MartinOlsson 0 #226 March 14, 2009 Quote So corporations don't contribute to charity? They don't voluntarily do 'the right thing?' They don't offer their employees things they don't have to? I don't think you've known very many corporations, if you think that. No a corporation will not contribute or do the right thing if the corporation does not believe that it will gain from it. Companies work only in the best interest of their stockholders. However, charity can be good pr and can be a good investment. I believe the analogy with a functional psychopath is relevant. Not to say that it should be any other way, but believing that corporations are moral institutions is just wrong. /Martin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #227 March 14, 2009 QuoteSo corporations don't contribute to charity? They don't voluntarily do 'the right thing?' They don't offer their employees things they don't have to? what smith thought of corporations... QuoteWere Adam Smith alive today, he'd be an activist hedge fund manager or a private equity raider. He had a decidedly pessimistic view about corporations. Most businesses of his day were proprietorships or partnerships. He didn't think corporations--joint-stock companies, as they were then called--would amount to much, because badly incentivized managers would inevitably destroy them. "The directors of such companies ... being the managers rather of other people's money rather than of their own, it cannot well be expected that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which [they would] watch over their own," he wrote. "Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such a company." In other words, managers are invariably prone to waste. They will gold-plate their office equipment and cut out early for their kids' music recitals. And what about stockholder fraud, such a large source of angst among modern governance critics? Smith felt that the possibility of theft existed in every area of commercial life, yet commerce thrived. "Negligence and profusion," what economists now call "agency costs," were different; they were, and are, an inherent result of the separation of ownership and management. Smith was well aware of the benefits of corporations, including their ability to concentrate large amounts of money into capital-intensive undertakings. But he thought that the costs of agency would always be too high. He believed that those costs scaled up with the business, as that was the experience of his day. Therefore, the bigger a business got, the worse the waste. He frankly didn't see any way around it, even if the corporation had monopoly privileges. "It is upon this account that joint-stock companies for foreign trade have seldom been able to maintain the competition against private adventurers. They have, accordingly, very seldom succeeded without an exclusive privilege, and frequently have not succeeded with one," wrote Smith. http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/24/adam-smith-corporations-markets-marketsp07-cx_mh_1025hodak.htmlstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #228 March 14, 2009 QuoteI believe the analogy with a functional psychopath is relevant. exactly... QuoteCORPORATE PSYCHOPATHY In psychiatry there is a diagnostic entity variously known as psychopath, sociopath and antisocial personality disorder. The central feature of this disorder is the failure to develop any ethical standards of social behavior, The concept of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is foreign to the psychopath. That remarkable advice is replaced by "do unto others as it pleases you regardless of consequences." We do not know for sure the cause of such behavior, whether it is genetic in origin, the result of early developmental trauma, or a combination of the two. The outstanding feature is that the psychopath has a natural talent for using and exploiting others and does so with such skill that true motives remain concealed by ingratiating ways and apparent normality. At some point the bubble bursts and the victim awakens to the reality that they have been taken. In a democratic society government is supposed to serve the needs of every member of that society. There are two models for such societies, Both involve capitalism. The social democratic societies, such as in Scandinavia, temper the profit motive so as to restrict the massive inequities and ensure that health, education, security and opportunity is available to all. They do this by a system of taxation that succeeds in narrowing the gap between the haves and the have-nots so that a significant proportion of the population is not in trouble. In the United States where capitalism is given a much freer rein there is the possibility of the profit motive getting so out of hand that those on top are enriched at the expense of those left behind, That is "wild capitalism". The recent run of failures of formerly very profitable corporations are a prime example of that, and how painful it is for those who are ultimately victimized by it. Victimhood is the characteristic feature of psychopathy. A corporation has been endowed with personhood by the Supreme Court. It is not a person but it is run by persons. If the ethical standards of those at the top fail to maintain a certain level of social responsibility, the result is the insidious onset of corporate psychopathic behavior. A few get very rich and the others wake up one day to find themselves abandoned by the institution they trusted. We now have to take into account the corporation as a psychopathic entity outfitting all prior attempts on the part of governmental regulating agencies to control its behavior. A reactionary government succumbing to corporate power colludes in this happening by weakening regulatory controls, In his book "The