Congressman Quizzes Net Companies on Shame 459
mjdroner writes "Cnet has a transcript of the House of Representatives hearing on net censorship with Google, Microsoft, Cisco, and Yahoo reps. At one point, Rep. Tom Lantos asks if Microsoft is ashamed of their actions in China. Microsoft: 'We comply with legally binding orders whether it's here in the U.S. or China.' Lantos: 'Well, IBM complied with legal orders when they cooperated with Nazi Germany. Those were legal orders under the Nazi German system.'"
Re:Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironic how MS is doing everything not to have to comply with the EU's antitrust rulings.
Anne Frank (Score:5, Insightful)
A corporation has no shame (Score:5, Insightful)
Comforting, isn't it? And so convenient too. Nobody's to blame. In fact, if it wasn't illegal, you could run a corporation dealing in murder. Nobody would have a problem pulling the trigger. 'cause hey, he can't do anything else anyway, it's the system.
And since I don't want to invoke Godwin's Law, I'll end here.
The Pot Calls The Kettle.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps Lantos should look closer to home for people to berate. Asking the sociopaths that run multinational corperations whether they are "ashamed" is ridiculous to begin with. These people are physically incapable of that emotion. Joe Congressman on the other hand, may have developed the ability by tuning himself into his electorate over the years.
Re:Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, it's quite simple.
Complying with China's demands may: cost some pro-democracy activists their lives
Complying with the EU's demands may: cost some Microsoft shareholders some of their money
You aren't suggesting that Microsoft should deliberately make less money than the maximum theoretically possible, are you? That's Communism! That goes against all the principles of liberty, justice and shameless gouging that America was founded on!
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Bizarre double standard (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the SAME congress that mandates filtering of the Net in all libraries.
So, basically, if other countries do it, it's evil, but if the USA does it, that's the right thing to do? Sounds a lot like Congress' policy on detaining and torturing prisoners.
Confusing (Score:5, Insightful)
Either the company comply with Chinas laws or do not do business there.
So what they are debating , is if they are going to ban the companies from a particular area of trade and services in china .
Is that somehow anti-capitalist ? does it constitute an embargo ?
Re:Shit (Score:3, Insightful)
US-American law requires that a publically traded company maximize their revenue. The executive-staff could be prosecuted for deliberately ignoring the Chinese market.
Democracy Isnt For Everyone (Score:4, Insightful)
I honestly believe that this entire topic has been blown out of proportion - congress is not interested in promoting free speech, they just want to spread democracy to the rest of the world.
Just remember how communists in the US were treated during the cold war - there goes the free speech argument. It can be said that the United States is the greatest example of democracy, however, it is also the greatest example of it's failure. In the US corporations run the country at least in China they are forced to tow the line.
Having recently visited China, I can sincerely say it is not the police state that most people envision (actually the heightened security in the US is far more restrictive in my experience i.e bags being searched and going though metal detectors in some buildings most notably SF City Hall)
Although many people do comment on China's education system which puts Mao on a pedistol, it is no different to what the US does with Kennedy - secondly in China's education system, the incident at Tienanmen Square is not taboo - my current girlfriend completed high school in China and was taught that the military was wrong but so too were the protesters (allegedly they set fires)
I'm not trying to make excuses for the Chinese Government, I just think we should give them a fair go and accept their sovereignty like they do ours (has anyone heard Chinese criticising the US for their human rights record?).
Re:Shit (Score:3, Insightful)
US-American law requires that a publically traded company maximize their revenue. The executive-staff could be prosecuted for deliberately ignoring the Chinese market.
Care to back this up with a quote from the U.S. Code? I know they have a responsibility to their shareholders as spelled out in pretty much any corporate charter, but civil or criminal liability? I seriously doubt it unless it was a case of willful negligence or stock abuse (e.g. Enron). Just failing to meet an opportunity to make more money is hardly illegal. The worst case is that the shareholders would vote out whichever board member messed up.
Perhaps you should learn who Tom Lantos is (Score:5, Insightful)
Take at look at your mouse (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you have *any* equipment that says "Made in China" ?
If you do, your questions should be asked in the mirror.
Re:Democracy Isnt For Everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't give a damn about democracy. They want to spread free market capitalism to the rest of the world.
