6 ms·

Not so for US companies. They are not free to choose, for instance, to not do business based on certain characteristics (race or sex, for example). Don't be s

by dhimes 16y ago

Not so for US companies. They are not free to choose, for instance, to not do business based on certain characteristics (race or sex, for example). Don't be so quick to give up the ship just because it's "business." The companies enjoy a relatively stable environment: roads, power grid, and security do to US soldiers willing to risk their lives. In my mind it's perfectly acceptable to make them play by certain rules. If they don't like it let them go run their business in Libya.

rbanffy 16y ago
> They are not free to choose, for instance, to not do business based on certain characteristics All they'll do is come up with excuses and drain our energy. Getting dragged through a legal battle is not fun. The most effective action here is to make as many people stop doing business with them as possible. I wonder if it would be possible to set up as many accounts as viable in the name of members of the association to receive donations for a unified fund. That would substantially increase their administrative overhead. Asymmetrical warfare is great.
- dhimes 16y ago
  I like the way you think. Unfortunately, they have a certain leverage in this space. I'm not sure that getting the market to act in a unified manner is a viable long term strategies against this class of problems in the long term. I'm speaking speculatively, of course, because this is kind of new and it's a bit early to bring in the gov, but regulations have their place. That's how we act in a unified manner not as a market, but as a supplier of their platform. In their mind, they supply a platform which allows businesses like mine to run. In my mind, I (we) supply the platform (the country and infrastructure) that allows their business to run. That means I get a say in how they conduct business, and I'm not opposed to using it (gov't intervention) if I need to, in principle. But I agree with your point that it is a longer battle to work through the government (and often by the time you are getting the regulation you are looking for the key players have written so many loopholes it's pathetic).
jimmyk 16y ago
>The companies enjoy a relatively stable environment: roads, power grid, and security do to US soldiers willing to risk their lives. In my mind it's perfectly acceptable to make them play by certain rules. This line of reasoning can be used to justify the majority forcing the minority to do literally anything. Your claim is that their reliance on society trumps one of their fundamental human rights. Do you really find that acceptable?
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Should corporations have human rights? A human can get imprisoned for committing a crime. A corporation cannot. It seems only fair they don't get human rights.
  - jimmyk 16y ago
    You know that corporations are comprised of human beings, right? By forcing a corporation to do something, you are forcing human beings to do something.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      What happens when you incarcerate a CEO? HR hires another, PR makes some noises to press as how former CEO didn't represent corporate values, lobbyists control the damage with legislators and business continues as usual.
      - jimmyk 16y ago
        That seems to be a complaint about corporations themselves, as in the legal entities granted immunities by their government. I'm not about to defend them in any fashion.
- dhimes 16y ago
  Um, be drafted? Pay taxes? Yes. We can force each other to play by rules. Fundamental human right? Bah. It's well established that in the US companies can be forced to do business with minorities, protestants, females, Democrats...plenty of people they may otherwise wish they didn't have to (well, maybe not Democrats). This idea that companies should be able to do whatever they can is nonsense (in fact, I'd go so far as to say it's poisonous, but that's for another post). Besides, I'm not forcing them to do anything. They are welcome to move their company to Sierra Leone.

by dhimes 16y ago

rbanffy 16y ago

> They are not free to choose, for instance, to not do business based on certain characteristics All they'll do is come up with excuses and drain our energy. Getting dragged through a legal battle is not fun. The most effective action here is to make as many people stop doing business with them as possible. I wonder if it would be possible to set up as many accounts as viable in the name of members of the association to receive donations for a unified fund. That would substantially increase their administrative overhead. Asymmetrical warfare is great.

dhimes 16y ago
I like the way you think. Unfortunately, they have a certain leverage in this space. I'm not sure that getting the market to act in a unified manner is a viable long term strategies against this class of problems in the long term. I'm speaking speculatively, of course, because this is kind of new and it's a bit early to bring in the gov, but regulations have their place. That's how we act in a unified manner not as a market, but as a supplier of their platform. In their mind, they supply a platform which allows businesses like mine to run. In my mind, I (we) supply the platform (the country and infrastructure) that allows their business to run. That means I get a say in how they conduct business, and I'm not opposed to using it (gov't intervention) if I need to, in principle. But I agree with your point that it is a longer battle to work through the government (and often by the time you are getting the regulation you are looking for the key players have written so many loopholes it's pathetic).

jimmyk 16y ago

>The companies enjoy a relatively stable environment: roads, power grid, and security do to US soldiers willing to risk their lives. In my mind it's perfectly acceptable to make them play by certain rules. This line of reasoning can be used to justify the majority forcing the minority to do literally anything. Your claim is that their reliance on society trumps one of their fundamental human rights. Do you really find that acceptable?

rbanffy 16y ago
Should corporations have human rights? A human can get imprisoned for committing a crime. A corporation cannot. It seems only fair they don't get human rights.
- jimmyk 16y ago
  You know that corporations are comprised of human beings, right? By forcing a corporation to do something, you are forcing human beings to do something.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    What happens when you incarcerate a CEO? HR hires another, PR makes some noises to press as how former CEO didn't represent corporate values, lobbyists control the damage with legislators and business continues as usual.
    - jimmyk 16y ago
      That seems to be a complaint about corporations themselves, as in the legal entities granted immunities by their government. I'm not about to defend them in any fashion.
dhimes 16y ago
Um, be drafted? Pay taxes? Yes. We can force each other to play by rules. Fundamental human right? Bah. It's well established that in the US companies can be forced to do business with minorities, protestants, females, Democrats...plenty of people they may otherwise wish they didn't have to (well, maybe not Democrats). This idea that companies should be able to do whatever they can is nonsense (in fact, I'd go so far as to say it's poisonous, but that's for another post). Besides, I'm not forcing them to do anything. They are welcome to move their company to Sierra Leone.