https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Wigand
Trailer: https://youtu.be/MGOb29aePyc
The best scene: https://youtu.be/gNKmmA6_oTQ
Surely there's better sources to read/watch than a fictional dramatization?
It doesn't matter if you're right; it doesn't matter if the group is doing bad things; it doesn't matter if speaking up will help save lives.
The function of the group is to survive as a group; it will do whatever it takes to achieve that.
Laws that go against human nature fight an uphill battle; it doesn't mean we should not try, but it does mean we should be aware of the difficulty.
I don't expect the greedy and powerful to change, but as a society we should do more to protect whistleblowers, the same way we protect threatened witnesses.
Also, more solidarity between workers, although not always possible, would go a long way. So many Google employees can definitely afford to quit in solidarity, or strike. Not saying it's easy, I recognize it isn't.
I'm reluctant to name it "human nature", but let it be.
Most laws are needed to restrict "human nature". Moral codes exist to restrict "human nature". So it is the fate of a law.
> The function of the group is to survive as a group; it will do whatever it takes to achieve that.
It is an oversimplification I believe. Groups have very different goals, and sometimes money is more important then group existence. Groups can accept additional existential risks to increase profits, in such cases it means money has more importance for a group than its existence.
No indeed it's not specific to the west, but the emphasis was worth it: many western people have such an high opinion of their country that they believe it could only happen in Iran, Russia, North Korea and the likes
After all, laws in a rule-of-law country are better thought of as restrictions on the state, not the individual. Without criminal law, what's stopping a police officer for killing you if they think it's appropriate? Laws protecting whistleblowers can then be seen as a promise by society to individuals: "If you come forward, we have the power to protect you."
Not all "groups" are created equal though. I think a big factor in this is how much people make the group a part of their personal identity. If they feel like they are the group (ie "I am American"), then they feel like an attack on the group is an attack on them (is "Americans are dumb" means I am dumb).
Not all groups latch on to their members sense of identity like that, and in that case an attack on the group is much more acceptable to members of the group.
The west is unique because it has created a very believable façade of cleanliness, majority of the population believes that whistleblowing works and often allegations of corruption are treated like conspiracy theory.
In, let's say, Russia, everyone knows that things are corrupt, at least they are realists.
> fight an uphill battle
For some reason our ideology talks about entrepreneurs as wealth creators and completely forgets about wealth creators that our society doesn't reward or punishes, like whistle-blowers.
1-2% of the population may be a sociopath / psychopath — but its still considered “abnormal psychology”.
If someone had proof that a device I made was hurting people, I wouldn’t try to destroy their life or kill them.
A lot of this whistleblowing doesnt even have jailtime as a consequence to those who failed their duty of care - often it just means they’ll make a few million less dollars but still be plenty comfortable.
We shouldn’t feel its “normal” to murder / torture / assault or ruin the lives of these whistleblowers any more than we think sociopaths are “normal”.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/06/ebay-execs-sent-... <- this is not just normal “human nature”. It’s the result of abnormal psychology.
The amount of cases where C-suites or owners take it very personally and go on vengeance streak are many... you don't want to fight bunch of very well-connected rich sociopaths hell-bent on destroying you or worse, and from position of a 'nice guy'.
If the person has pre existing medical condition like diabetes, doing good will literally cost one’s life . Living the experience, for voicing discrimination at employment situation
Have interviewed 176 attorneys over 2 year period with only 5 confirming that the discrimination is illegal , but they had signed agreements to not represent employees.
Found out that one can buyout judges, apparently a judge can punish a legal practice if they don’t want a whistleblower case be presented
Being rich definitely allows one to be ignorant all these ongoing friction in life
TBH that's the only circumstance in which I think it would make sense to whistle blow.
"In 2012, as a consequence of his whistleblower status, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) awarded him $104 million, 26% of the total $400 million in taxes returned. It was the 4th reward paid to date since the IRS Whistleblower Program went into effect in 2006."
He did 40 months in prison as well but stil...
It's equally-lucrative in Defense. You won't work anywhere ever again, but the DoD pays out enough to make it worth your while.