Remember, Congressmen do the bidding not of the voters but of the corporations that contributed to their campaign funds. These corporations don't care whether a country is a democracy or a dictatorship, as long as it lets them do more or less as they please and make an awful lot of money at it.
Indeed, a free-market dictatorship might be even better than a democracy. In a dictatorship, you need only bribe the dictator and all regulations and obstacles to the greater profit melt away. In a democracy, you have do bribe a majority of the representatives, and that costs a lot more.
Re:Anne Frank (Score:5, Insightful)
One interesting section I saw was when Yahoo was being quizzed about handing over information to the Chinese Government about a Blogger. They were asked if they would have done the same if the Nazi's asked them the location of Anne frank.
I would ask if they would do the same if the FBI came knocking on their door asking for customer information without a warrant, but waving the ill-named USA PATRIOT Act around. "Terrorism!" "Security reasons!" "Other buzzword that makes it sound like you aren't a true red-blooded American if you don't comply!" This whole thing really pisses me off. Congress is more than willing to tear down trade barriers with China, allow some corporations to run sweat shops over there, while criticising the tech companies for doing something similar. Sure, there aren't sweat shops, but paying some poor guy 12 cents an hour in dangerous conditions is surely at least as bad, from a freedom and democracy standpoint, as providing a censored web search to their population.
I guess some "most favored nations" are more favored than others. Since Britain and China are both MFN, why should we treat them differently? If China needs to be treated differently, why don't they lose their MFN status?
"Democracy isn't for everyone"!?!?! WTF? (Score:1, Insightful)
What? Are the Chinese too "yellow" for democracy? Politcal freedome is only for white Europeans?
Interesting as all shit that you conflate security searches designed to protect against terrorist attack with military tanks running over people engaged in a political protest.
You sure as hell are trying to excuse and explain the Chinese government.
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell it to the Dalai Lama.
Since when do we require companies to be ethical? (Score:4, Insightful)
* HP, Tektronics e.a. have supplied Iraq with militairy usefull technology, resulting in the death of allied soldiers and lots of iraqi (and kurdish) people.
* Companies like Enron and MCI/Worldcom have, by lying about revenues e.a., jeopardized jobs and savings of thousands of people who, in a climate of economical recession and outsourcing/offshoring, risk the destruction of their livelyhoods. I know, no direct fatalities, but not very nice now is it?
* Companies like Shell continue to do business in countries like Nigeria, which are known to have a bad record regarding human rights.
And don't get me started about the ethical aspects of some of the policies of the American Federal Government. (Guantanamo Bay, Weapons of Mass Destruction, dropping bombs on Civil targets).
"Those were legal orders under the Nazi German" (Score:5, Insightful)
If they wanted to do business there they had to comply.
You never saw senate hearings THEN (Especially Postwar) About their actions
China will change, it wont be a "grand" revolution, but it will change. In 50 years with the Decline of Freedom and Liberty here in the US I wouldnt be suprised in the LEAST if China were a MORE free society, (in 50 year I estimate) There are simply too many people, and the more that become educated with a market system such as china has , it will happen.
Does this cut both ways? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Democracy Isnt For Everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, as long as that involves being willing to de-recognize countries that elect the "wrong" people, like Hamas. After all, its not real democracy if you don't vote the way that we want you to. Or something.
Re:A corporation has no shame (Score:3, Insightful)
Say you have Joe, an investor with a 401k. He works at a factory that makes watches. He gets his prospectus this year, and notices the message fom his broker of an anticipated increse in profits due to a rise in share price in some of their sector companies. Next month, Joe gets word that his plant is closing down, and the jobs are being outsorced to China/India/Bulgaria. The company Joe works for is the company that led the rise in share prices that drove up his 401k. The savings due to outsorcing was what made it all possible. But now, being out of work, in an area with a *lot* of other people doing the same thing he once did, he may need to dip into those very savings, or find himself and his family out on the street.
The brokers of the various investing companies are the one selling us this "eat our own tail" lunch, and we need to start paying attention to what the constant high rate of return on our investments are actually costing us.
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you qualified and authorized to make that statement? How familiar are you with how China deals with its dissident groups, like, say, Falun Gong? Most of the outside world does not know what China does or does not have in that regard, because China is not exactly forthcoming about such matters. Amnesty International [amnesty.org] notes that a lot of secrecy surrounds China's judicial system, and believes that annual figures showing over 3,000 executions may actually represent one-third or less of all those carried out.
