IRC log started Fri May 16 21:08 Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that all channel logs are the copyright of the channel owners: Pankaj Saxena and Tom Wright. Logs may not be redistributed in any form without the prior consent of the channel owners. Tonight's discussion is on "Pro-Capitalism Business Practices", and will be moderated by Eriks Goodwin. As usual, the discussion will be conducted in keyword-protected mode. If you see someone off-channel whom you think would like to join the discussion and would not be disruptive, please message me or Wright. Go ahead, Eriks Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Tonight's discussion will center around the question of how far and how strictly a business or a customer should work to promote capitalism through their sales, purchasing or trade practices. how far and how strictly a business or a customer should work to promote capitalism through their sales, purchasing or trade practices. My own company has adopted a strict policy regarding the certification of suppliers and vendors as complying with the company policy, which is: "In seeking to support capitalism, UniMatrix International does not knowingly sell products or services manufactured in communist or authoritarian countries that grossly violate individual rights. UniMatrix International will not knowingly does not knowingly sell products or services manufactured in trade with companies that make use of slave labor or labor communist or authoritarian countries that grossly violate individual rights. UniMatrix International will not knowingly camp manufacturing practices. UniMatrix International will trade with companies that make use of slave labor or labor camp manufacturing practices. UniMatrix International will hold a sec Please do not ask specific questions that involve my company's data. But feel free to ask about things like how the "public" has reacted. go ahead The first area of discussion is: "How far should a company go to promote capitalism by its trade practices? What measures should it take and what principles should it demonstrate?" Anyone care to start? Got truncated at "Unimatrix International will" I can say something.. UniMatrix International will not knowingly trade with companies that make use of slave labor or labor camp manufacturing practices. UniMatrix International will give preference to clients and suppliers who are decidely ok I would say it is important to promote the right ideas -- businessmen are their own worst enemies, and making your own views of business and economics known is valuable. Brad, how do you suggest that should be accomplished? Like an indivdual, companies should be moral in all their activities. but as far as activism, that is , like inan individual, optional. Yes, Frode? First off, clearly it's in a business owner's self interest to publicly uphold capitalism as a moral ideal - to tell people that they have the moral right to earn a profit. Additionally, one must obviously not lend sanction to anti-Capitalist ideas, persons or organizations. no measures to promote needed. I company with a honest approach and LF capitalist practices should be promotion enough Writing op-ed opinion pieces is one good way. Placing a statement of principle on the company literature is another -- much better than flowering 'mission statements'. That forms the basis of my own policy in this area. joe, are you saying the moral judgement is optional? I am less convinced of the utility or even propriety of 'giving preference to ... pro-laissez faire capitalists' moral judgement is needed. I don't understand what you mean by "pro-capitalist businesses will be treated preferentially" - do the others get a different deal? That has a lot of loaded premises -- like, does it mean you'll buy at a higher price to buy from someone who *claims* to be pro-capitalist? Eriks: what kind of "preference" are we talking about? eriks. no moral judement is not optional. but participating in public activist campaigns is. That would put *you* at a competitive disadvantage. Brad, if I have to choose between doing business with an agnostic and an Oist, I'll choose the Objectivist, hands down. rver. joe, we'll cover that subject more in part two. :-) Brad: How so? Sarah: If a quantity is limited, I'd propose to grant pro-Cap people access over others. Eriks: Even if the agnostic has a better product? I don't think the importance of promoting good ideas under you professional name, or company (if you are the owner) can be underestimated. BradA: please say you meant "overestimated"! If the intellectuals are not going to help us, then we have to help ourselves, and businessmen respect arguments that come from other businessmen. gautam: For selling, I'd apply the standard above. For purchasing, I'll pick whomever has the best product without employing anti-individual rights practices