3 ms·

Remind me again what beings operate corporations.

mystraline 6mo ago
A company is a ship of Theses. Someone can die, and theyre replaced within 3 days. A new hire takes their place within a month (or used to). And legally, the comapny's sole responsibility is "make money for shareholders". An analysis of 'what a company is', is fair to compare it to the most laser-focused sociopath. But your false point is trying to say 'Since humans run a company, its human ethics and just humans'. And what we have is demonstrably not human-like. The 2003 documentary film 'The Corporation' does a deep dive as why you are wrong, in regards to falsely equivocating humans to a corporation. The worst of the worst behaviors of sociopathic humans get selected more and more, all in the name of money. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6v8e7dUwq_Q https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6v8e7dUwq_Q
- secabeen 6mo ago
  > And legally, the comapny's sole responsibility is "make money for shareholders". "the philosophy of putting shareholder profits over all else is a matter of ideology which is not grounded in American law or tradition" https://www.salon.com/2012/04/04/the_shareholder_fallacy/ https://www.salon.com/2012/04/04/the_shareholder_fallacy/ This remains a matter of active debate, and there is no law that requires or enshrines it. It's a legitimate opinion to hold, that a company should maximize shareholder returns, but it is not in any way a requirement to do so. Here's a recent study on the matter: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/06/12/the-costs-of-weakening-shareholder-primacy-evidence-from-a-u-s-quasi-natural-experiment/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/06/12/the-costs-of-weak... Note that if shareholder primacy were the law of the land, this study could never have even occurred.
overfeed 6mo ago
...and you've moved to the fallacy of composition. You are made of cells (if human), but that doesn't mean you reproduce via mitosis, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

A company is a ship of Theses. Someone can die, and theyre replaced within 3 days. A new hire takes their place within a month (or used to). And legally, the comapny's sole responsibility is "make money for shareholders". An analysis of 'what a company is', is fair to compare it to the most laser-focused sociopath. But your false point is trying to say 'Since humans run a company, its human ethics and just humans'. And what we have is demonstrably not human-like. The 2003 documentary film 'The Corporation' does a deep dive as why you are wrong, in regards to falsely equivocating humans to a corporation. The worst of the worst behaviors of sociopathic humans get selected more and more, all in the name of money. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6v8e7dUwq_Q https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6v8e7dUwq_Q

secabeen 6mo ago
> And legally, the comapny's sole responsibility is "make money for shareholders". "the philosophy of putting shareholder profits over all else is a matter of ideology which is not grounded in American law or tradition" https://www.salon.com/2012/04/04/the_shareholder_fallacy/ https://www.salon.com/2012/04/04/the_shareholder_fallacy/ This remains a matter of active debate, and there is no law that requires or enshrines it. It's a legitimate opinion to hold, that a company should maximize shareholder returns, but it is not in any way a requirement to do so. Here's a recent study on the matter: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/06/12/the-costs-of-weakening-shareholder-primacy-evidence-from-a-u-s-quasi-natural-experiment/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/06/12/the-costs-of-weak... Note that if shareholder primacy were the law of the land, this study could never have even occurred.

overfeed 6mo ago

...and you've moved to the fallacy of composition. You are made of cells (if human), but that doesn't mean you reproduce via mitosis, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.