Thread

1. djoldman · 1790864377 · focus · HN ↗

   It often strikes me as quite the biased and one-sided take when a tax-paying entity is called out by the press for tax avoidance (NOT tax evasion, which is illegal). (yes TFA implies that Meta is breaking the law, I'm not talking about situations where entities break the law).

   Previously we've seen "The Secret IRS Files" from Propublica as well as other coverage of tax avoidance that never resulted in tax evasion charges. Coverage wide enough that it's arguably safe to assume that no laws were broken because there was quite the demand for an enforcement response.

   The funny thing is that a more accurate title for these pieces would be, "Federal Government Allows [tax-paying entity] a Massive Tax Break." And then the piece would be all about how the senate, congress, and president either explicitly wanted there to be this extreme tax loophole or was incompetent and allowed something they didn't mean to allow.

   Folks are continually getting upset and riled up about players in the economic system instead of who and what makes the rules.

   An analogous example: everyone got cranky about Martin Shkreli, mostly because he raised prices on Deraprim, although also because many would label him a brash jerk. But he went to jail for finance stuff, not raising prices. Why? Because raising prices in the way he did wasn't something the feds thought was illegal or wasn't something they thought he could be convicted of.

   Folks get mad at Musk, Zuckerberg, etc... if they're doing something illegal, ok yea that makes sense. If folks are mad about actions that are legal, it makes zero sense to be mad at the actor. Be mad at the people/entities who created the legal loopholes and laws.

   1. danbruc · 1790865207 · focus · HN ↗

      It is perfectly fine to be upset about certain lawful behaviors because lawful does not mean good. This does also not exclusively apply to companies, people can be law abiding assholes. And it works in the other direction, too, sometimes unlawful behavior is good behavior.

      1. jvanderbot · 1790865984 · focus · HN ↗

         But GP comment is not about how you feel about it. It is about where you direct that anger. If you dislike what a powerful entity does, well, we the people are supposed to have a recourse in our representatives. Why precisely is it that we feel like we do not?

         1. estearum · 1790866396 · focus · HN ↗

            Unlimited corporate spending in politics?
         2. danbruc · 1790866807 · focus · HN ↗

            I expect everyone to behave nicely even in the absence of laws. The reason that I am not killing people left and right is not because it is illegal to so but because it is immoral. The law is a last resort to disincentivize certain behaviors or hold you responsible after the fact, it is not what should exclusively guide anyone's behavior.

            1. cheonic4040 · 1790867900 · focus · HN ↗

               > The reason that I am not killing people left and right is not because it is illegal to so but because it is immoral.

               Evolution and natural selection does not care about morality.

               Why should humans?

               “because humans are better than apes” …? Weak argument.

               1. eradicatethots · 1790868022 · focus · HN ↗

                  [dead]

               2. mullingitover · 1790868634 · focus · HN ↗

                  All human behavior, including the way humans universally have a sense of right and wrong, is the result of evolution and natural selection on some level. Morality isn't some concept cooked up by aliens, it's a naturally emergent behavior and not just in humans.
               3. ordinaryatom · 1790868697 · focus · HN ↗

                  Evolution does not care about morality, but it did create the faculty of morality on humans
               4. nkrisc · 1790869284 · focus · HN ↗

                  Because we have free will and choose to subject to morality. We have what we have today because of morality (in some form), not in spite of it.

                  Without some moral system, we would live like every other animal, and don’t mistake that for a judgement.

                  1. chii · 1790869978 · focus · HN ↗

                     People like to believe they live moral lives, unlike animals. But when the system breaks down, people quickly start behaving like animals - the ones who don't gets killed rather quickly.

                     This has been presented in fiction countless times, and those fiction is not made up from thin air.

                     1. nkrisc · 1790876800 · focus · HN ↗

                        That doesn’t contradict anything I said.
            2. parineum · 1790867953 · focus · HN ↗

               > The reason that I am not killing people left and right is not because it is illegal to so but because it is immoral.

               And if it wasn't illegal, some immoral entity would outcompete you by killing all of their rivals (including you).

               The whole point of the law is to standardize morals so immoral actors don't gain advantage.

               1. mind-blight · 1790871028 · focus · HN ↗

                  Not necessarily. Humans aren't really capable of living entirely solo. We rely on a society - even a small tribe - to provide resources that we struggle to make. We evolved for tribes and tribalism to support our survival.

                  People who commit murder wantonly are generally untrusted and/or shunned. Being banished is really dangerous, so people tend not to go on more killing sprees even without formal laws

                  1. TeMPOraL · 1790874079 · focus · HN ↗

                     All true, but you look at it from the wrong angle.

                     Yes, people are naturally social and naturally enforce social norms. But this natural ability doesn't scale beyond a tribe (see also: Dunbar's numbers). Our natural social patterns only work when everyone in the group knows everyone else and they all interact frequenlty.