With regulatory capture and the revolving door between .com and .gov, those who run the corporations and those who are supposed to respond to the whistle are often hanging out in the same back rooms.
The general response seems to be a slap on the wrist and a hardy “Don’t get caught doing that again!”
Forget about whistle-blowing in Europe, it will likely blow up in your face. Best thing is, if you are in a company with unethical behavior, to pack your stuff and leave ASAP and hope that you don't get anything of the fallout.
I couldn’t trust a whistleblower. While grateful for a lot of the work they do, I never want to be their target and would never risk getting close to them.
It's a bit reductionist to consider the things that get whistleblown about as just "everyone has their secrets". Alice is illegally spying on all of society, well, everyone has their secrets. Billy has a porno magazine hidden in his closet, well, everyone has their secrets. Charlie is stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers, well, everyone has their secrets. Daryl is running a child trafficking ring, well, everyone has their secrets. Not all secrets are the same.
> I couldn’t trust a whistleblower. While grateful for a lot of the work they do, I never want to be their target and would never risk getting close to them.
So, you make it a little more likely that whistleblowers will have a hard time, and a little more likely that whistleblowers will be discouraged from ever whistleblowing in the first place. The end result is that you are a little more likely to be affected by the corruption that might have been stopped by whistleblowers.
Everyone has their definition about what a "good person" is. Let me offer my definition. A "good person" is someone who is more likely to benefit than to be harmed by widespread wistleblowing. Good people should want whistleblowers to be protected and commonplace.
I have secrets, but if someone were to leak them nobody would seriously employ the term "whisteblower".
Implying that because someone doesn't want to stay quiet when he sees unethical/unlawful things they can't be trusted on a personal level is a dehumanizing thing to say.
I might be breaking a rule here, but this comment could probably be found verbatim in some company's playbook to discourage whiteblowing.
You see, it makes sence, consider that guy over there - corporate drone, climbing the ladder, would sell his own mother - totally trustworthy, you know what he is gonna do.
But this guy, who values his abstract principles and integrity above any social contract? Can you tell when he has had enough? Do you even know what his values are? What if, one day, he decides that the place is so miserable, so corrupt, so complicit in suffering, that he just burns it all to the ground?
This would definitely not be as bad in other countries like India where Foxconn is also trying to setup production.
I'm always amazed how cheap and well China can manufacture a wide variety of devices. There is ofc a lot of expertise and economies of scale at work, but the letter is a sad reminder that at least some part comes from exploitation.
I don't think this would even fly in the US.
I would be surprised if this had ended differently.
It is kind of bizarre, but the incentives are perfectly aligned, if the tax evasion sum is low you get paid less therefor it is not worth whistleblowing. The IRS doesn't want to catch the small fries, to some extent tax evasion is desired for smaller companies.
What?
There are some good points in this article (the optimal amount of fraud is non-zero) that can be extrapolated to other parts of the financial world. The highest level point is that sometimes, a little slippage is needed for business to get done, and getting business done is the main goal of the economy.
https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...
This guy's life is ruined, his extended family's social credit sullied and, in addition to serving time, he's become the one of the abused workers he tried to protect.
If I was the owner of a company and I had read that letter, I wouldn't be able to live with myself without first trying to do something about it. Maybe that's why I'm not the CEO of Amazon. Maybe we shouldn't be surprised. I know a guy who went mentally ill after his tenure there. Took him ten years to get back into another job. We're talking about the guy who thought a Vogue Cover with Lauren Sanchez was a good idea.
I'm not anti capitalism, anti manufacturing in china, or anti billionaire. I only wish that a human would deliver that letter to Jeff.
Admittedly, I couldn't imagine the world we have today 10 years ago and I can't imagine the world in 10 years time if it continues down that path. I just don't see the point. I don't want to be rich in such a hypothetical hell hole so my mind doesn't see the point going there.
I've yet to see any whistleblowing case not end badly.
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-89
https://nymag.com/vindicated/2016/11/sherry-hunt-took-on-one...
