6 ms·

Business models need to be "social" now?

by lukeholder 9y ago

rvense 9y ago
Yes. Just like individuals should be expected to act in a socially responsible manner, so should corporations.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
TeMPOraL 9y ago
Not "social", just "people-friendly", or "not antisocial".
- Apocryphon 9y ago
  Prosocial also works
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    I'll settle for people and companies not being obliged to make the world a better place, as long as they don't actively make it worse.
Tomte 9y ago
Yes, indeed. The German constitution clearly states "Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good." (https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0085 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.h...)
- komali2 9y ago
  I love this, because it obliterates the "but why should I have to do anything for other people?!" argument of my conservatives friends here in the USA. They always dance this weird line between "the deep state run by the rich are destroying this country for their profit" and "people should be allowed to make money however they want, and do whatever they want with that money."
- gnicholas 9y ago
  This is very interesting. What are the limits on this? The prior sentence refers to inheritance, so it's clearly about personal property also (if not exclusively). But if someone inherits a Porsche, in what way is it supposed to serve the public good? Also, the following sentence discusses expropriation (which appears to be what is known in the US as eminent domain). And the title of the section is "Property — Inheritance — Expropriation". I wonder if this means this section (including the intriguing sentence you quoted) is just talking about rules for inheriting and expropriating property. That is, perhaps it's not a general rule for property to serve the public good (just that it may be called to do so in cases of expropriation). I would be very interested to know how other people interpret this sentence and the section in which it's found.
  - Analemma_ 9y ago
    I'm not German, and obviously not familiar with German law, but it sounds to me like this sentence is not itself enumerating any particular limits, but rather serving as a reminder of the kind of philosophy they want the law to obey: that property is not a fundamental and absolute right like the right to life (as it is in the Lockean conception which influenced British and American law), but rather a conditional one, whose precise definition should be tuned to whatever is best for society as a whole. What I mean is, I think history has shown that the "best" definition of property (as in, which one has the best outcomes for society) is one that's "mostly private". Full Communism clearly doesn't work very well, but an absolutely inviolate right to private property carries all kinds of problems too, so instead most countries have settled on a flexible definition where there is private property with an enumerated set of restrictions and limitations (which a hardcore Lockean can't do, because to them property is absolute). The sentence in the constitution seems like a reminder of this when it comes time for a constitutional judge to evaluate a particular law, which I think is right - a constitution can't cover every possible situation, it should be a set of guidelines for entering unfamiliar territory.
    - Tomte 9y ago
      Right, on that level many things are basically abstract formulations of intent over which people can debate a long time. :-) There is also Article 20, saying in part: "The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state. So the social obligation of property isn't a fluke, but more a consequence of this provision. The "social" is really important here and it is being interpreted as a real duty of the state to achieve social welfare. And it is so central to our constitution that it is protected by the "eternity clause" in Article 79: "Amendments to this Basic Law affecting the division of the Federation into Länder, their participation on principle in the legislative process, or the principles laid down in Articles 1 and 20 shall be inadmissible."
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
Modern economics started with Adam Smith saying , and I'm paraphrasing, enlightened self-interest for organizations can lead to the social and economic good for all

Business models need to be "social" now?

rvense 9y ago

Yes. Just like individuals should be expected to act in a socially responsible manner, so should corporations.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

TeMPOraL 9y ago

Not "social", just "people-friendly", or "not antisocial".

Apocryphon 9y ago
Prosocial also works
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  I'll settle for people and companies not being obliged to make the world a better place, as long as they don't actively make it worse.

Tomte 9y ago

Yes, indeed. The German constitution clearly states "Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good." (https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0085 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.h...)

komali2 9y ago
I love this, because it obliterates the "but why should I have to do anything for other people?!" argument of my conservatives friends here in the USA. They always dance this weird line between "the deep state run by the rich are destroying this country for their profit" and "people should be allowed to make money however they want, and do whatever they want with that money."
gnicholas 9y ago
This is very interesting. What are the limits on this? The prior sentence refers to inheritance, so it's clearly about personal property also (if not exclusively). But if someone inherits a Porsche, in what way is it supposed to serve the public good? Also, the following sentence discusses expropriation (which appears to be what is known in the US as eminent domain). And the title of the section is "Property — Inheritance — Expropriation". I wonder if this means this section (including the intriguing sentence you quoted) is just talking about rules for inheriting and expropriating property. That is, perhaps it's not a general rule for property to serve the public good (just that it may be called to do so in cases of expropriation). I would be very interested to know how other people interpret this sentence and the section in which it's found.
- Analemma_ 9y ago
  I'm not German, and obviously not familiar with German law, but it sounds to me like this sentence is not itself enumerating any particular limits, but rather serving as a reminder of the kind of philosophy they want the law to obey: that property is not a fundamental and absolute right like the right to life (as it is in the Lockean conception which influenced British and American law), but rather a conditional one, whose precise definition should be tuned to whatever is best for society as a whole. What I mean is, I think history has shown that the "best" definition of property (as in, which one has the best outcomes for society) is one that's "mostly private". Full Communism clearly doesn't work very well, but an absolutely inviolate right to private property carries all kinds of problems too, so instead most countries have settled on a flexible definition where there is private property with an enumerated set of restrictions and limitations (which a hardcore Lockean can't do, because to them property is absolute). The sentence in the constitution seems like a reminder of this when it comes time for a constitutional judge to evaluate a particular law, which I think is right - a constitution can't cover every possible situation, it should be a set of guidelines for entering unfamiliar territory.
  - Tomte 9y ago
    Right, on that level many things are basically abstract formulations of intent over which people can debate a long time. :-) There is also Article 20, saying in part: "The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state. So the social obligation of property isn't a fluke, but more a consequence of this provision. The "social" is really important here and it is being interpreted as a real duty of the state to achieve social welfare. And it is so central to our constitution that it is protected by the "eternity clause" in Article 79: "Amendments to this Basic Law affecting the division of the Federation into Länder, their participation on principle in the legislative process, or the principles laid down in Articles 1 and 20 shall be inadmissible."

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago

Modern economics started with Adam Smith saying , and I'm paraphrasing, enlightened self-interest for organizations can lead to the social and economic good for all