"The Chinese don't invade countries, going all against the UN, without a single thread of evidence for the alleged cause, like it happened in Iraq ("Weapons of mass destruction") and has it happened in Vietnam."
For much of history, certainly, this was true. And in the 20th century, China itself was sadly subjected to invasion and foreign occupation. However, I seem to recall China having... erm... "assimilated," shall we say, a little country called Tibet. And I can't imagine what large, powerful neighboring country might have been supplying the Viet Minh... can you? Oh, and there's that little dispute about Taiwan, I suppose.
"I think it is time the Americans start to realize that AMERICA is today's Nazi regime, NOT China."
A lot of us realize this. A lot of us also realize that while America may be today's superpower, China is most likely tomorrow's. And we also realize (although you may not) that there's very significant cross-investment between the two countries, and that most of the "bad" things about each of the two tend to be closely related to the other.
Anyway, thanks for the interesting, if a bit impolite, dialogue.
Godwin's Law Does Not Apply (Score:4, Insightful)
It is unreasonable to suggest when the topic is totalitarian regimes who routinely lock people up because of their beliefs and also routinely execute people and harvest them for organs, that comparisons to Nazis are either off-topic or a sign that the argument has been lost.
TWW
The obvious answer to Lantos' question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lantos asks:
Well, IBM complied with legal orders when they cooperated with Nazi Germany. Those were legal orders under the Nazi German system...Do you think that IBM during that period had something to be ashamed of?
The answers should have been:
Are you saying that the current Chinese regime and the Nazi regime are equivalently evil? If you are then my answer to you is that not only IBM but the whole of the U.S.A had something to have been ashamed of during that period.
The U.S.A had yet to enter the war despite evidence of what the Nazi's were up to. They had yet to implement full economic sanctions against the Nazis.
If, congressman, you believe that the Nazis and the chinese are comparable, why hasn't the U.S declared full economic sanctions against China, and why hasn't it made illegal for any U.S company to do business with that country? Why have you yet to propose that we declare war against China?
The truth is, because China is not equivalent to Nazi Germany, and your question is nonsensical.
Absurd. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's ridiculous that people would compare the US to China. I feel like people here like to dream up these crazy threats from the government. When was the last time you or any of your friends have been questioned or imprisoned for voicing your opinions. When was the last time the FBI showed up at someone's house simply for running a blog criticizing the US government?
Don't twist the truth here by pointing out protesters who've been jailed. They were jailed for breaking specific reasons, demonstrating without a warrant, vandalism, or other such activities.
Those people jailed at Guantanamo Bay are also there for their ties to terrorism, not because they were simply anti-American. You may not agree with what the government is doing, but there are specific reasons why they're doing this. Rest assured that China would be far, far more aggressive in this regard. These guys are our prisoners and soldiers are going out of their way to make them feel comfortable.
All the sites I've ever seen against this administation specifically are still up and running, one of the most prominent in the past having been moveon.org.
These sites aren't allowed to exist in China. Period. Those guys at moveon.org would have had the site up a week before they were found themselves in prison and likely tortured.
What about all the farmers negected by the Chinese government, who've been forced to protest in order to be heard, and now their voices are being trampled by their own government.
I'm not even going to bother getting into this China appeasement crap. What Google and Microsoft are doing is irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. It's even more absurd that the US and worse, the United Nations refuse to recognize a soverign nation like Taiwan because China demands it.
The Chinese do have one thing that many Americans today lack. That's nationalistic pride. The Chinese are willing to do what it takes to get ahead in the World; the average Chinese citizen is far more likely to defend China's actions than any American would be. Many Americans are far more critical of the US government, and in fact, are quickly to defend foreign nations than they are their own.
I wouldn't be surprised if over the next hundred years China grows to be a real superpower and the US is relegated to the second-class status that Europe currently enjoys. Let's see if the Chinese government turns out anything like the US. People criticize the US and what it does around the world, but rest assured that many other nations, and I expect China as well, would be far, far worse.
Re:Anne Frank (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say that Lawful Evil is an overstatement. If being good will bring them profits, they'll be good. They don't give a damn one way or the other. The same with obedience to laws. True Neutral all the way baby.
</geek>
I agree... (Score:5, Insightful)
And before anyone gets on my case, this is apolitical - both parties have kowtowed to the Chinese in the interests of American businesses. It's a bit hypocritical to start getting mad at them now when our government led the way.
