"Sure, by the legal definition MS is bad and needs some good beating, but in the moral sense I clearly disagree. I haven't used MS stuff for quite a while. No problems. Just because so many people whine about how they'd like this or that feature in Windows doesn't give them the right to force it."
That's because your moral premise is completely different; you seem to uphold the premise that a company should be allowed to do whatever it wants - while I (and most of the rest of the world) are of the opinion they are to be hold to restrictions, just like any individual citizen is restricted by laws. Now, it is possible, as I have argued myself, that one should not always follow the law if there are moral objections, thus, when a law is totally incompatible with your own basic ethical value-system.
However, I am left pondering what ethical-value system this might be in the case of a monopolist, and in how far this would be universal.
Corporations only have one overwhelming value-system, and that is making as much profit as possible. This, I would argue, can not constitute an ethical justified objection to a restriction imposed by a law, unless one would argue this value-system trumps every other (ethical) value-system.
Which is, in fact, often claimed within the context of the typical anglo-saxon capitalistic view on the world.
It should be noted, however, that this is not a universally accepted premise, and many find there are other considereations and moral/ethical values, beyond that of profit-gathering. Basic protection of citizens - including in their status of consumers - and stimulating innovation in society are both ethical values, for instance, that can be used, aside profits. Since monopolies, as history demonstrates, are antithetical to both, one is fully justified to make adjustements based on those ethical values or argumentation, instead of yours.
"it's a free market society. let company's do what they want and if the consumer (or whoever) doesn't like it - DON'T BUY IT!"
Then you never understood that a consumer and a business (especially a monopoly) are not equal, not in matters of exploiting power and influence, nor in having the same resources when a conflict arises. You do not let individuals do 'what they want', thus why should companies be an exeption?
Companies do not have some inherent right; all rights (and especially those based on IP-laws) are given to them. By whome? By the state. Who constitutes the state? Well, ultimately the people (in a democracy). Thus, if people want restrictions for behaviour of citizens, it's normal they want restrictions on companies too.
Note also that there IS NO true 'free market' anymore anywhere in the world; copyright and patents are state-ordained&granted monopolistic systems. Copyright and patents are not results of the workings of free-market, but of a monopoly given by the state, to the creator (in the false illusion it would support innovation).
"what microsoft should do is drop all support and sales of microsoft products to europe and then see how that feels."
For whome?
Both would feel not to good in the short term (the EU would have to keep using their older versions, or change to something else like Linux, or use illegal versions - which many citizens already do, while MS would lose 30% of their income), and MS would not feel good in the long term neither (because it would have lost a huge marketshare which would be difficult to monopolise again).
Let's face it, we all know that, in the end, when it comes down to those two options, MS will pay. If Bill would refuse and want to move out of europe, the shareholders would get a fit, pop a vein, and replace him asap. Companies are interested in profit, after all, they don't care about much else. When they have to decide between permanently losing 30% of their income versus a one time 0.7% (if they comply with the law then, that is), one can be reasonably confident what they will choose.
Laws are not always right, and, in my opinion, shouldn't always be followed. However, I was talking about the rights of individuals, not companies (which should not enjoy the same protections as persons, in my opinion, because they are purely legal entities), and primarily when the law is not compatible with your own ethical value-system. Corporations usually do not have a value-system exept that of making profit, and in that case, they should agree to pay the fine, because retreating from the EU market would cost a lot more.
In any case, the question whether or not it is *morally* right to halt their monopolistic behaviour is beyond the scope of this thread, and is highly subjective and arbitrary (obviously, you and MS would argue it isn't, but I and the EU commision and the courts of the EU, the USA, japan, etc. would argue it is). This is simply a case of a corporation who has to follow the rules of trade in the place where it does the trading - no higher humanistic ethical values come into play.
"My stance is that you shouldn't be punished for success."
That is a very nice stance, and I support it. However, it is completely irrelevant in this discussion, because companies are not being punished for their succes, nor even for being a monopoly, but for abusing their monopoly. Your own examples of Pepsi and Coke demonstrate this.
Alas, whatever answers.com or the wikipedia says, legalese is always in a different language.
In any case, the "produces (even at a reasonable price) all the output of a product or service because of technological superiority (called a natural monopoly), holds a patent on a product or process of production" comes closest to what is meant by a monopoly of MS (though one would have to be lenient to call it technologically superior, or to call it a reasonable price).
As I'm not mistaken, the thresshold to call something a monopoly in the EU depends on the % of the market it has (in this case, of OS). I don't know the exact percentage, but I believe it's beyond 70% or 80%. Thus, any company having more then 80% of the market is considered a monopoly, because with such a share it effectively dominates the landscape of OSses. Since this is the case for MS, it is a monopoly. Which, I repeat, is not illegal on itself. If it tries to use that monopoly as a leverage to monopolise other markets, it does become illegal, however.
I'm sure you find this system wrong and what not, but I happen to find it quite justified. Monopolies have *never* been to the benefit of innovation and consumers, thus a system should be in place to hold it in check.
"Microsoft dominates the OS market. It isn't a monopoly because, as you yourself mentioned, it is not the only option. And, there are arguably superior products."
I'm sorry, but your definition of a monopoly is incorrect.
You may have humble opinions as much as you like; Microsoft HAS a monopoly, and this is recognised by all western countries and their courts, including that of the USA, I may add.
Since it's the opinion of the courts that matter, and not your personal opinion, in any practical (and legal) sense, they DO have a monopoly, and thus, your whole reasoning becomes void - at least as far as it was substantiated by your claim that it wasn't a monopoly.
"Contrary to what some Europeans and by extension Euro-philes seem to believe, the vast majority of Americans do realize that the US is not the only country in the world."
Yeah, but at the other hand, more then 1 out of ten of adult Americans can't find their own country on a worldmap.
And it's not like it's a *small* country.
"Way to propogate untrue American stereotypes."
Well, not *completely* untrue, it would seem. While stereotypes have the disadvantage to be generalising as if every last (in this case) American is the same dimwit - which is untrue, of course - those stereotypes often do have some basis. For instance, when one compares the general level of education of the USA to that of the EU, it becomes more then apparent that the USA is severely lacking. This does not mean mean that there are no good schools in the USA, or that all American kids are more stupid then EU-ones - but it does mean that, as a whole, schools suck more in the USA, and the kids there are in general more stupid and ignorant then in the EU - which the stereotype hints at.
In the same sense the notion that Americans (in general) are more ignorant about world-affairs and other countries outside their own, then EU-citizens, is to a large extend exact. This notion is the basis for the stereotype - which remains exact, exept when used in it's most broad context where it would encompass 'all', without room for individual exeptions.
"It's interesting to me how every Euro/Euro-phile on slashdot likes to paint the US government as being intrusive into other countries affairs...[]"
Must...not...give...in...
Luckily for you you narrowed it down fast with 'foreign company' and 'anti-trust violations' - which I can't comment on since I'm not familiar enough with these specific details in a historical context. And neither are you, I presume.
"This doesn't happen except in small countries run by dictators. The EU isn't stupid enough to actually consider such an action."
I partially agree. It is very unlikely either the USA or the EU would do such a thing, unless something drastic would happen, like a war (or at least, a severe trade-war). In normal circumstances, the USA and the EU are trade-partners, and doing such a thing would unbalance every trade-agreement.
It's not completely impossible, however, even in no-war situation; for instance, if a company would refuse to act according to the laws/rules/prohibitions it was handed down, and it was a matter of public health.
But that isn't the case here, so it remains extremely unlikely such a thing would happen.
