My Beef with "Social Responsibility"

Post Reply New Topic

I find the term stupid. You here it thrown around in Corporate America along with other politically correct jargon. But do you think they really care about half the things they say they care about? Look at Enron. Prior to going bankrupt, it was considered one of the most ethical companies in the United States. Now go figure. I think social sustainability is a better term. The term focuses on the longer term and not so much on what necessarily might make someone look good (protecting the environment, etc.)

The only goal for a company should be to make profit.

Giving money away to charity or other such things may be noble for an individual, but a companies job is to sell its products and turn a profit. "Social responsibility" only lowers profit margins, which in turn, can cause customers to have to pay more for such products.

I guess I should have put social sustainability in an individual context, but I agree. I think that the whole "Social Responsibility" thing is a farce. Just a marketing slogan.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3Seg0JE1PM[/youtube]

That is pretty funny. And creepy.

It's all about the PR spin. I can't see most company boards motivated by a sense of community and civic duty, only the accompanying tax breaks.

If everyone had a sense of civic duty, anarchy would be perfectly sustainable, even ideal.

As long as one person lacks a sense of civic duty, we will need laws, therefore government.

why do i get the feeling that those arguing for regulation wont be the problem were tha the case?

Government is a necessary evil. It is never a good thing.

ruveyn

Until you need its help.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

He who takes government help has robbed his neighbor.

The government has made criminals of all of us.

Is that a good thing?

All you can say is it is better to accept help from the devil than perish immediately.

Bad alternatives. But we have not figured out a better way.

ruveyn

How is collective responsibility and collective compassion robbery? We all pool our resources with government for the greater good. I doubt any of the founding fathers would have disagreed.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Bill, you are too intelligent for this sh*t. Money taken by force or threat of force is stolen money. Taxation is theft. You know the difference between voluntarily and involuntarily.

Voluntary charity is just great. I believe in it sincerely and I even give a bit of my money and my time.

But collective use of money? No such thing. Money is owned individually. It is not owned collectively.

ruveyn

I'd agree if taxation was charity, but it's not. It's part of a social contract we're all involved in to keep the social good and the ship of state sailing. It doesn't have anything to do with a sense of collective money, but with a sense of the upkeep of the collective good.

And thank you for calling me intelligent. Too many people in everyday life figure I must be simple minded, Aspie that I am.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

you can always opt out of said countries social contract, by moving.

Last edited by Oodain on 23 May 2012, 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

To call taxation theft is an oxymoron. Theft is a legal term for unauthorized acquisition. Taxes are also legally defined by a government.

As much as many like to complain about taxes they are quite necessary in modern society. We should devote more time to discussing how well those taxes are used.