Some (many?) of those folks did suffer discrimination and even outright persecution from their employers, and horrible financial strain before the eventual payout, but their cases eventually ended up quite well for them.
The reality is most countries are corrupted to varying degrees by economic concerns, and it doesn't matter if the country claims to be communist or not.
There is no reward except misery, exile, indefinite imprisonment, and/or assassination for pie-eyed, meat-headed idealists.
Where "others" = "total fucking sociopaths who know nothing but greed and should not be participants in society".
In that case, yes, I agree.
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/us-prison-labor-programs-vio...
> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
So it makes little sense to compare prison labour programs to "any other workplace".
I can sort of accept, reluctantly, that the Chinese have a different way to thinking than I do and that I can't necessarily apply my moral code to China. What I cannot accept or understand is that the owners and managers of Western companies, who supposedly share my moral ideals, continues to do business with China, solely to increase profit. It's absolutely disgusting. The mental gymnastics these people have to do to justify or just ignore the problems is beyond what I can even imagine.
Are you really sure that these people share your own moral ideals? ;-)
They do care about profit margins, which is why they outsource slavery.
China is not alone in this, just more present in the HN-relevant IT/tech sector. But clothing in southeast asia, mining in africa and south america, logistics/trucking in eastern europe are relevant examples from other regions and industries.
I don't intend to disperse responsibility here or distract, quite the opposite: One of the main reasons the aforementioned abuses can continue is that "the civilized west" systematically ignores those problems on all levels. There are some EU regulations coming up to improve this situation, but we'll have to wait and see on those...
They do, they hired killers to murder Union leaders in Columbia
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jul/24/marketingandpr...
Western Consumers don't care either
(same with countries where we get energy resources from - they don't have ideal reputation for human rights, but they are cheap).
It is kinda simple: you can buy a tshirt from Italy produced in Italy and having price tag 3 times more. Or you can buy from China... Now think you are a company with thin margins and have to do the same... And your items are after getting sold on Amazon, which algorithms would force you to sell as cheap as possible, otherwise your item would not be seen in the search results.
SUPPOSEDLY - just like Big Tobacco has always wanted everyone to know the scientific truth about the health effects of smoking tobacco, right?
Capitalism optimizes for profit. If some profits need to be foregone or spent on pretending to share the moral ideals of the consumers - that also gets optimized, to minimize performative idealism and its costs.
Do you really believe that Chinese are different from US in this regard? I.e. that most Chinese people believe that it's perfectly ok to exploit people to the bone, because they have alternatives? No, they, just like us, believe it's a rotten thing to do, and agree to it only because well, they have no alternatives. No different than the extremely exploited workers in hellish factories in XIX century US or England.
I want to inject some nuance here. Competition in the labor market, which drives business to low- or middle-income countries like China, is really really good for the typical low-middle income person in China. If wealthy countries pulled out entirely, then China's GDP per capita will probably drop from $12,000 back to sub-$5,000 and you will be causing more suffering for the people you're concerned about. By all means, advocate for better pay and conditions and regulations, but don't advocate for pulling out of poor or middle income countries with lax labor protections entirely. It wasn't clear to me which avenue you're arguing for but I feel it's an important point worth stressing.
Here's what it is: in law corporations are essentially given a weird kind of personhood. It's that way so corporations can get things done.
Unfortunately, corporations aren't people: they don't care, they don't have ethics, they don't have morals, they don't have values, they don't have family, they don't have a conscience.
It's not an original observation, but due to this, the type of person a company most resembles is one of posessing profound psychopathological traits.
"I can sort of accept, reluctantly, that the Chinese have a different way to thinking than I do and that I can't necessarily apply my moral code to China."
so, give them a pass with what they are doing and then criticize others that are giving them the same pass, and also choose to profit from it.
What about people who buy stuff made in China? do they get a pass too? So the only party at fault is the middle-man? slave owners get a pass, consumers that enable the slave owners get a pass and the only party at fault is the evil middle-man corporations?
If its wrong, its wrong for all parties, if its OK, its OK for all parties.
