4 ms·

When I play by a game, I use all the rules to my advantage even if I support a change to some of those rules. If I could legally vote twice because I had a col

When I play by a game, I use all the rules to my advantage even if I support a change to some of those rules. If I could legally vote twice because I had a college degree, I would -- even though I would support repealing such a rule. Here, we see AMZN maximizing shareholder value (which it MUST do,) and wee see Jeff Bezos suggest that some of the common rules of the game aren't optimal. Think of the Buffet position on taxes -- he is going to pay as little as he has to, but he wishes everybody in his peer group paid more. He could just give his money to the government, but that is a categorically different action from lobbying for a systematic change.

tambourine_man 14y ago
When I play by a game, I use all the rules to my advantage even if I support a change to some of those rules. That's the very definition of hypocrisy, which is what Bezos is being called of. One can be a hypocrite and still be right.
- ddlatham 14y ago
  No. Being a hypocrite would be telling other players not to take advantage of the rules while you take advantage of the rules. Advocating for change while still trying to win within the current rules is not.
  - tambourine_man 14y ago
    Yes it is. Hypocrisy is the state of promoting or administering virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have or is also guilty of violating. Wikipedia
    - zaphar 14y ago
      By your own definition it isn't hypocrisy. You are confusing virtues, morals, principles, and beliefs with rules. They aren't the same thing and shouldn't be conflated. The argument could be made that patents are not a moral issue but an issue concerning efficient economics. Under that argument reforming patents is about making an industry more productive and useful. This can happen in two dimensions. A single business could benefit. An entire economy could benefit. A leader of a company could view the patent system like this: My company right now can make the most money currently by registering, buying, and enforcing patents. However if the patent system were reformed we could reduce costs, legal risks and make even more money than we do now. Therefore I will lobby for patent reform. While still doing what I need to be successful as a company now.
      - tambourine_man 14y ago
        I'm not confusing. The original comment was: If I could legally vote twice because I had a college degree, I would -- even though I would support repealing such a rule. That's doing in practice the opposite of what you believe, promoting a principle that one is also guilty of violating. It's also unethical in my view. The ends do not justify the means.
        esrauch 14y ago
        It would be hypocritical to say "Everyone should voluntarily not use their special rights to vote twice" and then vote twice. It's not hypocritical to say "The law should be changed" and then go vote twice. As in, there is no contradiction or hypocrisy if someone explicitly states their ordered preferences like this: 1) The law states that everyone gets one vote, I vote once. 2) The law states that college grads get two votes, I vote twice. 3) The law states that college grads get two votes, I vote once. Jeff Bezos isn't opposing patents on moral grounds; he thinks that there would be economic benefit to everyone, including his company, to get rid of them. It would be of economic benefit to only everyone but Amazon if only Amazon abstained from having patents.
        tambourine_man 14y ago
        Saying you would use the rules to your advantage even though you disagree with them is very much hypocritical. You may not agree with Wikipedia's definition of hypocrisy. That's fine, find another. But practicing the opposite of what you believe fits it perfectly.
        jchavannes 14y ago
        Didn't realize skulls could be so thick. This tangent on defining hypocrisy belongs somewhere else.