All other things being equal ... but in terms of economic issues there are so many more important factors than explicitly expressed philosophy. Eriks: If you buy from a supplier who charges more than another, your costs are higher, and your profits will be smaller, your ability to grow impaired, etc. Betsy, not necessarily "explicitly expressed". One's views are readily apparent rom their practices. betsy: agreed; implicit philosophy is more important. I will purchase products that come from a good business with procapitalist ethics, a person can use their dollars like votes. BradA: I agree 100% - besides, there are some intellectual who _are) fighting for businessmen - their job would be so much easier if some businessmen stood up for themselves, as well. But most don't, they are pragmatists. Eriks: Then it is the philosophy they _practice_ that is relevant and of value. Are they productive, honest, etc.? You don't get anything in particular from rewarding another businessman because of his personal philosophy. the only relevant reward is for being good at producing. Brad: If staying in business and being competitive meant doing business with China, I'd close my business. Betsy, right. brb Perhaps the best way to promote capitalist ideals is to practice them? Beyond not sanctioning definite and known evil like Chinese products, is it not better to put one's money where one's mouth is and buy the best? What is it saying if we say we should seek the best, then go buy (slightly) inferior goods because of semi-minor philosophical points? Eriks: Fortunately, we have many other options. I agree...avoid China Eriks: I would look at what people/companies do, and produce - not as much at what they are saying. In the context of a business relationship I'd be more worried about being seen together with the businessman who is good pals with the Chinese than I would be about not giving a deal to someone who claims to be an Objectivist, as per the two principles I outlined initially. If you want to use your business to promote your ideas, make lots of money and contribute it to ARI, subsidize a worthy scholar, etc. Eriks: would you close your business at the expence of your family's welfare? Would you not consider yourself "forced" to do business in this case with China? most people are so muddled with regard to explicit philosophy that it's hard to go by that. BlueGreen: I'd rather die that participate in slavery. er than I agree with Betsy. People are far more what they do, than what they say. John: I think the question is when all else is equal. If you can buy the same product from four different businesses, it'd be to your interest to buy from whomever you thought supported capitalism the most. There have been times when I have chosen not to take on certain departments of govt as clients and other times when I have. Subetai, yes. That's what I'm talking about. In most cases, you do have that option. sube: that I can agree with. Betsy: What's your criterion for deciding which to deal with? Betsy: Right, but that doesn't really enter into the picture as long as you are dealing with a legitimate for-profit company. Eriks: Businesses participate in slavery daily here in America. We are not living in a Capitalist country! BlueGreen: We do not practice true slavery here. BlueGreen: we're living in the country that's the closest to capitalism in the world here. Let's not drop context. "True Slavery??" BlueGreen: "True slavery" is the actual and outright "ownership" of a person. Eriks: *You* are not personally responsible for the situation in China, nor can your attempting to assume an unearned guilt help. Imagine if a person refused to do any business with any govt agency -- you couldn't even use the roads Mencken: It must be a legitimate function of govt. I've done a court system for Ventura County and some work on a Juvenile Justice system but turned down anything to do with collecting taxes. What is your goal? To achieve or move closer to a free society? How can you best achieve that? Being richer than poorer sure helps -- you can use your wealth to promote your ideas, and help finance good people who might be unpopular. Eriks: my point is that a business has no choice but to participate in many dealings that may be against ones Philosophy. One does not compromise ones Philosophy by trying to survive. Brad: My goal is to live a life which I consider moral and proper. As far as I am concerned, even buying Chinese tea is immoral until the communists are out of power. BlueGreen: I do not care to survive if not on my own terms. Subetai: re: choosing according to who supports capitalism: In my experience, few business decisions leave one with many equivalent choices. I do not see that BlueGreen. what do you mean? Eriks: Of course, you realize there IS an intellectual division f labor and businesses cannot make foreign policy. BradA: would you say dealing with chinese businesses is legitimate? BradA: That could be. I haven't run a business myself. I'd think though that I were buying a commodity (like groceries) I'd keep away from a store that actively promotes "earth safe" stuff. In fact, I do. Eriks do you also consider it immoral to deal with other businesses that deal with China ? betsy: sure businesses can make foreign policy. why not? Betsy: Businesses make foreign policy every day. They reach where national governments don't. And often where they can't. Besty: I am not interested in making foreign policy, but I am also not interested in doing business with someone who isn't a businessman. But it's their own, chosen "policy". Eriks: You say we do not have 'true' slavery here; but they don't have it in China either -- most people are not slaves, they are living under an authoritarian regime, there are many fabulously wealthy people there now, and many opportunities. tkTad: That's the line of distinction I'm trying to develop. Brad: Have you read Harry Wu's book "Troublemaker"? you know another aspect of that is it is very very hard to not find something made in china...even things that are made in the us have parts from china And you have to pay extortion money *here* too (corporate taxes). BradA: the fabuluously wealthy in China don't generally make their money in commerce. As a rule, those in the US. do. GIANT difference. The GNP of China is less than South Korea and Hong Kong combined. brad: any success in china necessarily benifits the chinese govt. therefore, doing business with any chinese business is immoral. rachie: There is very little I agree with in todays society. I "choose" to live. I must sometimes be forced to deal with irrational people and trade with irrational people in order to ensure my own survival. Eriks "chooses" not to. As for foreign policy, just because the U.S. refuses to cut all ties with China doesn't mean I'll go along with them. There are lots of reasons not to do business with dictatorships: insecure property rights, disgust and loathing, fear for your personal safety, etc. Intellectual impact, one way or another, however, is miniscule. Betsy: the intellectual impact on whom? BlueGreen: Does that mean that you'd "do business" with a guy who robbed your neighbor andkilled his wife in the process if it was to "ensure your survival"? joe: Would it be ok for me to buy art from a painter in China, who was not working for the government? Textiles from a family business? Where is the cutoff point? Brad: Was the painter forced to paint? Eriks: If my survival was more of a "value" to me ...yes. Brad: All businesses in China operate with the consent and permission of the communists. To support Chinese business is to subsidize the communist party, IMO. Brad or for that matter sell to BradA: The problem is, as I understand it, that it's basically impossible to do business in China without being government-involved in some way. I do not agree ..again I say dollars are like votes to keep the businessyou support going_I do not care to do business with a corrupt company or person or governement...it is substandard. brad: you have to consider how such a transaction enriches the chinese govt. When Betsy says business can't make foreign policy, she is using concepts and ideas precisely: "foreign policy' refers to the official government posture towards a foreign regime -- business is not force. Eriks: yes. In China everything helps the govt. Force is always present. Odegard: With all the permit and inspection waste paper over here, how is that really different? BradA: So if I throw a little bit of the baby out with the bathwater, I'm content with that. How will the Chinese "gov't" ever learn the true failure of their system if we keep granting the unearned benefits of ours? Eriks are they 'open' to our opinion ? mencken: Our government is not morally equivalent with the Chinese government. joe: We are living under an oppresively expropriative and regulatory regime -- I could say that any commerce with anyone who supports our government is as immoral as in China. actually, forget the Chinese gov;t... how will the people there ever learn? Eriks: you seem to be under the impression that it is our "duty" to steer them in the right direction!!! Segelbe: You have very little intellectual impact on American society of government with your private economic choices. Public intellectual activism, like writing and speaking, is much better. China's getting better, but in terms of their laws or explicit philosophy, nothing's changed. There could be another Tienamen Square massacre next week. I've always wanted to visit China but I can't see living with myself if I actually took the trip and gave them my money. Odegard: Never said it was. But you spoke of "being involved" with the government. I can think of businesses far from Beijing that