6 ms·

Well I hope this is not the case. I am against the NSA monitoring program. I think powerful commercial interests colluding to purposefully break the rule of law

by apalmer 13y ago

Well I hope this is not the case. I am against the NSA monitoring program. I think powerful commercial interests colluding to purposefully break the rule of law is a huge negative. Lets disconnect this behavior from the specific instance's moral outrage: If Exxon, BP, Chevron, Shell simultaneously came out and ignored all EPA restrictions would their CEOs all go to jail, doing enormous damage to the stock market? This sound like a good thing to anyone?

northwest 13y ago
> I think powerful commercial interests colluding to purposefully break the rule of law is a huge negative. It happens all the time, though, if you look at the financial, banking, insurance and oil industry - even without the slightest (moral) excuse. And nobody goes to jail, just some ridiculous fines to pay. This time, there is a very serious moral imperative.
- apalmer 13y ago
  Corporations have morals now? Just seems like a bad idea to root for, actually it sounds very similar to the argument that there is a serious moral imperative for the govt to ignore the 4th amendment to stop terrorism. You are either for the rule of law or you arent.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    Or you are for the rule of some laws and not others? Just because you are pro-pot doesn't mean you are pro-child-molestation, right?
    - apalmer 13y ago
      'rule of law' means something specific. To vastly summarize, if a law is unjust change the law.
      - pessimizer 13y ago
        >'rule of law' means something specific. No, it doesn't. "Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as 'an exceedingly elusive notion' giving rise to a 'rampant divergence of understandings ... everyone is for it but have contrasting convictions about what it is.' "At least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or 'thin' definition, and a substantive or 'thick' definition. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the 'justness' of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law If believing in the rule of law that you are defining here means that one would believe that one should absolutely follow all laws at all times, then I'm not a believer in the rule of law.
        apalmer 13y ago
        Honestly, if you going to selectively pick lines out of an information source that defend your argument then all hope of intelligent discourse is lost. Let me just say, I don't disagree with the source your quoting just with your selective quotation. Why don't we quote the whole thesis instead of the caveats after the main thesis? 'The rule of law (also known as nomocracy) generally refers to the influence and authority of law within society, especially as a constraint upon behavior, including behavior of government officials.[2] This phrase is also sometimes used in other senses.[3] In its general sense, the phrase can be traced back to the 16th century, and it was popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A. V. Dicey. The concept was familiar to ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, who wrote "Law should govern".[4] Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law. It stands in contrast to the idea that the ruler is above the law, for example by divine right. Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as "an exceedingly elusive notion"[5] giving rise to a "rampant divergence of understandings ... everyone is for it but have contrasting convictions about what it is."[6] At least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or "thin" definition, and a substantive or "thick" definition. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the "justness" of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law.[7]'
  - squozzer 13y ago
    I could go into permanent Godwin purgatory for listing crimes against humanity that were codified into law not all that long ago.
alan_cx 13y ago
Are you seriously comparing protecting the environment to embarrassing a government in to open disclosure? Really? Two completely different things.
- civilian 13y ago
  Still, both are examples of corporate leaders standing up to government thugs. They're only different because of how american culture treats those two different topics.
  - dasil003 13y ago
    They are completely opposite in terms of the quantity of people whose interests are being shorted and whose are being advanced by the law-breaking.
- apalmer 13y ago
  Not really, trusting/encouraging commercial entities to morally parse which laws they should and shouldn't obey seems absolutely crazy to me. Not sure what is going on with the massive cognitive dissonance being displayed. Government ignoring constitution/laws for perceived moral/efficiency benefits BAD, commerical entities ignoring laws for perceived moral/efficiency benefits GOOD.
  - lukifer 13y ago
    Soylent Corporations are made of people. Human beings do have moral authority to choose which laws to break, which includes accepting the consequences of their actions. They are then judged based on the validity of that moral choice in the public eye, which is admittedly subjective and ineffable, if not volatile. But pollution and mass spying are unlikely to be seen as principled civil disobedience in the same way as releasing evidence of law-breaking, sharing an NSL, etc.
dwiel 13y ago
The point of civil disobedience is that those doing don't believe that the official methods for determine what a good thing is are working. Comparing this suggested action to oil companies and the EPA is like comparing Ghandi to the KKK.
- ihsw 13y ago
  Oh come on now, there are extremest libertarians too, and they abhor the idea of environmental regulations. They truly believe that the impact of "market corrections" applies wholeheartedly to the largest of corporations, and environmental damage is certainly detrimental enough to cause consumers to react accordingly. The fines and environmental regulations imposed against corporations are viewed very poorly by libertarian extremists, so the comparison is apt. Advocates the KKK certainly identify with the likes of Ghandi, too.
  - jivatmanx 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_environmentalist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_environmentalist
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
pessimizer 13y ago
If you're strictly judging by lawfulness, its a problem - but if you judge it by the public being exposed to harmful externalities during the normal operations of any of these businesses, and that preventing that is a positive, then this might be a solution. The negative externalities are pollution and secret monitoring of customers. Polluting more doesn't reduce or eliminate either of those for the public, while informing the public of how it is being monitored does. That being said, it would be a protest, and all useful protests against government are unlawful.
flexie 13y ago
It's powerful commercial interests colluding to defend the constitution of the US and protect the human rights of US as well as non-US citizens.
joyeuse6701 13y ago
Haha, its an absolutist vs. utilitarian moral argument. It is clear that from the absolutist perspective as you've stated, the outcome has potential for abuse. I assume that the precedence set bothers you, corporations were not intended to be a check against the gov't per se. The state of affairs is probably indicative of a larger issue which the failure of our checks and balances in our government. Utilitarian morality could be that the net effect of the free market demands for an unwatched internet is the correct moral course of action. But as you may have unwittingly hinted at, it is entirely dependent on how the position of the companies and choice of action relate to the benefit of the society. In this case with the NSA the answer is yes, in your example, no, but that should prove that the idea of corporate collusion and interference with gov't isn't intrinsically morally wrong. Just depends on what the companies stand for.
- apalmer 13y ago
  I disagree with you on points, but at least we seem to be operating from a shared logical framework. I think our fundamental disagreement however is i don't think a company 'stands' for anything but making money. I think further that if commercial entities are allowed to hide behind 'morality' when determining which laws to follow this will lead to extreme abuse, since in my worldview commercial entities do not have a 'moral' code. If say, mark zuckerberg wanted to do a sit in in front of the NSA knowing he is violating tresspassing laws (for the sake of arguement) then thats his personal moral choice, and as long as he is willing to face the consequences, kudos to him. But realistically the majority of the american people dont have a problem with the NSA programs. I know it burns a lot of HN up, but as of right now, thats just reality. We know that the elected executive branch, the judicial branch, and the elected legislative branch more or less have signed on to this NSA thing. If perhaps they were in the dark before, this is no longer the case. This is democracy at work people, sometimes the majority of people want something I dont agree with, thats democracy. Now just because democracy 'failed' doesn't mean I want some small cabal of very rich and powerful folks to decide they will not have to follow the laws of this country because they have the power to do so.
dmix 13y ago
Depends on which law is being broken. In addition to whether the law is moral, there's also the business implications. Markets serve customers first. If the companies colluded to act morally in their customers interest and against repressive governments, then I don't see it being a comparable issue. They would be rewarded longer term with customer loyalty. If oil companies collude to ignore safety regulations, that would harm customers, then it's something that would result in a different market response and much greater legal implications from citizen lawsuits, not only from the government.
- junto 13y ago
  Who are the "customers" exactly? The public using these free services are not the customers, that's for sure. We are the "users". The customers pay for information about users.
  - dmix 13y ago
    Well if a business depends on "users" to get revenue from advertising or other means, they are still essentially customers and equally influential to the company.
    - apalmer 13y ago
      No
RyanMcGreal 13y ago
Looks like you're reasoning at level four: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_m...