You can't expect companies to fix this, this needs to come through politics and government. Unfortunately, these days governments who try to address it will be considered enemies of capitalism, considered leftish or communist. As prices will have to rise and consumers won't allow for that.
It's unfortunate that American and European voters don't realize that allowing our companies to do business with places famous for worker's rights abuses and lack of environmental controls affects them, too.
I would guess someone might have informed him of this letter or he might even as well have read it already. What I would not guess about is whether he would give two fucks about it. Because no he would not. Yes, he and his company has proven this.
Business and profit over all else. That is not just really a Chinese problem.
It surprises me how people still love to try to think that “Oh, this is such a horror! If only the Western corporate overlords had the time in their busy schedules to know of these, this would most likely go away”.
Nope, those cheap contracts were signed with this expectation to begin with it.
US and EU are abusing (often illegal) immigrants and turning a blind eye to their terrible working conditions (eg. the slaughter house scandals in the EU that broke out during COVID).
Plenty of shit on our doorstep and people don't seem to be bothered that much stepping over it. Why would we be upset about a larger pile of shit a continent away ? We are so isolated from Chinese culture, I know very very little about China compared to NA and EU.
Also the west is happy to trade with way worse systems (by "our" standards) than China, middle east being the first to come to mind.
Not justifying China, just confused where these moral standard expectations are coming from.
Click the pictures, get the green tick, click the button, a brand new captcha
That has never happened to me, and I use archive.is/archive.ph/whatever other domain they indicate I should use very regularly.
Reddit is a cesspit.
https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1996/05/wigand199605
But the film is really, really good and I think the gravity of the situation is more apparent than in the article.
My guess would be that things are less corrupt in Russia in 2023 than in most 'Western' countries now.
It would be their opportunity to reach said level. Blackmail their way up the corporate ladder.
Is that how they get there?
It doesn't matter. This still applies even if you haven't done anything yet.
Nobody wants to be friends with the kid who narcs on everyone. Show me the man and I'll show you the crime he's committed. Why subject yourself to that?
In most European countries, in fact not any that I am aware of, will you get a reward for blowing the whistle. If you do, best case, you don't get any legal problems. Don't expect anyone to hire you in the future. Nobody blew the whistle with the "VW/Audi emissions scandal". They would have gotten a big reward in the US. In the trial the big boss claimed as long that he had nothing to do with it, that it was the sole decision of his engineers, until the court offered him a probation sentence. You blow the whistle? Expect that your boss will claim that it was only your responsibility and he knew nothing about it. Emails on the company server? Expect them to be gone.
"Best thing is, if you are in a company with unethical behavior, to pack your stuff and leave ASAP and hope that you don't get anything of the fallout."
When I was a young engineer in a terrible place, the big boss told me to do something. Disregarding all good practices, risking the health of the employees with this action etc. If I had followed his oral command, it would have been at the same time a reason to be fired on the spot. I could have lived with that, but they could have also claimed millions in damages from the circumstances. There were other issues (IP that I developed). I called in sick for two weeks and then submitted my resignation. Best decision ever. I read about this guy many years later in a major newspaper when he screwed another employee totally off. (Do you read hear H.L.?).
Bottom line: If shit hits the fan, people will lie. They will try to throw you under the bus.
I actually emailed my old boss when I saw the newspaper article, put a link to the article and wrote: "I'm glad to hear that you stayed true to your character." He did not reply.
Yes, he got trouble from the Newspaper article, but they guy he screwed over, he screwed over deeply.
Government is also kinda "happy" in the short run. It is easier to hide the real inflation. Before I could clothe in EU produced stuff, and now I can only clothe in asia produced. But I still get the "same" thing as a consumer, even if my real salary lost some power.
That’s not a “threat” - they’re in no danger.
A more appropriate term than 'insiders' would be 'cunts'.
His name was Richard Jewel
And it will still have been made by a slave.
And got forgotten about shortly after. At least that was my impression here in Germany, but I hope I’m wrong.
Too bad we are not evolved enough to have left all of this inhumanity behind along with the extinct hominids, but you have to play the hand you are dealt.
