3 ms·
> Why should they employ anyone who criticizes them that way in public? [..] If you ran the company, or the department, or owned your own firm where employees a
by js8 6y ago
> Why should they employ anyone who criticizes them that way in public? [..] If you ran the company, or the department, or owned your own firm where employees aired your dirty laundry like this, why should you be expected to keep them on?
Because owning a company doesn't necessarily mean owning people working for it.
Ask yourself the same question about the government, why should your government be expected to keep you as citizen if you criticize their dirty laundry in public.
- tines 6y agoSince when does firing people constitute ownership? I (partially) own the government (in theory, if it's a democracy). I don't own the company that I work for.
- js8 6y agoYeah, but you're making a legal, not moral, argument. I argue that we often consider it unethical for government to silence its citizens, regardless of the law governing that country. Why we accept this in private companies? Should that be the nature of the ownership and why?
- tines 6y agoI was only addressing your use of the idea of "ownership," not the question of whether private parties silencing people is good.
- themaninthedark 6y agoBecause Companies and Governments are different entities? I can easily choose which company I want to work for, switching countries is something much harder. A government that does not like what I say can do all sorts of horrible things, jail me, confiscate property and event kill me. Companies generally do not have that power.
- lawnchair_larry 6y agoI think your analogy is 180 degrees out of phase. The obvious difference is that the government works for us, and our CEO doesn’t. That’s why they agreed to part with a mutually agreeable sum of their cash - something they do not have to do. If one party fails in their obligations to make this transaction mutually beneficial, the rational counterparty will sever the relationship. And yes, we fire the government all the time. We pay them, and if we don’t like their performance, they’re out. If they start publicly trashing us, they’re out even faster. This is why mayors have to appear meek and apologetic, instead of calling the voters a bunch of fools. Like when half of the population felt like Hillary called them a basket of deplorables, for example. Not many want to hire that person.
- jgwil2 6y agoAh, way to sneak some Hillary-bashing into a completely unrelated discussion. Friendly reminder that three million more people wanted to hire her than the other guy.
- lawnchair_larry 6y agoIf your takeaway from that comment was Hillary bashing, you missed the point.
- jgwil2 6y agoYou undermined your own point because you couldn't help but bring up a partisan political point from five years ago completely unnecessarily.