3 ms·

Companies provide a legal framework for co-operative ventures between people. Companies are people. They are a legal construct that serves a useful purpose in s

by shirro 1y ago

Companies provide a legal framework for co-operative ventures between people. Companies are people. They are a legal construct that serves a useful purpose in society. They are not inherently evil. People who believe they are evil have been bleating about it for over a century and had multiple opportunities and the support of revolutions and empires to find an alternative and have failed every time. Companies exist within a society and it is up to that society to engage politically for the common good or the bad companies will bribe law makers, buy votes and evade taxes and regulations. People never want to recognize their own culpability. They hate company practices but keep purchasing from them. They hate politicians but refuse to vote for alternatives.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
MengerSponge 1y ago
Corporations are not inherently evil, but there are evil companies. If you work for an evil company, you're complicit. Even if you're working on a weird corner of open source esoterica. Meta delenda est.
- shirro 1y ago
  Cultures develop within companies like any other organization. As those cultures develop they tend to push the decent people out and promote more of the same. Some companies are clearly abhorrent. My argument is that its a cultural issue unrelated to the legal framework. You can find similar weirdness in any group of people. Those bad companies exist due to a lack of regulation and transparency. Unfortunately just as companies can amplify the potential of groups of people to do productive things they can shield bad people and become hostile to democracy. If they are attacking us we need to learn to push back. I don't understand why people go from being walked on to wanting to burn stuff down. There is a really good middle ground and too many people have abandoned it.
  - bb88 1y ago
    A company might discover that the most profitable thing is to destroy the social fabric to make money. We call this "engagement". In practice, it's the most controversial opinions that generate clicks. The social media company realizes the controversial opinions generate the most clicks. Generating discord in the populace creates more click -- and therefore more profit. If you work social media company, often you're going to make a literal shit ton of coin. Often, it's enough make you think twice before voicing opinions about the corporate gravy train.
YZF 1y ago
A lot of the great things that were achieved were done by companies. Some bad things as well. Companies (and I guess capitalism) is a great system. But it needs to have checks and balances. The problem isn't the idea of a company. The problem is companies with so much influence that the historical checks and balances do not work any more. The Internet, which was a public resource, is how those companies got to be so influential. If we look at the Amazon example most of the issues could be solved via regulation. The company can be broken up. There can be laws that govern its behaviour (like extending consumer protection laws to cover newer situations). The problem is that where in the past law makers were less "afraid" to take on businesses now they are. Especially in the US where money talks and companies spend large amounts influencing policy makers. This is by the way not a partisan issue, it's a systemic issue. EDIT: Maybe a precursor, or another variation, of some of this was allowing companies that had a business model of "circumventing" the law to operate (Uber, Airbnb etc.). Being a taxi without requiring a taxi fee, being a hotel without the requirements of a hotel etc. If this is our innovation then it shouldn't be a surprise when more laws are bent and worked around.
bb88 1y ago
The practical alternative to communism is capitalism. But pure, unadulterated capitalism isn't what we want. Otherwise we end up with lead paint in children's toys and adulterated pet food that kills dogs. The reason regulations exist, is because humans -- for whatever god damn reason -- are willing to throw their fellow humans under the bus for a quick profit. What if a company could figure out how to profit from destroying the social fabric of the US, even if it wasn't a direct intention of it's original inception? Well now you're talking about all of social media in 2025.
- galaxyLogic 1y ago
  As I see it corporations by themselves are not really bad at all. Monopoly is really bad. What is the worst is when the law and Supreme Court allows them to use unlimited amounts of money to effect the outcome of elections. Fascism that way lies.
  - bb88 1y ago
    Antitrust is worse than monopolies. If all the petroleum companies in the US decided to collude to set prices, that's really bad. And with the current administration, it's just a bribe away from a pardon.
inopinatus 1y ago
I have no quibble with that historical perspective, and I share disappointment in our collective anthropological failings, but I take issue with the moral considerations and the false equivalence between company and corporation. Not all companies are incorporated; companies are a much broader category than simply corporations, since they include associations, trusts, institutions, partnerships and so forth. Moreover, if corporations are people, then it is not moral to parcel them out as property. No person should be owned, whether wholly or in shares. The legal doublethink sustaining both ideas simultaneously reveals a fundamental contradiction of principles and profound lack of moral clarity. In the most debased extrapolation of the ownership scenario, the corporation must obey even the most shameless demands of its owners, taking all the blame and liability upon itself, whilst forwarding any gains back to the owners. Of course, this has already happened. Consequently, in this era, corporations have become primarily a liability shield for the exploitation and concentration of wealth.
0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
A really simple idea I had for the problem of perverse corporate incentives. For each of the Fortune 500, assemble a committee of 100 random citizens. Have them spend a couple months deliberating on the conduct of that firm, before finally voting on what corporate income tax should be levied on that firm in the coming fiscal year. The beauty of this solution is that in principle, it solves the problem of virtually any possible corporate misbehavior in a single fell swoop. No need to play whack-a-mole with mountains of laws and regulations. If a random citizen might learn about it, and decide that it isn't right, you shouldn't do it. If you do it anyways, you'll feel pain in your wallet (on expectation at least), and acquire a cost disadvantage relative to competing firms which are more virtuous. Simple.

