3 ms·

> I can see it now, the CEO walks into the corporate meeting with an epiphany... > Guys, lets just pretend that our higher expenses _ARE A CORPORATE TAX_. Then

> I can see it now, the CEO walks into the corporate meeting with an epiphany... > Guys, lets just pretend that our higher expenses _ARE A CORPORATE TAX_. Then it all washes out in the end and we don't have to whine about putting the burden of society on private companies! That's not going to work. This isn't about "higher expenses" but about destroying Uber's business model. Uber cannot afford to pay healthcare for everyone who may or may not do a few drives every month. Maybe you could just pretend that Uber paying lots of taxes is already paying for many social services? Which, come to think of, shouldn't require any pretense.

RandoHolmes 6y ago
When you can imagine a slave owner making the same argument ('it invalidates my business model!'), said argument kind of becomes a positive. I mean that seriously. If your business model can't exist without the exploitation of humans. maaaaaaybe it shouldn't exist, morally.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Yes because people choosing to work based on their own free will is the equivalent of kidnapping people from another country and if you try to escape once here, they are chased by dogs, shot, hung, whipped, kids taking away at birth and sold. If you don’t believe that a company shouldn’t exist unless it can do so profitably. That means almost none of the companies that YC invests in should exists. If a country has a health care system that is tied to your employment status, just maybe we need a sane health care system.
  - RandoHolmes 6y ago
    I would like for you to define 'free will' in such a way that it cannot, in any way, include slavery. And you must do so by not explicitly defining it as 'not slavery'. go.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      What you are asking makes no sense. Are we really arguing that slaves had free will to choose where to work or if not to work?
      - RandoHolmes 6y ago
        ahahahahahahaha. You mean you can't define free will in those terms!?!?!? Who would have guessed....

RandoHolmes 6y ago

When you can imagine a slave owner making the same argument ('it invalidates my business model!'), said argument kind of becomes a positive. I mean that seriously. If your business model can't exist without the exploitation of humans. maaaaaaybe it shouldn't exist, morally.

scarface74 6y ago
Yes because people choosing to work based on their own free will is the equivalent of kidnapping people from another country and if you try to escape once here, they are chased by dogs, shot, hung, whipped, kids taking away at birth and sold. If you don’t believe that a company shouldn’t exist unless it can do so profitably. That means almost none of the companies that YC invests in should exists. If a country has a health care system that is tied to your employment status, just maybe we need a sane health care system.
- RandoHolmes 6y ago
  I would like for you to define 'free will' in such a way that it cannot, in any way, include slavery. And you must do so by not explicitly defining it as 'not slavery'. go.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    What you are asking makes no sense. Are we really arguing that slaves had free will to choose where to work or if not to work?
    - RandoHolmes 6y ago
      ahahahahahahaha. You mean you can't define free will in those terms!?!?!? Who would have guessed....