First of all, we have to ask ourselves, what, exactly, a patent is. A lot of pro-swpat advocates use terms as Intellectual Property (IP) rights, while those encompass a lot of different concepts, such as copyright (which is already used for software). We can find the following definition:
A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a government to an inventor or applicant for a limited amount of time (normally 20 years from the filing date)... Per the word's original definition, the theory of patent legislation is to induce the inventor to disclose knowledge for the advancement of society in exchange for a limited period of exclusivity. Since a patent grants the right to exclude others from practising the invention, it gives the owner a monopoly in the economic sense. There is an ongoing debate about whether the benefits of patents outweigh the costs, particularly with respect to software patents.
A patent, thus, is not meant as an inherent right for financial compensation for the inventor. A patent is a state-ordained monopoly, that excludes others of exploiting or using similar ideas, even when they have come up with those ideas independently by themselves, for a certain time-period. Now, this seems rather unfair (in copyright this is not the case), but apart from that, why does the state give a monopoly to someone, while we all know monopolies are generally not good for the economy, nor for the consumers? This is why: a patent is a monopoly, given by the state, because it (is supposed to) promote innovation. It follows that, if it doesn't achieve its goal of promoting innovation, it should not be granted, period.
Now, while to some extend this may apply to patents in general (as a study done in the 80ies by the Australian government has shown), seen the particular incremental nature of software, and the more intensive studies done on them, it has become ever more clear that softwarepatents DO NOT promote innovation, on the contrary. It logically follows there is no compelling reason in respect to 'stimulating innovation' to grant patents on software.
Some swpat-proponents point to the USA, and claim there the evidence is shown: "the USA has swpat, and look at all those big, mighty IT-corporations!" This, however, is a complete fallacy: they 'forget' to mention that all those big foreign IT-companies were founded and grew to the behemoths they are today, in the ABSENCE of softwarepatents (which, in the USA, only started in earnest after 1991). So, it is not "thanks to" softwarepatents, but rather the reverse. Actually, it could be argued that the IT-business in the USA bloomed, exactly because they weren't patents around, back then. And in fact, this is well known by anyone working in the business of IT, and exactly what a well-known USA CEO has said in the early 90ies, someone who can know it.
Bill Gates said it best, in one of his internal memos:
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today."
Mind you, this has been said by one of the most prominent IT-CEO on the planet, acknowledging exactly what softwarepatents actually lead too. Not surprisingly, since swpat are allowed in the USA, his solution to the problem was "patenting as much as we can" so he could go for "patent exchanges with [other] large companies". Of course, Bill had the means to gather together a multi-million dollar software patent portfolio to defend his company (and thus did.) Most of the SME's (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises), let alone the individual developer, don't have such means and allowing swpat can only spell hardship for small businesses and open source software.
Even Bruce Chizen, chief executive of Adobe Systems Inc. and chairman of the Business Software Alliance, which is leading the charge for the technology industry in the USA, acknowledges that allowing software patents in the 1990s was a bad idea.
Well...the latter doesn't really excludes the former. In fact, it could well be substantiating it.
I find myself leaning towards the former statements: people who buy such stuff for a price which will be halved next year, and even without knowing IF it will last a year, nor if it will be the surviving format...well, they are, indeed, suckers. I mean, you're basically spending 1000 bucks on something that has a good chance of turning up worthless withing a copple of years... and squandering money like that IS stupid, IMHO. Especially if it's mainly done for bragging - as the forum you link to actually demonstrates.
Then again, a person may do with his money whatever he likes, I guess, even stupid things. Maybe you'll make it so, that blu-ray becomes the dominant format and reasonable priced in 5 years; so - seen from my advantage-point - your foolishness may actually be a good thing. Keep it going, bro!;-)
"- How much responsibility falls on Apple to encourage its contractors and subcontractors to significantly exceed statutory labor guidelines or governmental requirements in host countries?"
As much responsability as they make profit with products created by sweatshop-labour.
"- Reports about someone earning "X" per month are meaningless out of context. How much, exactly, do other workers in their locale earn? What is the overall cost of living?"
I agree with this one. It's logical to assume wages should be regarded to the livingcost in the country where those workers work. That said, I doubt it's, even in comparison, very much. But even if the wages would be reasonable, the hours they have to work are not.
"- No one has to work at a Foxconn plant making iPods. No one. And if it's viewed as the best alternative by individual workers who choose to work there, then it's probably, well, the best alternative."
And how exactly would YOU know the exact background why they 'choose' to work there? Even if they weren't forced at gun-point, poverty leads to a lack of choice.
"- Who cares if there are more female than male workers? What possible bearing does this have on the situation? (I'm trying to figure out exactly why this was mentioned, because it's clearly intended to imply something, though I'm not quite sure what.)"
The parent poster was alluding to the fact that this difference isn't quite normal. Women are often the most weakly protected workforce, more abused and discriminated against then men. This was also true in our societies, and still is, seen the fact that even today they often get a lower wage for the same work then men. Is this because they "choose" to get payed less? I doubt it.
"- How, precisely and specifically, has Apple "staked its image" on "progressive politics"? "
I believe another poster below has already answered that one.
Your last comment, btw, was a bit of a fallacy. I consider myself pretty intelligent, yet, it does not mean I have to agree with all your points. I also don't see the logic in going for the country/state itself (certainly nopt as foreigner), rather then the companies who outsource there. The fact is, it is easier to accomplish a 'moral reveille' (*cough*) by forcing the corporations to adopt some standards (as Nike has noticed), then the government of china.
Not all your points are devoid of logic, but I fear you start with a completely different premise (based on a typical anglo-saxon capitalistic viewpoint). All your points could be said about childlabour too, for instance, if the laws of the country in question would allow that and they follow your reasoning (of not being forced at gun-point, for instance). So, in regard to the morality or ethics, it are pseudo-arguments; they could apply in circumstances which are clearly (at least to most humans) unethical. In an anglo-saxon capitalistic viewpoint, where you consider corporations and workers have equal status/power and are 'free' to choose, regardless of the circumstances or background, they make perfectly sense, however.
"Slashdot is not the right place to explain to you 500 years of legal history, including the difference between equity and damages."
I'm glad we agree on something.
"This is not your fault; most Americans don't know the difference between "law" and "common law" (i.e. statutes and the common law) -- but by the same token, I don't go spouting about how some result in chemistry is "wrong" despite not being familiar with nuclear thermodynamics."
Yes, but you could be 'spouting' why you think chemicals or nuclear waste should be more restricted, (for example, because it poses a danger to nature or human health), etc. You don't need to be a nuclear expert to be able to argument *that*. BTW, I'm neither american nor british, so I don't see why you always make that particular comparison between the two.
The problem is, YOU have a lack of understanding what I'm discussing here, which *is not* the historical legal system of the past 500 years. To give an analogy: it's like, when someone claims that drugs should be forbidden with a reasoning which is faulty and I don't agree with, then you come along saying: you don't have an understanding of the laws that deal with drug-abuse, the courts have clear rulings about this, laws exist that handle these cases, etc.
While I'm argumenting *why* exactly those laws should be revoked or changed.
So, we're really talking aside eachother, and I fear we will continue to do so. As an example, you try to defend the petrol example by saying 'well, you see, there are notices about not using matches'. Well, lets say for arguments' sake I agree completely with the validity of that example, then *still* I would think it's unjust that the petrolstation would be sued if somebody used matches while transferring petrol in his car! Why? *Because he should the f- know that he ain't supposed to do that!* The one playing with matches, gets his fingers burned, as the saying goes, I think?