Re:Bizarre double standard (Score:3, Insightful)
Library filters are not exactly similar to China's censorship and persecution of citizens. Libraries are required to have some type of filtering, yes, but they are not required to have it turned on at all times. Nearly all libraries will happily turn off filtering for an adult patron who asks. Librarians hate the filters more than just about anyone, just ask.
Furthermore, libraries are required to have a sign in sheet for computer users. Many libraries dispose of their userlogs on a daily or weekly basis. My library uses a low-tech sign-in sheet on a legal pad and each day they start on a new page, disposing of the previous page in the process. The idea is to subvert the Patriot Act provisions that can subpeona userlogs.
To my knowledge, China isn't as kind as my local library. Not only do they keep the logs but they then use them to prosecute bloggers, scientists, students and people who are generally pro-democracy. I'm quite certain that going to the library and searching for "democracy", "freedom", or "overthrow the communist government and hold elections" would land me in prison, or worse.
The filters and the Patriot Acts do offend me, but fortunately those freedom of speech loving Libriarians are out there fighting for our rights. Such people would be slaughtered in China.
Re:A corporation has no shame (Score:3, Insightful)
Invidivuals have morals, conscience, and shame, but unless a corporation is firmly controlled by a particular individual or very select group of individuals (as is the case with some privately held companies) who cannot be easily displaced, the organization itself will act amorally.
One of the main reasons for this is because, given that the ultimate driving motive is profit, there is a mechanism at practically every level, from the factory floor to the executive boardroom, which allows someone to be replaced if they're not willing to act to maximize profit because of moral issues.
E.g., if you're some guy in a shoe factory who doesn't like working with leather because you're an animal-rights activist, you'll be fired; if you're a CEO who doesn't want to move the production to South-east Asia and have the assembly work done by 14-year-olds, you can be voted out and replaced. There's always someone less moral than you willing to take your job. And in the larger view, there's always another company run by less-moral people willing to take your business.
Therefore, profit-driven enterprise will always sink to the lowest level allowed by law: the level at which you cannot fire or replace a person for refusing to do something (or where the disincentives for getting rid of them outweigh the profitability of doing so). I have no doubt that in a society where the disincentive to commit murder was lower, you would have corporations dealing in it all the time. It would not surprise me if there were places in the world where human life is cheap, where this is the case today.
Re:Anne Frank (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, tell me that's not Microsoft all over.
Why stop at Microsoft? Why not Halliburton, Enron, Exxon-Mobil, Pfizer, or any other large corporation. Each company seeks a competitive advantage over its rivals. They will circumvent laws where they can if it means gaining the upper hand. They care little for the plight of the citizens around them, unless it threatens their livelihood (boycott), and even then they pay it lip service until the law puts the hammer to them, and even that is not enough, as they drag legal proceedings out over decades.
Microsoft, Google, Yahoo - they are all competing for a share of the Chinese market. One company cannot afford to be seen bucking the Chinese government, because the others will not follow suit, simply leaving the offending company to hang while they exploit its downfall. All is fair in love, war, and apparently, Internet commerce.
Re:NO (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Since when do we require companies to be ethica (Score:3, Insightful)
The crazy thing is that in my reckoning, the land belongs to the indians who have lived there for generations and generations. At some point, a government came in, declared ayahuasca illegal, and is allowing big oil companies to come in and destroy the land.
The head of one village was knifed by military forces because he nonviolently opposed the supposed right of these people to destroy his home.
The sad thing is that we as Americans are not only on the side of evil on this one, but the biggest force on the side of evil. And I really don't see how to get people to care. I mean, tell people about an illegal plant, and they think you're a drug addict.
Sell them Budweiser (now and always with formaldehyde!) or Marlboros (look up the list of chemicals) and they'll kiss your feet. You can't patent a plant, why can you make them illegal?
Re:Absurd. (Score:5, Insightful)
>> demonstrating without a warrant
Sorry, I need permission to express my displeasure about something?
>> Those people jailed at Guantanamo Bay are also there for their ties to terrorism
Bullshit. Utter tosh and nonsense. Please provide references. Please also explain how holding them there without trial, legal representation, the ability for individual private interviews with representatives from the UN, while interrogating them with abusive techniques is in any way justified even if they do have ties to terrorism.
