Philosophy Now Forum

different means to an end result. government seeks civil harmony. business seeks profit margin. business must have law to govern it otherwise monopilistic and unscrupulous use of resources will result. It's not always the motives of business to provide civil harmony. government is democracy and business is empire building. They don't share the same goals

If you and I are allowed to treat institutions differently from the way we treat people, Bob, so should the government be. Why do you want to discriminate against governments, Bob?

mickthinks wrote:If you and I are allowed to treat institutions differently from the way we treat people, Bob, so should the government be. Why do you want to discriminate against governments, Bob?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point. All I am saying is that if it's OK for me to discriminate against whom I want to hire, it should be OK for businesses to discriminate against whom they want to hire.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point.

A divinely inspired prophet would not be having any difficulty, Bob, so I guess that must be very disheartening for you!

Maybe this will help:

All I am saying is that if it's OK for me to discriminate against whom I want to hire, it should be OK for businesses to discriminate against whom they want to hire.

But that isn't all you've said, Bob. You have added this flawed premise to support your silly thesis: "The government should not treat businesses like General Motors any differently than it treats people."

The government and General Motors are both institutions, are they not, Bob? Either it is the case that institutions are entitled to the same rights as persons, or it isn't. Which is it to be, Bob?

What answer does God inspire you to give us?

mickthinks wrote:The government and General Motors are both institutions, are they not, Bob?

Please, you're talking to somebody who is very familiar with institutions. As it says in the "The Ouzo Prophecy," "The evil that lurks in the minds of men is manifested in the collective evil of the beast. Understand the man and you cannot be deceived by his institutions." The two most dangerous institutions are religion followed closely by government. General Motors is a company, not an institution.

Government (more accurately, those who govern) isn't (aren't) prejudiced against business.

Those who govern (and those they ostensibly represent) just want to squeeze as much cash out of business (owners/operators) as possible.

It's cow-milkin', pure and simple.

"on what basis should the government be able to tell a company that it can't discriminate against present or future employees on the basis of race, religion or gender, and pay them whatever it wants to, huh?"

The only basis, only justification, those who govern need (for anything) is their wielding of the big(ger) stick (and the [largely manufactured] consent of the bulk of the non-governing folks). Again: it all comes down to gettin' the milk.

I don't like it, you don't like it, but there it is.

General Motors is a company, not an institution.

lol Alfred Sloan referred to General Motors as an institution rather than a company. https://books.google.de/books?id=XU93AA ... on&f=false

But if the word "institution" keeps you awake at night, I'm happy to substitute "organization":-

The government and General Motors are both organizations, are they not, Bob? Either it is the case that organizations are entitled to the same rights as persons, or it isn't. Which is it to be, Bob?