Corporation", Joel Bakan offers a thorough account of corporate psychopathy, The damage in human terms resulting from psychopathic behavior, individual or corporate, leaves a destructive trail behind. The individual psychopath contaminates whatever circle he moves in. Corporate psychopathy contaminates the government which is responsible for setting certain ethical limits to corporate behavior. Excessive lobbying and financial largesse influences those who make the laws and those who have the responsibility for executing the laws. http://siivola.org/monte/papers_grouped/uncopyrighted/Misc/corporate_psychopathy.htmstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #229 March 14, 2009 QuoteMost people are immoral by your definition; their highest goal is to make money. nope, their highest goal is to survive and have children. the highest goal of a corporation is to make money.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #230 March 15, 2009 >No a corporation will not contribute or do the right thing if the corporation >does not believe that it will gain from it. Mine does, partly because people like me insist on it. >Not to say that it should be any other way, but believing that >corporations are moral institutions is just wrong. I didn't say that. I just said they are no more moral or immoral than the people who make them up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #231 March 15, 2009 >nope, their highest goal is to survive and have children. I know plenty of people who don't want children, and I know people who are willing to die for their respective causes (country, their ideals etc.) So that's clearly untrue. When you are talking about people, keep in mind you are also talking about Timothy McVeigh and David Berkowitz. You are talking about the 170,000 murderers and 600,000 rapists in the US. These are the people you are saying are superior to corporations. >the highest goal of a corporation is to make money. For many of them that is indeed true. It's _how_ they make money that makes them moral or immoral - and some (many, actually) do indeed choose to be moral about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #232 March 15, 2009 QuoteIn the 1880s and 1890s, the Supreme Court allowed state courts to apply the Marshall Court's principles on a larger scale. At the time, states with strong Populist movements were passing laws to regulate corporations and the robber barons who owned them. But the courts, using Marshall's interpretation of the inviolability of contracts, struck down numerous attempts to regulate the workplace and protect collective bargaining. The hand of capital was further strengthened by an unlikely legal sword: the 14th Amendment, which states that "no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." The amendment was adopted during Reconstruction to protect recently emancipated slaves in a hostile South. But in the landmark case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), the Court, invoking the 14th Amendment, defined corporations as "persons" and ruled that California could not tax corporations differently than individuals. It followed that, as legal "persons," corporations had First Amendment rights as well. Using this definition of corporations as persons, the Court proceeded to strike down a whole range of state regulations. In 1938, Justice Hugo Black noted that in the 50 years after Santa Clara, "less than one-half of I percent [of Supreme Court rulings that invoked the 14th Amendment] invoked it in protection of the Negro race, and more than 50 percent asked that its benefits be extended to corporations." Corporations suffered a setback in the '30s, when the Great Depression discredited laissez-faire economics. In West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), the Court redefined the due process clauses of the 14th Amendment. In a rebuke of the Marshall Court's ruling in Fletcher v. Peck, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote, "The Constitution does not speak of freedom of contract. It speaks of liberty and prohibits the deprivation of liberty without due process of law." http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporations/KnowEnemy_ITT.htmlstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #233 March 15, 2009 Quote>nope, their highest goal is to survive and have children. I know plenty of people who don't want children, and I know people who are willing to die for their respective causes (country, their ideals etc.) So that's clearly untrue. we're talking about 'most people' here - and most people have their highest goal as surviving and having children (and want their children to survive - which is best done within a community with a basic moral framework).stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #234 March 15, 2009 Quote >Not to say that it should be any other way, but believing that >corporations are moral institutions is just wrong. I didn't say that. I just said they are no more moral or immoral than the people who make them up. is a corporation more or less moral than a union?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #235 March 15, 2009 >is a corporation more or less moral than a union? Both are as moral (or as immoral) as the people who make them up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #236 March 15, 2009 [replyWhen you are talking about people, keep in mind you are also talking about Timothy McVeigh and David Berkowitz. You are talking about the 170,000 murderers and 600,000 rapists in the US. These are the people you are saying are superior to corporations. what a strange confluence of thinking. corporations are superior to murderers and rapists stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #237 March 15, 2009 >what a strange confluence of thinking. corporations are superior to >murderers and rapists . . . Now you're getting a little desperate. No one claimed that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #238 March 15, 2009 QuoteWhen you are talking about people, keep in mind you are also talking about Timothy McVeigh and David Berkowitz. You are talking about the 170,000 murderers and 600,000 rapists in the US. These are the people you are saying are superior to corporations. no, these are the people i am saying are immoral. i am saying a corporation is, by its nature, an amoral entity. it is a tool, like a gun, designed for a specific purpose. the gun fires bullets, the corporation makes profit - who is aiming it makes all the difference.