All your guns are belong in this thread.

Reactions
299 37 13
#36
While this may be standard practice, I'm talking about ethics and morality, not legality. There are many things which are legal, but that still grossly violate ethics and morality.

Secondly, as you've stated it, such an idea of fiduciary duty would compel people to break the law to fulfill "fiduciary duty". It's an absurd notion that businesses should exist for the sole purpose of making as much money as possible, above and beyond all other interests. It's quite arguable that most businesses do pursue money to that absurd degree, but that's because most people have bought into the idea that such is the ideal form of business. Not only do I challenge that notion, but I firmly reject it, morally and ethically. It should never be accepted, it should never be repeated, and any suggestion that is is inevitable should be shouted down with all the fervor the human race can muster. We are not doomed to be thieves, and we cannot allow ourselves to resign ourselves to institutionalized greed.
Pez, there have been legal cases by shareholders that sue boards and/or CEOs because they don't take their Fiduciary Duty seriously. And they WIN. The law is structured that way. The law can't compel you to break the law (IANAL, but pretty sure that'd be stupid), but anything and everything else is A-OK to the limits of public reputation, and its impact on profits.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for this corporate attitude, I actually agree that businesses should be more than that. But that is the law as it is right now. Change the law if you want that to change, don't blame the people for following it.
 
Reactions
2,735 794 25
#37
If someone knowingly takes advantage of someone (i.e. They intentionally conduct what they know to be an unfair exchange of goods and or services), that's a scam. Scam: to swindle, cheat, defraud, to obtain by deceit. Put it however you want, if someone knows that they are unfairly taking advantage of someone else, they are a crook.
We're arguing semantics here (Scam/Fraud = obtain by deceit, Monopoly/Monopsony = obtain by abusing marketplace position, Regulatory capture = obtain by changing the rules, etc), but it seems we are in agreement that businesses should conduct themselves in a manner that prioritizes not only their own well-being, but also the well-being of the ones who use the goods and services they provide.

I mean, you figure it would just be good business sense to ensure the existence of a customer base to consume the goods and services you provide, right?
...with ONE exception, of course. That being, should it come to pass that a business' goods/services are no longer required, it should willingly go gently into that good night, and not seek to artificially prolong its existence/relevance.

--Patrick
 
Reactions
697 101 11
#38
Change the law if you want that to change, don't blame the people for following it.

That's why i always reported the jews to the local authorities back in the '40s... it vas the law.


Yeah, i'm pretty sure i can do both...
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Reactions
3,104 568 6
#40
Pez, there have been legal cases by shareholders that sue boards and/or CEOs because they don't take their Fiduciary Duty seriously. And they WIN. The law is structured that way. The law can't compel you to break the law (IANAL, but pretty sure that'd be stupid), but anything and everything else is A-OK to the limits of public reputation, and its impact on profits.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for this corporate attitude, I actually agree that businesses should be more than that. But that is the law as it is right now. Change the law if you want that to change, don't blame the people for following it.
I will fucking blame people for following unjust laws. Doing what is morally and ethnically right comes before obedience to the law, PERIOD. I'll sympathize with people who are afraid to break the law because they're not in positions of power, but CEOs are in huge positions of power, and they have crazy amounts of money and influence. They have the moral and ethical responsibility to challenge the law and do what is right.

You've just admitted that there are higher responsibilities than how you interpret Fiduciary Duty (hell, that wikipedia article you linked says there are higher responsibilities). You've said the law comes before. You're not allowed to break the law. Breaking the law would surely make more money, and in fact a lot of companies knowingly break the law because the fines they pay are less than the money they make breaking the law. We know that a CEO could never be sued by refusing to commit wage theft, despite how lucrative such an action is.

To quote the Wiki you linked to, "far from being a barrier, there are positive duties to integrate environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors in investment processes." I'm not the only person who thinks that businesses have a responsibility to more than just money.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Reactions
3,104 568 6
#41
I mean, you figure it would just be good business sense to ensure the existence of a customer base to consume the goods and services you provide, right?
You'd think so, but "trickle down economics" is still a thing people fight to believe in. I try not to underestimate the number of people who are willfully ignorant, and the violent reactions they have to the truth being thrust upon them.
 
Reactions
1,361 605 31
#46
I regret that I have but one OMGWTFBBQ to give to that post.

Also...isn't having a handgun illegal in New York City? Maybe the one on the left was from a cop, but the one on the right doesn't look like it. I can't imagine you're allowed to take guns into the Pentagon either.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,590 1,612 30
#47
I regret that I have but one OMGWTFBBQ to give to that post.

Also...isn't having a handgun illegal in New York City? Maybe the one on the left was from a cop, but the one on the right doesn't look like it. I can't imagine you're allowed to take guns into the Pentagon either.
The one on the right looks to be a 38 snub nose, which is a common "backup piece" for law enforcement.
 
Reactions
2,735 794 25
#48
My biggest complaint about the picture is the caption, which praises these two objects and yet makes no (real) attempt to honor the individual(s) who must've wielded them.

--Patrick
 
Top