13 ms·

> Large Corporations are powerful and will do everything they can to get what they want. In the scheme of ethical philosophy there is, pretty much by definit

> Large Corporations are powerful and will do everything they can to get what they want. In the scheme of ethical philosophy there is, pretty much by definition, the most extreme position of "might is right". The principle text on which is attributed to one "Ragnar Redbeard" [1]. The philosophy is simple. I may rob you, rape you, vandalise, ransack, lie, pillage and kill, for the one simple reason that I am stronger and you are the weaker. And the "rule of law" (insofar as it can exist) must recognise that as my legitimate right. It is obviously an infantile fantasy. Yet I see it echoed in various forms within these pages. First of all, it is something that nobody of sound mind believes, other than as a pose. It is an anchor point, a strawman from which to develop real ethical positions. But most of all, it's a fantasy we occasionally wish as true, because if it were, these so-called "powerful corporations" would be reduced to dust and ruin within days by those the real powers in this world who exercise patient restraint. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_Is_Right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_Is_Right

adastra22 4y ago
It is something that Germany believed in the first half of the 20th century. It is something Russia believes now. It ain’t as dead as it ought to be.
- exceptione 4y ago
  I am not sure why you are downvoted, because you are dead right. "Might makes right" is exactly the 'philosophy' of the dictators of both countries. Human rights and related concepts are for them nonsense and signs of the weak. The clash between Hitler and Stalin was a clash of two very like minded people. Some horrid people defend the massacring by Putin by defending the might makes right mindset. They even might think of themselves as independent or critical thinkers. They are not. Might makes right is the doctrine of fascism, and it is good you call out this type of thinking when you see it.
  - user_named 4y ago
    The US certainly believes in might makes right too.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      The US has always fostered a strong undercurrent of fascist attitude toward the outside world, and toward its underclass.
      - eyelidlessness 4y ago
        And if there’s anyone wondering if this is hyperbolic… don’t take anyone’s word for it here on HN, the nazis were quite clear that they took inspiration from the US.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        The irony of fighting Nazis with a segregated Army was not lost on anyone. Excepting most of its own officers, of course.
    - exceptione 4y ago
      I don´t think so, even more so in absence of any evidence. And I am not from the US. The US had the biggest power the past decades and have used it to uphold a rule based world order. Be careful what you wish for. Make no mistake, I have lots of critical things to say about the US. The war on terror was a stupid reaction on the rise of terrorism and extremism, for example. But the US has in general been a real good force for the world. Wait till you learn what might makes right really means, you will soon regret armchair snarks.
      - user_named 4y ago
        No. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria.
        4y ago
- adventured 4y ago
  Most of Europe believed might makes right until post WW2. Hell, Spain was still a dictatorship until 1975 and a large part of Eastern Europe was still de facto enslaved until the fall of the USSR. Even now you've got a looming dictatorship in Hungary, a dictatorship in Belarus, a dictatorship in Russia, and a dictatorship in Turkey (a quasi European state). Germany's evil ideology of conquest and might makes right, which was rife in their culture throughout the 18th, 19th and part of the 20th century, was definitely not limited to the first half of the 20th century (not that you were necessarily claiming such). The Nazi ideology was entirely ripped off from existing cultural beliefs that were common in Germany and the greater region at that time and had been for centuries. Hitler was about as non-original as you could get, he simply took common ideas from the culture and swirled them together. Bismarck and Hindenberg were also monsters, Hitler was just worse and was the natural end of their failed, vile culture during those centuries. It took thousands of years for the Europeans to figure out they needed to banish might makes right.
  - adastra22 4y ago
    Just to be clear, a dictatorship isn’t necessarily might-makes-right. Actual might-makes-right philosophy is so much worse than just having a thug in power. It’s the difference between Hitler and the Saudis. Both are bad, but might-makes-right culture of imperialism is waaay worse in its downstream effects. E.g. the Holocaust and Japanese war crimes in China.
toolz 4y ago
Is there no ethical argument to be made that the domain would better serve the car company? Domain names are a limited resource, is it more ethical to practice "first is right" ethics?
- littlestymaar 4y ago
  Well, if they believe in markets that's basically what money is for: you think something is worth more to you than to somebody else, then just pay the other party for it. There's plenty of cases where this kind of reasoning fails, because it doesn't care about ethics, but in this exact situation there no ethical question at stakes, especially since Uzi Nissan bought this domain name in good faith. It's just a matter of how much the two companies value their respective utility for this scarce resource. (+ insert rant here about how all capitalists love is crony capitalism and how much they hate markets)
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    It's interesting to ask oneself, I think, how many person-hours of lawyer labor Nissan paid for, and whether less money than that could have been consolidated into one lump-sum payment to Mr. Nissan of "a quantity that immediately bumps one individual up to nouveau-riche class," such that whether he had a domain name from which to do business was irrelevant because he didn't have to work. Of course, that assumes Mr. Nissan would have been willing to trade at all. Some people aren't motivated by money, which certainly increases the complexity of the "markets solve all things" hypothesis.
    - littlestymaar 4y ago
      They tried to strong-arm him, he resisted and they ended-up both stuck is a dollar auction game[1], a typical game-theory situation where both players end up losing way more than expected gain at the beginning. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_auction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_auction
    - sobkas 4y ago
      If they start paying for stuff like this without any resistance they will lose deterrent of having enough lawyers to bombard you with lawsuits to the end of your life. Now I will think twice if I want to cross any corporation. This is a chilling effect the are aiming for. Shut up or else.
littlestymaar 4y ago
I've never heard about this Ragnar Redbeard before, but I find it pretty funny because this book was published approximately one century after Jean Jacques Rousseau published a refutation of this exact same theory in Du contrat social (which kind of shows how unoriginal Redbeard thought was).
jemski 4y ago
