親カテゴリー：
Science: Social ・
Social Justice ・
Social Protection ・
Social Welfare ・
Social issues ・
経済 ・
政治、法律および政府。
Sentience of Companies and their Ownership/Trade Rights
Should we allow companies to be owned, when they are sentient supra-organisms, based on subtle human-to-human relationships?
+
–
–
If you think of companies as a higher form of life (social supra-organisms), you may end up thinking that it's unethical to own and trade them, like it is unethical to own and trade human slaves.
So, should we outlaw company ownership -- and let shares represent something different: from the rights to revenues to the uniqueness of particular human relationships within the value systems of each organization?
What would be the ethical implications of companies being sentient social supra-organisms to the rights of their ownership?
子カテゴリはありません。
+[概念]
+[発想]
+[企画]
これは、githubでのMRSGRENのアイデアを思い出させます。
https://github.com/samsquire/ideas3
This reminds me of my MRSGREN idea on github.
https://github.com/samsquire/ideas3#35-mrsgren
Then the company can truly be a lifeform. As it sees, it hears and it talks.
そうですか。時々、私たちはそのような重要なアイデアを持っていて、それらが他の多くのアイデアとつながっているように見え、私たちはお互いのアイデアを私たちのものと考え始めます。発明的な他家受粉の限定的なケースは何でしょうか？
I see. Sometimes, we have ideas of such significance, that they seem to connect to many ideas of others, and we start to think of each others' ideas as ours. I wonder, what's the limiting case of inventive cross-pollination?
[+]
//株式は何か違うものを表しています：収益の権利から特定の人間関係の独自性まで//
かっこいいので、調べてみましょう-株式は何を表していますか？
//shares represent something different: from the rights to revenues to the uniqueness of particular human relationships //
Cool, so let's explore - what would shares represent?
[+]
会社が設立されると、それはもはや所有者を本当に必要としません。所有者が会社から利益を奪うことなく規模と規模が拡大する可能性のある会社から投資を奪うと言うことができます。
スーパーマーケットのロジスティクスネットワークの例を使用します。人々がすべて配置され、人々が自分が何をして何をしているのかを理解すると、組織は監視なしで運営されます。管理者は、棚を積み重ね続けるための棚スタッカーや、製品を調達するための調達部門のために何もする必要はありません。所有者は会社の運営の成功とは無関係かもしれません。
それでも、キャッシャーはまだ店内の製品の所有者の所有権を管理しています。彼らは所有者なしで彼らの仕事をうまくやることができた。彼らは本質的にすべての仕事をし、所有権の利益をまったく得ません。
Once a company is set up it doesn't really need owners anymore. You could say that owners take investment away from the company that could grow in scale and size without owners taking profits out the company.
I use the example of a supermarket logistics network. Once the people are all placed and people know what they are doing and doing it, the organisation operates without oversight. The managers don't need to do anything for the shelf stackers to keep stacking shelves and the procurement department to procure products. The owners may well be irrelevant to the success of the operation of the company.
Yet the cashiers still mange the ownership of the owners ownership of products in the store. They could well do their job without owners. They essentially do all the work and get none of the benefits of ownership.