Re:A decentralised Universal Basic Income platform based on ...
by iakh on Monday December 11, 2017 @01:19PM
(#15899009)
While I'm personally not a fan of the outcome of Citizens United, the argument that a company is just a collection of people is not unreasonable to me. What makes an individual any better at acting as social glue than a collection of individuals? I'd argue a collection would serve much better, and really it's more the for-profit nature of most companies that is the issue. There's no reason a company has to "maximize the value for shareholders", and it seems more and more companies these days are challenging that notion.
Re:A decentralised Universal Basic Income platform based on ...
by dscpls on Monday December 11, 2017 @04:33PM
(#15900672)
As long as we call it a company, its raison d'etre is precisely to maximise the value for its shareholders. A non-profit has the freedom not to, and can focus on a core mission. As much as I'd love to believe in social entrepreneurship, if you define yourself as something which by base definition maximises value for shareholders, that's what you're gonna have to do when push comes to shove.
So sure - some kinds of organisation can and do provide social glue. The problem is, the capitalist notion of organisation doesn't support this. Not to imply I'm against capitalism - it has its benefits, but social glue is not it.
I'd argue that inserting companies into the positions where these people once were - asking companies to act as social glue - is where we've gone wrong in the past couple of decades.