[clug] Linux Google OS coming..

[steve jenkin]

Ric de France wrote on 9/7/09 11:06 AM:

>> ... 'corporations are inherently evil' thing is
>> misunderstanding the whole thing. 

> Seen "The Corporation" doco? http://www.thecorporation.com/
> 
> According to the video's research, to be incorporated was a good thing.

There are a few fundamental structures that have led to the world as we
know it:

 - The "Rule of Law" & public policing. aka The Westminster system.
 - efficient communications & transport (post, phone, roads, ...)
 - Pacoli & 'double-entry' book-keeping
 - Corporations.
 - (please name others)

Incorporation and 'the corporate veil' shifted risk from proprietor to
lender.
Shareholder assets are protected if the company fails.

This is necessary for public companies & sharemarkets.
If they didn't exist, we'd still be in a world of "robber barons".

> I agree with you on the point you've raised. Just because Google is a
> corporation, doesn't mean it has to be a bad one. Let's just hope that they
> know that too!

Enron, World Com, Vivendi, Tyco, Arthur Andersen's and even Bernie
Madoff - all were rogue, all were breaking the law, all (CEO & Senior
Mgrs) did this intentionally.

Like the people running them, most companies, most of the time are just
getting by. It's not that often corporations are intentionally "evil".

But when a large company is led by sociopaths and criminals, the impact
is huge. That said, "nice guys finish last" generally applies. You get
better sales by being aggressive competitors...


There is a completely different type of "evilness" - things that might
offend your morals, but are legal:

- like tobacco (kills people when used correctly)
- 'price gouging' by monopolists or market giants
   (Telstra, Microsoft, ...)
- 'inflated prices' by big Pharma, exploiting live-saving drugs...
- Add your own...


The political system is how Laws are changed.
Moral outrage is its fuel for change.
Democracies allow its expression and change, however grudgingly.


Free, Open & Libre Software are one aspect of a social revolution.
But even within our ranks, individuals hold their own unique beliefs and
their are many competing ideological views.

Where do we draw the line on this discussion??
It's open-ended and in the end goes to individual morals & ideology.

A better question is:
 How do we have fruitful discussions on areas we don't have consensus??

> 
> ;-)
> 
> ...Ric