                     Laws didn't invent morality or punishing antisocial behavior. Laws are what allows them to scale and support societies of millions, where most of your daily interactions are with strangers you'll probably never again see in your life.

            3. lazide · 1790868010 · focus · HN ↗

               Sounds like you’re lazy?

               ‘Everyone should be good because it’s the right thing to do, and making them not be murderous assholes is exhausting’.

               Which hey, that would be nice, but it’s clearly not the case - as demonstrated by the non-zero murder rate all the time.

            4. jvanderbot · 1790868534 · focus · HN ↗

               And, carry that forward, what do you expect to happen to people who do not act according to your definition of nice? You either accept they are different, or try to prohibit the activity.

               Jumping from "money making via tax breaks" to "murder" is quite a jump, also. These are along a spectrum of choices.

               1. danbruc · 1790878386 · focus · HN ↗

                  Sure, that is why we have laws. My point is only that it is perfectly fine to be angry at those doing bad things. Being mad at the law makers is misdirected unless they maliciously or incompetently enabled the bad behavior. And ultimately one would maybe even have to look into the mirror, who put those people into power?
            5. ryandrake · 1790870985 · focus · HN ↗

               But companies are not part of "everyone". Companies are amoral. They have no concept of morality, only legality. If doing X produces Y profit and is legal, they will do X. If doing X produces Y profit, but is illegal and the fine times the probability of getting caught is Z, then they will do X if Y > Z. Shame and morals have nothing to do with the equation.

               1. Gormo · 1790876785 · focus · HN ↗

                  There seems to be a very serious ontological muddle-up at the core of your argument.

                  On the one hand, you're referring to "companies" in a way that rejects them as concrete entities that possess moral agency: excluding them from "everyone", calling them "amoral" etc.

                  On the other hand, you're referring to them in a way that attributes purposeful, intentional action to them, in a way that requires them to be concrete entities possessing moral agency: you're describing them as entities that do things in pursuit of desired goals, respond to incentives, etc.

                  These are contradictory concepts, yet you seem to be using the first as the rationale to formulate opinions about the second! How do you reconcile this?

                  1. ryandrake · 1790877515 · focus · HN ↗

                     A thing can have limited agency and the ability to act, but still not consider morality as an input guiding those actions. An autonomous robot, or a wind-up toy, for examples.

                     1. Gormo · 1790880249 · focus · HN ↗

                        I'm not sure that I'd consider a robot (which I'm not sure can actually be autonomous) or a wind-up toy as actually possessing any form of agency, per se -- these are things under the control of some person or persons, who are responsible for its action, and whose intentions are the only ones applicable to its behavior.

                        In the case of a "company", I wouldn't even necessarily call it a thing per se, as much as I'd regard it as a kind of reificiation, a shorthand used to refer to a pattern of human activity as by a single name for the sake of convenience. It may be that the actual people involved, for whom the "company" is merely an organizational model they're using to coordinate their activities, often have motivations and intentions that they allow to supercede their moral consciences, but that's still on them.

                        Attributing either blame for malice or credit for productive results to the organizational model itself, as though it itself possessed agency, seems to be a very fundamental error.

         3. ulrashida · 1790867411 · focus · HN ↗

            Would you agree that public/consumer sentiment towards corporate behavior can change that behavior?

            1. usefulcat · 1790868162 · focus · HN ↗

               Can it? Sure, sometimes, to some extent.

               I think a better question is, how effective is that compared to legal requirements.

         4. enraged_camel · 1790867490 · focus · HN ↗

            >> But GP comment is not about how you feel about it. It is about where you direct that anger.

            Don't worry, my anger is limitless and I can direct it at both corporations and corporations at the same time.

         5. hiddencost · 1790867513 · focus · HN ↗

            Partially because organizations like Facebook spend heavily to ensure they're not taxed fairly.

            1. djoldman · 1790868710 · focus · HN ↗

               Isn't this a good example of it being more accurate to blame the system that allows the spending?

               The general assumption should be that at least some people/corporations will do ANYTHING that is legal as long as it is profitable.

               1. miltonlost · 1790869327 · focus · HN ↗

                  A system is also composed of its pieces. There's plenty of blame to go around. Trying to blame entirely the system and absolve the company of its immorality is nihilistic. Stop thinking that companies aren't to blame just because they take advantage of a bad system.
         6. zja · 1790868501 · focus · HN ↗

            > Why precisely is it that we feel like we do not?

            Because we don’t, our representatives work for companies like Meta, not ordinary people.

         7. jayd16 · 1790869335 · focus · HN ↗

            This like saying, "If you don't like the king making the rules why are you in a monarchy, hmmmm?"
         8. Yizahi · 1790892916 · focus · HN ↗

            Humans are tiny and powerless against corporations and governments. It may be a novel concept, but it is totally morally and ethically fine for humans to be hypocritical and pick one fight over the other, single out any random bad entity or engage in a so called "cancel culture" (also known as good old boycott) against corporations and governments. When playing against stacked odds, all methods are good.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.