        Natsu 14y ago
        He's not doing something other than what he believes in if he has a more nuanced belief that you seem willing to allow.
    - Retric 14y ago
      Think about this in terms of a Nash Equilibrium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium The classic case being rules that adjust for Free rider problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem Basically, if you want to maximize the expected value of fish you catch your going to fish to the limit of your capabilities. It would also be perfectly rational to suggest instituting catch limits with vary large penalties. After the rule change you may be perfectly happy to obey them because they make you more money for less effort and breaking them is not worth the risk. Note, a lot of environmental preservation is rational it's voluntary environmentalism that's often irrational behavior.
- wisty 14y ago
  It depends on how you see ethics. The Categorical Imperative (act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become a universal law) suggests it is hypocritical - if it's bad for everyone to do it, it's bad for anyone to do it. Of course, not everyone agrees with Kant. But that's not the only way to view ethics. More pragmatic people would say - "Sometimes the game is broken, and you have to do things which feel a bit wrong. That doesn't mean you can't advocate for the rules to be changed, though". I don't think you can say he's a total hypocrite. He's not suggesting that all his competitors virtuously refrain from abusing patents, while he himself is abusing them. I don't see any real dishonesty or inconsistency.
chimeracoder 14y ago
Helmets were optional in the NHL before they became mandatory. Supposedly, almost nobody wore them beforehand (because it impacted performance), but virtually all players supported making them mandatory.
- philwelch 14y ago
  Classic game theory.
jamesaguilar 14y ago
> which it MUST do Nope, as far as I am aware there is no law that companies must maximize the value for their owners at the cost of all other considerations. This gets brought up constantly, and I've yet to see anyone support the claim with evidence. Sure, you can sue for breach of fiduciary duty, but that duty does not include no-holds-barred maximization.
- rayiner 14y ago
  There is no such law, and it's never been a fiduciary duty. There is one common law school case where a court smacked down Henry Ford for saying he didn't care about shareholders, just his workers, but that's because it was the Dodge brothers bringing suit and Henry Ford was being a huge dick. That case wasn't really a correct statement of the law even at the time.
- aaronblohowiak 14y ago
  IANAL, but I believe that you are correct, the corporation must pursue its shareholder interests for the purposes outlined in its articles of incorporation. That can be (afaik) any legal purpose. AMZN has repeatedly communicated their purpose of maximizing long-term shareholder value.
  - zmmmmm 14y ago
    > AMZN has repeatedly communicated their purpose of maximizing long-term shareholder value Even that doesn't pin them down. Amazon can easily say they believe it is in their own long term interests to campaign against patent laws and therefore sacrificing a small short term profit from the one-click patent is a logically correct way to maximize long term shareholder value. The argument that a company "has to do evil thing X" to maximize shareholder value is pretty much always just an excuse for avoiding argument about whether "thing X" is evil or not.
- weaksauce 14y ago
  I am not a lawyer but it would seem that the ebay v. craigslist ruling would have the same effect. http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/special-comment/ebay-v-newmark-al-franken-was-right-corporations-are-legally-required-to-maximize-profits/ http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/sp...

