged when the incentives of the system are followed to their extremes.
- blub 10y ago
  I don't think that the system must be in a certain way. We should not be too dogmatic about what capitalism is, but rather ask ourselves what is desirable for a healthy society and work toward achieveing that. Fair corporate expectations and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. If the result will not be called "capitalism" is not so important for me. I don't want to make an anti-capitalist case, because I am not opposed to it, but rather certain aspects and behaviors. I think you're arguing that those are intrinsic parts of capitalism.