are probably freer than many in, say, California. BlueGreen: Not at all. I am simply supporting my own view. I do not propose that it become law, although I do support a complete severance of ties with China. Brad: I completely disagree. For greater certainty: I am *not* pro-china, or dismissive of their regime -- what I am *primarily* opposed to, is those who don't recognize the full depravity and unacceptability of *our* system. That worries me a lot more. BradA: Our government is not routinely torturing and killing innocent civilians because they disagree with what the goveernment says. Eriks: We have a "moral" right to invade and free the people of China. We have no responsibility to their Government mencken: I own a company in California, and from what I hear about doing business in China I'd say you are incorrect. jeez brad, that's so *libertarian* BlueGreen: of course. ??? How far should a person judge this morality in business. People who get all twisted about China, and glow and gush about the West, are vastly undervaluing the evil of our own circumnstance, imho. china it is easy to spot the corruption. Odegard: Not, perhaps, for the district around Canton. They even have rip-roaring stock markets, let alone a dearth of inspectors from the capital. BradA: For the record, I'm not glowing and gushing about the West :-) (though it was a nice phrase...) Odegard: You make a good point about the government involvement in business in China. I personally advocate full political boycott of repressive regimes. mencken: In Canton they could start killing people due to some old Party Guy gaining more control - or less. That won't happen here. In the close to the words of Miss Rand, "Every time we got tough with with Soviet Russia, you saw the spectacle of their attempts to appease the West." menken: those people live in terror everyday of their lives. It is insulting to them to suggest that they have any semblence of freedom. BradA: Yes, I don't think we should have diplomatic relations with the Chinese at all. Brad:It is not East Bad...West Good. Collectivism is bad...Capitalism is good. We do not live under a Capitalist society here. I think it's wrong, in principle, to do trade with a country that supresses free speech under threat of jail or death. Odegard: No? You haven't seen Chicago in its Machine days. We can accelerate the fall of communism by denying it the benefits of freer societies. Odegard: But where does the guilt stop? I sincerely want to know this. If your supplier uses parts made in China, do you have to drop him? Have you ever played 'Six degrees of Kevin Bacon'? mencken: I haven't, so you'd have to explain what you mean. I'm just an immigrant, anyhow, so my US history may be sketchier than yours. joe: I don't say that they have full freedom. I'm saying that in the breakup of China (and it *is* breaking up) pockets of freedom do exist. As long as China poses a military threat to us, our govt can and should ban trade. One moment please everyone. We're getting waay off topic. Let us return to the question... "What specific practices should a business engage in to promote capitalism?" go ahead... Even so -- I might go on a binge of buying radical left-wing propaganda -- you can't judge the meaning of that without context -- I could be preparing intellectually to battle them, or I could be an advocate. Make charitable contributions to ARI and rational intellectuals. What practices "should" a business engage in to promote Capitalism...none. A business owner has no duty to anyone except himself Eriks: what do you mean by promote? Actively support capitalism in what they say, for one. Make it clear to the local media and community what their stand is on different issues. joe, you tell me what it means to you. What practices? Remain profitable and job-creating. Mention these things in a company newsletter, if you have one. I would love to discuss more the topic question: of what we can do to promote capitalism, in the context of business. Hire Objectivists for the PR department instead of Wesley Mouch types. BlueGreen, no, you have no duty, unless you count duty to yourself. Avoid philanthropy in the company's name. (It gets seized by altruists far too often, if a company has a money fountain.) eriks: I don't know the intention of your Q. May I offer an example of something I think is valuable, that I'm doing/ joe: See Brad's last send on the "topic he would enjoy discussing." Mencken: Depends on which charity. ARI and AFCM ain't bad. AFCM? Americans for Free Choice in Medicine ah, thanks. Odegard: Yes your government does. It regularly imprisons perfectly innocent people whose crime is nothing more than selling a mildly intoxicating, virtually innocuous substance: marijuana. I would call that 'torture'. Betsy: But any company *mechanism* for giving money gets seized to causes or loses its standards. I've