A person suing the petrolstation because they didn't put a warning sign saying smoking and playing with fire at a petrolstation is dangerous, is, IMHO, ludicrous and frivolous. It might well be that there are laws which such a person can use to win his case, and that's why I say to those laws: get rid of them, or change them. Why? Because I would argue that something that should reasonably be known by an adult, and still the adult proceeds with his action that goes against reasonable forseeable knowledge, it is HIS fault, not that of the company or the people providing the service he used.
As of yet, I have seen little arguments why this shouldn't be the case, exept for assurences I don't know the law - which is fully outside the scope of argumenting why those laws suck (or not, in your assumption, I presume). Just like I think the laws that prohibit (the use of) drugs suck; I'm willing to give arguments for that too, but counter-arguing that by saying a person doesn't understand the legal system is cheap, and more importantly, not to the point. It does not go into the question whether those laws should exist or not in the first place, and why.
I guess I would buy one myself, even when I'm not a child left behind.;-)
Weren't there plans to create one for the western market too? Even an ugly laptop would be worthwhile, for such a low price. But it shouldn't go above 200 euros', otherwise they will just create a black market where 3th world countries (at least, their citizens) will sell it back to rich western dudes.
Ah, well, give it a black color, and put in something which doesn't need the crank always to power it up, and for 100 euros, you have a nice little inexpensive thing for doing minor stuff on, or for your kids to play around with...
"Sorry for the harsh words, but I actually *know* what I'm talking about."
It makes no use insulting someone, and then say sorry for it in the same sentence. Or, you insult wasn't meant, and then you had time to correct it (it's not like it's rl chat, after all), or the 'sorry' you give isn't meant, and then you shouldn't say it anyhow.
For someone in the legal profession and knowing what he's talking about, you give precious little references to the legal statements you refer to. Regardless, I was in the first place discussing the former statement that, because you know there is a chance someone will get burned, one should be liable.
This is not the case. At least not where I'm living. And I don't even think that in the USA this was the reason of the courts to place McDonalds responsable - but I admit I'm not sure, so feel free to give a reference if I'm wrong. So, I didn't comment on the legal issues on themselves; I'm quite sure the US courts based themselves on *some* law. I said: "Knowing that people will be burned if they spill hot liquids over them does make them liable... or at least they shouldn't be."
So who the hell was talking about the legal references in this particular case? I never made that assertion, so I can't be wrong for something you claim I said, but didn't. You're talking legality, I'm talking rational sense; the two are, granted, far from the same in some cases.;-) But saying I don't know shit, because you talk about the legality, while I'm discussing the above argument, and the philosophical side of these cases is BS, and pretty arrogant. Are my arguments legal truths? No, and I never claimed that, so don't give my that patronising tone. Are they rational and SHOULD they be part of the law? I think so, as I said. You did not give any arguments AGAINST my reasoning, you just stated that I was legally wrong about something I never claimed.
And I still stand by what I said: it's not because you know someone can be burned by a liquid, that you should become liable. I know, as an adult, that petrol is toxic too; but when I drink it, should I then sue the petrol station where I filled my bottle, because they didn't warn me it's toxic? I mean, they know someone could die from drinking it, right?
Most courts WILL take this in consideration, and ask the question whether one could reasonably forsee, as an adult, if something would be dangerous, when used in an improper manner. The question is thus not if/if, but an evaluation. That evaluation has become increasingly screwed, in the US, and that's due to the current mentality of frivolous suits. Aparently, the US courts feel it's predominantly the fault of McDonalds; I disagree. No doubt they have laws to support their conclusion, but, if they are based on such notions as the parent poster claimed, I think those laws should be changed. (And, as I understand it, they *are* going to be changed). So, I don't think I'm too far off with my analysis.
"I meant that you can be personally satisfied, but you'll still be facing the legal penalties."
If you mean feeling a sense of satisfaction because one acted against a law which one deems unjust, then you are right. (Obviously, getting the law revoked by your actions would give even far more satisfaction).
But, this is irrelevant of 'paying the price'. Thus, ones' actions, as long as they are consistent within ones' ethical framework, would still be satisfactory, even if one didn't have to pay fines, or go to jail.
And while it is something one can 'expect', I do also not underscribe the notion that one should always 'accept the price' , for breaking an unjust law. If the law is truelly unjust and it's deemed not worth accepting, then the consequences due to the breaking of that law, would also be unjust and unacceptable. Whether one can always escape the legal consequences remains to be seen, of course, but sometimes it can. (For instance, I feel it is not morally objectable many young anti-war people fled the USA during the vietnamwar - even when they never would get 'cought' or ever pay the legal price for it).
Someone argumenting that one should, indeed, not always follow a law, but one should always accept the consequences of breaking that same law, seems illogical. For instance, that would mean that a person would have the (ethical) right to oppose a law which forbids aiding people of another race, but he should just accept it when the penalty of disobeying that law is the death of himself and his family.
I think when one accepts the argument that one does not HAVE to follow a law, one can also reason one does not HAVE to accept the consequences of (breaking) that law.
Of course, you were right to argument one should expect it: it's very seldom that the 'power in charge' would easily forgo and not try to punish when their laws are broken, even the unjust ones.
"You and he can both be morally satisfied that you followed your ethics as you pay off the fines."
I doubt this is ever the case. Moral or ethical satisfaction (even if that would be the goal on itself, which it isn't) is never achieved with paying fines, as long as the objectionable laws are still around. I can't recall any civil-rights activist fighting against an unjust law, who was subsequently satisfied by merely paying the fine, or going to jail, for his actions.
"Now lets not go confusing laws with ethics, here people."
I'm not. I'm saying that in some instances (for instance, when it doesn't stroke with ones' basic ethical-value system), a law should not always be followed, nor abided by.
While that evaluation on itself may be difficult and confusing - depending on the person and the particular case he encounters - the statement itself is not.
"What if she had dropped the coffee on the way to the cupholder and it had hit her leg? McDonalds own business managers actually *knew* people would be burned....."
I know I'll be burned too, when I spill my coffee on my lap, or drink it while it's still to hot. I fail to see your point.
Knowing that people will be burned if they spill hot liquids over them does make them liable... or at least they shouldn't be. The point is, one has always have to look to the one who actually caused the burns; was that McDonalds? Did they burn her legs, or cause her to burn it? No, as is witnessed by the fact that they serve hundreds of thousands the same hot coffee, and the vast majority do not get burned. So, what is the cause then, if it's not serving hot coffee? Could it be the fact that people do stupid things WITH that hot coffee which amounts to the burns?
Well...yes!
May one reasonably assume that coffee is always hot, and that an adult should know not to drink it right away, or set it between his/her lap, while driving?
Well..yes!
So, ultimately, it's due to the (rather stupid) actions of the person in question that she got burned.
Any normal society would place the fault with her/him, or at least for 95% (in the case Mcdonalds would be serving coffee so hot, it can't be handled anymore in a normal way). In europe, similar examples have mostly been discarded as the frivolous lawsuits they are.
In the US, however, personal responsability seems to be an unknown concept, and it's the fault of someone (mostly a rich coporation) else when they do something stupid.
Mind you, since the corporations have so much (even political) power over there, this may level things a bit.
"In a nutshell, kids see things in black and white. Adults introduce shades of grey."
Indeed.:-)
Well...in principle. Research has shown that many adults have not really evolved to the 'shades of grey' level of ethics, alas. People who defend abiding by a law just because it's the law are such a group, for instance.
