Hacker News Reader

Comment by nikatwork | Hacker News Reader

> Those people have fiduciary responsibilities to their stockholders, not to your moral compass. This is something resolved on a societal level, not on the corporate level.

This is the kind of ethical cop-out non-philosophy that's tearing then American environment apart.

A corporation can be a good global citizen, or a rapacious parasite. They are not obliged to rape the fuck out of everything in sight to turn a short-term profit for shareholders. Let alone lobby/bribe the government to open new loopholes so they can pillage harder and faster. Doing so is bad for the long-term prosperity of their country, and the shareholders.

No really - don't be evil.

View on HN

You have the power not to shop there. There is no one forcing anyone to work or shop at Wal Mart. I personally can't stand going into a Wal Mart. However this c or portions are evil crap is cliché and reveals a lack of understanding of what a corporations is and who profits.. The 'shareholders' are not some rich white old guy.. The shareholders are people from all walks of life.... Teacher retirement plans for example invest in Wal Mart, pension funds, old ladies investing their personal retirement accounts.

And all of those shareholders have a right to attend and vote at the shareholders meetings.

How about Wal Mart just close their stores and fire everyone? Or hire half as many and pay twice as much. That would be great for the half that gets hired while the other half can beg on the street. Corporations don't owe society anything.. They are a business. If society agrees with the corporation they can reward it by buying products from them. If they don't agree, they can punish it by not buying.. It really is that simple.

>> Those people have fiduciary responsibilities to their stockholders, not to your moral compass. This is something resolved on a societal level, not on the corporate level.

> This is the kind of ethical cop-out non-philosophy that's tearing then American environment apart.

It's possible to describe something without agreeing with it.

Responding to that statement the way you did is pointless. It's like getting angry at the doctor who tells you the cancer you have is almost certain to kill you.

What you quoted is simple observable fact, verified in many ways through history, and becoming angry at someone for stating it means you are angry and it is still a simple observable fact, verified in many ways through history.

> Responding to that statement the way you did is pointless. It's like getting angry at the doctor who tells you the cancer you have is almost certain to kill you.

Disagree. It's like getting angry at the doctor who tells you your two pack a day smoking habit is incredibly bad for you, and may well result in cancer or emphysema.

> It's possible to describe something without agreeing with it.

GP was not simply describing - they were excusing. "Oh well, some corporations are evil, don't complain, it's not their job to be good corporate citizens."

Actually by calling out and disagreeing with this behavior we can change it. The most effective way is through strong regulations, but the current US government system is broken and flawed. But at the very least we can use websites such as change.org and sumofus.org to put pressure on bad corporate actors. Hell, we quite often see the same thing happen on HN in miniature when someone makes a post calling out a company - and that company is forced to respond to the resulting negative publicity.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing", and all that.

Regulations? How about just not shopping there? Why must the government be heavily involved in everything?

Too bad we can't bring the Soviet Union back. They didn't have to deal with those pesky voters who obviously broken the American system so badly.

North Korea does a fantastic job of regulating business.. Freedom lies in the flaws of the system. That's the point. That was the entire reason the Constitution was written the way it way, to protect us from the tyrant of the majority. The system's flaws are a feature not a bug. Imagine what happens with a highly efficient government and suddenly people are leading that government that don't like you very much.. I'm sure history might paint a clear picture of the hell that situation can bring.

The less the government agrees with each other, the less opportunity for them to cause harm to the citizens.

> Regulations? How about just not shopping there?

Because we've tried that, and it doesn't work. Look at the Gilded Age.

> GP was not simply describing - they were excusing.

That's not what I read.

> Actually by calling out and disagreeing with this behavior we can change it.

I agree. Disagree with the behavior, not the people describing it.

> The most effective way is through strong regulations

I also agree with this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com