by apalmer 13y ago

northwest 13y ago

> I think powerful commercial interests colluding to purposefully break the rule of law is a huge negative. It happens all the time, though, if you look at the financial, banking, insurance and oil industry - even without the slightest (moral) excuse. And nobody goes to jail, just some ridiculous fines to pay. This time, there is a very serious moral imperative.

apalmer 13y ago
Corporations have morals now? Just seems like a bad idea to root for, actually it sounds very similar to the argument that there is a serious moral imperative for the govt to ignore the 4th amendment to stop terrorism. You are either for the rule of law or you arent.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  Or you are for the rule of some laws and not others? Just because you are pro-pot doesn't mean you are pro-child-molestation, right?
  - apalmer 13y ago
    'rule of law' means something specific. To vastly summarize, if a law is unjust change the law.
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      >'rule of law' means something specific. No, it doesn't. "Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as 'an exceedingly elusive notion' giving rise to a 'rampant divergence of understandings ... everyone is for it but have contrasting convictions about what it is.' "At least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or 'thin' definition, and a substantive or 'thick' definition. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the 'justness' of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law If believing in the rule of law that you are defining here means that one would believe that one should absolutely follow all laws at all times, then I'm not a believer in the rule of law.
      - apalmer 13y ago
        Honestly, if you going to selectively pick lines out of an information source that defend your argument then all hope of intelligent discourse is lost. Let me just say, I don't disagree with the source your quoting just with your selective quotation. Why don't we quote the whole thesis instead of the caveats after the main thesis? 'The rule of law (also known as nomocracy) generally refers to the influence and authority of law within society, especially as a constraint upon behavior, including behavior of government officials.[2] This phrase is also sometimes used in other senses.[3] In its general sense, the phrase can be traced back to the 16th century, and it was popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A. V. Dicey. The concept was familiar to ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, who wrote "Law should govern".[4] Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law. It stands in contrast to the idea that the ruler is above the law, for example by divine right. Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as "an exceedingly elusive notion"[5] giving rise to a "rampant divergence of understandings ... everyone is for it but have contrasting convictions about what it is."[6] At least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or "thin" definition, and a substantive or "thick" definition. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the "justness" of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law.[7]'
- squozzer 13y ago
  I could go into permanent Godwin purgatory for listing crimes against humanity that were codified into law not all that long ago.