"We might not like the law, but we still have to obey it."
This remembers me about the book 'Bush: president of good and evil', in which the moral and ethical sense of Bush is analysed, and found it is stuck at the level of a 13-year old. (which, in fact, is not as uncommon as one would believe, for many adults are). The sociological and psychological roots of this behaviour would lead me too far, but I'll simplify by saying that there are several levels of 'ethical priciples' which are quite universal (thus, apparant through all times and cultures).
The ethic behaviour of a teenager between 10-15 years is often very stringent; the law is the law, and rules are rules. He does not yet possess the ability to understand thatrules for the sake of rules are useless, and that exeptions can and should be made on personal evaluation of the rules, not merely because society has put them there. To the surprise of the reseachers, many adults continue to live in that mindset, and never evolve to a more nuanced ethical view in which to look at the world. Your argument above hints at the same kind of mentality.
Thus, let me be clear: no, it's not because something is a law, that we should obey it. And while 'not liking it' is on itself not sufficent case to break a law, it DOES give a first indication and a ground to look closer at that law, and see if it is in harmony with itself (are there internal contradictions?), with other laws (which supercedes which?) and your own basic values (is it acceptable within my own ethical value-system?).
If you do not do that, and merely accept you have to follow a law, because the law is there, then one would sooner or later be confronted with unethical behaviour (even from oneself), even though one is following the law. If a law is passed that would put all niggers apart from white people, would you agree to it? If you're argument is that the law is the law, and you should obey it, then the answer would be yes. If you take the principles I just mentionned, then the answer could well be; no - EVEN if the law says something else. And mind you, a democracy is not immune to such unjust laws; it's just a matter of 'the dictatorship of the majority'.
In my own country, for instance - a most democratic one, more so then the rather doubtful two-party system - there has been talk lately about creating a law which not only criminalyzes immigrants, but also ALL people who help them (for instance, by taking them in their homes, giving them food, etc.). Without wanting to invoke the nazi's, that's rather a disturbing trend. If people offer that help freely, out of empathy, are they being wrong? According to the law (if it gets passed), they are, but I say: bullocks to that law. One should not follow unjust laws, whether they are created by due democratic processes or not.
One could even say that laws, which are generally just, still have to be measured by a persons own value. At least, that's what I do. For instance, I can agree, that stealing is, in general, a 'wrong' thing. When some rich western bloke would steal a television, I would agree with the law: punish him. And yet, if a kid stole food because he was starving, I would not think the same, and would not cooperate with 'the law'. Certainly, these cases are not always easy to spot and to know what is the best thing to do, but it does not absolve you from doing it, and making that personal evaluation.
Following laws just because they have been made is the ultimate stupidity.
Well, you have a point, if one is talking about this specific case, one should read up on it more detailed. I was more trying to point out dangers about this ruling concerning the principle, however (thus when applied more in general).
Apart from whether this is actually and always the case in a practical sense, it is beside the issue the parent was reacting on.
First off, he was right: slavery in ancient times was far from always 'involuntary'; they often sold themselves. So his analogy still stands.
Your argumentation of "if it's in the contract, and you signed it voluntarely, why shouldn't it be allowed" is a typical example of anglo-saxon capitalistic mentality which is rampant under some 'vocal' active (usually USA) slashdotters. This notion is, of course, absurd: from the starting premise the conclusion does not follow, young Jedi-knight.
If it were, then contracts where you agree to go into slavery, or you agree to torture, or the medical removal of your brain or arm, would all be allowable too. It isn't. (At least not in europe;-) This is, because it is deemed indivuals have inherent rights, including consumer-rights. Those may vary, but I don't know of any western country where they are non-existant.
For instance, when you buy a computer, and you sign an agreement in which you wave all rights of returning your computer even if it's defect, in the typical USA-vision I mentionned above, one would claim that's valid. Bzzz...wrong! (At least in europe).
Here you have *by law* the right to return it - even without any reason (if within 7 days of purchase). And the seller may write in his contracts or agreements whatever he wants, pages and pages untill he turns bleu, and the buyer may willingly sign all of them...it *does not matter*. All provisions which are not according to the laws (mostly consumer laws, in this case) are null and void.
It's that simple, and it clearly shows that the dogma of 'if you sign it, it is valid and should be allowed' is false, even in the USA, I suspect. Therefor, the question is not any longer one of absolute capitalistic/marketing reasoning and rationalisation, but rather the observable fact that there are limits imposed on what one can put in a contract (or at least, what is enforcable), even when someone signs it voluntarily.
Ergo, in response to your question 'why shouldn't it be allowable': this can not purely be answered by claiming 'because it's in the contract and it's signed'. For instance, one could argue that it shouldn't be allowable because it's better for society, or for consumers, etc. - just as some other provisions aren't allowed already.
"There is plenty we don't know and many breakthroughs left in the universe, but I think it's human arrogance to think we're capable of omnipotence."
True omnipotence? No. But that's because it is an infinite superlative, just like 'never'.
This is exactly the one thing that makes me feel somehow...in awe...for my own race. (morally/socially/etc. there speaks as much against it then for it). Some art or music evokes the same, but..science, and it's modern child technology, has the feeling of a tremendous...force. A force that keeps getting better and stronger while time passes. And, provided the human race continues to exist (or our maybe-less-human heirs) I *do* think that we will get pretty close to omnipotence. In principle, we are all gods. (Or will become so; - gods here more like the ancient Greek gods, not the classic god-concept of the bible and consorts).
In fact, the technolgy we have today would already be god-like to someone of 1000 years ago.
So, humanity will be capable of *almost* everything.
Well, maybe...I don't know how it goes around your parts, legally. I suspect the typical anglo-saxon liberal mentality is at it's roots of calling it 'reasonable' (I grant you it may be legal, now).
I would claim it is unfair to be fired when what you say about a criminal offense is actually true, whether you speak about it to your boss, to the police, or to a journalist. The truthfullness of the claim does not change depending on who hears it, but on the facts. It is therefor reasonable to look at those facts, NOT on who said what.
If one would take the premise that it's *not* the facts that matter, but to whome you talk, then it's simply an arbitrary manner of clipping your rights in your possibility to talk about it to whome you want. I mean, if that is 'reasonable', then when a law gets passed saying you can't talk to your friends about it becomes reasonable too. Or when a law says you can't talk to a journalist, etc. There is no reason, within this line of thought, why it would be 'reasonable' that a boss fires you if you talk about his fraud to him, but it would be 'unreasonable' when you talk about the fraud to a journalist or anyone else.
Yet, no one will deny that many whistleblowers *did and do* use journalists and the media for exactly that reason, and as of yet (here, anyway), they enjoy protected status, and it is never seen as reasonable when a person got fired (especially when it's a public office function), if what he tells is the truth.
So, it's all good and well to say it's reasonable: but you can only say that in a legal sense, and in retrospect, because if the 5-4 vote had gone the other way, the (legal) basis you use for claiming it's 'reasonable' wouldn't be there.
Alas, one can not argue a legal ruling is reasonable on the basis that that same legal ruling made it so.
Slashdot Mirror
"[]...because in the western world we abandoned the whip, cutting-off-of-fingers and other fun punishments a few centuries ago"
And torture too...
ummm...
Well, in SOME part of that western world, at least.
"We're not the borg!"
:-/ ;-)
Not yet! But we're rapidly being assimilated!!
And resistance seems futile...
"Sure, by the legal definition MS is bad and needs some good beating, but in the moral sense I clearly disagree. I haven't used MS stuff for quite a while. No problems. Just because so many people whine about how they'd like this or that feature in Windows doesn't give them the right to force it."