Hear hear. A much better worded explanation than my soul would allow. I’m dumbfounded when the observation is made. On the one hand, if it’s just common sense that large corporations will do what they want to anyone at any time, isn’t our need to fight them on it similarly common? The second part is always left out. Probably rarely on purpose, but always to the benefit of the aggressor.
- adventured 4y ago
  > if it’s just common sense that large corporations will do what they want to anyone at any time, isn’t our need to fight them on it similarly common? Of course and "we" do fight them as a matter of routine, and "we" win frequently too. If that weren't the case, the EPA wouldn't exist, OSHA wouldn't exist, the FDA wouldn't exist, the FAA wouldn't exist, the 40 hour work week wouldn't exist, automobiles wouldn't have a vast number of legally mandated safety requirements, building codes wouldn't exist, and so on and so forth.
  - MikeTheGreat 4y ago
    > the EPA wouldn't exist It's worth pointing out that the recent Supreme Court case [1] may have changed this back to what large corporations and Republicans have wanted; the precendent that the case sets may then enable Republicans to dismantle the rest of the agencies you mentioned [2] [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20-1530 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20-1530 [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20-1530#writing-20-1530_DISSENT_6 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20-1530#writin...
  - jdgoesmarching 4y ago
    The few wins we managed to secure decades ago pale in comparisons to the thousands of legislative and judicial victories corporations have won and continue to win since. Even your EPA example was just whittled down by the Supreme Court It’s not comparable, we rarely win. I’m not sure why you surround “we” in quotes, because the people benefiting from this arrangement represent an extremely small number and it’s unlikely you’re among them.
hh3k0 4y ago
> In the scheme of ethical philosophy there is, pretty much by definition, the most extreme position of "might is right". I've occasionally wondered, is that not reality for all of us? Even us living in democratic nations? Is democracy at its core not a "might" (through a greater cardinality) makes right of sorts?
- dfxm12 4y ago
  It is. It's just that capital is the might of today. Money to influence legislation, money to withstand long legal battles, etc.
- exceptione 4y ago
  Democracy is the enemy of the might makes right. Might makes right selects the stronger clan, and selects its strongest leader: that is, the one who follows this doctrine the most brutally and successfully. Because if you don´t, someone else will be more ruthless. So in a democracy we protect minority interests and curb the powers of commercial entities. And we have the Trias Politica. You might wonder if we do enough, for example making sure commercial entities are kept under control. Democracy is work, it is not a guarantee you will keep having it. You can lose it, and many entities are fine with destroying it too further their own self interest. You don´t have it because of how exceptional you think you are. So take an active role to protect it.
  - adventured 4y ago
    Democracy isn't the enemy of might makes right at all. In actual democratic systems, the stronger great majority (eg the 75% or 90%) can do anything they want to with a weak minority. There are many prominent examples of democratic systems being used to implement might makes right via majority abuse of the minority. You have to intentionally neuter democratic systems with strict constitutions that protect individual rights, to prevent might makes right from always taking over democratic systems. You have to put very strong constraints in place to prevent the stronger majority from harming the weaker minority; you have to put the democratic majority in a straight-jacket that limits their possible actions for the protection of the minority.
all2 4y ago
"God made man. Samuel Colt made them equal." There is codified in the Constitution of the United States recognition that some will always seek to subjugate others. And an enshrined recognition that this is morally wrong is the Second Amendment: the right to bear arms. Many of the founding fathers of the United States made statements to the affect that a well armed citizenry was the only method by which true tyranny could be removed. And true tyranny is the living example of "might makes right". The appeal to "something better" than our base instinct to crush our enemies and hear the lamentations of their women is distinct to Christian morality. No other religion or political ideology makes this appeal. This is why the United States -- with its distinctly Christian moral foundation -- is unique in the world. The founders recognized first the right of association and speech, and second the right to personal autonomy; to bear arms and kill those who would subjugate or kill you.
- random314 4y ago
  > The appeal to "something better" than our base instinct to crush our enemies and hear the lamentations of their women is distinct to Christian morality. No other religion or political ideology makes this appeal. What!!
- InefficientRed 4y ago
  I can't tell if this is unhinged xenophobia or satire. In case of the former: the crusades, any of the millions of athiest or non-christian pacifists, and... I can't believe this needs stating, but shooting someone in the face with an assault rifle is an exercise of "might".
  - gpderetta 4y ago
    Something something Poe's law something...
  - boston_clone 4y ago
    Considering their history of using Gab, you can safely assume the former. Their complete misunderstanding of the history of both this country's founding and Christianity really help cement that assumption as accurate, though. It's unfortunate to see that the US education system has regressed so poorly.
pessimizer 4y ago
> The philosophy is simple. I may rob you, rape you, vandalise, ransack, lie, pillage and kill, for the one simple reason that I am stronger and you are the weaker. And the "rule of law" (insofar as it can exist) must recognise that as my legitimate right. It is obviously an infantile fantasy. Yet I see it echoed in various forms within these pages. No, it's an observation that's almost tautological; if you can't do what you want, you're not mighty. If you require reality to conform to your innate sense of justice, you'll distort your perceptions of the world and react to things ineffectively.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  > if you can't do what you want, you're not mighty. I have to disagree. There are many mighty and powerful people who do not want to rob, rape, vandalise, ransack, lie, pillage and kill. > If you require reality to conform to your innate sense of justice, you'll distort your perceptions of the world and react to things ineffectively. Natural Law has its merits, however, innate or otherwise that's precisely what justice is. All governance modes of societies have criminal justice systems which in addition to incarceration and rehabilitation aim to deter/prevent. Yes, that requires a fair society, but to the extent that exists people do not want or need to rob, rape, vandalise, ransack, lie, pillage and kill. They are powerful, benevolent and satisfied. The only distortion of reality I see is supposing a zero-sum world of schadenfreude and jealousy in which only relative power counts and you can't feel good about your power unless it comes at someone else's expense.

