3 ms·

No, it doesn't. It means not privileging profits at the expense of people. It's possible to have profit as a goal without hurting people (in this fashion).

MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
> without hurting people You need to be specific. Injuries? Stress? Responsibility? Overtime? General drudgery? People are paid a salary to do something they wouldn't do otherwise. There is always a downside. Laws exist to limit certain downsides, eg undue physical stress, sexual exploitation or too high a risk of injuries. If that was the actual policy goal, you would not say “We cannot allow corporations to put profit over people”, you would be mentioning a specific downside. Doing otherwise would be dishonest sloganeering.
- Mordisquitos 5y ago
  Why should they mention a specific downside when they are merely expressing support for the overall idea? Ultimately it is all down to value judgements, in the same way you do not specify what constitutes undue physical stress as opposed to appropriate physical stress, nor when a risk of injury becomes too high.
  - MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
    Please vote for my new party, The Good Party. Our "overall idea" of policy is that we prefer to do good things. You should vote for us if you, in general, like good things. None of the things that we are in favour for have drawbacks, and given enough time and money, our regime will inevitably result in Fully Automated Luxury Communism.
    - Mordisquitos 5y ago
      I'm sorry, I demand political parties to be specific and detailed as to their ultimate values and how they expect to implement them, unlike HN commenters who do not have such a responsibility. Also, not only do I see no novelty in a political party refusing to recognise any drawback to their policies, but I also lean much more towards Neo-Luddite Automation Restriction.
      - MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
        > Neo-Luddite Automation Restriction Excellent, board the Butlerian Jihad Hilux then, we're riding at dawn.

MrBuddyCasino 5y ago

> without hurting people You need to be specific. Injuries? Stress? Responsibility? Overtime? General drudgery? People are paid a salary to do something they wouldn't do otherwise. There is always a downside. Laws exist to limit certain downsides, eg undue physical stress, sexual exploitation or too high a risk of injuries. If that was the actual policy goal, you would not say “We cannot allow corporations to put profit over people”, you would be mentioning a specific downside. Doing otherwise would be dishonest sloganeering.

Mordisquitos 5y ago
Why should they mention a specific downside when they are merely expressing support for the overall idea? Ultimately it is all down to value judgements, in the same way you do not specify what constitutes undue physical stress as opposed to appropriate physical stress, nor when a risk of injury becomes too high.
- MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
  Please vote for my new party, The Good Party. Our "overall idea" of policy is that we prefer to do good things. You should vote for us if you, in general, like good things. None of the things that we are in favour for have drawbacks, and given enough time and money, our regime will inevitably result in Fully Automated Luxury Communism.
  - Mordisquitos 5y ago
    I'm sorry, I demand political parties to be specific and detailed as to their ultimate values and how they expect to implement them, unlike HN commenters who do not have such a responsibility. Also, not only do I see no novelty in a political party refusing to recognise any drawback to their policies, but I also lean much more towards Neo-Luddite Automation Restriction.
    - MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
      > Neo-Luddite Automation Restriction Excellent, board the Butlerian Jihad Hilux then, we're riding at dawn.