4 ms·

Here we have a difference of opinion. I strongly believe corporations are less accountable to the general public than individuals or (democratic) Government, in

by rmk 8y ago

Here we have a difference of opinion. I strongly believe corporations are less accountable to the general public than individuals or (democratic) Government, including the Military. I simply do not believe in corporate personhood. I do think there is a large distinction between individuals and corporations, and corporations, on the whole behave much more unethically and can wreak much more havoc than individuals. The large ones also seem to have an uncanny ability to perpetuate their existence (in various guises and incarnations) and generate some really nasty externalities. I do think that the level of freedom and lack of accountability (vis-a-vis individuals and governments) corporations enjoy in the United States has reached insane levels. One the other hand, I do prefer it to the situation in China, where any corporation is likely to become a tool of the State. I believe corporations can and should contribute back to the Military if they have benefited financially from military technology. Perhaps not as much as would have been the case in a Socialist/Communist country, but definitely at some level higher than the present.

joshuamorton 8y ago
>I simply do not believe in corporate personhood. I don't think what I'm saying depends on corporate personhood. My point is, if you claim that corporations have a responsibility to contribute back to the military, you are claiming that someone at the company should do that. Further, in your post that started this subthread, you stated >It's high time these companies are regulated and their malfeasance reined in by the United States. That, at least to me, reads as though you think that the US should regulate these companies in ways that require them to give back to the military. Which again, which employees should do that? How can you compel a company without, at some level, compelling the individuals within the company? Which you've at least claimed you don't want to do?
- rmk 8y ago
  > I don't think what I'm saying depends on corporate personhood. My point is, if you claim that corporations have a responsibility to contribute back to the military, you are claiming that someone at the company should do that. It does. A corporation can easily set up a division or a separate subsidiary or sub entity and staff it with willing individuals to do this sort of thing. There is no direct conflict with individuals' rights. So sure, Google the corporation can be compelled to do this without affecting individuals. It's quite common in other industries, but of course, for SV, it's all about the hubris, optics and innate sense of superiority.
  - joshuamorton 8y ago
    >It's quite common in other industries In what other industries does the government require companies to develop military technology? >A corporation can easily set up a division or a separate subsidiary or sub entity and staff it with willing individuals to do this sort of thing. So you're saying that if I found a company that is based on internet-related technologies, it is reasonable to at some point in the future compel me (or compel me to pay for someone else) to work on military drones?
    - rmk 8y ago
      > In what other industries does the government require companies to develop military technology? The canonical example is the early days of aerospace, where for all practical purposes you were developing military technology. > So you're saying that if I found a company that is based on internet-related technologies, it is reasonable to at some point in the future compel me (or compel me to pay for someone else) to work on military drones? The government can already compel you to license your work via eminent domain. There's an established process for this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_patent_use_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_patent_use_(United_... At any point of time there are always a slew of 'sensitive technologies' whose use and development will be closely monitored and companies are incentivized, severely restricted, or outright barred from freely trafficking in them. It's not a giant leap of the imagination that they will be forced to do the federal govt's bidding if they already do a large amount of business with them or have started out with military IP. 'Internet-related technologies' is not one of them. There was a time when supercomputers were in this category, then it was cryptography, and now it's looking like AI. BTW, Cisco and a few others have been forced to develop 'lawful intercept' technologies on their routers for the three-letter agencies for years, I think. There was a big controversy about this a few years ago.
      - brandonsometig 8y ago
        > BTW, Cisco and a few others have been forced to develop 'lawful intercept' technologies on their routers for the three-letter agencies for years, I think. There was a big controversy about this a few years ago. And you seem to be arguing that this is a good thing? Surely any company (filled with people) should be free to work on whatever technologies that those people feel is ethically right.
sir_kin 8y ago
> I believe corporations can and should contribute back to the Military if they have benefited financially from military technology. Do you also believe corporations should contribute to Experimental Particle Physics at CERN if they have benefited financially from the world wide web? https://home.cern/topics/birth-web https://home.cern/topics/birth-web

by rmk 8y ago

joshuamorton 8y ago

>I simply do not believe in corporate personhood. I don't think what I'm saying depends on corporate personhood. My point is, if you claim that corporations have a responsibility to contribute back to the military, you are claiming that someone at the company should do that. Further, in your post that started this subthread, you stated >It's high time these companies are regulated and their malfeasance reined in by the United States. That, at least to me, reads as though you think that the US should regulate these companies in ways that require them to give back to the military. Which again, which employees should do that? How can you compel a company without, at some level, compelling the individuals within the company? Which you've at least claimed you don't want to do?

rmk 8y ago
> I don't think what I'm saying depends on corporate personhood. My point is, if you claim that corporations have a responsibility to contribute back to the military, you are claiming that someone at the company should do that. It does. A corporation can easily set up a division or a separate subsidiary or sub entity and staff it with willing individuals to do this sort of thing. There is no direct conflict with individuals' rights. So sure, Google the corporation can be compelled to do this without affecting individuals. It's quite common in other industries, but of course, for SV, it's all about the hubris, optics and innate sense of superiority.
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  >It's quite common in other industries In what other industries does the government require companies to develop military technology? >A corporation can easily set up a division or a separate subsidiary or sub entity and staff it with willing individuals to do this sort of thing. So you're saying that if I found a company that is based on internet-related technologies, it is reasonable to at some point in the future compel me (or compel me to pay for someone else) to work on military drones?
  - rmk 8y ago
    > In what other industries does the government require companies to develop military technology? The canonical example is the early days of aerospace, where for all practical purposes you were developing military technology. > So you're saying that if I found a company that is based on internet-related technologies, it is reasonable to at some point in the future compel me (or compel me to pay for someone else) to work on military drones? The government can already compel you to license your work via eminent domain. There's an established process for this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_patent_use_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_patent_use_(United_... At any point of time there are always a slew of 'sensitive technologies' whose use and development will be closely monitored and companies are incentivized, severely restricted, or outright barred from freely trafficking in them. It's not a giant leap of the imagination that they will be forced to do the federal govt's bidding if they already do a large amount of business with them or have started out with military IP. 'Internet-related technologies' is not one of them. There was a time when supercomputers were in this category, then it was cryptography, and now it's looking like AI. BTW, Cisco and a few others have been forced to develop 'lawful intercept' technologies on their routers for the three-letter agencies for years, I think. There was a big controversy about this a few years ago.
    - brandonsometig 8y ago
      > BTW, Cisco and a few others have been forced to develop 'lawful intercept' technologies on their routers for the three-letter agencies for years, I think. There was a big controversy about this a few years ago. And you seem to be arguing that this is a good thing? Surely any company (filled with people) should be free to work on whatever technologies that those people feel is ethically right.

sir_kin 8y ago

> I believe corporations can and should contribute back to the Military if they have benefited financially from military technology. Do you also believe corporations should contribute to Experimental Particle Physics at CERN if they have benefited financially from the world wide web? https://home.cern/topics/birth-web https://home.cern/topics/birth-web