adastra22 4y ago

It is something that Germany believed in the first half of the 20th century. It is something Russia believes now. It ain’t as dead as it ought to be.

exceptione 4y ago
I am not sure why you are downvoted, because you are dead right. "Might makes right" is exactly the 'philosophy' of the dictators of both countries. Human rights and related concepts are for them nonsense and signs of the weak. The clash between Hitler and Stalin was a clash of two very like minded people. Some horrid people defend the massacring by Putin by defending the might makes right mindset. They even might think of themselves as independent or critical thinkers. They are not. Might makes right is the doctrine of fascism, and it is good you call out this type of thinking when you see it.
- user_named 4y ago
  The US certainly believes in might makes right too.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    The US has always fostered a strong undercurrent of fascist attitude toward the outside world, and toward its underclass.
    - eyelidlessness 4y ago
      And if there’s anyone wondering if this is hyperbolic… don’t take anyone’s word for it here on HN, the nazis were quite clear that they took inspiration from the US.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        The irony of fighting Nazis with a segregated Army was not lost on anyone. Excepting most of its own officers, of course.
  - exceptione 4y ago
    I don´t think so, even more so in absence of any evidence. And I am not from the US. The US had the biggest power the past decades and have used it to uphold a rule based world order. Be careful what you wish for. Make no mistake, I have lots of critical things to say about the US. The war on terror was a stupid reaction on the rise of terrorism and extremism, for example. But the US has in general been a real good force for the world. Wait till you learn what might makes right really means, you will soon regret armchair snarks.
    - user_named 4y ago
      No. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria.
      - 4y ago
adventured 4y ago
Most of Europe believed might makes right until post WW2. Hell, Spain was still a dictatorship until 1975 and a large part of Eastern Europe was still de facto enslaved until the fall of the USSR. Even now you've got a looming dictatorship in Hungary, a dictatorship in Belarus, a dictatorship in Russia, and a dictatorship in Turkey (a quasi European state). Germany's evil ideology of conquest and might makes right, which was rife in their culture throughout the 18th, 19th and part of the 20th century, was definitely not limited to the first half of the 20th century (not that you were necessarily claiming such). The Nazi ideology was entirely ripped off from existing cultural beliefs that were common in Germany and the greater region at that time and had been for centuries. Hitler was about as non-original as you could get, he simply took common ideas from the culture and swirled them together. Bismarck and Hindenberg were also monsters, Hitler was just worse and was the natural end of their failed, vile culture during those centuries. It took thousands of years for the Europeans to figure out they needed to banish might makes right.
- adastra22 4y ago
  Just to be clear, a dictatorship isn’t necessarily might-makes-right. Actual might-makes-right philosophy is so much worse than just having a thug in power. It’s the difference between Hitler and the Saudis. Both are bad, but might-makes-right culture of imperialism is waaay worse in its downstream effects. E.g. the Holocaust and Japanese war crimes in China.

