4 ms·

> Just because sometimes there were benevolent companies that decided to contribute to their communities doesn't mean relying on that is a stable or desired out

> Just because sometimes there were benevolent companies that decided to contribute to their communities doesn't mean relying on that is a stable or desired outcome. You are always going to rely on a few people, to do the right thing, which will become the wrong thing as life goes on, which will require a few more people, to do the right thing again, ad infinitum. That's just how this human thing works. Sometimes it's laws, other times it's breaking laws. Other times something else. It varies, there is no right answer forevermore, sorry. You can't solve hard problems of coordinating, pleasing and doing right by many people with conflicting interests by 'requiring' it. That's just childish thinking, sorry.

kbenson 5y ago
Who said there's a right answer forever? The whole point of what I said is to make sure you use your own power as a citizen to pass laws and elect those people you think will serve your interests best at the current time, and as soon as that's not the case, try to get rid of them. That's the point of democracy and a representative democracy, the power to keep interests aligned with the people. Often that means putting in some safe lower bounds. Laws, as you noted. You put safeguards at the bottom preventing the worst behavior. That's the whole reason there are laws preventing child labor, because people decided that some things should not be tolerated. Nothing prevents a company from still being a good employer and helping where they can, but that should not be required for our society to function. The goals of a company diverge from what is best for the people (both short term and long term) too often for that to be a good idea.
- alexashka 5y ago
  Our difference lies in the axioms. Your axiom is democracy and what sounds like dozens of other conditions. My axiom is highly intelligent, capable, compassionate people in power. That's it. My position is trivially superior, for many reasons, if only because your exact position is just one of many possibilities that highly intelligent, capable, compassionate people in power can choose to implement.
  - spacemanmatt 5y ago
    > My position is trivially superior That is just your unsupported claim. I don't agree.
  - kbenson 5y ago
    Well, I'm for utopias, which is better, so does that mean my argument is superior? I'm also for letting people eat as much as they want and not exercise and be in perfect health. Perhaps having a feasible path to the desired outcome actually matters, rather than just assuming those are unimportant details... otherwise we'd already have off-world colonies and faster than light travel.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

kbenson 5y ago

Who said there's a right answer forever? The whole point of what I said is to make sure you use your own power as a citizen to pass laws and elect those people you think will serve your interests best at the current time, and as soon as that's not the case, try to get rid of them. That's the point of democracy and a representative democracy, the power to keep interests aligned with the people. Often that means putting in some safe lower bounds. Laws, as you noted. You put safeguards at the bottom preventing the worst behavior. That's the whole reason there are laws preventing child labor, because people decided that some things should not be tolerated. Nothing prevents a company from still being a good employer and helping where they can, but that should not be required for our society to function. The goals of a company diverge from what is best for the people (both short term and long term) too often for that to be a good idea.

alexashka 5y ago
Our difference lies in the axioms. Your axiom is democracy and what sounds like dozens of other conditions. My axiom is highly intelligent, capable, compassionate people in power. That's it. My position is trivially superior, for many reasons, if only because your exact position is just one of many possibilities that highly intelligent, capable, compassionate people in power can choose to implement.
- spacemanmatt 5y ago
  > My position is trivially superior That is just your unsupported claim. I don't agree.
- kbenson 5y ago
  Well, I'm for utopias, which is better, so does that mean my argument is superior? I'm also for letting people eat as much as they want and not exercise and be in perfect health. Perhaps having a feasible path to the desired outcome actually matters, rather than just assuming those are unimportant details... otherwise we'd already have off-world colonies and faster than light travel.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]