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #239 March 15, 2009 >i am saying a corporation is, by its nature, an amoral entity. And I am saying that a corporation's morality is entirely made up of the people who comprise it, no more moral or amoral than the people within. >it is a tool, like a gun, designed for a specific purpose. A gun is inanimate. None of its parts can think. It either functions as designed or it does not. Now, put a gun in the hands of a man, and those two things (gun and man) _do_ have morality. The man with the gun can decide to kill people with it or not. It would be foolish to say that since guns are designed for a specific purpose, that the man with the gun can do nothing but kill. Likewise, you could talk the same way about the papers that establish a corporation. They are inanimate. They don't do anything on their own. They have no morality. But use those papers to establish and run a corporation, and it _does_ have morality - because people guide it. It would be foolish to say that since corporations are designed for a specific purpose, that the people in corporations can do nothing but make money. >who is aiming it makes all the difference. Of course. However, a gun never includes a person inside; 99.9% of the time, corporations do. In that way they are inherently different. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #240 March 15, 2009 Quote >who is aiming it makes all the difference. Of course. However, a gun never includes a person inside; 99.9% of the time, corporations do. In that way they are inherently different. ok, the man with the gun = sole trader. the corporation = a batttleship stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #241 March 16, 2009 QuoteNow, put a gun in the hands of a man, and those two things (gun and man) _do_ have morality. no they don't - the morality stills lies solely with the man, the gun has nothing to do with the morality of the situation - it still remains just a tool of application, like a business structure, or a car, or a toothpick the point that each of these things may tempt a man differently to abuse the tool in an immoral way doesn't change the fact that the human is the one making choices about morality - it lies solely with the person since this is essentially your argument, I find the quote to be a strange statement ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #242 March 16, 2009 QuoteHowever, a gun never includes a person inside; 99.9% of the time, corporations do. In that way they are inherently different. a gun without a person just lies there, a corporation without people will dissolve at some point - object vs concept, right? But both completely amoral without the human factor. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #243 March 16, 2009 >a gun without a person just lies there, a corporation without people will >dissolve at some point . . . Yes. And a "corporation with no people" and a gun just lying there is a good comparison. One is paper, the other metal. Neither has any inherent morality. However, corporations without people are rare indeed - and thus in 99.9% of the cases, the people in the corporation determine the morality of the corporation. In that way most corporations are _not_ like the gun lying there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #244 March 16, 2009 curiouser and curiouser stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #245 March 16, 2009 Quote"the people of the corp determin the morality of the corp" nonsense, the people have the morality, the corp is non-sentient - you are talking about policy - it's still about the people - the corp does not have a moral code QuoteIn that way most corporations are _not_ like the gun lying there. really - how many times does a gun without a person rob a bank? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #246 March 16, 2009 >really - how many times does a gun without a person rob a bank? About as often as corporations without people go out and steal money from hapless workers. >nonsense, the people have the morality . . . Yeah, that's what I said. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #247 March 16, 2009 Quote>nonsense, the people have the morality . . . Yeah, that's what I said. but you've also said the gun has the morality.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #248 March 16, 2009 >but you've also said the gun has the morality. ". . . and a gun just lying there is a good comparison. One is paper, the other metal. Neither has any inherent morality." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #249 March 16, 2009 Quote>but you've also said the gun has the morality. ". . . and a gun just lying there is a good comparison. One is paper, the other metal. Neither has any inherent morality." so a gun is an amoral object - like a corporation.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #250 March 16, 2009 >so a gun is an amoral object - like a corporation. If you will go back about six posts, you will find that we've already had this discussion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