seen United Way get twisted, as well. Brad: the use of marijuana constitutes an immoral act IMHO. Brad: but I do not condone its being illegal. Mencken: That's because the United Way is based on altruism. ARI isn't. Eriks: So what - it's not an issue qua rights. Any platform you get - local newspaper, trade meetings, customer relations, whatever. Make sure you let it be known that you support capitalism and are not willing to compromise your principles. Take a moral stand. Isn't there a difference between immorality and illegality? (to stray from the topic) Brad: drugs are a self-liquidating problem... but that's a topic for another night. Eriks: Your opinion on marijuana sounds contradictory Brad: how can you compare the plight and conditions of the people of china to those of US drug dealers! if aspersions are cast against you from any direction, whether you're defending your profitability, your impact on the environment, or anything else, make a *moral* argument to defend yourself. Betsy: Not inherently altruistic, in my experience. But easily made so when employees are browbeaten into "fair share" contributions. joe: in fairness, BradA wasn't. Mencken: United Way is based on need rather than value. Odegard: I think he was, effectively. If just a few businessmen had stood up a hundred years ago and said, "We have the moral right to make this much money and much more," we might have avoided a great deal of the mess we're in now. TJ Rogers is pretty outspoken. See the Cypress Semi-Conductor website. Eriks: if we're time traveling, I'd say a copy of Atlas dropped into the middle of the drafting of the constitution coulda worked wonders. :) Betsy: Though he tends toward the utilitarian, unfortunately. Sarah: :-) Betsy: It can be. I've seen businessmen on United Way boards who are almost fanatical about looking for value in charities' services, not at need. Not all are like that, though. Eriks: Who would they have stated that assertion to? Would they not have to back that up with philosophical reasoning/ Odegard: Rogers could use some philosophical education. Wanna volunteer? Unitd Way isn't even a real charity... Its a clearing house for charitable contributions. Wish there were more like TJ Rodgers around. Though I think he might have libertarian sympathies, but not too corrupt a libertarian. Betsy: I sent him VOS. BlueGreen: To the "issue meetings" that were prevelent back then. TJ ought to be cloned. :) Gautam: Yeah! gautam did you get any kind of response? tk: Not yet. Too soon. Mencken: In good time. There are a lot of philosophically savvy Objectivists entering and rising in the business world. So what else do you folks recommend for running a vocally pro-capitalistic business? I'm surprised no one has mentioned AOB here. Do you think they have a function in promoting proper business values? gautam oic , still great idea :) Eriks: AOB? what are some of these objectivist businesses Assoc. of Objectivist Businessmen. Eriks: of course they do! Betsy: The problem I have with banning trade is the enormous intervention into freedom of commerce that it entails -- there is less of a contradiction when one recognizes that it was *past* egregiously immoral and/or cowardly foreign policy that *resulted* in countries like Russia, China, etc. being a military threat. AOB is awesome! What has AOB done? do they have a web page Eriks: AOB is wonderful for (1) moral support, (2) networking, and (3) profitable business ideas. Subetai: I recomend that a business be run Honestly, ethically, and profitably.If you build it...they will come. subetai: but why should a business be only procapitalist? why not also pro -objectivism (reason, egoism, romanticism). if the goal is a free society, these are equally important areas that need to be supported. I agree with that one Blue Green :) BG: That's a start. Not enough, in my opinion. Joe: Sure. I'm confining myself to the topic of the discussion. Joe: the function of a business is fundamentally to make money, not promote philosophy. joe: pro-capitalist means pro-Objectivist since we're the only *real* capitalists. yes a romantic business :) I like that More "emperor has no clothes" types like Rodgers are also necessary. BradA: Ordinarily I'd say that it's none of our government's business, though in the case of selling weapons to China I could see how that might be a different issue. Joe: I agree. A business looking for a charity write-off can support a theater or dance company as well as ARI. AOB: clgaob@aol.com BlueGreen: Your comment about doing nothing is, please excuse me, ridiculous. The whole *point* of this exercise, is to determine what a pro-capitalist businessmen, who values his freedom and wants to promote capitalism, can do. o.k., Let me introduce the second topic before we run out of time.... Brad: you do NOT have the freedom to trade with murderes and their supporters.. banning