Just what is terrorism anyway? I do recall considerable amounts of US support for those very people in Afghanistan when they were fighting against the Russians that are currently being targeted by American "anti terrorist" operations now.
Hypocrisy? Hell yes. I don't give a shit what the background of Lantos is, I don't care whether he votes against MFT status for China or not; the organisation he represents is very far from being the champion of freedom and democracy it would have to be for his questions to those companies to have any credence at all.
Shame? I hope to hell he feels it.
Re:Anne Frank (Score:4, Insightful)
Actaully, by your explanation they are Lawful Neutral. They are complying with the laws no matter if the laws are good or bad.
Re:Democracy Isnt For Everyone (Score:1, Insightful)
Hmmm.... the Information Office of the Chinese State Council released its latest annual review in early March 2005, which I suppose suggests that another one will be coming up soon:
http://english.people.com.cn/200503/03/eng2005030
That being said, I agree that the sound and fury over this issue is inane. As someone who has spent considerable time in China (and am writing from an Internet cafe in the country), I certainly believe it shows almost no understanding of the tradeoffs involved.
The biggest flaw with the IBM analogy is that the involvement of companies like Google and/or Yahoo in the domestic market are largely positive steps for the people the critics are allegedly fighting to protect: Chinese Internet users.
Principled positions are fine, but they are hypocritical unless more broadly defined. There is clearly room for incremental and practical approaches. Insisting that American firms divorce themselves from China would be counterproductive. It would only result in a more monopolistic market structure as it would lead to large domestic firms taking up the void in an absense of strong competition, and that would arguably result in an industry structure which is much more maleable and subject to pressures for censorship.
Godwin's Law: missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason Godwin's Law has caught on so strongly is that it's a useful rule of thumb. Once a discussion on USENET has reached the point where people are citing the Nazis, chances are it has long ago stopped being worth reading.
However, there are circumstances in which comparisons to the Nazis are not unreasonable and cannot be put down to the usual hyperbole found in flamewars. This discussion is one of them. We are dealing here with American corporations doing business in a totalitarian state, and - through the nature of the business they are doing - aiding and abetting the unpleasant regime there in the very deeds for which they are despised.
In the 1940s, it was IBM supplying the machinery needed to handle the great indexes and lists needed to keep track of the processing of six million or so undesirables, and the consultants and technical assistance needed to set up and run that machinery.
Today, it is Yahoo handing over the emails of activists, and Google censoring search results. Is this quite the same scale of evil as IBM's collaboration in the Final Solution? No. Is it, however, qualitatively the same, even if it is quantitavely lesser? Yes. Just as happened back then, our corporations are collaborating in the sordid work of tyrants.
Godwin's Law, therefore, cannot be applied. Comparisons to the Nazis are clear and appropriate.
Re:Does this cut both ways? (Score:3, Insightful)
The United States bans toplessness on broadcast TV, unlike, say, the UK.
Should UK companies be allowed to violate these rules and slap bouncing breasts on US broadcast TV? This is an extremely similar case of censorship laws varying between countries.
Re:A corporation has no shame (Score:1, Insightful)
Furthermore, you make a number of assumptions about the parent's personality and beliefs. Why? What difference does it make? The fact that someone might be a jerk doesn't change the value of their arguments, after all.
If you expect people to respect your intellectual arguments, you should return the favor, and at least present the image of addressing their concerns. Instead, of, say, making a knee-jerk reference to communism, and then suggesting that the poster is an intellectual/moral snob and implying that his arguments are somehow less valid for such.
As to your singular intellectual argument, re: free choice, I will say that, yes, the system is defined by the aggregate choices of individuals in the society. However, you must also remember that corporations are also considered to be individuals, and that their votes count for more than yours do. If they had no say in how the politics of the government were run, then voting with your dollar would be more effective. As it is, though, the balance of power appears to be somewhat off-kilter...
Re:Shit (Score:1, Insightful)
I'd have asked the congressman if he really wants us to think about whether a law (that he probably voted for) is legitimate before obeying it. If questioning authority is good in China, it must be even better here!
Did this congressman vote for the DMCA? Should Google think whether the DMCA is ethical before abiding by its provisions?
Did this congressman vote for the Patriot Act and its renewal? Should Google think long and hard before handing over information without a warrant? Or is he saying, "don't cave in to regimes we say are bad - but do cave in to us?"
