4 ms·

> What other course of action would you propose for a company? Just give up and donate their business to the communist party? just because businesses fight reg

> What other course of action would you propose for a company? Just give up and donate their business to the communist party? just because businesses fight regulation, doesn't mean they're morally in the right. Car companies fought seatbelt regulation for years. They also convinced their users/drivers that this was operating in their best interests and tried to get them on-side to fight said regulation.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
"ust because businesses fight regulation, doesn't mean they're morally in the right." True, but they are also not automatically not morally in the right. The article cites "they oppose government regulation" as proof that they are evil, which is nonsense. There are many evil governments in the world, which to oppose would be the morally right thing to do. And many proposed legislations in the US are evil, too.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  true, but regulations are primarily bad when corporations capture their regulators and use them to shut out competition. Which is once again the corporations doing something immoral. There's a whole issue with ineffective or overreaching regulations too, but that's bog standard incompetence rather than malice. Could you give an example of a regulation in the US that is straightforwardly evil? Generally speaking when I think of evils propagated by government I think of wars/colonialism, oppressive social policies and benefitting businesses at the cost of citizens' wellbeing. The US does all of these in varying degrees but I'm curious as to how the US is actually oppressing its corporations; from my perspective, the US seems like the most corporation-friendly country on the planet.
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    Well this could be an endless discussion, but in my opinion all legislations that moves society towards socialism is fundamentally evil. I'm sure there are more specific examples to find, but to me, that overarching principle suffices. People are used to the leftist way of thinking about "us vs them" and automatically think of corporations and "employers" as evil oppressors. I think the other way round. I think "workers" are just a social construct, and being able to start your own business is the very means to achieve freedom. So regulations destroying businesses are enemies of freedom and hence evil. For example my motivation to run my own business may be that I want to work the way I want. Now regulators perhaps give unions the right to determine how I am supposed to work. That's completely fucked up. The correct response to bad working conditions is for employees to quit and change jobs. If no good jobs exist, they should start their own business. People who crave socialist structures are free to start businesses with socialist structures. The correct way for governments to help out workers is therefore to facility opportunity and thriving economy that leads to more companies and hence more alternatives for being employed. Most legislation does the opposite of that. (another simple example: here in Europe we have to senselessly click on cookie banners thousands of times, because of a misguided regulation on cookies. Wasting people's energy like that is also evil. Worse, we will soon have upload filters, destroying freedom of speech for good, as "indie publishers" won't be able to afford the required infrastructure and legal teams).
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      OK, so you're a right-libertarian. In that case I suspect we won't agree, because I think capitalism has to be constrained or we'd be heading back towards Victorian working conditions. Not universally, but the most exploitative employers would surely love to strip some more workers' rights away. > People are used to the leftist way of thinking about "us vs them" and automatically think of corporations and "employers" as evil oppressors. Eh, a lot do, but I don't. Capitalism is a system that encourages becoming a capitalist, and rewards greater sociopathy in being a capitalist. That means that some people like Jeff Bezos are pretty obviously exploitative, but the problem is the system that incentivises such behaviour, not that people with low moral standards are capable of following incentive models to their inevitable conclusions. > I think "workers" are just a social construct If you mean that wage labour is a social construct, then yes - under capitalism. "Workers" are people who perform labour, and is not a social construct. If you start a freelance business, you are both a worker and a capitalist; that's what being self-employed is. > Now regulators perhaps give unions the right to determine how I am supposed to work. That's completely fucked up. Unions represent your workers, so it's not the regulators negotiating how you work, it's the people who actually do that work. > The correct response to bad working conditions is for employees to quit and change jobs. If that worked, then companies with bad working conditions would be shutting down from lack of workforce. This isn't happening systemically, so clearly this approach does not work. Amazon is one of the biggest companies on the planet and it's been well-documented how badly their workers are exploited. > here in Europe we have to senselessly click on cookie banners thousands of times, because of a misguided regulation on cookies. I agree that this regulation is pretty stupid, and would've been better implemented as a legally-required setting in your browser. Do-Not-Track with teeth, essentially. > Worse, we will soon have upload filters, destroying freedom of speech for good, as "indie publishers" won't be able to afford the required infrastructure and legal teams This is done for the protection of copyright, no? I thought you would be in agreement with this, as it benefits corporations.
      - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        "or we'd be heading back towards Victorian working conditions" I can understand why people think that, but the history of capitalism is much misrepresented in that way. There was a huge rush of poor people into the cities because of the breakdown of feudalism, among other things. So many poor people desperate for work - asking for modern working standards might have prevented many of them from getting jobs. You can still see that in China and India, I suppose - bad as the working conditions may be, they seem to be better than starving doing subsistence farming in the countryside. And demanding factories there would have the same standards as, say, in the US, would just mean jobs wouldn't be outsourced there anymore and the people would be back to starving doing subsistence farming. As the factories ramp up and make more money, they also have more resources ("capital") for improving the working conditions. Also why should things degenerate to that, if people simply quit if an employer misbehaves. If "workers" are in demand, employers can't afford to treat them badly. Look at the Google offices with their slides, free food and childish gadgets. They provide that because they compete for "workers". "If you mean that wage labour is a social construct, then yes - under capitalism. "Workers" are people who perform labour, and is not a social construct. If you start a freelance business, you are both a worker and a capitalist; that's what being self-employed is." You enter a contract and exchange labor for money. That's it. There is no need for creating an arbitrary class of "workers". "> Now regulators perhaps give unions the right to determine how I am supposed to work. That's completely fucked up. Unions represent your workers, so it's not the regulators negotiating how you work, it's the people who actually do that work." If unions make demands, it is fair game (negotiation). If governments give unions special rights, it is not. For example in my country I think you can not fire people who form a union in your company. That's fucked up. Those people are free to say "if you don't give in to our demands, we quit". Yeah, go ahead, quit. "If that worked, then companies with bad working conditions would be shutting down from lack of workforce. This isn't happening systemically" I think that is happening, there is just a huge amount of leftist journalists who try to frame everything as "exploitation of workers". Like the endless stories about Amazon warehouses. It seems likely to me that the things that sound bad from the outside may be necessary to make things work. Like you and me probably wouldn't take a 5 hour long toilet break to spite our employers, but some warehouse workers may do so. So they have limits on toilets breaks to make it possible for people to work there who couldn't work anywhere else. (Just a guess, I have never been inside of an Amazon warehouse - in any case, as always, if you don't like it, quit). Also there may be government regulations preventing free flow of workers, for example the health care issue in the US seems weird (not sure what is going on). "This is done for the protection of copyright, no? I thought you would be in agreement with this, as it benefits corporations." I am not for corporations, I am for freedom. And that law wouldn't even benefit corporations, as it is impossible to adhere to it. In my opinion the only fair way would have been for the government to provide an API that everybody could query to check for copyright. Instead they just created an unsolvable challenge and require businesses (and individuals) to solve it.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago

"ust because businesses fight regulation, doesn't mean they're morally in the right." True, but they are also not automatically not morally in the right. The article cites "they oppose government regulation" as proof that they are evil, which is nonsense. There are many evil governments in the world, which to oppose would be the morally right thing to do. And many proposed legislations in the US are evil, too.

beaconstudios 5y ago
true, but regulations are primarily bad when corporations capture their regulators and use them to shut out competition. Which is once again the corporations doing something immoral. There's a whole issue with ineffective or overreaching regulations too, but that's bog standard incompetence rather than malice. Could you give an example of a regulation in the US that is straightforwardly evil? Generally speaking when I think of evils propagated by government I think of wars/colonialism, oppressive social policies and benefitting businesses at the cost of citizens' wellbeing. The US does all of these in varying degrees but I'm curious as to how the US is actually oppressing its corporations; from my perspective, the US seems like the most corporation-friendly country on the planet.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  Well this could be an endless discussion, but in my opinion all legislations that moves society towards socialism is fundamentally evil. I'm sure there are more specific examples to find, but to me, that overarching principle suffices. People are used to the leftist way of thinking about "us vs them" and automatically think of corporations and "employers" as evil oppressors. I think the other way round. I think "workers" are just a social construct, and being able to start your own business is the very means to achieve freedom. So regulations destroying businesses are enemies of freedom and hence evil. For example my motivation to run my own business may be that I want to work the way I want. Now regulators perhaps give unions the right to determine how I am supposed to work. That's completely fucked up. The correct response to bad working conditions is for employees to quit and change jobs. If no good jobs exist, they should start their own business. People who crave socialist structures are free to start businesses with socialist structures. The correct way for governments to help out workers is therefore to facility opportunity and thriving economy that leads to more companies and hence more alternatives for being employed. Most legislation does the opposite of that. (another simple example: here in Europe we have to senselessly click on cookie banners thousands of times, because of a misguided regulation on cookies. Wasting people's energy like that is also evil. Worse, we will soon have upload filters, destroying freedom of speech for good, as "indie publishers" won't be able to afford the required infrastructure and legal teams).
