3 ms·

> In a capitalist system, with enough bad decisions, your company might go bankrupt. Or your company might lobby against regulations that safeguard public heal

> In a capitalist system, with enough bad decisions, your company might go bankrupt. Or your company might lobby against regulations that safeguard public health. Your company might make carcinogenic products and pressure government groups to downplay their effects[0]. Your company might consistently resist efforts to install better safety measures for chemical transport, resulting in hundreds of gallons of extremely toxic chemicals spilling and catching fire in your neighborhood[1]. Your company might contribute to pushing humanity into a doom loop of global externalities that we can't escape. In other words, the separation of "money" from "physical power" cuts both ways. Where it breaks down in capitalism is when corporations are able to use their money to evade or neuter the government's physical power so that they can continue doing harm. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Palestine,_Ohio,_train_derailment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Palestine,_Ohio,_train_de...

robertlagrant 2y ago
They can't use their money to evade or neuter the government's physical power. The people they pay are the government. The government is the problem in that situation, as it's responsible for making sure those things don't happen.
- nathanbbarton 2y ago
  > The government is the problem in that situation, as it's responsible for making sure those things don't happen. The government would certainly be complicit in this scenario, but is the corporation doing the act not still responsible for their actions? The corporation is still the actor that is motivated to do "the bad thing" (ie: cut safety features to save money), and then lobbies the complicit government to turn a blind eye. The phrasing of this seems to imply that corporations can do whatever they want as long as they play by the rules, and then puts the full blame on the government because they either failed to provide a "perfect" ruleset or they were actively complicit in turning a blind eye. I know technically "doing whatever they want as long as they play by the rules" is in practice just following the letter of the law, but are they not responsible for taking some degree of responsibility beyond that?
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    I would say: the state has all the power in the situation. All the company can do is present its position as well as possible, and as long as they're not breaking the law (e.g. bribery, when it would be joint culpability) then that's fine. The company is there to provide value for its customers and shareholders, and employment for its employees. The state's whole job, for which it takes free money from every transaction in its country, is to be impartial. Outside of bribery, at best its culpability is 99%. At worst it's 100%.

robertlagrant 2y ago

They can't use their money to evade or neuter the government's physical power. The people they pay are the government. The government is the problem in that situation, as it's responsible for making sure those things don't happen.

nathanbbarton 2y ago
> The government is the problem in that situation, as it's responsible for making sure those things don't happen. The government would certainly be complicit in this scenario, but is the corporation doing the act not still responsible for their actions? The corporation is still the actor that is motivated to do "the bad thing" (ie: cut safety features to save money), and then lobbies the complicit government to turn a blind eye. The phrasing of this seems to imply that corporations can do whatever they want as long as they play by the rules, and then puts the full blame on the government because they either failed to provide a "perfect" ruleset or they were actively complicit in turning a blind eye. I know technically "doing whatever they want as long as they play by the rules" is in practice just following the letter of the law, but are they not responsible for taking some degree of responsibility beyond that?
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  I would say: the state has all the power in the situation. All the company can do is present its position as well as possible, and as long as they're not breaking the law (e.g. bribery, when it would be joint culpability) then that's fine. The company is there to provide value for its customers and shareholders, and employment for its employees. The state's whole job, for which it takes free money from every transaction in its country, is to be impartial. Outside of bribery, at best its culpability is 99%. At worst it's 100%.