4 ms·

What specific power(s) do you object to companies having? The power to voluntarily exchange with others? Companies don't make money killing people, they make m

by sausman 13y ago

What specific power(s) do you object to companies having? The power to voluntarily exchange with others? Companies don't make money killing people, they make money improving the lives of customers and employees by offering them something they value more than their money/labor. If someone is working under poor working conditions, it's because their next best alternative is even worse.

cglee 13y ago
I think I understand your point, but the statement has been falsified many times throughout history. Many corporations have prospered on human misery and death.
- nostrademons 13y ago
  Often with government backing. The modern nation-state is founded on the premise that the state has a monopoly on physical force; it is hard for a corporation to cause misery and death without that. I would be more scared about cozy relationships between government and corporations. That is when you get the most egregious offenses, eg. British East India Company + Great Britain vs. India and China, oil companies + US vs. the Middle East, Chinese government + Baidu in censoring their own people, Blackwater Associates + US in Iraq, etc. It is sometimes good to have the interests of corporations and government diametrically opposed, because that means they are not conspiring against the people they serve.
alexqgb 13y ago
"Companies don't make money killing people" No, they don't make money killing their CUSTOMERS. But they can make a lot of money by not giving a fig about people impacted by their operations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster This is why we have regulations, by the way. So when amoral idiots find themselves in a position to do serious harm, there's some external force to compensate (as much as possible) for their lack of suitable ethics and working moral compasses.
- sausman 13y ago
  If by regulations you mean enforcing property rights and laws against murder, I agree. In a free market the initiation of force is not tolerated. The Bhopal disaster you cited is a perfect example of an initiation of force. The government legitimizes the initiation of force on those who have done nothing to violate the rights of others -- similar to the disaster you cited. It seems you have a problem with companies initiating force, but not the government. Why is that?
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    "It seems you have a problem with companies initiating force, but not the government. Why is that?" Why does it seem that way? I don't know, it's your impression. You tell me.

by sausman 13y ago

cglee 13y ago

I think I understand your point, but the statement has been falsified many times throughout history. Many corporations have prospered on human misery and death.

nostrademons 13y ago
Often with government backing. The modern nation-state is founded on the premise that the state has a monopoly on physical force; it is hard for a corporation to cause misery and death without that. I would be more scared about cozy relationships between government and corporations. That is when you get the most egregious offenses, eg. British East India Company + Great Britain vs. India and China, oil companies + US vs. the Middle East, Chinese government + Baidu in censoring their own people, Blackwater Associates + US in Iraq, etc. It is sometimes good to have the interests of corporations and government diametrically opposed, because that means they are not conspiring against the people they serve.

alexqgb 13y ago

"Companies don't make money killing people" No, they don't make money killing their CUSTOMERS. But they can make a lot of money by not giving a fig about people impacted by their operations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster This is why we have regulations, by the way. So when amoral idiots find themselves in a position to do serious harm, there's some external force to compensate (as much as possible) for their lack of suitable ethics and working moral compasses.

sausman 13y ago
If by regulations you mean enforcing property rights and laws against murder, I agree. In a free market the initiation of force is not tolerated. The Bhopal disaster you cited is a perfect example of an initiation of force. The government legitimizes the initiation of force on those who have done nothing to violate the rights of others -- similar to the disaster you cited. It seems you have a problem with companies initiating force, but not the government. Why is that?
- alexqgb 13y ago
  "It seems you have a problem with companies initiating force, but not the government. Why is that?" Why does it seem that way? I don't know, it's your impression. You tell me.