4 ms·

> On the contrary, it' and indictment of the current law system, it has utterally failed to protect the environment and other living things. The fact that our

> On the contrary, it' and indictment of the current law system, it has utterally failed to protect the environment and other living things. The fact that our laws have tried to protect the environment and 'utterly failed' is clear evidence that behaviour of individuals and corporations are not, by default, making good environmental decisions. The idea that these actors, who are bad stewards of the environment when laws are compelling them to be good, would suddenly become good stewards of the environment in an anarchic system, is wishful thinking.

MacsHeadroom 6y ago
Counterpoint: The legal concept of fiduciary responsibility, and actual de facto laws, legally compel the board of directors and executives of for-profit corporations to produce profit for their shareholders. There are even special laws for officers of publicly traded companies that make this compulsion even more strict add additional criminal charges for failure. Now, obviously these laws aren't something most corporate officers think about when they get out of bed. But they absolutely do create powerful incentives and drive the culture of large corporations away from any consideration for ethics.
- BobbyJo 6y ago
  >absolutely do create powerful incentives and drive the culture of large corporations away from any consideration for ethics. They absolutely do not. Corporate officers, especially at large corporations, are driven by personal profit, career success, etc. Fiduciary responsibility represents exactly what its name implies: the requirement that you act responsibly on behalf of investors/shareholders. If it was a powerful driver of corporate behavior, then we would expect different behaviors from privately run corporations (I believe that's actually most of them). I do not see that being the case.
- sobani 6y ago
  > The legal concept of fiduciary responsibility, and actual de facto laws, legally compel the board of directors and executives of for-profit corporations to produce profit for their shareholders. False. There are no laws that compel a company to produce profits for their shareholders. There is an economic _philosophy_ that argues that since the market economy is the bees knees, it follows that a company that has a higher profit is also 'better', but that does not make it a legal concept. [0] Fiduciary responsibility in this case simply means that the directors should have the best interest of the company in mind. [1] In most cases shareholders want more money, so making more money is a natural result. But if there is a company whose single mission is to put a colony on Mars, then fiduciary responsibility compels the directors to only focus on that, even if such a colony would be less profitable than setting money on fire. [0] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shareholder-value.asp#the-shareholder-value-maximization-myth https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shareholder-value.asp#t... [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty

MacsHeadroom 6y ago

Counterpoint: The legal concept of fiduciary responsibility, and actual de facto laws, legally compel the board of directors and executives of for-profit corporations to produce profit for their shareholders. There are even special laws for officers of publicly traded companies that make this compulsion even more strict add additional criminal charges for failure. Now, obviously these laws aren't something most corporate officers think about when they get out of bed. But they absolutely do create powerful incentives and drive the culture of large corporations away from any consideration for ethics.

BobbyJo 6y ago
>absolutely do create powerful incentives and drive the culture of large corporations away from any consideration for ethics. They absolutely do not. Corporate officers, especially at large corporations, are driven by personal profit, career success, etc. Fiduciary responsibility represents exactly what its name implies: the requirement that you act responsibly on behalf of investors/shareholders. If it was a powerful driver of corporate behavior, then we would expect different behaviors from privately run corporations (I believe that's actually most of them). I do not see that being the case.
sobani 6y ago
> The legal concept of fiduciary responsibility, and actual de facto laws, legally compel the board of directors and executives of for-profit corporations to produce profit for their shareholders. False. There are no laws that compel a company to produce profits for their shareholders. There is an economic _philosophy_ that argues that since the market economy is the bees knees, it follows that a company that has a higher profit is also 'better', but that does not make it a legal concept. [0] Fiduciary responsibility in this case simply means that the directors should have the best interest of the company in mind. [1] In most cases shareholders want more money, so making more money is a natural result. But if there is a company whose single mission is to put a colony on Mars, then fiduciary responsibility compels the directors to only focus on that, even if such a colony would be less profitable than setting money on fire. [0] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shareholder-value.asp#the-shareholder-value-maximization-myth https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shareholder-value.asp#t... [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty