No.318
>implying you won't work for a corporation that tries to outsource it's jobs to evade taxes
No.337
Whatever you do, remember that trying to have principles is a futile endeavor. We're communicating using machines composed of minerals which were, quite likely, mined using slave labor and assembled under only slightly better conditions. If you want to be an ethical participant in the marketplace, all you can really do is move out to the woods and try to achieve self sufficiency. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I'm currently on the path for a medical career. I am under no illusions that I will be helping people. Hopefully I won't do any more harm than someone else would have.
No.338
>>337Since when principals have to be altruistic?
No.339
>>337I am in agreeance with
>>338The argument that principals and anti-capitalist resistance have to be altruistic is completely unrealistic and silly, and also a poor argument.
No.340
>>337The minerals used to make are phones may have been produced by people living in similar conditions as the sweat shop workers who assemble them but most of these companies manage to stay away from pure grain slavery and the like.
That said, sweat shops arent the only way to make the devices we use, it's just corporate interest is rarely held accountable. This CAN change. Moving to the woods is accepting this reality and trying to wash your hands of it and while others suffer. Working within an imperfect society to improve it in one way or another while limiting all avoidable harm does more for the world than going ape man and living at peace with nature.
The world is an absurd place.
I really do hope there's a way to avoid the corporate nightmare though.
No.341
>>318>implying tax evasion is a bad thingThe state is a disease, and finding ways to not support it is a moral act.
No.342
Need money? Get a job. Need lots of money? Start a business. Need a little money? Start freelancing. Need money desperately? Turn tricks. Need money easily? Spange.
No.343
>>342>start a businessDaily reminder than more than half of all startups fail laughably within the first three years.
No.344
>>341and corporations are worse. taxes go back to people. rich stockholders get richer, the poor lose.
No.345
>>343This.
This needs to be repeated to every little ideaguy glitterboy who feels allowed to argue bullsoykaf because he's "totally going to start up his business tomorrow at 8AM".
No.346
>>344Corps are not worse than the state. You have an option to not do business with a corp. The state imposes itself through violence. If you don't like the practices of a corp, you can start a competing org. If you try to compete with the state, they will hurt you.
No.347
>>346They said "corporations," not "some particular corporations." Your post makes no sense.
No.348
>>347You need to slow down and explain yourself. What are you trying to say? Are you saying that there are some corporations with which you are forcibly obligated to do business?
No.349
Depends on what you mean by "forced"
You have to buy car insurance in America if you drive on public roads, that's probably the most obvious example. However, there are plenty of business with which you are effectively forced to do business. For instance, I can only get internet from a single ISP. What am I going to do, just not have internet? For most people that really isn't an option. Nobody can "force" you to do anything, they can just make the two choices so ridiculously weighted that there is only one realistic outcome. For instance, if I put a gun to your head an told you to eat an apple, most people would say I forced you to eat the apple, because the option of getting shot so heavily outweighs whatever issues you might have with apples. Plenty of businesses operate on a similar way, even if you don't like it you really don't have any better options. You weren't obviously "forced" into doing it, but the same scenario of two heavily imbalanced options was created.
No.350
>>346>option to not do business1) there is a general tendency towards consolidation, which makes it increasingly difficult to avoid a particular business as a consumer
2) you have to do some sort of wage labor or starve, which makes it difficult to completely avoid a particular business as a worker- should your situation become more precarious, you might have to eat your words
The state at least needs to pretend to give a fuck to retain legitimacy. There is more democracy in the US federal government than there ever will be in a
business.
