4 ms·

That of course, depends on the strength of said CEO's principles. This would be, of course, one of the hardest tests of professional principles you could imagi

That of course, depends on the strength of said CEO's principles. This would be, of course, one of the hardest tests of professional principles you could imagine a CEO going through. I personally think Mr Cook would be a good candidate for passing this test, as he seems to have a track record for standing up for what he believes in. I also have a feeling that the US government would think twice before taking on the Apple PR juggernaut head to head. It would be too closely matched for comfort. Apple probably have greater mind-share than any of the political parties. As you say, it would be an interesting standoff!

jkestner 12y ago
It's a little discomforting that we're hoping that corporations, presumably guided by a profit motive, will defend us against the government formed for the people (though more heavily influenced by other corporations). Even if Apple is trustworthy for a company, I'm not going to enjoy the future in which we pick our favorite companies to enact policy. Now, this is obviously happening to Google, et al, as well, so a joint action by the captains of industry — an appeal to the public more than the court — will be more effective.
- mindcrime 12y ago
  Nothing wrong with "profit motive". Remember: It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. ~~ Adam Smith That said, I'd personally like to see less power aggregated into the hands of both governments and big mega-corporations. But the big difference between the two, to my mind, is that governments have a near monopoly on "legitimate" use of force, and have lots of men with guns, tanks, bombers, nukes, etc. at their disposal. Corporations mostly lack those things, except to the extent that they collude with the governments.
  - jkestner 12y ago
    Yeah, I agree that profit motive is a motive I can work with. I guess libertarianism can be appealing when the government acts like a tumor. The government's monopoly on legitimate use of force is more relevant in less developed countries. Here, you can do more damage more easily by attacking computer-controlled infrastructure. (Imagine if the NRA was pointed at the real threat? Maybe they'd look a little like Anonymous.)

jkestner 12y ago

It's a little discomforting that we're hoping that corporations, presumably guided by a profit motive, will defend us against the government formed for the people (though more heavily influenced by other corporations). Even if Apple is trustworthy for a company, I'm not going to enjoy the future in which we pick our favorite companies to enact policy. Now, this is obviously happening to Google, et al, as well, so a joint action by the captains of industry — an appeal to the public more than the court — will be more effective.

mindcrime 12y ago
Nothing wrong with "profit motive". Remember: It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. ~~ Adam Smith That said, I'd personally like to see less power aggregated into the hands of both governments and big mega-corporations. But the big difference between the two, to my mind, is that governments have a near monopoly on "legitimate" use of force, and have lots of men with guns, tanks, bombers, nukes, etc. at their disposal. Corporations mostly lack those things, except to the extent that they collude with the governments.
- jkestner 12y ago
  Yeah, I agree that profit motive is a motive I can work with. I guess libertarianism can be appealing when the government acts like a tumor. The government's monopoly on legitimate use of force is more relevant in less developed countries. Here, you can do more damage more easily by attacking computer-controlled infrastructure. (Imagine if the NRA was pointed at the real threat? Maybe they'd look a little like Anonymous.)