such trade is not a violation of your freedom. thanks gautam The second part of the discussion is: "Does trade with a non-free country constitute an endorsement of their anti-individual rights views or is it a way of "Does trade with a non-free country constitute an endorsement 'showing them the way' to greater prosperity? Specifically, is the continued MFN trading status that China enjoys from of their anti-individual rights views or is it a way of the United States right or wrong? Or, what steps should be 'showing them the way' to greater prosperity? Specifically, is the continued MFN trading status that China enjoys from the United States right or wrong? Or, what steps should be taken in relation to Cuba? Is the Helms-Burton Act a proper bill?" why only support art as a write off :( Some of that we already covered, but some we have not. Betsy makes an excellent point. Another thing you can do in this regard, is to try to *sell* companies on the value of promoting better ideas. So do wholesale, what Betsy suggests retail. One thing I have done is (1) hire really GOOD people and (2) give them copies of _Atlas_ for Christmas presents. ;-) When you're clearly trading with productive *individuals* in such a country, not with government cartels, it promotes prosperity. That's only been true for China, at all, quite recently. Betsy: Very cool. :-) hi all. Betsy: wasn't there a co. that required its empls. to read AS? Helms-Burton is arrogant interference in private activities. Send memos to your employees periodically, reminding them what the business is all about. Have an explicit "company philosophy" posted and available somewhere in writing. Eriks: Unless you consider alcohol immoral, it is indefensible to consider pot immoral. And I doubt you'd not care if every person related to production and sale of alcohol was imprisoned. mencken: It is a punishment for companies to benefit from expropriated property. joe: Yes, that bank that's run by an Objectivist, among others; Atlas I think is required reading there for managers. I forgot the name of the CEO/bank, but he was on the talk show. BradA: can we *please* not drag drugs into this! :) Brad: As I said before, I do *not* support victimless crime laws. I am indicating my personal view on the subject. Eriks: The U.S. government is hardly a neutral arbiter of such matters. Helms-Burton is the first morally-courageous foreign policy move in years. if only it covered the whole world, not just cuba. Joe: I don't know. There was a grocery company that put ads for _Atlas_ on its shopping bags and gave you a $5 coupon if you would read it. BradA: It's not the substance it's the use of it. joe: Good for you! :-) Betsy: I love that idea! joe: As long as we have widespread criminal persecution of LEGALLY INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO HAVE VIOLATED THE RIGHTS OF NO ONE then we are living under a certain degree of tyranny. Odegard: That must be John Allison of Southern National/Branch Bank & Trust. Betsy: Yup, sounds right. Can one legally require all employees to read AS? As a condition of employment? Eriks today or in a rational society ? tkTad: today. I don't see why not. sure. It's a private organization. They can do what they want. prolly not :( BradA: you mean making use of stolen property, brokered by murderers, violates no-one's rights!?!?! If its ok to criminalize activities based on WHIM and throw people in jail for it, then IN PRINCIPLE, ANY activity is not possibly subject to such restriction. Michael Milken was one of the greatest innovators on wall street, and purely because of irrational dogma, he was imprisoned. Eriks: If it's a "bona fide occupational qualification," whatever that Newspeak means. I doubt that's true for anyplace other than ARI. :) Eriks: I don;t see why not but I also don't see what good it would do to make it mandatory. I'm about to start hiring employees and I am utterly overwhelmed with the nonsense I am being inundate with from the feds. THAT is unspeakably vile, and I say even doubly so, because the country is allegedly supposed to be free. Hypocrisy automatically doubles the moral damnation of any vice. Eriks: it wold be ok as long as it was in the contract. I'll tell you this much. There will *never* be a management person in my business endeavors that is not at least an implicit Objectivist, if not an explicit one. Eriks: I think the question should be...Can one "morally" require employees to read Atlas Shrugged" The answer would lie in Who Owns The Business and Who is dependant on whom for employment. If one does not agree with the requirment of the job, one is free to find employment elswhere. I am too sick of irrational people to *choose* to have any around me in what will be my greatest achievement: my company. Eriks: Hire thinking, honest, responsible people with a track record for getting the job