6 ms·

I sometimes wonder, what if there was a universal governing principle, that was simple to enforce, obvious, formulated in few words, so that everyone understand

I sometimes wonder, what if there was a universal governing principle, that was simple to enforce, obvious, formulated in few words, so that everyone understands it. All those priveleges which every of theese corporations enjoy, some simple, like not publishing schematic for 1000$+ device, some complex, like making backroom deals harming millions of people in a some insignificant and obscure way daily, like showing certain ads to certain people. Some other evade taxes using laws in ways laws were never intended to be used. To enumerate and prevent every abuse possible is not optimal spending of time. What if there were no hard rules, but instead the whole playing filed was in favour of little men. What would be the the main idea behind such system? Maybe some kind of radical transparency? This idea, principle should apply to every company and reward those who play not only by the rules, but to the common end: sustainable, transparent, non-abusive, respecting sosiety. If only existed some simple rule that reward this behaviour.

coliveira 5y ago
Of course this exists, it is called socialism. But our society is so deep into consumerist propaganda that it has lost the ways to evaluate anything that doesn't presume capitalism.
- thow-01187 5y ago
  I suspect that worshiping "The Rule of Law" as an unadulterated good is responsible for a lot of the corporate overreach we observe in the past few decades. When we construct a social fiction that state is just one among many actors, and must be bound by rigid rules and justify its actions, that Bermuda is basically an equal partner to the US, it just naturally leads other entities to malignant behavior Of course the corporations will reverse engineer the legal code to get away with as much as they can. Of course they will evade taxes. Of course there will be a slow creep, where previously borderline illegal behavior is now the best practice adopted by everyone, and therefore unenforceable If there's a sovereign on top of the hierarchy that doesn't have to answer to anyone, the corporations are way more docile, as seen in China or FDR-era USA, and proactively align their goals with the goals of the society
  - jdbernard 5y ago
    While I appreciate the point you're making, and don't completely disagree, I think you make a faulty assumption about our collective ability to find a suitable sovereign and that person's ability to resist the very same forces that lead to the inevitablity of corporate overreach. Having a single person with that much power was the core reason historic Americans revolted from the crown, and I don't think they were wrong Again, I appreciate your statement of the problem. But I'm scared of your hypothetical solution.
ganzuul 5y ago
Reputation.
- tata71 5y ago
  Merit-based society.
  - webmaven 5y ago
    Meritocracy sounds pretty good in principle, until you realize that 'merit' is usually defined by whoever happens to be in power, and thus often ends up entrenching and perpetuating existing power structures. It is convenient to be thought of as having attained your position by merit, and also to be able to define the criteria by which others must seek to displace or succeed you.
crawfordcomeaux 5y ago
Meets all needs while denying none. Establish a category theory based foundation of human needs, which will necessarily include the environment and its needs, and all legislation must show how it meets the fundamental needs and all of their compositions, (eg. every need composes with the need for learning to result in the need to learn how to identify and meet any given need).
- salawat 5y ago
  Needs of whom? How are mutually exclusive needs reconciled? It's not anywhere as easy or free of potential villainy as you think.
  - crawfordcomeaux 5y ago
    Needs of all. What is an example of a mutually exclusive need?
    - salawat 5y ago
      I need my privacy to be respected. Google et al. would beg to differ. A certain debit card company needs people to overdraft and pay back their accounts to take profit. The overdrafter's need the card issuer to not lock them out or overpenalize so they can try to get out of dire financial straits. The U.S. wants a fair, just legal system. Prosecutors and law enforcement need the slack to focus on only pursuing "the worst cases". Balancing acts are a fact of life.
      - crawfordcomeaux 5y ago
        The needs of these organizations are not needs of human beings, but of systems created by humans. If they don't serve the needs of all, then they don't follow the principle. What you're describing is what I refer to as strategies, not needs. Here's some clarification: https://www.letsbramble.com/blog/needs-vs-strategies https://www.letsbramble.com/blog/needs-vs-strategies
goldenkey 5y ago
A world of B-corps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation Unfortunately, just like with non-profits, these designations just end up being gamed. You can't rule out evil because evil thwarts rules. Sometimes evil even makes rules to rule out good. It's a nice thought though.
- webmaven 5y ago
  > You can't rule out evil because evil thwarts rules. Nice turn of phrase! I'm stealing it.
  - goldenkey 5y ago
    Just remember, good needs to thwart rules too. Freedom is fought with blood, sweat, and tears. Evil creates rules, even those who mean well create rules that perpetuate evil. "Forgive them for they know not what they do." :-)
avaldes 5y ago
I got it: "don't be evil"
multiplegeorges 5y ago
Currently, companies have to put the needs of shareholders first above all else. It could be changed through legislation that companies need to put the needs of all *stake*holders first. This would mean chemical companies would have to take into account pollution past what is allowed by regulation, this would mean that Google would have to at least consider the well-being of web users as a whole when making decisions. And, I believe, this would give people the basis on which to sue a company if they didn't take all stakeholders' interests into account, like creating a program like Jedi Blue.
- leetcrew 5y ago
  in reality the "needs of shareholders" can be interpreted pretty flexibly. leaving a lot of money on the table in the short term to avoid a substantial loss of trust in the long term is not a breach of fiduciary duty.
- spaced-out 5y ago
  >It could be changed through legislation that companies need to put the needs of all stakeholders first. The problem is that it's the shareholders who sign off on the CEO, upper management, and their salaries and bonuses. I don't see how you can incentivize people to not put the needs of those who control their paychecks above all else under this model.
  - OkayPhysicist 5y ago
    You make those same shareholders liable for the crimes of their "employees". It could be as simple as "executing" companies, i.e., nationalizing/simply erasing companies for abusive behaviors, or it could be a more complicated weakening of the limited liability of corporations.