That's because your moral premise is completely different; you seem to uphold the premise that a company should be allowed to do whatever it wants - while I (and most of the rest of the world) are of the opinion they are to be hold to restrictions, just like any individual citizen is restricted by laws. Now, it is possible, as I have argued myself, that one should not always follow the law if there are moral objections, thus, when a law is totally incompatible with your own basic ethical value-system.
However, I am left pondering what ethical-value system this might be in the case of a monopolist, and in how far this would be universal.
Corporations only have one overwhelming value-system, and that is making as much profit as possible. This, I would argue, can not constitute an ethical justified objection to a restriction imposed by a law, unless one would argue this value-system trumps every other (ethical) value-system.
Which is, in fact, often claimed within the context of the typical anglo-saxon capitalistic view on the world.
It should be noted, however, that this is not a universally accepted premise, and many find there are other considereations and moral/ethical values, beyond that of profit-gathering. Basic protection of citizens - including in their status of consumers - and stimulating innovation in society are both ethical values, for instance, that can be used, aside profits. Since monopolies, as history demonstrates, are antithetical to both, one is fully justified to make adjustements based on those ethical values or argumentation, instead of yours.
"it's a free market society. let company's do what they want and if the consumer (or whoever) doesn't like it - DON'T BUY IT!"
Then you never understood that a consumer and a business (especially a monopoly) are not equal, not in matters of exploiting power and influence, nor in having the same resources when a conflict arises. You do not let individuals do 'what they want', thus why should companies be an exeption?
Companies do not have some inherent right; all rights (and especially those based on IP-laws) are given to them. By whome? By the state. Who constitutes the state? Well, ultimately the people (in a democracy). Thus, if people want restrictions for behaviour of citizens, it's normal they want restrictions on companies too.
Note also that there IS NO true 'free market' anymore anywhere in the world; copyright and patents are state-ordained&granted monopolistic systems. Copyright and patents are not results of the workings of free-market, but of a monopoly given by the state, to the creator (in the false illusion it would support innovation).
"what microsoft should do is drop all support and sales of microsoft products to europe and then see how that feels."
For whome?
Both would feel not to good in the short term (the EU would have to keep using their older versions, or change to something else like Linux, or use illegal versions - which many citizens already do, while MS would lose 30% of their income), and MS would not feel good in the long term neither (because it would have lost a huge marketshare which would be difficult to monopolise again).
Let's face it, we all know that, in the end, when it comes down to those two options, MS will pay. If Bill would refuse and want to move out of europe, the shareholders would get a fit, pop a vein, and replace him asap. Companies are interested in profit, after all, they don't care about much else. When they have to decide between permanently losing 30% of their income versus a one time 0.7% (if they comply with the law then, that is), one can be reasonably confident what they will choose.
"Because, of course, whatever stance the courts take must be right?!"
1 6&cid=15486101
Certainly not, as I have said myself in an earlier post: http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1877
Laws are not always right, and, in my opinion, shouldn't always be followed. However, I was talking about the rights of individuals, not companies (which should not enjoy the same protections as persons, in my opinion, because they are purely legal entities), and primarily when the law is not compatible with your own ethical value-system. Corporations usually do not have a value-system exept that of making profit, and in that case, they should agree to pay the fine, because retreating from the EU market would cost a lot more.
In any case, the question whether or not it is *morally* right to halt their monopolistic behaviour is beyond the scope of this thread, and is highly subjective and arbitrary (obviously, you and MS would argue it isn't, but I and the EU commision and the courts of the EU, the USA, japan, etc. would argue it is). This is simply a case of a corporation who has to follow the rules of trade in the place where it does the trading - no higher humanistic ethical values come into play.
"My stance is that you shouldn't be punished for success."
That is a very nice stance, and I support it. However, it is completely irrelevant in this discussion, because companies are not being punished for their succes, nor even for being a monopoly, but for abusing their monopoly. Your own examples of Pepsi and Coke demonstrate this.
"Also from http://answers.com/"
Alas, whatever answers.com or the wikipedia says, legalese is always in a different language.
In any case, the "produces (even at a reasonable price) all the output of a product or service because of technological superiority (called a natural monopoly), holds a patent on a product or process of production" comes closest to what is meant by a monopoly of MS (though one would have to be lenient to call it technologically superior, or to call it a reasonable price).
As I'm not mistaken, the thresshold to call something a monopoly in the EU depends on the % of the market it has (in this case, of OS). I don't know the exact percentage, but I believe it's beyond 70% or 80%. Thus, any company having more then 80% of the market is considered a monopoly, because with such a share it effectively dominates the landscape of OSses. Since this is the case for MS, it is a monopoly. Which, I repeat, is not illegal on itself. If it tries to use that monopoly as a leverage to monopolise other markets, it does become illegal, however.
I'm sure you find this system wrong and what not, but I happen to find it quite justified. Monopolies have *never* been to the benefit of innovation and consumers, thus a system should be in place to hold it in check.
"Microsoft dominates the OS market. It isn't a monopoly because, as you yourself mentioned, it is not the only option. And, there are arguably superior products."
I'm sorry, but your definition of a monopoly is incorrect.
You may have humble opinions as much as you like; Microsoft HAS a monopoly, and this is recognised by all western countries and their courts, including that of the USA, I may add.
Since it's the opinion of the courts that matter, and not your personal opinion, in any practical (and legal) sense, they DO have a monopoly, and thus, your whole reasoning becomes void - at least as far as it was substantiated by your claim that it wasn't a monopoly.
"Contrary to what some Europeans and by extension Euro-philes seem to believe, the vast majority of Americans do realize that the US is not the only country in the world."
Yeah, but at the other hand, more then 1 out of ten of adult Americans can't find their own country on a worldmap.
And it's not like it's a *small* country.
"Way to propogate untrue American stereotypes."
Well, not *completely* untrue, it would seem. While stereotypes have the disadvantage to be generalising as if every last (in this case) American is the same dimwit - which is untrue, of course - those stereotypes often do have some basis. For instance, when one compares the general level of education of the USA to that of the EU, it becomes more then apparent that the USA is severely lacking. This does not mean mean that there are no good schools in the USA, or that all American kids are more stupid then EU-ones - but it does mean that, as a whole, schools suck more in the USA, and the kids there are in general more stupid and ignorant then in the EU - which the stereotype hints at.
In the same sense the notion that Americans (in general) are more ignorant about world-affairs and other countries outside their own, then EU-citizens, is to a large extend exact. This notion is the basis for the stereotype - which remains exact, exept when used in it's most broad context where it would encompass 'all', without room for individual exeptions.
"It's interesting to me how every Euro/Euro-phile on slashdot likes to paint the US government as being intrusive into other countries affairs...[]"
Must...not...give...in...
Luckily for you you narrowed it down fast with 'foreign company' and 'anti-trust violations' - which I can't comment on since I'm not familiar enough with these specific details in a historical context. And neither are you, I presume.
"This doesn't happen except in small countries run by dictators. The EU isn't stupid enough to actually consider such an action."
I partially agree. It is very unlikely either the USA or the EU would do such a thing, unless something drastic would happen, like a war (or at least, a severe trade-war). In normal circumstances, the USA and the EU are trade-partners, and doing such a thing would unbalance every trade-agreement.
It's not completely impossible, however, even in no-war situation; for instance, if a company would refuse to act according to the laws/rules/prohibitions it was handed down, and it was a matter of public health.
