@aral Corporations don't need a code of ethics. They need democratic governments holding guns to their heads, ready to shut them down at the first sign of malfeasance.
Getting there, of course, is the hard part.
@aral IMO, the US government didn't go for enough when they settled for breaking up the Bell System. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System)
They should have utterly destroyed AT&T. They should have nationalized the POTS infrastructure, made Bell Labs a civilian R&D agency, and put all of AT&T's patents, copyrights, and other IP into the public domain, including UNIX.
I think this would have solved a great many problems, and prevented future problems by setting a precedent.
@starbreaker @aral It's edgy-trendy rn to rail against "capitalism" but really the problem is we're doing it so wrong. Corporations that have thousands of shareholders and that protect them from ethical responsibility for the corporation's actions while forcing their officers to prioritize shareholder value... That's not inherent in capitalism. It's a perversion.
Limited liability is good for emboldening new business ideas, but it must not be carte blanche.
No, limited liability should not be carte blanche.
As for anti-capitalism being edgy: when I see people with more money than they could possibly spend using that money to buy influence in government, I become a lot less sympathetic to talk of capitalism being "perverted".
Money is power. Power corrupts.
Excessive concentration of wealth is inimical to individual rights and the rule of law, which is reason enough to forcibly redistribute it.
Capitalism is a good compromise among economic systems, but it depends on law to decide the boundaries and details of ownership, which can be done well or badly. Eg. our corporate law: bad.
I agree in any political/economic system we need processes that decentralize power, and social safety nets.
I'm content to use such a loose definition of anti-capitalism because offending conservatives amuses me.
That said, I do think that most things should not be subject to private ownership, and that those who wish to exploit the labor of others for a fixed wage should be made to pay dearly for the privilege.
A world without private ownership is an unhappy one. I mean it's the first thing that happens in prison: even "your" clothing is not your own. Humans are territorial. Kids understand ownership first and are then taught to share.
And people who start businesses that employ others *do* pay dearly for the privilege, usually working anywhere from 50% to 100% longer hours than their employees.
Exploitation, well, that's a different story.
> A world without private ownership is an unhappy one.
You're conflating ownership of land, resources, and machinery with personal possessions and living spaces. They're not the same.
Socialists don't want your clothes, or your toys, or your apartment. They don't even want your house, unless you're living alone in a friggin' mansion.
We don't want your cattle. But we won't let you monopolize grazing land so that other people can't feed their herds.
> And people who start businesses that employ others *do* pay dearly for the privilege, usually working anywhere from 50% to 100% longer hours than their employees.
That's not good enough. Wage labor is bullshit.
If you want other people to help you realize your dream, you can damn well take them on as full partners. Give them an equal stake, an equal share of the profits, and an equal say in the decisions -- or cultivate the virtue of self-reliance.
Simon Sinek has useful points about how we don't mind people having power as long as they're good leaders, and a major weakness of large-scale politico-economic systems is giving power to the ambitious. You don't have to be moral to make money and that's a problem when money is power.
But all systems do that. The key is building better safeguards into the system.
@aral @starbreaker Basically we need:
1) To ensure money doesn't overpower democracy
2) For ill-gotten gains to be forfeited completely (not just wrist-slap fines)
3) Social programs and safety nets
4) Intrinsic systematic limiting of high-end wealth accumulation (taxation being an example)
5) For businesses to actually pay the social/environmental costs they incur
6) Mechanisms of decentralization to be cultivated
The first two seem completely impossible as current systems of government and corporationment exist
the third is being stripped out
the fourth is automatically gonna get vetoed by the rich and the "we're not rich we only make six figures a year" rich
the fifth seems unlikely since the first two seem completely impossible
the sixth is being done in various ways, at least? :\
sorry if this seems bleak, I'm told I can be a wet squib
The only justification for government is that it exists because the people as a whole have delegated limited authority for the purpose of creating a peaceful society where all are protected and can prosper.