31 ms·

"Hmm, you raise systemic concerns yet you use the system because you live in a society enmeshed in it" is not a winning argument.

scarface_74 3y ago
Well, they could always commit their time and a large portion of their resources to a non profit. I bet you dollars to donuts that they work in tech and not for a non profit.
- eropple 3y ago
  "Well they could do things to harm themselves [because we treat non-profit employees like they implicitly have a wealthy spouse or should live in a shoebox]" is also not helping the argument very much. One does not need to be a Stylite to have an opinion on society; comparing the actions of individuals, without significant power or influence, with corporate-fiction persons that come equipped with lobbying arms and sufficiently dispersed decision-making power that nasty shit comes out of them regularly, is not and never persuasive.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    It’s called having the courage of your convictions. Plenty of people live off of non profit salaries without having a wealthy spouse or even do public sector work.
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        But in this case, he’s actually making a living by working in a gun shop when he has other (less lucrative) options.
        eropple 3y ago
        [flagged]
        scarface_74 3y ago
        [flagged]
        ClumsyPilot 3y ago
        Not at all. Suppose you believe corporations are out of control, and it's on, what the best way to hurt them? Work for a charity and live in poverty? Become a hermit and live in a forest? no! Find the corporation tou hate most and get a job there. Do damage from the inside, sleep with the boss, work your way up, drive it bancrupt. Cause it to loose all talent. Work in two places at once, and do nothing in both jobs. Something like that
shkkmo 3y ago
Not in the general case, but in this specific case it does show that limited liability does more than provide welfare to companies to but also protects a large number of individual investors, including the commenter. That seems like a relevant counterargument to me.

scarface_74 3y ago

Well, they could always commit their time and a large portion of their resources to a non profit. I bet you dollars to donuts that they work in tech and not for a non profit.

eropple 3y ago
"Well they could do things to harm themselves [because we treat non-profit employees like they implicitly have a wealthy spouse or should live in a shoebox]" is also not helping the argument very much. One does not need to be a Stylite to have an opinion on society; comparing the actions of individuals, without significant power or influence, with corporate-fiction persons that come equipped with lobbying arms and sufficiently dispersed decision-making power that nasty shit comes out of them regularly, is not and never persuasive.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  It’s called having the courage of your convictions. Plenty of people live off of non profit salaries without having a wealthy spouse or even do public sector work.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      But in this case, he’s actually making a living by working in a gun shop when he has other (less lucrative) options.
      - eropple 3y ago
        [flagged]
        scarface_74 3y ago
        [flagged]
      - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
        Not at all. Suppose you believe corporations are out of control, and it's on, what the best way to hurt them? Work for a charity and live in poverty? Become a hermit and live in a forest? no! Find the corporation tou hate most and get a job there. Do damage from the inside, sleep with the boss, work your way up, drive it bancrupt. Cause it to loose all talent. Work in two places at once, and do nothing in both jobs. Something like that

shkkmo 3y ago

Not in the general case, but in this specific case it does show that limited liability does more than provide welfare to companies to but also protects a large number of individual investors, including the commenter. That seems like a relevant counterargument to me.