When you think about it though, what most people usually call "human nature" is actually really inhuman nature which has not been fully surpassed.
They wouldn't say it if it wasn't false ;)
Also widely regarded as an excuse to begin with even if not fully recognized as such.
It's always been plain to see the world would be a better place the more inhumanity has been eradicated, but there have always been those who favor more inhumanity not less anyway.
Maybe some people have always been concentrating on their limitations rather than their possibilities, and that's been the limit of their horizon historically since the dawn of man. Others, not so much.
Full "human nature" would be the complete absence of inhumanity in thought & deed.
They are a control mechanism for the masses, nothing to do with right or wrong, which is written in our hearts. But, if you want to disempower the individual, take his money (tax), use that money against him (police, tax inspectors) you need some authorised hymnsheet for the feeble minded to get behind. And that is law.
It's just quite unfortunate we're all reading from different heart books.
citation:
Learning from Schelling's Strategy of Conflict Roger B. Myerson JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC LITERATURE VOL. 47, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2009 (pp. 1109-25) https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jel.47.4.1109
Either it's force labour, or it's not. You can't get away with things just by slapping a different label on them.
> The US constitution actually allows slavery
If a Chinese person posted here "actually all the human rights abuses in China are perfectly legal and in accordance with Chinese law" you would not be impressed.
We wouldn't be like "alright, nothing to see here". In fact, we would probably be horrified that the inhumane system was codified officially, and is here to stay, as opposed to being a temporary result of oversight and corruption.
So forgive the international reader like myself for being extremely unimpressed with this state of affairs.
In my native Latvia, a member of the EU, it’s the most commonly handed out criminal punishment. x hours of unpaid public work. Typically on a strict schedule. Or you can go to the can if you’re opposed to such “slavery”.
Oh and yes, there are also labour programs in our prisons that are probably comparable to the ones in the US. An easy sell actually, because you can either
1. fill your day by doing some work in horrible conditions for basically no pay, but you get to do something
2. rot in your cell all day long
I’m pretty sure that most people pick option 1. After all, you need a way to buy cigarettes.
Nobody calls this slavery.
We also have mandatory military service that started this year. I’m happy to call this slavery, because it’s imposed on people that haven’t done anything wrong.
But you seriously can’t compare forced labour as a punishment for a crime vs any other workplace. It’s disingenious for very obvious reasons. Why not go a step further? Why not claim that it’s a human rights violation to incarcerate people in the first place? After all, the universal declaration of human rights says that EVERYONE has the right to leave their country, re-enter it, and freely move about in their own country, and this is a “universal human right” that’s so clearly being denied to prisoners.
So forgive the international reader like myself for seeing nothing morally wrong with this state of affairs.
This is almost precisely what a legal system is, and does.
Nevertheless, weight and balance can be an issue this is why you need to have a yacht extension to increase length (and occasionally girth - you have to use the swedish pumps for that one). In addition you need to buy multiple solid gold toilets for all the bathrooms, plus a couple extra to use as balast to get the correct balance.
It surprises me how people still love to try to think that “oh this is such a horrors!
Reddit has burned a lot of credibility with the power user and creator types. I know plenty who've moved to Mastodon, Blue Sky, Threads, etc. And by doing so, leaves bottom feeders there. And how else do you get engagement? You fake it, naturally.
I like the parent comment because it made me laugh, so I was expressing my wish that it would be nice to able to appreciate them for it in some way. I used reddit's gilding feature as a shortcut to convey that wish because most people know of it and it's an easy to understand shortcut.
Because reddit is a cesspit, any feature that was associated with reddit at any point of time is not worth using to convey information? How about text quoting and reply buttons, should we stop using them too? What an absurd way to look at things.
I shared a recent anecdote about Reddit, because I was reminded of it from your comment. There was no point, I was just sharing what I felt the same way you did when you wrote about wishing HN to have a gild feature.