But that isn't the case here, so it remains extremely unlikely such a thing would happen.
First of all, we have to ask ourselves, what, exactly, a patent is. A lot of pro-swpat advocates use terms as Intellectual Property (IP) rights, while those encompass a lot of different concepts, such as copyright (which is already used for software). We can find the following definition:
A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a government to an inventor or applicant for a limited amount of time (normally 20 years from the filing date)... Per the word's original definition, the theory of patent legislation is to induce the inventor to disclose knowledge for the advancement of society in exchange for a limited period of exclusivity. Since a patent grants the right to exclude others from practising the invention, it gives the owner a monopoly in the economic sense. There is an ongoing debate about whether the benefits of patents outweigh the costs, particularly with respect to software patents.
A patent, thus, is not meant as an inherent right for financial compensation for the inventor. A patent is a state-ordained monopoly, that excludes others of exploiting or using similar ideas, even when they have come up with those ideas independently by themselves, for a certain time-period. Now, this seems rather unfair (in copyright this is not the case), but apart from that, why does the state give a monopoly to someone, while we all know monopolies are generally not good for the economy, nor for the consumers? This is why: a patent is a monopoly, given by the state, because it (is supposed to) promote innovation. It follows that, if it doesn't achieve its goal of promoting innovation, it should not be granted, period.
Now, while to some extend this may apply to patents in general (as a study done in the 80ies by the Australian government has shown), seen the particular incremental nature of software, and the more intensive studies done on them, it has become ever more clear that softwarepatents DO NOT promote innovation, on the contrary. It logically follows there is no compelling reason in respect to 'stimulating innovation' to grant patents on software.
Some swpat-proponents point to the USA, and claim there the evidence is shown: "the USA has swpat, and look at all those big, mighty IT-corporations!" This, however, is a complete fallacy: they 'forget' to mention that all those big foreign IT-companies were founded and grew to the behemoths they are today, in the ABSENCE of softwarepatents (which, in the USA, only started in earnest after 1991). So, it is not "thanks to" softwarepatents, but rather the reverse. Actually, it could be argued that the IT-business in the USA bloomed, exactly because they weren't patents around, back then. And in fact, this is well known by anyone working in the business of IT, and exactly what a well-known USA CEO has said in the early 90ies, someone who can know it.
Bill Gates said it best, in one of his internal memos:
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today."
Mind you, this has been said by one of the most prominent IT-CEO on the planet, acknowledging exactly what softwarepatents actually lead too. Not surprisingly, since swpat are allowed in the USA, his solution to the problem was "patenting as much as we can" so he could go for "patent exchanges with [other] large companies". Of course, Bill had the means to gather together a multi-million dollar software patent portfolio to defend his company (and thus did.) Most of the SME's (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises), let alone the individual developer, don't have such means and allowing swpat can only spell hardship for small businesses and open source software.
Even Bruce Chizen, chief executive of Adobe Systems Inc. and chairman of the Business Software Alliance, which is leading the charge for the technology industry in the USA, acknowledges that allowing software patents in the 1990s was a bad idea.
Contrary to the pro-swpat camp, it
"Anyone who buys this first Blu-Ray player will confirm the theory that a sucker is born every minute."
8 8422 (including my self) who disagree."
;-)
"Well here is a whole http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=6
Well...the latter doesn't really excludes the former. In fact, it could well be substantiating it.
I find myself leaning towards the former statements: people who buy such stuff for a price which will be halved next year, and even without knowing IF it will last a year, nor if it will be the surviving format...well, they are, indeed, suckers. I mean, you're basically spending 1000 bucks on something that has a good chance of turning up worthless withing a copple of years... and squandering money like that IS stupid, IMHO. Especially if it's mainly done for bragging - as the forum you link to actually demonstrates.
Then again, a person may do with his money whatever he likes, I guess, even stupid things. Maybe you'll make it so, that blu-ray becomes the dominant format and reasonable priced in 5 years; so - seen from my advantage-point - your foolishness may actually be a good thing. Keep it going, bro!
"- How much responsibility falls on Apple to encourage its contractors and subcontractors to significantly exceed statutory labor guidelines or governmental requirements in host countries?"
As much responsability as they make profit with products created by sweatshop-labour.
"- Reports about someone earning "X" per month are meaningless out of context. How much, exactly, do other workers in their locale earn? What is the overall cost of living?"
I agree with this one. It's logical to assume wages should be regarded to the livingcost in the country where those workers work. That said, I doubt it's, even in comparison, very much. But even if the wages would be reasonable, the hours they have to work are not.
"- No one has to work at a Foxconn plant making iPods. No one. And if it's viewed as the best alternative by individual workers who choose to work there, then it's probably, well, the best alternative."
And how exactly would YOU know the exact background why they 'choose' to work there? Even if they weren't forced at gun-point, poverty leads to a lack of choice.
"- Who cares if there are more female than male workers? What possible bearing does this have on the situation? (I'm trying to figure out exactly why this was mentioned, because it's clearly intended to imply something, though I'm not quite sure what.)"
The parent poster was alluding to the fact that this difference isn't quite normal. Women are often the most weakly protected workforce, more abused and discriminated against then men. This was also true in our societies, and still is, seen the fact that even today they often get a lower wage for the same work then men. Is this because they "choose" to get payed less? I doubt it.
"- How, precisely and specifically, has Apple "staked its image" on "progressive politics"? "
I believe another poster below has already answered that one.
Your last comment, btw, was a bit of a fallacy. I consider myself pretty intelligent, yet, it does not mean I have to agree with all your points. I also don't see the logic in going for the country/state itself (certainly nopt as foreigner), rather then the companies who outsource there. The fact is, it is easier to accomplish a 'moral reveille' (*cough*) by forcing the corporations to adopt some standards (as Nike has noticed), then the government of china.
Not all your points are devoid of logic, but I fear you start with a completely different premise (based on a typical anglo-saxon capitalistic viewpoint). All your points could be said about childlabour too, for instance, if the laws of the country in question would allow that and they follow your reasoning (of not being forced at gun-point, for instance). So, in regard to the morality or ethics, it are pseudo-arguments; they could apply in circumstances which are clearly (at least to most humans) unethical. In an anglo-saxon capitalistic viewpoint, where you consider corporations and workers have equal status/power and are 'free' to choose, regardless of the circumstances or background, they make perfectly sense, however.
True, but I was talking about/for the western market ;-)
"Slashdot is not the right place to explain to you 500 years of legal history, including the difference between equity and damages."
I'm glad we agree on something.
"This is not your fault; most Americans don't know the difference between "law" and "common law" (i.e. statutes and the common law) -- but by the same token, I don't go spouting about how some result in chemistry is "wrong" despite not being familiar with nuclear thermodynamics."
Yes, but you could be 'spouting' why you think chemicals or nuclear waste should be more restricted, (for example, because it poses a danger to nature or human health), etc. You don't need to be a nuclear expert to be able to argument *that*. BTW, I'm neither american nor british, so I don't see why you always make that particular comparison between the two.
The problem is, YOU have a lack of understanding what I'm discussing here, which *is not* the historical legal system of the past 500 years. To give an analogy: it's like, when someone claims that drugs should be forbidden with a reasoning which is faulty and I don't agree with, then you come along saying: you don't have an understanding of the laws that deal with drug-abuse, the courts have clear rulings about this, laws exist that handle these cases, etc.
While I'm argumenting *why* exactly those laws should be revoked or changed.
