3 ms·
In other words, the current rules means that you should try to screw your workers maximally but surreptitiously, because the only penalty for being caught is ha
by danudey 6y ago
In other words, the current rules means that you should try to screw your workers maximally but surreptitiously, because the only penalty for being caught is having to give the money back like it's no big deal.
- harry8 6y agoOr in different (better?) words. Theft from employees is not illegal and carries no consequences. Employee theft from employers as compensation for having their property stolen, while being more justified on any moral basis, is illegal and can send the employee to jail. It's theft. A person did it. Another approved it. All of them are guilty of it and should not be able to hide behind liability limitation for investors to commit crime. Membership of a criminal syndicate should not be any kind of legal defence "I gave the proceeds to the boss." Criminal prosecution of individuals like any other criminal prosecution for theft.
- esyir 6y agoFull agreement, but I think danudey's version captures it better than yours as it better captures the current ruleset incentivizing bad behavior. Screw them: Get stuff -> Net Positive Screw them, get caught: Return stuff -> Net 0 Don't Screw them: Gain nothing -> Net 0 Given these rules, a rational agent would pick to screw them over 100% of the time.
- harry8 6y agoThat's the game theoretic analysis from an amoral standpoint. You'll forgive me if I don't think ignoring morality captures it better because you do have to embrace being a thief to take the optimal solution of a rational agent. There are many people who won't do that. Ignoring them doesn't seem quite fair to me.