3 ms·
There is absolutely nothing inherently morally superior in making it a not-for-profit. Lots of not-for-profits have serious problems. I wish making life better
by Mz 9y ago
There is absolutely nothing inherently morally superior in making it a not-for-profit. Lots of not-for-profits have serious problems. I wish making life better were as simple as "well, just make your business X format and you are suddenly on the moral high ground!"
You should not make your business idea a not-for-profit out of the idea that this is somehow inherently morally superior. That is a bad reason to do so. Some types of work or goals are better served by a specific model. Some things are best served by having it done as a public good by the government, such as police and fire. Some things are well served by the not-for-profit model. Some things are well served by a for-profit model. Some things are well served by a co-op model. None of those is inherently morally better for all goals all the time.
- kolbe 9y agoInsomuch as I never proved using a not-for-profit is best for many of the use cases that we are currently using the business model for, you also didn't in any way demonstrate that we are doing it correctly. I think Wikipedia alone offers great evidence that we are underutilizing the nonprofit model. What evidence to you see for companies remaining moral in the face of shareholder pressure for profits? These structures are not inherently moral as you said, but they do offer distinct incentive structures for their owners and employees. And there are plenty of ideas today that get called business ideas that could easily be better crafted outside of a corporation.
- Mz 9y agoCorporation and business are not synonymous. You can own and run a business that is not incorporated, thus there are no shareholders. In fact, most businesses are not incorporated.