4 ms·

> ... but you can't blame Jeff Bezos for UK legislation. Ahh, the old 'unless it's specifically and explicitly denied, regardless of moral or ethical considera

by Jedd 8y ago

> ... but you can't blame Jeff Bezos for UK legislation. Ahh, the old 'unless it's specifically and explicitly denied, regardless of moral or ethical considerations, let alone acting contra to the spirit of the law, then it's okay' defence. Your misdirection is correct - Jeff Bezos is not responsible for UK legislation - however how Jeff Bezos instructs his vendors and employees to act is very much his responsibility.

natalyarostova 8y ago
If you want to optimize systems, you should expect people to operate with self-interest with respect to the law. Attributing moral blame for self-interested parties not donating money to be within the spirit of the law is unreasonable.
- p1necone 8y ago
  No it's fucking not.
- projektir 8y ago
  Attributing moral blame to self-interested parties is exactly the point of moral blame. Moral blame is specifically about accusing people of going for their self-interest and little else...
  - solveit 8y ago
    You're talking past each other. Moral blame isn't wrong, just not very useful.
    - rsj_hn 8y ago
      Moral blame and $5 will get you a cup of coffee from Blue Bottle, which just sold out to Nestle.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    Why must there be anything else? If you're going to make this argument then you must have a compelling answer, specifically in the context of a corporation.
nambit 8y ago
You want companies to pay more taxes than is legally required of them? What la la land do you live in?
manigandham 8y ago
Companies follow laws and regulations, and optimize for profit and sustainability within those rules. Why would they ever pay MORE than they have to? There are no ethics or morals here. Taxes are not charity. If you want to change the tax laws then you can do so, via the government that you take part in.
- r00fus 8y ago
  You don't think that negotiation and outright bribery (oh I'm sorry in the civilized West we call it lobbying) don't drive either the laws or the uneven enforcement of them? Amazon is so big that they can jurisdiction shop or even just shop for legislators/civil servants to help fashion the regulatory environment they prefer.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    Bribery is already illegal so what's your point with that? Everything you're saying falls under "change and improve your government" if you want to see something different. If they fail to act in the public interest then vote in someone else, or run for office and show them how it's done. It's not easy, but it's not impossible. And it's far more realistic than posting some comments and wondering why companies don't magically just donate their money away.
- TheCoelacanth 8y ago
  I don't have complete control over every government in the world. It is perfectly reasonable for me to criticize the way that companies act, even if it is incentivized by a government. People do not have to be mindless money maximizers. They have a choice in how they act and they are responsible for their own actions regardless of what incentives the government creates.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    Nobody has complete control over any government, anywhere in the world. Companies are also not citizens, they are abstract structures designed to deliver value to customers and make a profit in doing so. A corporation has no specific loyalty to the government beyond following the laws and paying the dues required for operating. Corporations are also not able to judge what the "ethical" amount to pay is, which is why the government sets those rules on behalf of the people it represents. You're turning a government issue into a corporate issue because it sounds easy, but ultimately its just treating (or rather complaining about) the symptom rather than enacting any solution. Again, perhaps you should join the government and enact the change you want to see? Also since you are talking about responsibility and actions, I assume you donate all the spare cash you have that isn't going to taxes. Or is that not ethical in your case?
tim333 8y ago
Jeff Bezos has a legal obligation to Amazon shareholders. He's not really allowed to donate their money to the UK government beyond what is required by UK law.

by Jedd 8y ago

natalyarostova 8y ago

If you want to optimize systems, you should expect people to operate with self-interest with respect to the law. Attributing moral blame for self-interested parties not donating money to be within the spirit of the law is unreasonable.

p1necone 8y ago
No it's fucking not.
projektir 8y ago
Attributing moral blame to self-interested parties is exactly the point of moral blame. Moral blame is specifically about accusing people of going for their self-interest and little else...
- solveit 8y ago
  You're talking past each other. Moral blame isn't wrong, just not very useful.
  - rsj_hn 8y ago
    Moral blame and $5 will get you a cup of coffee from Blue Bottle, which just sold out to Nestle.
- manigandham 8y ago
  Why must there be anything else? If you're going to make this argument then you must have a compelling answer, specifically in the context of a corporation.

nambit 8y ago

You want companies to pay more taxes than is legally required of them? What la la land do you live in?

manigandham 8y ago

Companies follow laws and regulations, and optimize for profit and sustainability within those rules. Why would they ever pay MORE than they have to? There are no ethics or morals here. Taxes are not charity. If you want to change the tax laws then you can do so, via the government that you take part in.

r00fus 8y ago
You don't think that negotiation and outright bribery (oh I'm sorry in the civilized West we call it lobbying) don't drive either the laws or the uneven enforcement of them? Amazon is so big that they can jurisdiction shop or even just shop for legislators/civil servants to help fashion the regulatory environment they prefer.
- manigandham 8y ago
  Bribery is already illegal so what's your point with that? Everything you're saying falls under "change and improve your government" if you want to see something different. If they fail to act in the public interest then vote in someone else, or run for office and show them how it's done. It's not easy, but it's not impossible. And it's far more realistic than posting some comments and wondering why companies don't magically just donate their money away.
TheCoelacanth 8y ago
I don't have complete control over every government in the world. It is perfectly reasonable for me to criticize the way that companies act, even if it is incentivized by a government. People do not have to be mindless money maximizers. They have a choice in how they act and they are responsible for their own actions regardless of what incentives the government creates.
- manigandham 8y ago
  Nobody has complete control over any government, anywhere in the world. Companies are also not citizens, they are abstract structures designed to deliver value to customers and make a profit in doing so. A corporation has no specific loyalty to the government beyond following the laws and paying the dues required for operating. Corporations are also not able to judge what the "ethical" amount to pay is, which is why the government sets those rules on behalf of the people it represents. You're turning a government issue into a corporate issue because it sounds easy, but ultimately its just treating (or rather complaining about) the symptom rather than enacting any solution. Again, perhaps you should join the government and enact the change you want to see? Also since you are talking about responsibility and actions, I assume you donate all the spare cash you have that isn't going to taxes. Or is that not ethical in your case?

tim333 8y ago

Jeff Bezos has a legal obligation to Amazon shareholders. He's not really allowed to donate their money to the UK government beyond what is required by UK law.