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    OK, so you're a right-libertarian. In that case I suspect we won't agree, because I think capitalism has to be constrained or we'd be heading back towards Victorian working conditions. Not universally, but the most exploitative employers would surely love to strip some more workers' rights away. > People are used to the leftist way of thinking about "us vs them" and automatically think of corporations and "employers" as evil oppressors. Eh, a lot do, but I don't. Capitalism is a system that encourages becoming a capitalist, and rewards greater sociopathy in being a capitalist. That means that some people like Jeff Bezos are pretty obviously exploitative, but the problem is the system that incentivises such behaviour, not that people with low moral standards are capable of following incentive models to their inevitable conclusions. > I think "workers" are just a social construct If you mean that wage labour is a social construct, then yes - under capitalism. "Workers" are people who perform labour, and is not a social construct. If you start a freelance business, you are both a worker and a capitalist; that's what being self-employed is. > Now regulators perhaps give unions the right to determine how I am supposed to work. That's completely fucked up. Unions represent your workers, so it's not the regulators negotiating how you work, it's the people who actually do that work. > The correct response to bad working conditions is for employees to quit and change jobs. If that worked, then companies with bad working conditions would be shutting down from lack of workforce. This isn't happening systemically, so clearly this approach does not work. Amazon is one of the biggest companies on the planet and it's been well-documented how badly their workers are exploited. > here in Europe we have to senselessly click on cookie banners thousands of times, because of a misguided regulation on cookies. I agree that this regulation is pretty stupid, and would've been better implemented as a legally-required setting in your browser. Do-Not-Track with teeth, essentially. > Worse, we will soon have upload filters, destroying freedom of speech for good, as "indie publishers" won't be able to afford the required infrastructure and legal teams This is done for the protection of copyright, no? I thought you would be in agreement with this, as it benefits corporations.
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      "or we'd be heading back towards Victorian working conditions" I can understand why people think that, but the history of capitalism is much misrepresented in that way. There was a huge rush of poor people into the cities because of the breakdown of feudalism, among other things. So many poor people desperate for work - asking for modern working standards might have prevented many of them from getting jobs. You can still see that in China and India, I suppose - bad as the working conditions may be, they seem to be better than starving doing subsistence farming in the countryside. And demanding factories there would have the same standards as, say, in the US, would just mean jobs wouldn't be outsourced there anymore and the people would be back to starving doing subsistence farming. As the factories ramp up and make more money, they also have more resources ("capital") for improving the working conditions. Also why should things degenerate to that, if people simply quit if an employer misbehaves. If "workers" are in demand, employers can't afford to treat them badly. Look at the Google offices with their slides, free food and childish gadgets. They provide that because they compete for "workers". "If you mean that wage labour is a social construct, then yes - under capitalism. "Workers" are people who perform labour, and is not a social construct. If you start a freelance business, you are both a worker and a capitalist; that's what being self-employed is." You enter a contract and exchange labor for money. That's it. There is no need for creating an arbitrary class of "workers". "> Now regulators perhaps give unions the right to determine how I am supposed to work. That's completely fucked up. Unions represent your workers, so it's not the regulators negotiating how you work, it's the people who actually do that work." If unions make demands, it is fair game (negotiation). If governments give unions special rights, it is not. For example in my country I think you can not fire people who form a union in your company. That's fucked up. Those people are free to say "if you don't give in to our demands, we quit". Yeah, go ahead, quit. "If that worked, then companies with bad working conditions would be shutting down from lack of workforce. This isn't happening systemically" I think that is happening, there is just a huge amount of leftist journalists who try to frame everything as "exploitation of workers". Like the endless stories about Amazon warehouses. It seems likely to me that the things that sound bad from the outside may be necessary to make things work. Like you and me probably wouldn't take a 5 hour long toilet break to spite our employers, but some warehouse workers may do so. So they have limits on toilets breaks to make it possible for people to work there who couldn't work anywhere else. (Just a guess, I have never been inside of an Amazon warehouse - in any case, as always, if you don't like it, quit). Also there may be government regulations preventing free flow of workers, for example the health care issue in the US seems weird (not sure what is going on). "This is done for the protection of copyright, no? I thought you would be in agreement with this, as it benefits corporations." I am not for corporations, I am for freedom. And that law wouldn't even benefit corporations, as it is impossible to adhere to it. In my opinion the only fair way would have been for the government to provide an API that everybody could query to check for copyright. Instead they just created an unsolvable challenge and require businesses (and individuals) to solve it.