Nazi German exceptionalism (Score:3, Insightful)
The other thing I take issue with is that once a society or a regime crosses a certain threshold of evil that they become Nazi Germany. There has been a lot of evil in the world over the years, but it is generally believed that Nazi Germany represented a particularly unique and malignant evil in that history. It also diminishes our rememberance how just how bad Nazi Germany was when we equate it to Milosovic's Serbia, Saddam's Iraq, or modern day China. While there are people who may argue this point, it is even believed that Stalin's Soviet Union, however lethal and repressive a regime that was, didn't quite rise to the unique combination of modern science and industrial production with a racist world view and mass murder that was Nazi Germany.
There are many ways that all regimes that practice evil resemble Nazi Germany, and people have even invoked this comparison for matters that bring shame to the U.S., but there are many ways that Nazi Germany was unique, and to call every bad regime a Nazi Germany diminishes the rememberance of those who suffered under it, and I would say that publically to Mr. Lanos.
Re:Double Standard (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, morality doesn't work that way.
Your right morality does not work that way, you don't go critize someone else for actions that you are unwilling to do yourself. You set the example of what others should be doing.
I do not see them making a big stink of stuff that are real crimes like child labor, human rights and corrupt government officials which are worse and more directly affect peoples lives. If the issue of human rights is such a big deal they should not be treating China with MFT status, they should wit
This was a dog and pony show for some politician to say I am paying attentioning without having to really do anything.
Grandstanding, and a revised Nazi analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
Lantos asked Yahoo! about whether it has contacted the family of the jailed reporter and what it felt about that. Okay, fine. Then he asked Microsoft about the blogger, to which Microsoft clarified that it only took down the site and never provided the government with private information. Well, that's fine too, I guess, if Lantos didn't know beforehand the specifics of this incident and exactly what was different this time between "turn in" and "take down". And then he asks Google the same question. And here, that political grandstanding shines through clear and bright. Google just censors search results. It hasn't turned anyone in. It hasn't taken down any sites. Nobody could conceivably be harmed in this sensational "think of the family!" way by seeing rosy pictures of Tian'an'men. It's purely political.
If Congress was *really* interested in doing something about this, then they would recognize that the solution is not to criticize American companies, but to back them with a strong diplomatic stance up so that they would have the ability to say no to Beijing. But being tough to Beijing is hard, so let's bash these companies instead and hope that Americans will equate that to us doing something productive.
And as much as I dislike these Nazi references, maybe we should think of it this way. Remember that scene in Schindler's List when Jewish doctors kill their patients with lethal doses of some sort of liquid shortly before the Nazis come crashing in? One could argue that these doctors were immoral because they killed Jews and by killing them, they were in a way helping with the Nazi extermination. But most people would not hold that view, and instead would praise them for having mercifully killed them instead of letting them be killed by machine gun bullets when the Nazis come. The doctors could do nothing about the fact that those people were going to die, so they decided to do a little evil of their own, but in a way that mitigated a worse evil. Replace killing with censorship, doctors with American companies, and now you have a more accurate Nazi comparison.
Re:Shit (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A corporation has no shame (Score:1, Insightful)
(Because I'm operating on incomplete data, I'm going to assume that you're a proponent of complete - or near-complete - deregulation. Please inform me if this is not the case.)
Groups forming to address a market need - this is completely natural, and to be expected. However, the current configuration of the market may not be optimal, in that it encourages people to 'pass the buck' at every level, instead of accepting responsibility. The 'evil' is not inherent in any particular element, but emergent, arising from the system *as it currently stands*. Each level of the corporation, from the grunts in the trenches all the way to the top management, is directed to increase profits at any cost, if you'll pardon the pun. Furthermore, the shareholders typically don't take an interest in the company, beyond the broad strokes and whether or not their profits increase. So where's the incentive *not* to do Evil(tm), especially if your competitors are willing to do the same?
Caveat emptor, of course, is the correct response.
However. I like capitalism as much as the next guy, but it seems that caveat emptor is not, in fact, the correct solution, so long as a) shareholders don't take an interest beyond increasing profit and b) customers don't have the time/interest to research a company beyond its PR campaigns.
I agree that in principle, self-interest on the part of the customer would be sufficient to regulate the market. But the fact is, that doesn't seem to be happening, so some form of government regulation - what you would call socialism (and not communism, because we Don't Like communism) - is the obvious solution.
