4 ms·
That would just spread the corruption around along with the rewards as things which make them more money reward them and things which make less effectively puni
by Nasrudith 1y ago
That would just spread the corruption around along with the rewards as things which make them more money reward them and things which make less effectively punish them. Not too much of a difference quantitatively for workers (job security is negatively impacted by the company doing poorly). That would mean that the government is basically 'bribing itself' whenever it does anything that is aligned with the company. That is the opposite of what you would want.
Social needs is a nebulous enough term that it outright scares me imagining what twisted definitions of it would arise naturally from sincere attempts to promote it, let alone cynical abuses. Imagine a religious fundamentalist defining 'social needs'. Horrors like 'we should work to keep kids in the closet for social cohesion' and honestly thinking that it is the right thing to do.
- tehjoker 1y agoOur current political system already privileges these people. What are you worried about with expanded democratic rights? It would counterbalance them. A concern with social rights is a step up from narrow concern with economic rights, since it enables the rich to just oppress everyone else. At least you can contest things instead of being ruled dicatorially by the market.