done. ... Then give them _Atlas_ for Christmas. ;-) Eriks: hypothetical situation: two people apply. The more qualified one is not an Oist in any way. What do you do? Rather than making it a condition of employment to read a book, how about making government-mandated childcare backfire by setting up a Montessori daycare centre and preschool? Betsy: That's my plan actually. :-) Sarah: a non-Oist can never be equal to an Oist of "equal" skills. Segelbe: Hire the more qualified person, of course. For the record i most emphatically disagree with BradA's position Eriks: Huh? Eriks: I have never seen two people who were "equally qualified" for any job. Eriks: That presumes that agreeing with Objectivism means that someone can necessarily think more clearly. Not at all true. Can someone define the Montessori system for me; I've always been curious as to what exactly it is. Betsy: Good point. Eriks: I'm sorry, I was talking about two people of unequal qualifications. O'ists are easier to understand and deal with. But if you're running a business, it's better to hire the more qualified person, so long as you know he's not going to be working against you. Odegard: Regarding weapons, I agree one hundred percent. And any company that wants to produce weapons of mass destruction, can only do so under the auspices of a supervised charter. But again, in my view, this is all interconnected: if you have the right posture towards foreign evil in the first place, chronic authoritarian regimes don't get strong or become a threat. And anyway, Helms is one of the better politician around. Helms? Jesse Helms? joe: WHAT????? Sube: That's a good rule. yes (as in Helms-Burton) Midas: Read _Dr. Montessori's Own Handbook_. It's the best explanation or the article by Bea Hesson in the old _Objectivist_ magazine. MFN!!!??? That status should not even exist!!! The government should be out of the economy PERIOD> joe: The man who stood on the floor of the Senate and said that AIDS was God's retribution for gaypeople??? My understanding is that Jesse Helms is the guy who pushed for the Internet "Decency" laws as well as a lot of other dumb legislation. eriks: well, religious stuff aside :-) joe: There is no such thing as "aside" in Jesse Helms. I can't put religious stuff aside. Joe: aside from the fact that he's a flaming idiot, what have you got left? sube: ok, i didn't know helms was involved in the CDA. When a politician wants to legislate morality, he isn't putting religion aside. joe helm's opposition to castro's regime probably stems from the fact that Communists are explicit atheists Subetai: I would say that corporate propaganda should be limited to those kinds of ideas relevant to the conduct of the business -- you shouldn't be lecturing your employees on Objectivism, or on capitalism, per se, beyond what is relevant to their status qua employee. segelbe: one of the few people resisting all out surrender of US autonomy in forein policy. Brad: I didn't mention lecturing them on anything. I said, have a company philosophy statement. Many businesses these days do. If I'm an O'ist writing such a statement, it's going to be very pro-capitalism. Joe: in exchange for what??? eg. UN, various treaties, etc. *** Well, folks, the clock is striking 12, so the floor is now open. Tad: ok give me examples of objectivist ethics in business Thank you for your time and attention. thanks Eriks Can you sum up the discussion Eriks Thanks, Eriks. :) Well done, Eriks. Thanks Eriks! Eriks: I still don't understand your position. If the Chinese throw someone in jail for the victimless crime of publishing something against The Party, that is monstrous and brands the regime as evil, but if the US govt throws people in jail for the victimless crime of smoking a bit of pot, one just shrugs, forces it from mind, pretends the US is the country it once was, ...?? Helms-Burton is a cynically hypocritical bill. BradA: I don't think anyone's saying that, but it's not anywhere near what China is. BradA: The Chinese Government is evil through and through, the US Government still does perform functions which are legitimate functions of government. Brad: Helms-Burton, is an extremely moral bill, and it is unfortuante that it does not extend to china and other countries. the Chinese Gov't. has a police and military. BradA: Would the US gov be capable of a Tianmen? midas: Look deeper cjs: Yes and, the chinese gov't. doesnt subsidize farming :) CJS: Yeah, except that what's left of the "reacionary" free press would raise hell. BlueGreen: Overseas, maybe. Not stateside. midas but it uses its police against actions by its own citizens toward govt, not for protection of the citizen's rights Please give me some examples of procapitalist ideas in business I asked a new employee at work, to read as a condition of employment, a book on writing software. I did it because it would save me