Humans definitely have control over how a corp behaves. The argument that they don’t is just a convenient way to absolve a small minority of greedy people from blame for the harm they created as the direct result of their greed.
> Humans definitely have control over how a corp behaves.
I will counter this with: The argument that the humans that make up a corp are in control over it, and that the corp behaviour simply results from their flawed and greedy characters, is just a convenient way to blame someone because the real problem of understanding what kind of entities corps are, and how to influence and control them is too hard.
then maybe corps should be dissolved. publicly traded corps are here to maximize profit by any means necessary, and there are individuals that work for them, and also those who invest in them. at the end of the day corp is a group of humans with certain interests.perhaps, rouge corps that act against humanity should dissolved and / or be heavily taxed with taxation helping the public overcome the hurdles created by this corp. in reality, politicians are helping these corps grow even bigger.
I'm not defending corps. I'm not defending the people that make them up. I'm not attacking them either per se. I'm just saying that maybe viewing them in a different perspective, from a different level of abstraction, may unlock a new solution space.
When dealing with people, we tend to view them as as distinct entities from their individual cells and neurons when we argue about their behavior. We don't talk about this or that individual neuron causing a human to take an action, if anything, we may discuss a group of neurons, but often, we argue about the entire "brain chemistry", even if it's strictly true that some group of distinct neurons are "responsible" for the action the human takes, then so is the bones in their hands, the fibres in their muscles, because they didn't refuse (to refuse, is to no longer be part of that body). Maybe it's the moral thing to do, for a cell to refuse to be part of the immoral human, but it does not absolve the human from responsibility, and it does not put all the responsibility on the indvidual cells that make it up, humans are complex organism, corps are made out of humans, they are even more complex. Treating them as a collection of humans is what we have done so far, and while we've gained some satisfaction seeing a (too few) very disgusting people getting what they deserved, it's not changed the overall behaviour of the companies, because, killing or changing one neuron won't change a brain, replace neuron with human and brain with corp.
On a higher level of abstraction, the corp as a form of life, maybe a cancer, maybe a rat, or something that could potentially be a positive thing, we may start a new way of reasoning about and with them.
After all, I can talk to you, I know how to do that, but I can't talk to your neurons directly, I don't understand their modes of communication, it's on a different level from me.. This is why psychiatry is behind, we don't know how brains work well enough, we can give medications to take the worst out of them, like treatments for adhd, or schizophrenia, but they don't work on the brain in a coherent way, they work on the individual neurons in a very crude way, and so, the effects are nowhere near perfect, and the side effects can be almost as bad, or in some cases worse than the decease.
At no point has anyone ever said a cooperation is controlled by a single entity. It’s already acknowledged that a corporation behaves according to a culture.
What I’m saying is that culture isn’t its own uncontrollable entity independent of influence from the people that run the corporation. A company’s culture is dictated by the people who lead and make decisions for that corporation. A culture is driven from the top down.
The problem isn’t understanding what type of entity a corporation is, it’s fining people who are both motivated to make the change but also has the power to make any changes.
The real hard part is working against the rigged system. People who can enact change won’t because it’s not profitable. Whether you’re the MP bribed, sorry I mean “lobbied”, by corporations, or you’re the corporate director that had to navigate the cutthroat ranks to reach your position, there’s literally no personal interest to do the right thing. Literally everyone who can control these beasts suffer from massive conflicts of interest.
So the problem isn’t understanding the problem. We already know what the problem is. We just don’t care enough to change it.
You reject the notion that people making up a corporation can control it but then expect people from outside it to be able to do that?
At the very leaset everyone inside the coporation can choose to quit. Yes that may not be an easy choice but that doesn't mean there isn't a choice. More often than not the choice is not nearly as costly as people want to pretend. And yes we should hold individuals accountable for making immoral choices just like "I was just following orders" should never be a valid excuse.