by shirro 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

MengerSponge 1y ago

Corporations are not inherently evil, but there are evil companies. If you work for an evil company, you're complicit. Even if you're working on a weird corner of open source esoterica. Meta delenda est.

shirro 1y ago
Cultures develop within companies like any other organization. As those cultures develop they tend to push the decent people out and promote more of the same. Some companies are clearly abhorrent. My argument is that its a cultural issue unrelated to the legal framework. You can find similar weirdness in any group of people. Those bad companies exist due to a lack of regulation and transparency. Unfortunately just as companies can amplify the potential of groups of people to do productive things they can shield bad people and become hostile to democracy. If they are attacking us we need to learn to push back. I don't understand why people go from being walked on to wanting to burn stuff down. There is a really good middle ground and too many people have abandoned it.
- bb88 1y ago
  A company might discover that the most profitable thing is to destroy the social fabric to make money. We call this "engagement". In practice, it's the most controversial opinions that generate clicks. The social media company realizes the controversial opinions generate the most clicks. Generating discord in the populace creates more click -- and therefore more profit. If you work social media company, often you're going to make a literal shit ton of coin. Often, it's enough make you think twice before voicing opinions about the corporate gravy train.

YZF 1y ago

A lot of the great things that were achieved were done by companies. Some bad things as well. Companies (and I guess capitalism) is a great system. But it needs to have checks and balances. The problem isn't the idea of a company. The problem is companies with so much influence that the historical checks and balances do not work any more. The Internet, which was a public resource, is how those companies got to be so influential. If we look at the Amazon example most of the issues could be solved via regulation. The company can be broken up. There can be laws that govern its behaviour (like extending consumer protection laws to cover newer situations). The problem is that where in the past law makers were less "afraid" to take on businesses now they are. Especially in the US where money talks and companies spend large amounts influencing policy makers. This is by the way not a partisan issue, it's a systemic issue. EDIT: Maybe a precursor, or another variation, of some of this was allowing companies that had a business model of "circumventing" the law to operate (Uber, Airbnb etc.). Being a taxi without requiring a taxi fee, being a hotel without the requirements of a hotel etc. If this is our innovation then it shouldn't be a surprise when more laws are bent and worked around.

bb88 1y ago

The practical alternative to communism is capitalism. But pure, unadulterated capitalism isn't what we want. Otherwise we end up with lead paint in children's toys and adulterated pet food that kills dogs. The reason regulations exist, is because humans -- for whatever god damn reason -- are willing to throw their fellow humans under the bus for a quick profit. What if a company could figure out how to profit from destroying the social fabric of the US, even if it wasn't a direct intention of it's original inception? Well now you're talking about all of social media in 2025.

galaxyLogic 1y ago
As I see it corporations by themselves are not really bad at all. Monopoly is really bad. What is the worst is when the law and Supreme Court allows them to use unlimited amounts of money to effect the outcome of elections. Fascism that way lies.
- bb88 1y ago
  Antitrust is worse than monopolies. If all the petroleum companies in the US decided to collude to set prices, that's really bad. And with the current administration, it's just a bribe away from a pardon.

inopinatus 1y ago

I have no quibble with that historical perspective, and I share disappointment in our collective anthropological failings, but I take issue with the moral considerations and the false equivalence between company and corporation. Not all companies are incorporated; companies are a much broader category than simply corporations, since they include associations, trusts, institutions, partnerships and so forth. Moreover, if corporations are people, then it is not moral to parcel them out as property. No person should be owned, whether wholly or in shares. The legal doublethink sustaining both ideas simultaneously reveals a fundamental contradiction of principles and profound lack of moral clarity. In the most debased extrapolation of the ownership scenario, the corporation must obey even the most shameless demands of its owners, taking all the blame and liability upon itself, whilst forwarding any gains back to the owners. Of course, this has already happened. Consequently, in this era, corporations have become primarily a liability shield for the exploitation and concentration of wealth.

0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago

A really simple idea I had for the problem of perverse corporate incentives. For each of the Fortune 500, assemble a committee of 100 random citizens. Have them spend a couple months deliberating on the conduct of that firm, before finally voting on what corporate income tax should be levied on that firm in the coming fiscal year. The beauty of this solution is that in principle, it solves the problem of virtually any possible corporate misbehavior in a single fell swoop. No need to play whack-a-mole with mountains of laws and regulations. If a random citizen might learn about it, and decide that it isn't right, you shouldn't do it. If you do it anyways, you'll feel pain in your wallet (on expectation at least), and acquire a cost disadvantage relative to competing firms which are more virtuous. Simple.