"if sanity were to prevail when weighing social responsibility against profit, the decision--by corporate by-law a bad one--would damage shareholder value, and be grounds for immediate dismissal."
How can this be true in light of the massive and undeniable advances that organised and specialised labour under the direction of leaders has brought?
Unless you would argue that the changes in living standards for the past 5000 years have been purely due to the advances of the People while Capitalism has fought its best to destroy their efforts, it's a quite safe assumption that the capitalist mindset has to some level contributed to what we would today call a better standard of living.
In addition your post is rude - you are implying that people who work - individual people, not the abstract group you define - are 'inmates' running 'the asylum', and that if they let their "social responsibility" prevail, they would hurt the corporation. Thank you for calling me specifically mad, and may I return the favour. I have specifically chosen to go corporate because I love people - and I am specifically refraining from handing out every penny to random people on the street because I know that a society of widespread material wealth is difficult to base on anything but corporatism. In fact, it is social responsibility that PREVENTS me from "damaging shareholder value". Yes, there is certainly some possibility of sharing profits through improved services or working conditions even when it's not strictly required, which should be taken advantage of, but the best way to improve the standard of life for people and exercise one's social responsibility is not to hand out profits indiscriminately.
So, when you generalise in the future, please specify that you are not speaking on my behalf.
Why wouldn't we want to screen them? We screen police officers, teachers. Why not people who are going to influence the mindset of people? Or even which politicians are allowed to run in elections? With the example of nazism, it seems a reasonable argument. We simply screen out everyone who does not conform to what the socially conscious and sensitized segment of society finds likely to hurt the feelings of other people.
From the quiz;
Is he a likable personality and a terrific talker -- entertaining, persuasive, but maybe a bit too smooth and slick? Can he pass himself off as a supposed expert in a business meeting even though he really doesn't know much about the topic?..
Does he brag? Is he arrogant? Superior?..Does he downplay his legal, financial, or personal problems, say they're just temporary..?
Is he concerned about himself rather than the wreckage he inflicts on others or society at large?
Is he cold and detached, even when someone near him dies, suffers, or falls seriously ill -- for example, does he visit the hospital or attend the funeral?.. Does he claim to be your friend but rarely or never ask about the details of your life or your emotional state? Is he one of those tough-guy executives [sic!] who brag about how emotions are for whiners and losers?
Does he not give a damn about the feelings or well-being of other people? Is he profoundly selfish?.. Can he fire employees without concern for how they'll get by without the job?
Does he always cook up some excuse? Does he blame others for what he's done?
Answering "Maybe" or "Somewhat" to all of these nets 6 points, placing the boss squarely in the "Be cautious"-category. Answering "Yes" to two of them places him or her in the "Be Afraid" category. And the author of the thread and others who believe this is 'a reasonable argument' would implement laws that screen who is allowed to hold hold jobs at organisations according to similar criteria?
Slashdot Mirror
"if sanity were to prevail when weighing social responsibility against profit, the decision--by corporate by-law a bad one--would damage shareholder value, and be grounds for immediate dismissal."
How can this be true in light of the massive and undeniable advances that organised and specialised labour under the direction of leaders has brought?
Unless you would argue that the changes in living standards for the past 5000 years have been purely due to the advances of the People while Capitalism has fought its best to destroy their efforts, it's a quite safe assumption that the capitalist mindset has to some level contributed to what we would today call a better standard of living.
In addition your post is rude - you are implying that people who work - individual people, not the abstract group you define - are 'inmates' running 'the asylum', and that if they let their "social responsibility" prevail, they would hurt the corporation. Thank you for calling me specifically mad, and may I return the favour. I have specifically chosen to go corporate because I love people - and I am specifically refraining from handing out every penny to random people on the street because I know that a society of widespread material wealth is difficult to base on anything but corporatism. In fact, it is social responsibility that PREVENTS me from "damaging shareholder value". Yes, there is certainly some possibility of sharing profits through improved services or working conditions even when it's not strictly required, which should be taken advantage of, but the best way to improve the standard of life for people and exercise one's social responsibility is not to hand out profits indiscriminately.
So, when you generalise in the future, please specify that you are not speaking on my behalf.
Why wouldn't we want to screen them? We screen police officers, teachers. Why not people who are going to influence the mindset of people? Or even which politicians are allowed to run in elections? With the example of nazism, it seems a reasonable argument. We simply screen out everyone who does not conform to what the socially conscious and sensitized segment of society finds likely to hurt the feelings of other people. From the quiz; Is he a likable personality and a terrific talker -- entertaining, persuasive, but maybe a bit too smooth and slick? Can he pass himself off as a supposed expert in a business meeting even though he really doesn't know much about the topic?.. Does he brag? Is he arrogant? Superior?..Does he downplay his legal, financial, or personal problems, say they're just temporary..? Is he concerned about himself rather than the wreckage he inflicts on others or society at large? Is he cold and detached, even when someone near him dies, suffers, or falls seriously ill -- for example, does he visit the hospital or attend the funeral? .. Does he claim to be your friend but rarely or never ask about the details of your life or your emotional state? Is he one of those tough-guy executives [sic!] who brag about how emotions are for whiners and losers?
Does he not give a damn about the feelings or well-being of other people? Is he profoundly selfish?.. Can he fire employees without concern for how they'll get by without the job?
Does he always cook up some excuse? Does he blame others for what he's done?
Answering "Maybe" or "Somewhat" to all of these nets 6 points, placing the boss squarely in the "Be cautious"-category. Answering "Yes" to two of them places him or her in the "Be Afraid" category. And the author of the thread and others who believe this is 'a reasonable argument' would implement laws that screen who is allowed to hold hold jobs at organisations according to similar criteria?