From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Fri Jun 07 2002 - 01:06:40 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Samantha continues the high moral crusade:
>
>
>>Malcolm Morris wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The company as an entity exists to make money for its shareholders. When
>>>they play out the legal charades to delay patent expiry the executives
>>>
>>Yes, so by that statement, it is amoral at best and may ignore
>>many other quite real and important values. I think this near
>>definition of businesses is itself symptomatic of what is wrong.
>>
>
> I was going to ask, What do you expect to accomplish by
> the endless sermonizing about how bad greed is and how
> afflicted the world seems to be with it, but your focus
> on "business" here starts to answer the question.
>
I have no idea what you are "on" about. I am discussing a topic
that came up. The problems with considering business as only a
tool for generating profit for its shareholders are legion and
quite well known. Epecially for those of us who have been in
business environments for quite some time like myself. If you
believe you can read some attitude or other or "sermonizing" out
of that then I suggest you think again.
>
>>[Malcolm again]
>>
>>>As I see it the injustices will continue as long as the goals of the
>>>drug companies (and oil, tobacco, arms &c) are limited to acquiring
>>>money. If the corporate missions could be expanded to include some
>>>variant on "creating the greatest good for the greatest number" then
>>>licensing generics would become easier.
>>>
>>Yes! We agree.
>>
>
> Fine. Then let's pass a law saying that every company
> and corporation must have "creating the greatest good
> for the greatest number" in their company charter.
>
That would hardly be effective or meaningful. The very notion
of what it means to succeed needs to broaden and not by fiat. It
is a shift of consciousness, if you will, of enough individuals
to effect societies.
> Now, of course, afterwards, when you saw that this achieved
> nothing, it would be necessary for some proper moral body
> to seize control and censor the companies' activities that
> violated this ethic. Shades of 1917.
>
You are talking about something totally of your own imagining
that has nothing at all to do with what I would suggest. I
didn't even make any concrete examples rather than to talk a bit
about the one aspect of the problem as I see it. So "Down Boy!"
>
>>[Malcolm again]
>>
>>>Unfortunately that would require not just reform of the patent and legal
>>>systems, but the capitalist system, and probably human nature as well -
>>>and that isn't happening till the singularity!
>>>
>>If it doesn't happen sooner I am not sure we will ever get to
>>singularity.
>>
>
> Aha! We get to the point. Down with capitalism, eh? Yes,
There is nothing so sacred about capitalism (although that is
not a proper name for what is really practiced) that it cannot
in whole or part be questined or that it can be just assumed to
be with us forever and beyond question.
> one might admit that capitalism can be pretty evil, but it
> happens to be less evil than anything people can think of
> to put in its place. (How else do you explain that every
So far only. It is built on assumptions of scarcity that
increasingly need not hold.
> single person reading this is living under capitalism?)
There are many explanations for that. None of which say that
capitalism is the only and best way forever.
> You may be saying, "surely it can't be that hard, I mean,
> even I can see how improvements can be made". Well, I don't
> think that you or anyone else on this list is as brilliant
> as Mr. Lenin or Mr. Marx or Mr. Mao, and they all made a
> hundred megadeath mess of things, didn't they?
>
I beg your pardon! I think there are people on this list every
bit as brilliant as these three stooges. :-)
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:38 MST