toolz 4y ago

Is there no ethical argument to be made that the domain would better serve the car company? Domain names are a limited resource, is it more ethical to practice "first is right" ethics?

littlestymaar 4y ago
Well, if they believe in markets that's basically what money is for: you think something is worth more to you than to somebody else, then just pay the other party for it. There's plenty of cases where this kind of reasoning fails, because it doesn't care about ethics, but in this exact situation there no ethical question at stakes, especially since Uzi Nissan bought this domain name in good faith. It's just a matter of how much the two companies value their respective utility for this scarce resource. (+ insert rant here about how all capitalists love is crony capitalism and how much they hate markets)
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  It's interesting to ask oneself, I think, how many person-hours of lawyer labor Nissan paid for, and whether less money than that could have been consolidated into one lump-sum payment to Mr. Nissan of "a quantity that immediately bumps one individual up to nouveau-riche class," such that whether he had a domain name from which to do business was irrelevant because he didn't have to work. Of course, that assumes Mr. Nissan would have been willing to trade at all. Some people aren't motivated by money, which certainly increases the complexity of the "markets solve all things" hypothesis.
  - littlestymaar 4y ago
    They tried to strong-arm him, he resisted and they ended-up both stuck is a dollar auction game[1], a typical game-theory situation where both players end up losing way more than expected gain at the beginning. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_auction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_auction
  - sobkas 4y ago
    If they start paying for stuff like this without any resistance they will lose deterrent of having enough lawyers to bombard you with lawsuits to the end of your life. Now I will think twice if I want to cross any corporation. This is a chilling effect the are aiming for. Shut up or else.

littlestymaar 4y ago

I've never heard about this Ragnar Redbeard before, but I find it pretty funny because this book was published approximately one century after Jean Jacques Rousseau published a refutation of this exact same theory in Du contrat social (which kind of shows how unoriginal Redbeard thought was).

jemski 4y ago

Hear hear. A much better worded explanation than my soul would allow. I’m dumbfounded when the observation is made. On the one hand, if it’s just common sense that large corporations will do what they want to anyone at any time, isn’t our need to fight them on it similarly common? The second part is always left out. Probably rarely on purpose, but always to the benefit of the aggressor.

adventured 4y ago
> if it’s just common sense that large corporations will do what they want to anyone at any time, isn’t our need to fight them on it similarly common? Of course and "we" do fight them as a matter of routine, and "we" win frequently too. If that weren't the case, the EPA wouldn't exist, OSHA wouldn't exist, the FDA wouldn't exist, the FAA wouldn't exist, the 40 hour work week wouldn't exist, automobiles wouldn't have a vast number of legally mandated safety requirements, building codes wouldn't exist, and so on and so forth.
- MikeTheGreat 4y ago
  > the EPA wouldn't exist It's worth pointing out that the recent Supreme Court case [1] may have changed this back to what large corporations and Republicans have wanted; the precendent that the case sets may then enable Republicans to dismantle the rest of the agencies you mentioned [2] [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20-1530 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20-1530 [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20-1530#writing-20-1530_DISSENT_6 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20-1530#writin...
- jdgoesmarching 4y ago
  The few wins we managed to secure decades ago pale in comparisons to the thousands of legislative and judicial victories corporations have won and continue to win since. Even your EPA example was just whittled down by the Supreme Court It’s not comparable, we rarely win. I’m not sure why you surround “we” in quotes, because the people benefiting from this arrangement represent an extremely small number and it’s unlikely you’re among them.