endless hours, and make him vastly more valuable to me, in a short time frame. But AS? I'm not sure about that. I think it is too invasive. Better to try to gently inspire, not push. Betsy: We have a hard enough time finding *anyone* even 'nearly qualified' for our jobs. :) Brad: arent there tons of programmers? Brad: It is hard finding good people for any job, but once you find them, they tend to have other virtues -- and potentials. Subetai, Eriks: OTOH, there are many raving rationalists who claim allegiance to Objectivism. I would, based on empirical experience, be *less* inclined to want someone, purely if they said, 'I'm an Objectivist' -- I'd probaly think, 'Uh, oh.' Brad: Eriks is gone for the moment. I doubt that's what he meant, and I certainly didn't. I make judgements of people based on the entirity of my knowledge about them, not solely on what they say they are. cjs: There are mystics of muscle (China) and mystics of spirit. Force applied to free men in there own country be it China or America is equally wrong. One is only more explicit. Odegard: But providing the legitimate functions of government is NOT rocket science (except maybe for military rocket science). Some good lawers and judges; some good administrators -- presto, you have some courts, a police department -- and what else do you need? It is not a defense to say the govt does some things ok, meanwhile it is monstrously violating rights. What it *is* doing right is so paltry and simple a value, that in the whole context, it becomes NO value. Midas: I hire programmers and there are lot of them with good resumes but not many with good thinking skills, dependability, and depth as people. BradA: A philosophy to make it last more than one generation. joe: Well, why in the hell do you think I describe the bill as cynical? Sheesh -- stupid little Cuba gets this bill, but potentially deadly China gets MFN? C'mon. It is nothing more than the fact that the anti-Castro Cubans are a powerful political lobby -- period. Betsy: Do you have a Driver's Test for hiring programmers? :) cjs: Many people describe the Fed's actions at Waco as approximating that. midas: There are tons of programmers. Tons of employed programmers. BradA: Some describe it that way... Is it? cjs: Make sure they understand basic issues with respect to theory, get them to write some practical programs to solve real-life problems, make sure they can work in a team and employee good methodology (preferably one that your organization use s, or if not, something modern like UML) By the way folks, as a quick addendum, the main reason for my company policy is twofold: 1) I want to promote certain ideas, and 2) in a market that is almost saturated, i must distinguish myself from others selling the same products, and I want to appeal to certain people, hence my direct appeal to other Objectivists. Odegard: But the *government* qua institution, should have very little role in actually promoting the ideas that make it possible. It is inappropriate. Private citizens must promote pro-capitalist ideas, in defense of their system. BradA: I agree again. BradA: This is too much agreement for one evening. Let's talk about programming languages. :) Odegard: Let's not, and say we did. I've had a rough week, myself. :) Eriks: Besides "advertising" in Objectivist media you could sneak "inside joke" Objectivist references into your ads, promotional gifts, etc. We have all our candidates write a simple program to a spec we provide. It takes about 2-3 hours. It tells us *volumes* about them. Everything from its appearance, to UI design, to the coding style, etc. I don't know much about Helms-Burton, but my understanding is that (1) the government takes action against people doing business with the cuban govt (including foreigners, who'd be denied US visas) and (2) lets Americans file suit in US courts against people who benefitted from trade with Cuba. I learn more about someone from examining their test, than I do in interviewing them. Subetai: the suits are for companies that benefit from property stolen from American firms. Eriks: Yeah, but since it'd be hard to figure out exactly where that property went, that's pretty wide. Eriks: Regarding point 1): that is excellent, but just keep in mind what are the best ways to do so, and when it is likely to be efficacious, point 2) Objectivists are still a small minority. :) Bacardi knows exactly who "owns" its plants now. ok BradA: I still think it's important to see what they know about how to think about programs - where they stand "philosophically" in that regard, etc. Some people write good code but aren't very explicit about how they think - perhaps that's the case with most people, actually. Some members of Canada's legislature proposed similar legislation (as a protest) of Canadian property seized by the U.S. in the War of 1812 IRC log ended Sat May 17 00:08