4 ms·

> to their human management practices. You (perhaps unconsciously) did not address the full assertion which precisely refers to human management practices wher

> to their human management practices. You (perhaps unconsciously) did not address the full assertion which precisely refers to human management practices where the two atomic operations (so to speak) are hiring (append) and firing (remove). To settle according to what ethical framework corporations must abide when they do business with other entities is a vast topic that goes well beyond the particular scope of this HN thread. In case I was not clear, by politically neutral agents I am referring to the fashion by which corporations consume and exchange human capital within a defined social body. This is not the same as saying that a company is apolitical; since they do that all the time (through lobbying on single-issue bills etc.). >If corporations are expected to be truly "politically neutral agents", then IBM providing services to the Nazis was nothing wrong As I said, this is off-topic. Though I am a bit amused by how you justify your own authoritarianism (motivated by your morals) by pointing to Trump's supposed. Do you also think that it was unethical for journalists to let Trump participate to the debate? After all, it provides a platform for his rancid, heinous, dangerous, seditious, genocidal ideas for millions of Americans to hear. Or that hunting down and firing the three (let's be generous and say four) software engineers that support Trump at company X is a necessary condition to prevent <literally_genocide> or <literally_Hitler> taking power. It is rarely a good idea to crackdown on individuals because they hold a set of beliefs that does not fit your schema for "Good and honourable things to believe in". Especially during an election period where plurality is a necessary condition for democracy to work.

int_19h 10y ago
There is no such thing as full isolation when you're interacting with people. Different interactions have a different degree of it, but it is always possible to overcome it with taint by association, if the original taint is strong enough. At some level, a person cannot be my friend. At another level, I would be uncomfortable being around them in general. At another, even indirect financial or other support is unacceptable. And so on. No, I don't think companies should be firing individuals merely for expressing their desire to vote for Trump - although depending on what the company does, it may be a prudent business decision. But there are degrees of support that go beyond voting. Note that I did not, and do not, call for any government actions pertaining to this. It's all in the realm of private choices, exercising one's freedom of speech and freedom of association. I don't see how this has anything to do with authoritarianism. Trump's platform, in contrast, is widespread state-sponsored discrimination, so I stand by my assertion that it is authoritarian.
int_19h 10y ago
Reading other comments, it appears that I haven't made my point clearly enough, and most responses aren't quite to what I had in mind. So let me clarify. I was specifically addressing the assertion that corporations should get a free pass on any indirect political effects of their business decisions, because they're apolitical by definition. IBM was a counterexample to that - their decision to sell their goods and services to Germany was very much a business decision, but it was also unavoidably political (as would be any other decision - if they refused the sale, it would have also been political). Hence, corporations are not politically neutral agents. From there follows that they are responsible for the political consequences of their actions. The degree of indirection involved reduces said responsibility, and can remove it entirely if it's remote enough; the important point is that this is a matter of degree, and not an absolute. So we can agree to disagree where the appropriate line for such responsibility lies, so long as we agree that there is a line. But when you argue about where to draw said line, "corporation is a politically neutral agent" (or, to rephrase it in more familiar terms, "nothing personal, just business") is not an argument in support of any particular placement. It has to be decided on other grounds - for most people, I'd imagine it would be their subjective utilitarian assessment of how damaging the resulting politics are, or can potentially be.

int_19h 10y ago

There is no such thing as full isolation when you're interacting with people. Different interactions have a different degree of it, but it is always possible to overcome it with taint by association, if the original taint is strong enough. At some level, a person cannot be my friend. At another level, I would be uncomfortable being around them in general. At another, even indirect financial or other support is unacceptable. And so on. No, I don't think companies should be firing individuals merely for expressing their desire to vote for Trump - although depending on what the company does, it may be a prudent business decision. But there are degrees of support that go beyond voting. Note that I did not, and do not, call for any government actions pertaining to this. It's all in the realm of private choices, exercising one's freedom of speech and freedom of association. I don't see how this has anything to do with authoritarianism. Trump's platform, in contrast, is widespread state-sponsored discrimination, so I stand by my assertion that it is authoritarian.

int_19h 10y ago

Reading other comments, it appears that I haven't made my point clearly enough, and most responses aren't quite to what I had in mind. So let me clarify. I was specifically addressing the assertion that corporations should get a free pass on any indirect political effects of their business decisions, because they're apolitical by definition. IBM was a counterexample to that - their decision to sell their goods and services to Germany was very much a business decision, but it was also unavoidably political (as would be any other decision - if they refused the sale, it would have also been political). Hence, corporations are not politically neutral agents. From there follows that they are responsible for the political consequences of their actions. The degree of indirection involved reduces said responsibility, and can remove it entirely if it's remote enough; the important point is that this is a matter of degree, and not an absolute. So we can agree to disagree where the appropriate line for such responsibility lies, so long as we agree that there is a line. But when you argue about where to draw said line, "corporation is a politically neutral agent" (or, to rephrase it in more familiar terms, "nothing personal, just business") is not an argument in support of any particular placement. It has to be decided on other grounds - for most people, I'd imagine it would be their subjective utilitarian assessment of how damaging the resulting politics are, or can potentially be.