So, we're really talking aside eachother, and I fear we will continue to do so. As an example, you try to defend the petrol example by saying 'well, you see, there are notices about not using matches'. Well, lets say for arguments' sake I agree completely with the validity of that example, then *still* I would think it's unjust that the petrolstation would be sued if somebody used matches while transferring petrol in his car! Why? *Because he should the f- know that he ain't supposed to do that!* The one playing with matches, gets his fingers burned, as the saying goes, I think?
A person suing the petrolstation because they didn't put a warning sign saying smoking and playing with fire at a petrolstation is dangerous, is, IMHO, ludicrous and frivolous. It might well be that there are laws which such a person can use to win his case, and that's why I say to those laws: get rid of them, or change them. Why? Because I would argue that something that should reasonably be known by an adult, and still the adult proceeds with his action that goes against reasonable forseeable knowledge, it is HIS fault, not that of the company or the people providing the service he used.
As of yet, I have seen little arguments why this shouldn't be the case, exept for assurences I don't know the law - which is fully outside the scope of argumenting why those laws suck (or not, in your assumption, I presume). Just like I think the laws that prohibit (the use of) drugs suck; I'm willing to give arguments for that too, but counter-arguing that by saying a person doesn't understand the legal system is cheap, and more importantly, not to the point. It does not go into the question whether those laws should exist or not in the first place, and why.
I guess I would buy one myself, even when I'm not a child left behind. ;-)
Weren't there plans to create one for the western market too? Even an ugly laptop would be worthwhile, for such a low price. But it shouldn't go above 200 euros', otherwise they will just create a black market where 3th world countries (at least, their citizens) will sell it back to rich western dudes.
Ah, well, give it a black color, and put in something which doesn't need the crank always to power it up, and for 100 euros, you have a nice little inexpensive thing for doing minor stuff on, or for your kids to play around with...
"Sorry for the harsh words, but I actually *know* what I'm talking about."
;-)
It makes no use insulting someone, and then say sorry for it in the same sentence. Or, you insult wasn't meant, and then you had time to correct it (it's not like it's rl chat, after all), or the 'sorry' you give isn't meant, and then you shouldn't say it anyhow.
For someone in the legal profession and knowing what he's talking about, you give precious little references to the legal statements you refer to. Regardless, I was in the first place discussing the former statement that, because you know there is a chance someone will get burned, one should be liable.
This is not the case. At least not where I'm living. And I don't even think that in the USA this was the reason of the courts to place McDonalds responsable - but I admit I'm not sure, so feel free to give a reference if I'm wrong. So, I didn't comment on the legal issues on themselves; I'm quite sure the US courts based themselves on *some* law. I said: "Knowing that people will be burned if they spill hot liquids over them does make them liable... or at least they shouldn't be."
So who the hell was talking about the legal references in this particular case? I never made that assertion, so I can't be wrong for something you claim I said, but didn't. You're talking legality, I'm talking rational sense; the two are, granted, far from the same in some cases.
But saying I don't know shit, because you talk about the legality, while I'm discussing the above argument, and the philosophical side of these cases is BS, and pretty arrogant. Are my arguments legal truths? No, and I never claimed that, so don't give my that patronising tone. Are they rational and SHOULD they be part of the law? I think so, as I said. You did not give any arguments AGAINST my reasoning, you just stated that I was legally wrong about something I never claimed.
And I still stand by what I said: it's not because you know someone can be burned by a liquid, that you should become liable. I know, as an adult, that petrol is toxic too; but when I drink it, should I then sue the petrol station where I filled my bottle, because they didn't warn me it's toxic? I mean, they know someone could die from drinking it, right?
Most courts WILL take this in consideration, and ask the question whether one could reasonably forsee, as an adult, if something would be dangerous, when used in an improper manner. The question is thus not if/if, but an evaluation. That evaluation has become increasingly screwed, in the US, and that's due to the current mentality of frivolous suits. Aparently, the US courts feel it's predominantly the fault of McDonalds; I disagree. No doubt they have laws to support their conclusion, but, if they are based on such notions as the parent poster claimed, I think those laws should be changed. (And, as I understand it, they *are* going to be changed). So, I don't think I'm too far off with my analysis.
"I meant that you can be personally satisfied, but you'll still be facing the legal penalties."
If you mean feeling a sense of satisfaction because one acted against a law which one deems unjust, then you are right. (Obviously, getting the law revoked by your actions would give even far more satisfaction).
But, this is irrelevant of 'paying the price'. Thus, ones' actions, as long as they are consistent within ones' ethical framework, would still be satisfactory, even if one didn't have to pay fines, or go to jail.
And while it is something one can 'expect', I do also not underscribe the notion that one should always 'accept the price' , for breaking an unjust law. If the law is truelly unjust and it's deemed not worth accepting, then the consequences due to the breaking of that law, would also be unjust and unacceptable. Whether one can always escape the legal consequences remains to be seen, of course, but sometimes it can. (For instance, I feel it is not morally objectable many young anti-war people fled the USA during the vietnamwar - even when they never would get 'cought' or ever pay the legal price for it).
Someone argumenting that one should, indeed, not always follow a law, but one should always accept the consequences of breaking that same law, seems illogical. For instance, that would mean that a person would have the (ethical) right to oppose a law which forbids aiding people of another race, but he should just accept it when the penalty of disobeying that law is the death of himself and his family.
I think when one accepts the argument that one does not HAVE to follow a law, one can also reason one does not HAVE to accept the consequences of (breaking) that law.
Of course, you were right to argument one should expect it: it's very seldom that the 'power in charge' would easily forgo and not try to punish when their laws are broken, even the unjust ones.
"You and he can both be morally satisfied that you followed your ethics as you pay off the fines."
I doubt this is ever the case. Moral or ethical satisfaction (even if that would be the goal on itself, which it isn't) is never achieved with paying fines, as long as the objectionable laws are still around. I can't recall any civil-rights activist fighting against an unjust law, who was subsequently satisfied by merely paying the fine, or going to jail, for his actions.
But maybe you were being ironic?
"Now lets not go confusing laws with ethics, here people."
I'm not. I'm saying that in some instances (for instance, when it doesn't stroke with ones' basic ethical-value system), a law should not always be followed, nor abided by.
While that evaluation on itself may be difficult and confusing - depending on the person and the particular case he encounters - the statement itself is not.
"What if she had dropped the coffee on the way to the cupholder and it had hit her leg? McDonalds own business managers actually *knew* people would be burned....."
I know I'll be burned too, when I spill my coffee on my lap, or drink it while it's still to hot. I fail to see your point.
Knowing that people will be burned if they spill hot liquids over them does make them liable... or at least they shouldn't be. The point is, one has always have to look to the one who actually caused the burns; was that McDonalds? Did they burn her legs, or cause her to burn it? No, as is witnessed by the fact that they serve hundreds of thousands the same hot coffee, and the vast majority do not get burned. So, what is the cause then, if it's not serving hot coffee? Could it be the fact that people do stupid things WITH that hot coffee which amounts to the burns?
Well...yes!
May one reasonably assume that coffee is always hot, and that an adult should know not to drink it right away, or set it between his/her lap, while driving?
Well..yes!
So, ultimately, it's due to the (rather stupid) actions of the person in question that she got burned.
Any normal society would place the fault with her/him, or at least for 95% (in the case Mcdonalds would be serving coffee so hot, it can't be handled anymore in a normal way). In europe, similar examples have mostly been discarded as the frivolous lawsuits they are.
In the US, however, personal responsability seems to be an unknown concept, and it's the fault of someone (mostly a rich coporation) else when they do something stupid.