hh3k0 4y ago

> In the scheme of ethical philosophy there is, pretty much by definition, the most extreme position of "might is right". I've occasionally wondered, is that not reality for all of us? Even us living in democratic nations? Is democracy at its core not a "might" (through a greater cardinality) makes right of sorts?

dfxm12 4y ago
It is. It's just that capital is the might of today. Money to influence legislation, money to withstand long legal battles, etc.
exceptione 4y ago
Democracy is the enemy of the might makes right. Might makes right selects the stronger clan, and selects its strongest leader: that is, the one who follows this doctrine the most brutally and successfully. Because if you don´t, someone else will be more ruthless. So in a democracy we protect minority interests and curb the powers of commercial entities. And we have the Trias Politica. You might wonder if we do enough, for example making sure commercial entities are kept under control. Democracy is work, it is not a guarantee you will keep having it. You can lose it, and many entities are fine with destroying it too further their own self interest. You don´t have it because of how exceptional you think you are. So take an active role to protect it.
- adventured 4y ago
  Democracy isn't the enemy of might makes right at all. In actual democratic systems, the stronger great majority (eg the 75% or 90%) can do anything they want to with a weak minority. There are many prominent examples of democratic systems being used to implement might makes right via majority abuse of the minority. You have to intentionally neuter democratic systems with strict constitutions that protect individual rights, to prevent might makes right from always taking over democratic systems. You have to put very strong constraints in place to prevent the stronger majority from harming the weaker minority; you have to put the democratic majority in a straight-jacket that limits their possible actions for the protection of the minority.

all2 4y ago

"God made man. Samuel Colt made them equal." There is codified in the Constitution of the United States recognition that some will always seek to subjugate others. And an enshrined recognition that this is morally wrong is the Second Amendment: the right to bear arms. Many of the founding fathers of the United States made statements to the affect that a well armed citizenry was the only method by which true tyranny could be removed. And true tyranny is the living example of "might makes right". The appeal to "something better" than our base instinct to crush our enemies and hear the lamentations of their women is distinct to Christian morality. No other religion or political ideology makes this appeal. This is why the United States -- with its distinctly Christian moral foundation -- is unique in the world. The founders recognized first the right of association and speech, and second the right to personal autonomy; to bear arms and kill those who would subjugate or kill you.

random314 4y ago
> The appeal to "something better" than our base instinct to crush our enemies and hear the lamentations of their women is distinct to Christian morality. No other religion or political ideology makes this appeal. What!!
InefficientRed 4y ago
I can't tell if this is unhinged xenophobia or satire. In case of the former: the crusades, any of the millions of athiest or non-christian pacifists, and... I can't believe this needs stating, but shooting someone in the face with an assault rifle is an exercise of "might".
- gpderetta 4y ago
  Something something Poe's law something...
- boston_clone 4y ago
  Considering their history of using Gab, you can safely assume the former. Their complete misunderstanding of the history of both this country's founding and Christianity really help cement that assumption as accurate, though. It's unfortunate to see that the US education system has regressed so poorly.

pessimizer 4y ago

> The philosophy is simple. I may rob you, rape you, vandalise, ransack, lie, pillage and kill, for the one simple reason that I am stronger and you are the weaker. And the "rule of law" (insofar as it can exist) must recognise that as my legitimate right. It is obviously an infantile fantasy. Yet I see it echoed in various forms within these pages. No, it's an observation that's almost tautological; if you can't do what you want, you're not mighty. If you require reality to conform to your innate sense of justice, you'll distort your perceptions of the world and react to things ineffectively.

nonrandomstring 4y ago
> if you can't do what you want, you're not mighty. I have to disagree. There are many mighty and powerful people who do not want to rob, rape, vandalise, ransack, lie, pillage and kill. > If you require reality to conform to your innate sense of justice, you'll distort your perceptions of the world and react to things ineffectively. Natural Law has its merits, however, innate or otherwise that's precisely what justice is. All governance modes of societies have criminal justice systems which in addition to incarceration and rehabilitation aim to deter/prevent. Yes, that requires a fair society, but to the extent that exists people do not want or need to rob, rape, vandalise, ransack, lie, pillage and kill. They are powerful, benevolent and satisfied. The only distortion of reality I see is supposing a zero-sum world of schadenfreude and jealousy in which only relative power counts and you can't feel good about your power unless it comes at someone else's expense.