So, to summarize: I (putting aside the parent for the moment, because at this point, it's pure speculation) don't believe in communism, but yet, disagree with pure free-market capitalism.
That leaves me in somewhat of a difficult solution. I'm inclined to look at alternatives models of social capitalism, such as in Sweden or Switzerland.
Ah THAT same Congress, huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Shit (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Good for the goose (Score:3, Insightful)
I did not specify that references had to be 'net based. Neither have I said I'd consider an Internet based reference to be sufficient to convince me (or otherwise). I'm happy to accept in advance your apology for misrepresenting me by saying otherwise.
Can you provide actual evidence that the detainees are all terrorists, or linked to terrorism? And can you further provide justification for the flagrant abuses of their civil liberties?
Obviously those infringements of civil liberties can be referenced through multiple US court representations, speeches and comments by American political figures and government and military staff, and numerous print media outlets, quite apart from the recently published United Nations paper that led to Koffi Annan calling for the camp to be closed.
Please, help me understand the law being used to hold these people - and explain why the US government is scared of the US Supreme Court getting involved (by scared I mean they've asked the court to dismiss a case relating to detention at Guantanamo).
All I can find out is that these people are "enemy combatants" and that this justifies treating them as something other than Prisoners of War.
I can accept that they may not be members of a nation state's standing army, and that they are thus not covered by Geneva Convention regulations on treatment of POWs.
I can not accept that this obviates their civil rights, that it is an excuse to hold them without fair trial. If they have broken a law, hold a fair and open trial; if that convicts them, apply appropriate justice.
Don't just hold them in perpetuity under a vague banner of "enemy combatant" and pretend this is morally, ethically or even legally acceptable.
Business Judgement Rule = no lawsuit (Score:4, Insightful)
The Board of Directors, and Management, DO have a responsibility to act in the best interests of shareholders, see Fiduciary Duty [wikipedia.org].
However, NOT to the extent that they must pursue every market in every industry in the world.
The Business Judgement Rule [wikipedia.org] protects the Board and Management from lawsuits about normal business decisions, such as:
Hypo_Google_Director/CEO: "should we go into China knowing the upside for immediate growth and the potential downside for long-term corporate image problems? No, I don't think so."
No way you a shareholder could sue over that. You cenrtainly could try to vote in a new Board of Directors who are committed to expansion in China, but that is not the same as suing the Board.
Re:Shit (Score:2, Insightful)
In this guy's case, if he really thinks China is equivalent in evil to Nazi Germany, then as a member of the US government he can't justify the US government's encouragement of trade with China.
Or if he doesn't think that China is equivalent in evil to Nazi Germany, then he is even *less* justified in using it as an arguing point, bcos he knows *exactly* what happened in Nazi Germany. Implying equivalency in that case is spitting on the graves of his relatives.
Either way, he's not got a leg to stand on.
As an interesting sidenote, the US is doing precisely the same as it did in WWII. It's providing limited support to the side that it would *like* to win, but it's continuing trading with the evil side, so as to keep the money coming in. Unless the Chinese are stupid enough to create a second Pearl Harbor, that's unlikely to change. (Not that the British government is any better. I'm entirely with Prince Charles's take on the Chinese government - "ghastly bunch of old waxworks".)
Grab.
Re:Shit (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Shit (Score:3, Insightful)
I also wonder if they would have suggested that these companies not cooperate with another government that recently came to them for information.
Ethical funds, Walmart (Score:3, Insightful)
The people brokering our investments are just doing what we tell them. If you don't want to invest in Google then you always have the option of putting your money elsewhere. If you're a mutual fund investor then it's your responsibility to read through the prospectus and see where that money is going. To make things easier for you, many investment companies offer "Ethical Funds". They tend to have a lower rate of return than the other funds, but that's be be expected because their priorities are different. When consumers stop buying from unethical companies then the ethical ones will become a better investment.
The brokers of the various investing companies are the one selling us this "eat our own tail" lunch
Welcome to the "Walmartization" of America. Purchasing from a regular mutual fund rather than an ethical fund is essentially the same as choosing to buy products at Walmart instead of your local department store. People are inherently greedy and seldom consider the effects of their purchases. People who shop at Walmart and then complain about their local industries all going bankrupt really need to wake up!