Mind you, since the corporations have so much (even political) power over there, this may level things a bit.
It's still absurd though.
"In a nutshell, kids see things in black and white. Adults introduce shades of grey."
:-)
Indeed.
Well...in principle. Research has shown that many adults have not really evolved to the 'shades of grey' level of ethics, alas. People who defend abiding by a law just because it's the law are such a group, for instance.
"We might not like the law, but we still have to obey it."
This remembers me about the book 'Bush: president of good and evil', in which the moral and ethical sense of Bush is analysed, and found it is stuck at the level of a 13-year old. (which, in fact, is not as uncommon as one would believe, for many adults are). The sociological and psychological roots of this behaviour would lead me too far, but I'll simplify by saying that there are several levels of 'ethical priciples' which are quite universal (thus, apparant through all times and cultures).
The ethic behaviour of a teenager between 10-15 years is often very stringent; the law is the law, and rules are rules. He does not yet possess the ability to understand thatrules for the sake of rules are useless, and that exeptions can and should be made on personal evaluation of the rules, not merely because society has put them there. To the surprise of the reseachers, many adults continue to live in that mindset, and never evolve to a more nuanced ethical view in which to look at the world. Your argument above hints at the same kind of mentality.
Thus, let me be clear: no, it's not because something is a law, that we should obey it. And while 'not liking it' is on itself not sufficent case to break a law, it DOES give a first indication and a ground to look closer at that law, and see if it is in harmony with itself (are there internal contradictions?), with other laws (which supercedes which?) and your own basic values (is it acceptable within my own ethical value-system?).
If you do not do that, and merely accept you have to follow a law, because the law is there, then one would sooner or later be confronted with unethical behaviour (even from oneself), even though one is following the law. If a law is passed that would put all niggers apart from white people, would you agree to it? If you're argument is that the law is the law, and you should obey it, then the answer would be yes. If you take the principles I just mentionned, then the answer could well be; no - EVEN if the law says something else. And mind you, a democracy is not immune to such unjust laws; it's just a matter of 'the dictatorship of the majority'.
In my own country, for instance - a most democratic one, more so then the rather doubtful two-party system - there has been talk lately about creating a law which not only criminalyzes immigrants, but also ALL people who help them (for instance, by taking them in their homes, giving them food, etc.). Without wanting to invoke the nazi's, that's rather a disturbing trend. If people offer that help freely, out of empathy, are they being wrong? According to the law (if it gets passed), they are, but I say: bullocks to that law. One should not follow unjust laws, whether they are created by due democratic processes or not.
One could even say that laws, which are generally just, still have to be measured by a persons own value. At least, that's what I do. For instance, I can agree, that stealing is, in general, a 'wrong' thing. When some rich western bloke would steal a television, I would agree with the law: punish him. And yet, if a kid stole food because he was starving, I would not think the same, and would not cooperate with 'the law'. Certainly, these cases are not always easy to spot and to know what is the best thing to do, but it does not absolve you from doing it, and making that personal evaluation.
Following laws just because they have been made is the ultimate stupidity.
well, I did it out of pity!
;-p
j/k
It was logic that dictated it.
But I like lemmings!!! ;-)
Well, you have a point, if one is talking about this specific case, one should read up on it more detailed. I was more trying to point out dangers about this ruling concerning the principle, however (thus when applied more in general).
Apart from whether this is actually and always the case in a practical sense, it is beside the issue the parent was reacting on.
;-) This is, because it is deemed indivuals have inherent rights, including consumer-rights. Those may vary, but I don't know of any western country where they are non-existant.
First off, he was right: slavery in ancient times was far from always 'involuntary'; they often sold themselves. So his analogy still stands.
Your argumentation of "if it's in the contract, and you signed it voluntarely, why shouldn't it be allowed" is a typical example of anglo-saxon capitalistic mentality which is rampant under some 'vocal' active (usually USA) slashdotters. This notion is, of course, absurd: from the starting premise the conclusion does not follow, young Jedi-knight.
If it were, then contracts where you agree to go into slavery, or you agree to torture, or the medical removal of your brain or arm, would all be allowable too. It isn't. (At least not in europe
For instance, when you buy a computer, and you sign an agreement in which you wave all rights of returning your computer even if it's defect, in the typical USA-vision I mentionned above, one would claim that's valid. Bzzz...wrong! (At least in europe).
Here you have *by law* the right to return it - even without any reason (if within 7 days of purchase). And the seller may write in his contracts or agreements whatever he wants, pages and pages untill he turns bleu, and the buyer may willingly sign all of them...it *does not matter*. All provisions which are not according to the laws (mostly consumer laws, in this case) are null and void.
It's that simple, and it clearly shows that the dogma of 'if you sign it, it is valid and should be allowed' is false, even in the USA, I suspect. Therefor, the question is not any longer one of absolute capitalistic/marketing reasoning and rationalisation, but rather the observable fact that there are limits imposed on what one can put in a contract (or at least, what is enforcable), even when someone signs it voluntarily.
Ergo, in response to your question 'why shouldn't it be allowable': this can not purely be answered by claiming 'because it's in the contract and it's signed'. For instance, one could argue that it shouldn't be allowable because it's better for society, or for consumers, etc. - just as some other provisions aren't allowed already.
"There is plenty we don't know and many breakthroughs left in the universe, but I think it's human arrogance to think we're capable of omnipotence."
True omnipotence? No. But that's because it is an infinite superlative, just like 'never'.
This is exactly the one thing that makes me feel somehow...in awe...for my own race. (morally/socially/etc. there speaks as much against it then for it). Some art or music evokes the same, but..science, and it's modern child technology, has the feeling of a tremendous...force. A force that keeps getting better and stronger while time passes. And, provided the human race continues to exist (or our maybe-less-human heirs) I *do* think that we will get pretty close to omnipotence. In principle, we are all gods. (Or will become so; - gods here more like the ancient Greek gods, not the classic god-concept of the bible and consorts).
In fact, the technolgy we have today would already be god-like to someone of 1000 years ago.
So, humanity will be capable of *almost* everything.
Well, maybe...I don't know how it goes around your parts, legally. I suspect the typical anglo-saxon liberal mentality is at it's roots of calling it 'reasonable' (I grant you it may be legal, now).
I would claim it is unfair to be fired when what you say about a criminal offense is actually true, whether you speak about it to your boss, to the police, or to a journalist. The truthfullness of the claim does not change depending on who hears it, but on the facts. It is therefor reasonable to look at those facts, NOT on who said what.
If one would take the premise that it's *not* the facts that matter, but to whome you talk, then it's simply an arbitrary manner of clipping your rights in your possibility to talk about it to whome you want. I mean, if that is 'reasonable', then when a law gets passed saying you can't talk to your friends about it becomes reasonable too. Or when a law says you can't talk to a journalist, etc. There is no reason, within this line of thought, why it would be 'reasonable' that a boss fires you if you talk about his fraud to him, but it would be 'unreasonable' when you talk about the fraud to a journalist or anyone else.
Yet, no one will deny that many whistleblowers *did and do* use journalists and the media for exactly that reason, and as of yet (here, anyway), they enjoy protected status, and it is never seen as reasonable when a person got fired (especially when it's a public office function), if what he tells is the truth.
So, it's all good and well to say it's reasonable: but you can only say that in a legal sense, and in retrospect, because if the 5-4 vote had gone the other way, the (legal) basis you use for claiming it's 'reasonable' wouldn't be there.
Alas, one can not argue a legal ruling is reasonable on the basis that that same legal ruling made it so.