But if we want to go down the combative discourse route: you're hyperbolizing. Reddit became the mess it was due to a mixture of many things. One of those was its site design/UI; notably public display of post and comment scores that leads to a "dog-pile" effect, rather than natural voting patterns. Being able to gild just intensifies the effects, and leads to posts being interacted with not because the content of their message is informative or interesting, but because it has countless flashing symbols violating your focus, screaming "look at me! look at me!"
Corporations aren't people but they are run and managed by people. I'd like to think that they have ethics, morals and a conscience.
"Amazon is squeezing employees for maximum profit!" "Yes, they have to maximize profit by law" right, but there are also laws against union-busting, about workplace safety, etc, etc however _for some reason_ these other laws are second tier to a corporation's legal profit mandate.
Why do the poor rice farmers line up to apply for factory jobs?
Well, from an anonymous account, it means jack. Bull, even.
It is a different story when coworker tells "boss" who is lazying around, and a different story when someone reports a serious misconduct towards other people. I'm not sure how to phrase it clearly, but generally I would not associate myself with former people, but I wouldn't mind the latter. Maybe one day they'd prevent me from doing something really terrible (given I wouldn't know better).
(In particular if you're in, say, finance, or a safety-critical industry, you are not going to want to hire someone who has a known track record of failing to report crimes. I mean, unless you're, like, FTX or someone.)
Agreed on the fact that both seem like a corporate hellhole one way or the other.
I think when you go full B2B, you are destined to be a soulless corporate automaton.
If company cares about paying workers enough, your item would be more expensive, but you are still "noname" for the buyer on amazon. And now amazon would push your listing away, because it is expensive. Besides, the client will buy the cheapest option in a lot of cases.
There are exceptions though, when you more or less know what you wanna buy and from which exact company. But if you shopping for something like "massage gun" an have nooooo idea which ones are good or bad, sustanable or not - here you probably get something from the first search page with 5 star review and reasonable price. Not something from a company which cares about longevity of the product or about their workers.
And amazon workers are not living the happiest of their lives to begin with, so probably people would not shop their if the care about sustainability. People care about cheap prices and fast delivery though.
Chick-Fil-A has a lot of control about their operation. Sellers on Amazon have minimum control. It used to be that good price and good reviews would make your item easy to find, but now you also have to pay for it in more and more cases.
There is certainly a niche catering to the handful of customers who do care, have the money to care, have enough information to care and get the opportunity to show they care by selecting the right vendor. But very often I think the consumer is just unable to care because of lacking money, lacking information or outright deception by the vendors and lacking offers from ethical vendors.
And the market unfortunately favors the non-ethical ones. Which doesn't make ethical ones impossible or non-existent, just less likely to succeed and therefore rare.
That's your example of a company with a conscience?
There's nothing western politicians can do to fix working conditions in China.
Embargo them? The working conditions in China won't get any better, and you'll simply put a lot of Chinese out of work by doing that.
Higher tariffs? That's just a tax on importing goods for China. While it helps the domestic manufacturing sector, it still does nothing to fix the working conditions in China.
Consumers suddenly start caring? The same as the "higher tariffs" scenario.
Any other ideas?
I'd hope most people are familiar with the fact that the west, and specifically the CIA, later the NED and many different gov-backed orgs have been hard at work making sure the working conditions of those countries are either kept as exploitative as they are, or if possible made worse. Of course China is a fairly specific case, and while there obviously have been numerous cases of interventionism (like in the Tian'anmen square riots or Taiwan as a whole) stopping the endless anti-Chinese propaganda couldn't hurt (which I'm not accusing this article of being). It's absolutely obvious to everyone that the US and allies would jump at the first opportunity to meaningfully destabilize China's economy so, no, I certainly don't expect anything positive to be done for Chinese workers by western countries, and especially not by a country like the US that should very much look inwards when it comes to working conditions.
You’d just shift the manufacturing to a less hostile environment, where the government doesn’t intentionally make it hard to do auditing on modern slavery. Like India.
I just don’t see how it would help the Chinese labour situation at all.
I strongly disagree with that. Laws (and moral codes) exist to codify the general, agreed-upon human nature. They therefore "restrict," as you say, a subset of people whose internal moral compass is broken.