coliveira 5y ago

Of course this exists, it is called socialism. But our society is so deep into consumerist propaganda that it has lost the ways to evaluate anything that doesn't presume capitalism.

thow-01187 5y ago
I suspect that worshiping "The Rule of Law" as an unadulterated good is responsible for a lot of the corporate overreach we observe in the past few decades. When we construct a social fiction that state is just one among many actors, and must be bound by rigid rules and justify its actions, that Bermuda is basically an equal partner to the US, it just naturally leads other entities to malignant behavior Of course the corporations will reverse engineer the legal code to get away with as much as they can. Of course they will evade taxes. Of course there will be a slow creep, where previously borderline illegal behavior is now the best practice adopted by everyone, and therefore unenforceable If there's a sovereign on top of the hierarchy that doesn't have to answer to anyone, the corporations are way more docile, as seen in China or FDR-era USA, and proactively align their goals with the goals of the society
- jdbernard 5y ago
  While I appreciate the point you're making, and don't completely disagree, I think you make a faulty assumption about our collective ability to find a suitable sovereign and that person's ability to resist the very same forces that lead to the inevitablity of corporate overreach. Having a single person with that much power was the core reason historic Americans revolted from the crown, and I don't think they were wrong Again, I appreciate your statement of the problem. But I'm scared of your hypothetical solution.

ganzuul 5y ago

Reputation.

tata71 5y ago
Merit-based society.
- webmaven 5y ago
  Meritocracy sounds pretty good in principle, until you realize that 'merit' is usually defined by whoever happens to be in power, and thus often ends up entrenching and perpetuating existing power structures. It is convenient to be thought of as having attained your position by merit, and also to be able to define the criteria by which others must seek to displace or succeed you.

crawfordcomeaux 5y ago

Meets all needs while denying none. Establish a category theory based foundation of human needs, which will necessarily include the environment and its needs, and all legislation must show how it meets the fundamental needs and all of their compositions, (eg. every need composes with the need for learning to result in the need to learn how to identify and meet any given need).

salawat 5y ago
Needs of whom? How are mutually exclusive needs reconciled? It's not anywhere as easy or free of potential villainy as you think.
- crawfordcomeaux 5y ago
  Needs of all. What is an example of a mutually exclusive need?
  - salawat 5y ago
    I need my privacy to be respected. Google et al. would beg to differ. A certain debit card company needs people to overdraft and pay back their accounts to take profit. The overdrafter's need the card issuer to not lock them out or overpenalize so they can try to get out of dire financial straits. The U.S. wants a fair, just legal system. Prosecutors and law enforcement need the slack to focus on only pursuing "the worst cases". Balancing acts are a fact of life.
    - crawfordcomeaux 5y ago
      The needs of these organizations are not needs of human beings, but of systems created by humans. If they don't serve the needs of all, then they don't follow the principle. What you're describing is what I refer to as strategies, not needs. Here's some clarification: https://www.letsbramble.com/blog/needs-vs-strategies https://www.letsbramble.com/blog/needs-vs-strategies

goldenkey 5y ago

A world of B-corps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation Unfortunately, just like with non-profits, these designations just end up being gamed. You can't rule out evil because evil thwarts rules. Sometimes evil even makes rules to rule out good. It's a nice thought though.

webmaven 5y ago
> You can't rule out evil because evil thwarts rules. Nice turn of phrase! I'm stealing it.
- goldenkey 5y ago
  Just remember, good needs to thwart rules too. Freedom is fought with blood, sweat, and tears. Evil creates rules, even those who mean well create rules that perpetuate evil. "Forgive them for they know not what they do." :-)

avaldes 5y ago

I got it: "don't be evil"

multiplegeorges 5y ago

Currently, companies have to put the needs of shareholders first above all else. It could be changed through legislation that companies need to put the needs of all *stake*holders first. This would mean chemical companies would have to take into account pollution past what is allowed by regulation, this would mean that Google would have to at least consider the well-being of web users as a whole when making decisions. And, I believe, this would give people the basis on which to sue a company if they didn't take all stakeholders' interests into account, like creating a program like Jedi Blue.

leetcrew 5y ago
in reality the "needs of shareholders" can be interpreted pretty flexibly. leaving a lot of money on the table in the short term to avoid a substantial loss of trust in the long term is not a breach of fiduciary duty.
spaced-out 5y ago
>It could be changed through legislation that companies need to put the needs of all stakeholders first. The problem is that it's the shareholders who sign off on the CEO, upper management, and their salaries and bonuses. I don't see how you can incentivize people to not put the needs of those who control their paychecks above all else under this model.
- OkayPhysicist 5y ago
  You make those same shareholders liable for the crimes of their "employees". It could be as simple as "executing" companies, i.e., nationalizing/simply erasing companies for abusive behaviors, or it could be a more complicated weakening of the limited liability of corporations.