tambourine_man 14y ago

When I play by a game, I use all the rules to my advantage even if I support a change to some of those rules. That's the very definition of hypocrisy, which is what Bezos is being called of. One can be a hypocrite and still be right.

ddlatham 14y ago
No. Being a hypocrite would be telling other players not to take advantage of the rules while you take advantage of the rules. Advocating for change while still trying to win within the current rules is not.
- tambourine_man 14y ago
  Yes it is. Hypocrisy is the state of promoting or administering virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have or is also guilty of violating. Wikipedia
  - zaphar 14y ago
    By your own definition it isn't hypocrisy. You are confusing virtues, morals, principles, and beliefs with rules. They aren't the same thing and shouldn't be conflated. The argument could be made that patents are not a moral issue but an issue concerning efficient economics. Under that argument reforming patents is about making an industry more productive and useful. This can happen in two dimensions. A single business could benefit. An entire economy could benefit. A leader of a company could view the patent system like this: My company right now can make the most money currently by registering, buying, and enforcing patents. However if the patent system were reformed we could reduce costs, legal risks and make even more money than we do now. Therefore I will lobby for patent reform. While still doing what I need to be successful as a company now.
    - tambourine_man 14y ago
      I'm not confusing. The original comment was: If I could legally vote twice because I had a college degree, I would -- even though I would support repealing such a rule. That's doing in practice the opposite of what you believe, promoting a principle that one is also guilty of violating. It's also unethical in my view. The ends do not justify the means.
      - esrauch 14y ago
        It would be hypocritical to say "Everyone should voluntarily not use their special rights to vote twice" and then vote twice. It's not hypocritical to say "The law should be changed" and then go vote twice. As in, there is no contradiction or hypocrisy if someone explicitly states their ordered preferences like this: 1) The law states that everyone gets one vote, I vote once. 2) The law states that college grads get two votes, I vote twice. 3) The law states that college grads get two votes, I vote once. Jeff Bezos isn't opposing patents on moral grounds; he thinks that there would be economic benefit to everyone, including his company, to get rid of them. It would be of economic benefit to only everyone but Amazon if only Amazon abstained from having patents.
        tambourine_man 14y ago
        Saying you would use the rules to your advantage even though you disagree with them is very much hypocritical. You may not agree with Wikipedia's definition of hypocrisy. That's fine, find another. But practicing the opposite of what you believe fits it perfectly.
        jchavannes 14y ago
        Didn't realize skulls could be so thick. This tangent on defining hypocrisy belongs somewhere else.
        Natsu 14y ago
        He's not doing something other than what he believes in if he has a more nuanced belief that you seem willing to allow.
  - Retric 14y ago
    Think about this in terms of a Nash Equilibrium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium The classic case being rules that adjust for Free rider problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem Basically, if you want to maximize the expected value of fish you catch your going to fish to the limit of your capabilities. It would also be perfectly rational to suggest instituting catch limits with vary large penalties. After the rule change you may be perfectly happy to obey them because they make you more money for less effort and breaking them is not worth the risk. Note, a lot of environmental preservation is rational it's voluntary environmentalism that's often irrational behavior.
wisty 14y ago
It depends on how you see ethics. The Categorical Imperative (act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become a universal law) suggests it is hypocritical - if it's bad for everyone to do it, it's bad for anyone to do it. Of course, not everyone agrees with Kant. But that's not the only way to view ethics. More pragmatic people would say - "Sometimes the game is broken, and you have to do things which feel a bit wrong. That doesn't mean you can't advocate for the rules to be changed, though". I don't think you can say he's a total hypocrite. He's not suggesting that all his competitors virtuously refrain from abusing patents, while he himself is abusing them. I don't see any real dishonesty or inconsistency.

chimeracoder 14y ago

Helmets were optional in the NHL before they became mandatory. Supposedly, almost nobody wore them beforehand (because it impacted performance), but virtually all players supported making them mandatory.

philwelch 14y ago
Classic game theory.

jamesaguilar 14y ago

> which it MUST do Nope, as far as I am aware there is no law that companies must maximize the value for their owners at the cost of all other considerations. This gets brought up constantly, and I've yet to see anyone support the claim with evidence. Sure, you can sue for breach of fiduciary duty, but that duty does not include no-holds-barred maximization.

rayiner 14y ago
There is no such law, and it's never been a fiduciary duty. There is one common law school case where a court smacked down Henry Ford for saying he didn't care about shareholders, just his workers, but that's because it was the Dodge brothers bringing suit and Henry Ford was being a huge dick. That case wasn't really a correct statement of the law even at the time.
aaronblohowiak 14y ago
IANAL, but I believe that you are correct, the corporation must pursue its shareholder interests for the purposes outlined in its articles of incorporation. That can be (afaik) any legal purpose. AMZN has repeatedly communicated their purpose of maximizing long-term shareholder value.
- zmmmmm 14y ago
  > AMZN has repeatedly communicated their purpose of maximizing long-term shareholder value Even that doesn't pin them down. Amazon can easily say they believe it is in their own long term interests to campaign against patent laws and therefore sacrificing a small short term profit from the one-click patent is a logically correct way to maximize long term shareholder value. The argument that a company "has to do evil thing X" to maximize shareholder value is pretty much always just an excuse for avoiding argument about whether "thing X" is evil or not.
weaksauce 14y ago
I am not a lawyer but it would seem that the ebay v. craigslist ruling would have the same effect. http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/special-comment/ebay-v-newmark-al-franken-was-right-corporations-are-legally-required-to-maximize-profits/ http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/sp...