"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:34:55 -0700, "David Schwartz"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted :
>> As for obligations to community, no, there is no such obligation. An
>>executive who devoted his company to his community against his
>>shareholders'
>>wishes should be fired. The company exists as a vehicle to execute the
>>desires of the shareholders. That's why they get to vote on who runs it.
> Why should loyalty to company trump all other loyalties -- family,
> law, species, community, country, religion ... ?
Perhaps you aren't following the thread, but I was talking about the
obligations a company has, not the obligations any individual has. And I was
talking about obligations *to* individuals.
Your criticism would be very appropriate if I said that individuals only
owe loyalty to companies. But what I said is that Microsoft (a company) owes
an obligation to its shareholders (people). That is, that companies exist
purely to benefit people.
It is funny that your accusation is based on assuming I said exactly the
opposite of what I actually said.
DS
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