alan_cx 13y ago

Are you seriously comparing protecting the environment to embarrassing a government in to open disclosure? Really? Two completely different things.

civilian 13y ago
Still, both are examples of corporate leaders standing up to government thugs. They're only different because of how american culture treats those two different topics.
- dasil003 13y ago
  They are completely opposite in terms of the quantity of people whose interests are being shorted and whose are being advanced by the law-breaking.
apalmer 13y ago
Not really, trusting/encouraging commercial entities to morally parse which laws they should and shouldn't obey seems absolutely crazy to me. Not sure what is going on with the massive cognitive dissonance being displayed. Government ignoring constitution/laws for perceived moral/efficiency benefits BAD, commerical entities ignoring laws for perceived moral/efficiency benefits GOOD.
- lukifer 13y ago
  Soylent Corporations are made of people. Human beings do have moral authority to choose which laws to break, which includes accepting the consequences of their actions. They are then judged based on the validity of that moral choice in the public eye, which is admittedly subjective and ineffable, if not volatile. But pollution and mass spying are unlikely to be seen as principled civil disobedience in the same way as releasing evidence of law-breaking, sharing an NSL, etc.

dwiel 13y ago

The point of civil disobedience is that those doing don't believe that the official methods for determine what a good thing is are working. Comparing this suggested action to oil companies and the EPA is like comparing Ghandi to the KKK.

ihsw 13y ago
Oh come on now, there are extremest libertarians too, and they abhor the idea of environmental regulations. They truly believe that the impact of "market corrections" applies wholeheartedly to the largest of corporations, and environmental damage is certainly detrimental enough to cause consumers to react accordingly. The fines and environmental regulations imposed against corporations are viewed very poorly by libertarian extremists, so the comparison is apt. Advocates the KKK certainly identify with the likes of Ghandi, too.
- jivatmanx 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_environmentalist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_environmentalist
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

pessimizer 13y ago

If you're strictly judging by lawfulness, its a problem - but if you judge it by the public being exposed to harmful externalities during the normal operations of any of these businesses, and that preventing that is a positive, then this might be a solution. The negative externalities are pollution and secret monitoring of customers. Polluting more doesn't reduce or eliminate either of those for the public, while informing the public of how it is being monitored does. That being said, it would be a protest, and all useful protests against government are unlawful.

flexie 13y ago

It's powerful commercial interests colluding to defend the constitution of the US and protect the human rights of US as well as non-US citizens.

joyeuse6701 13y ago

Haha, its an absolutist vs. utilitarian moral argument. It is clear that from the absolutist perspective as you've stated, the outcome has potential for abuse. I assume that the precedence set bothers you, corporations were not intended to be a check against the gov't per se. The state of affairs is probably indicative of a larger issue which the failure of our checks and balances in our government. Utilitarian morality could be that the net effect of the free market demands for an unwatched internet is the correct moral course of action. But as you may have unwittingly hinted at, it is entirely dependent on how the position of the companies and choice of action relate to the benefit of the society. In this case with the NSA the answer is yes, in your example, no, but that should prove that the idea of corporate collusion and interference with gov't isn't intrinsically morally wrong. Just depends on what the companies stand for.

apalmer 13y ago
I disagree with you on points, but at least we seem to be operating from a shared logical framework. I think our fundamental disagreement however is i don't think a company 'stands' for anything but making money. I think further that if commercial entities are allowed to hide behind 'morality' when determining which laws to follow this will lead to extreme abuse, since in my worldview commercial entities do not have a 'moral' code. If say, mark zuckerberg wanted to do a sit in in front of the NSA knowing he is violating tresspassing laws (for the sake of arguement) then thats his personal moral choice, and as long as he is willing to face the consequences, kudos to him. But realistically the majority of the american people dont have a problem with the NSA programs. I know it burns a lot of HN up, but as of right now, thats just reality. We know that the elected executive branch, the judicial branch, and the elected legislative branch more or less have signed on to this NSA thing. If perhaps they were in the dark before, this is no longer the case. This is democracy at work people, sometimes the majority of people want something I dont agree with, thats democracy. Now just because democracy 'failed' doesn't mean I want some small cabal of very rich and powerful folks to decide they will not have to follow the laws of this country because they have the power to do so.

dmix 13y ago

Depends on which law is being broken. In addition to whether the law is moral, there's also the business implications. Markets serve customers first. If the companies colluded to act morally in their customers interest and against repressive governments, then I don't see it being a comparable issue. They would be rewarded longer term with customer loyalty. If oil companies collude to ignore safety regulations, that would harm customers, then it's something that would result in a different market response and much greater legal implications from citizen lawsuits, not only from the government.

junto 13y ago
Who are the "customers" exactly? The public using these free services are not the customers, that's for sure. We are the "users". The customers pay for information about users.
- dmix 13y ago
  Well if a business depends on "users" to get revenue from advertising or other means, they are still essentially customers and equally influential to the company.
  - apalmer 13y ago
    No

RyanMcGreal 13y ago

Looks like you're reasoning at level four: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_m...