To pick the most extreme example: most people don't need a law, or even a moral code, to not kill other people. We all (for some large and growing, but not 100%) agreed that killing is wrong, and most of us do not need the threat of a murder trial to talk us out of killing someone who cuts in front of us at the fast food line. To be clear, not 100% of us, but more than 50%, and I hope in many places, much more than 50% of us.
For other, less extreme crimes, the percent of people in consensus might be lower. But even for something like speeding on the highway I think human nature is, on average, a limiting factor more than laws or moral codes, rather than being an uncontrolled source of chaos reined in by law.
People (on average) drive maybe 60-80 mph on the highway (depending on the highway -- looking at you, Montana). If there were no speed limit at all, that wouldn't jump that much: the average speed on the autobahn is apparently 125kph, or 78mph.
Everyone's human nature is, on average, reasonably aligned, and laws tend to reflect that average.
> To pick the most extreme example: most people don't need a law, or even a moral code, to not kill other people.
How it may be a "nature" if it is artificial? Some cultures routinely eat other people, we do not, how it can be a human nature, if different people coalesce at different "natures"?
There is a famous debate "nature vs. nurture", and I believe it is unwise to call something to be a nature thing, if it is really a nurture thing. It just bring a lot of confusion.
> Everyone's human nature is, on average, reasonably aligned, and laws tend to reflect that average.
Eww... averages... I believe it is impossible to have a meaningful definition of an "average person". There was a story of average pilot[1], and later of a search for average american woman (can't find a link). You cannot have meaningful averages in highly multi-dimensional spaces.
But if we rephrase it referring to a social norms, it could make sense, but then comes a question what is the difference between human nature and social norms?
[1] https://worldwarwings.com/no-such-thing-as-an-average-pilot-...
every human has the potential to be a great person. and only education is needed to enable that greatness and allow humanity to benefit from it.
And that's just one facet of our lives. In a low complexity society, especially ones with smaller populations there are typically fewer laws. As society grows, and especially as the populations begin to specialize formalized laws are a natural outcome. The farmer, the taylor, and the brickmaker all need common set of rules for expectation in things like trade and debt that get very hard to coordinate as population size grows.
In short, laws are not (generally) handed down by some authority, against the will of the majority of the people -- at least not in non-dictatorships.
No, no we are not.
It might be the authority of the pharmaceutical industry with regards to what treatments can be provided more psychiatric conditions.
And even then you have to wonder about their criteria - a doubling of diseases with every edition, all those 'chemical imbalances' and not one physical test!
Funny, btw. But, not all truth has to be found in a book.. Arguably, no truth is.
It doesn't make sense to outlaw poor people. And paradoxically, at least under context of international trade, the only sustainable way to get poor countries out of poverty is for richer countries to trade with them.
Of course, a conscience, in and of itself, is only as good as what is aligned to.
1. or something similar, been a while since i went through cloudflare's configuration options
2. this is also why you will never be able to browse the internet with links / lynx / w3m or use curl / wget ever again without using your bare IP
I can switch back and forth and reproduce it perfectly each time.
" One more step Please complete the security check to access "
"Why do I have to complete a CAPTCHA? Completing the CAPTCHA proves you are a human and gives you temporary access to the web property."
which is cloudflare's classic tor blocking page
I'm pretty sure they don't use Cloudflare.
"The market favors" is just an corporate speak for "The customers favor", i.e. in this case "The customers unfortunately favor the non-ethical ones".
The resolution should be on the western governments to tax or fine the ever-loving crap out of companies and their products that utilize systems like this. Then the products' end prices will reflect the true cost to the consumer because any ethically-produced product of equivalent quality should be cheaper.
Therefore it is not really an informed decision of the customer that makes them successful. It rather is the lack of transparency of the market, due to the non-ethical sellers lying and regulation being too lax.
i buy the cheaper of most products because i can't tell the difference. for all i know it could be the more expensive one that is lying to me. only if i actually know that the more expensive one is genuinely better, not fake and not based on exploited labor, then i'll buy that.