4 ms·

Is there any limit, in your opinion, to what a company should willingly comply with from a government?

by throwaway2048 6y ago

avianlyric 6y ago
Presumably not, as long as those government requests/demands are valid within the eyes of local law. To say otherwise is to suggest that companies should exist above the law, and ignore the rule of law where it’s inconvenient. I don’t think that’s a precedent you want to set. With regards to moral obligations of US companies seeking to do business in countries that don’t uphold the same standards as the US. I would argue a better place to have that conversation is in Congress, which could then seek to apply export controls to all companies. Rather than just relying on the good will and moral judgment of amoral companies. I would personally love to see restrictions on trade with China tied to their human rights violations. But don’t think right approach is campaigning individual companies.
- phnofive 6y ago
  > I don’t think that’s a president you want to set. Typo?
  - avianlyric 6y ago
    Yeah, that and the incredibly unhelpful spellcheck/autocorrect in iOS.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  > To say otherwise is to suggest that companies should exist above the law, and ignore the rule of law where it’s inconvenient. This is a straw man. Most people recognize a company can't ignore Chinese law and do business in China.
- morbicer 6y ago
  so it's fine to do business with countries that are literally committing genocide? And profit from it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_... Either a company has some sort of conscience or not. I know that companies are created to make profit but there is a certain boundary after which it's fair that they are under public scrutiny, even if there is no government embargo on China.
  - dkonofalski 6y ago
    Doing business with someone is not the same as condoning their actions. You 100% buy things every day from companies whose actions you disagree with.
    - kelnos 6y ago
      Sure, but my personal ability to encourage change through a boycott is limited. A large company's ability is orders of magnitude higher. And often I don't have much choice what company I buy things from based on what's available, and even when I do, they all often have similar (or different, but just as bad) problems. But this goes into a bit of a policy/morality/philosophy question: should companies have high moral standards, and give up market share in places where they are unable to adhere to those standards? The stock capitalist answer is probably "no, gaining market share and increasing profits is more important". Personally I think that's a fundamental problem with capitalism.
      - avianlyric 6y ago
        The way companies are run today is built around the church of stockholder value, above every other concern. (Which sucks, but you can’t argue with reality) Companies have no moral compass, and we should never expect the to behave in any moral way, unless someone thinks it’ll create more stockholder value than acting immorally. I can’t help but feel that all this hand wringing about what Apple (or any other large company) should or should not be doing is a waste of time. Time that would be better spent trying to build consensus around what principles we as a society care about, and wish to project into the world. Then we should just write laws and regulation to make it happen, and to force the hands of companies. Anything else strikes me as futile and pointless. A distraction from achieving real meaningful change.
    - throwaway2048 6y ago
      So its fine to be "only following orders", as long as you get a payday?
kypro 6y ago
I don't think we should expect companies to be moral agents. It's not that they shouldn't be, but more that it's impractical because what's right and wrong (or simply acceptable) depends on who you ask. Furthermore, companies willing to operate immorally have a competitive advantage over those which don't -- if Apple didn't cooperate with authoritarian governments or exploit developing countries for cheap labour they won't stay competitive and a company that does those things will take its place. The answer IMO has to be regulation. We have to cut off the incentives companies have to act immorally. The problem of course is that this could then make the economy as a whole uncompetitive so politicians are equally unlikely to take action. Not to be a doomer, but on the issue of China the West has probably waited too long to take action at this point. This would have been easier in the past, but now China has become so dominant, and with Western companies and economies being so dependant on China for labour and manufacturing it's hard to imagine any significant business or political intervention happening. In fact, this is likely just the beginning, in the future when China is the core market for most multinational companies political intervention basically becomes impossible. No company is going to pull out of their largest market (especially if it's growing faster than the US).

Is there any limit, in your opinion, to what a company should willingly comply with from a government?

Presumably not, as long as those government requests/demands are valid within the eyes of local law. To say otherwise is to suggest that companies should exist above the law, and ignore the rule of law where it’s inconvenient. I don’t think that’s a precedent you want to set. With regards to moral obligations of US companies seeking to do business in countries that don’t uphold the same standards as the US. I would argue a better place to have that conversation is in Congress, which could then seek to apply export controls to all companies. Rather than just relying on the good will and moral judgment of amoral companies. I would personally love to see restrictions on trade with China tied to their human rights violations. But don’t think right approach is campaigning individual companies.

phnofive 6y ago
> I don’t think that’s a president you want to set. Typo?
- avianlyric 6y ago
  Yeah, that and the incredibly unhelpful spellcheck/autocorrect in iOS.
pseudalopex 6y ago
> To say otherwise is to suggest that companies should exist above the law, and ignore the rule of law where it’s inconvenient. This is a straw man. Most people recognize a company can't ignore Chinese law and do business in China.
morbicer 6y ago
so it's fine to do business with countries that are literally committing genocide? And profit from it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_... Either a company has some sort of conscience or not. I know that companies are created to make profit but there is a certain boundary after which it's fair that they are under public scrutiny, even if there is no government embargo on China.
- dkonofalski 6y ago
  Doing business with someone is not the same as condoning their actions. You 100% buy things every day from companies whose actions you disagree with.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    Sure, but my personal ability to encourage change through a boycott is limited. A large company's ability is orders of magnitude higher. And often I don't have much choice what company I buy things from based on what's available, and even when I do, they all often have similar (or different, but just as bad) problems. But this goes into a bit of a policy/morality/philosophy question: should companies have high moral standards, and give up market share in places where they are unable to adhere to those standards? The stock capitalist answer is probably "no, gaining market share and increasing profits is more important". Personally I think that's a fundamental problem with capitalism.
    - avianlyric 6y ago
      The way companies are run today is built around the church of stockholder value, above every other concern. (Which sucks, but you can’t argue with reality) Companies have no moral compass, and we should never expect the to behave in any moral way, unless someone thinks it’ll create more stockholder value than acting immorally. I can’t help but feel that all this hand wringing about what Apple (or any other large company) should or should not be doing is a waste of time. Time that would be better spent trying to build consensus around what principles we as a society care about, and wish to project into the world. Then we should just write laws and regulation to make it happen, and to force the hands of companies. Anything else strikes me as futile and pointless. A distraction from achieving real meaningful change.
  - throwaway2048 6y ago
    So its fine to be "only following orders", as long as you get a payday?

kypro 6y ago

I don't think we should expect companies to be moral agents. It's not that they shouldn't be, but more that it's impractical because what's right and wrong (or simply acceptable) depends on who you ask. Furthermore, companies willing to operate immorally have a competitive advantage over those which don't -- if Apple didn't cooperate with authoritarian governments or exploit developing countries for cheap labour they won't stay competitive and a company that does those things will take its place. The answer IMO has to be regulation. We have to cut off the incentives companies have to act immorally. The problem of course is that this could then make the economy as a whole uncompetitive so politicians are equally unlikely to take action. Not to be a doomer, but on the issue of China the West has probably waited too long to take action at this point. This would have been easier in the past, but now China has become so dominant, and with Western companies and economies being so dependant on China for labour and manufacturing it's hard to imagine any significant business or political intervention happening. In fact, this is likely just the beginning, in the future when China is the core market for most multinational companies political intervention basically becomes impossible. No company is going to pull out of their largest market (especially if it's growing faster than the US).