4 ms·

Maybe if they'd paid their fair share in taxes, they'd feel less guilty about the ethics. As it stands, they're not exactly helping society fix these problems.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
Apple builds tens of millions of products every year that increase productivity. They're not indebted to society, let alone to the US where they are providing billions in salaries and capital appreciation income.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  Of course they are, without society enfircing property rights then anyone could do the same. They also owe (as everyone does) society for even being in a state where they can exist and operate. They depend on society exstentially. It's not like they paid for infrastructure, business ecosyatem, the conditions for consumers to consume, etc. Without societ they'd be nothing at all.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    Society gets high quality products that enhance productivity, and enormous tax revenue that more than makes up for any public services that could conceivably contribute to their productivity, so of course they're not indebted to society. >>Without societ they'd be nothing at all. Society constitutes them as well, so they are also contributing to the existence of this society, which means they are giving as much as they're receiving.
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      You seem to have forgotten that we buy that from Apple. On top of the massive amount of research that we fund one way or anogher. > Society constitutes them as well, so they are also contributing to the existence of this society, which means they are giving as much as they're receiving. Society can exist without them but they cannot exist without society. That's a difference you're missing.
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>You seem to have forgotten that we buy that from Apple. On top of the massive amount of research that we fund one way or anogher. Yes we buy it because the money we pay is worth less to us than the product that they provide us in the exchange. That is what trade results in: both parties benefiting. Put another way, they are not indebted on account of benefiting from this trade, given they are contributing something of even greater value in exchange for that benefit, and have no more obligation toward society, on account of engaging in large volumes of mutually beneficial trade, than any one else. >> On top of the massive amount of research that we fund one way or anogher. That funding is for public research that is freely given away. You can't release scientific knowledge into the public domain and then claim those who benefit from it are indebted. That would be a false pretense of "public domain". Moreover, the tax revenue generated by Apple, its US-based suppliers and its employees, allows for significant amounts of funding for public research that benefits society at large. >>Society can exist without them but they cannot exist without society. That applies to every constituent of society. We cannot say that every single individual owes to society more than it is owed on that account, or else it would mean some non-existent element of society should receive payment on the collective debt of the constituents of society.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
judge2020 5y ago
For reference: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/401776-apple-argued-its-buildings-were-worth-200-instead-of-1-billion-to-reduce https://thehill.com/policy/technology/401776-apple-argued-it...

CryptoPunk 5y ago

Apple builds tens of millions of products every year that increase productivity. They're not indebted to society, let alone to the US where they are providing billions in salaries and capital appreciation income.

guerrilla 5y ago
Of course they are, without society enfircing property rights then anyone could do the same. They also owe (as everyone does) society for even being in a state where they can exist and operate. They depend on society exstentially. It's not like they paid for infrastructure, business ecosyatem, the conditions for consumers to consume, etc. Without societ they'd be nothing at all.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  Society gets high quality products that enhance productivity, and enormous tax revenue that more than makes up for any public services that could conceivably contribute to their productivity, so of course they're not indebted to society. >>Without societ they'd be nothing at all. Society constitutes them as well, so they are also contributing to the existence of this society, which means they are giving as much as they're receiving.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    You seem to have forgotten that we buy that from Apple. On top of the massive amount of research that we fund one way or anogher. > Society constitutes them as well, so they are also contributing to the existence of this society, which means they are giving as much as they're receiving. Society can exist without them but they cannot exist without society. That's a difference you're missing.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      >>You seem to have forgotten that we buy that from Apple. On top of the massive amount of research that we fund one way or anogher. Yes we buy it because the money we pay is worth less to us than the product that they provide us in the exchange. That is what trade results in: both parties benefiting. Put another way, they are not indebted on account of benefiting from this trade, given they are contributing something of even greater value in exchange for that benefit, and have no more obligation toward society, on account of engaging in large volumes of mutually beneficial trade, than any one else. >> On top of the massive amount of research that we fund one way or anogher. That funding is for public research that is freely given away. You can't release scientific knowledge into the public domain and then claim those who benefit from it are indebted. That would be a false pretense of "public domain". Moreover, the tax revenue generated by Apple, its US-based suppliers and its employees, allows for significant amounts of funding for public research that benefits society at large. >>Society can exist without them but they cannot exist without society. That applies to every constituent of society. We cannot say that every single individual owes to society more than it is owed on that account, or else it would mean some non-existent element of society should receive payment on the collective debt of the constituents of society.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

judge2020 5y ago

For reference: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/401776-apple-argued-its-buildings-were-worth-200-instead-of-1-billion-to-reduce https://thehill.com/policy/technology/401776-apple-argued-it...