Microsoft hates Freedom and Democracy!!!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

If the laws of the country you do business in forbid hiring homosexuals, you do not hire homosexuals.

If the laws of the country you do business in mandate killing Jews, then you kill Jews. Do you seriously believe that? And do you seriously believe that someone who is not coerced into doing business in that country is exempt from blame in such cases.

Contrary to popular belief, Microsoft doesn't hold a lot of sway in the Chinese government. They gain nothing and lose a lot by refusing to sell products there.

What an astonishing ability to miss the point. No-one says that they have sway with the Chinese government, but they have a lot of sway over where they decide to do business. They are not forced to do business in China.

It's quite simple: in choices like this you can take the money or respect human rights. Microsoft is taking the money, that makes them (and others) culpable for their part in suppressing political freedoms.

Generally speaking, if party A is free to choose whether or not to contract with B, and B's contract states that A must do something unethical to fulfil the contract, then A is morally responsible for colluding with the unethical law if A takes on the contract. A is not responsible for enforcing the law, but for colluding with it.

Similarly, Microsoft, Google, et al. are free to choose whether or not to conduct business in China. No-one is forcing them to collude in suppression of political freedoms, they are quite happy to do it, since they would rather have the money.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

No, you're blaming them for abiding by local law.

For some reason, you get all up in arms of US companies violate law (like, say, Enron), but you seem to think it's in company's best interests to not abide by the laws sometimes?

That's irrelevant. No one is forcing Microsoft to do business in China. They could withdraw at any time. You are misrepresenting the choice. Their choice is not whether to obey the law, but whether to do business in a country that has such laws. Don't confuse the two.

Microsoft's policy is to abide by local law in every country they operate in. Period.

As I've pointed out to you. If the law was "kill Jews" then your logic entails that there would be nothing wrong with Microsoft setting up shop and killing Jews. Sorry... that's ****ed.

It's relevantly similar here. The law is "suppress human rights" and Microsoft is colluding by doing business there when they don't have to.

That's what they're doing, and that's not wrong. If you've got a beef with the laws, deal with the communists who made them, and not the people abiding by them.

Your position is absurd. It would licence any business to invest anywhere and make money no matter what the severity of human rights violations it engaged in.

Again, the makers of bad laws are at fault, but so are those who collude with them for profit when they don't have to.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
If the laws of the country you do business in mandate killing Jews, then you kill Jews. Do you seriously believe that? And do you seriously believe that someone who is not coerced into doing business in that country is exempt from blame in such cases.

That would be a stunning example if it was Microsoft's business to kill jews.

Microsoft makes a software product. China censors such products. Such is life.

It's quite simple: in choices like this you can take the money or respect human rights. Microsoft is taking the money, that makes them (and others) culpable for their part in suppressing political freedoms.

Get your head out of idealism and academia and back into the real world.

If Microsoft censors their MSN Spaces, do you think anything will change w.r.t. human rights in China?
If Microsoft withdraws MSN Spaces from China, do you think anything will change w.r.t. human rights in China?

This is why you can't have a philosopher making business decisions -- completely out to lunch, and not interested in providing ROI to shareholders.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Agathon
Um who did that?

I don't blame them for China's polices (that would be absurd), just for colluding with them to make money. That's a big difference.

And then you went on a rant of US media, of all things.

Furthermore... oooh, they are making money by adhereing to China's laws in China. Big ****ing deal.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
That's irrelevant. No one is forcing Microsoft to do business in China. They could withdraw at any time. You are misrepresenting the choice. Their choice is not whether to obey the law, but whether to do business in a country that has such laws. Don't confuse the two.

Actually, Microsoft doesn't really have a choice.

China will eventually become a larger market than North America/Europe, and shareholders of the company expect growth in all markets -- especially China.

It gets even more complicated with the threat of Linux in China (specifically, the "People's" Red Flag Linux).

If Microsoft withdraws from China, Linux would become the de-facto operating system in one of the most important, and soon to be the most important market.

Shareholders become upset, share prices falls, people lose their jobs...

Again, the problem isn't with Microsoft doing business in China (they would be completely stupid to withdraw from China over this). The problem is with the communists in China setting the laws.

I'm all for companies following local laws. I only wish communists weren't such inhumane, freedom-oppressing people.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And then you went on a rant of US media, of all things.

That was a sidetrack.

Furthermore... oooh, they are making money by adhereing to China's laws in China. Big ****ing deal.

Well, great. Companies made money by adhering to Nazi laws... how ethical...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Well, great. Companies made money by adhering to Nazi laws... how ethical...

IBM financed the development of the mainframe -- which kickstarted the digital computing age -- with profits from selling Hollerith counting machines to the Nazis.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Actually, Microsoft doesn't really have a choice.

Of course it does. It would cost them money, but they have a choice. So do all other companies who collude in suppression of human rights worldwide.

China will eventually become a larger market than North America/Europe, and shareholders of the company expect growth in all markets -- especially China.

So shareholders are now entitled to make money from human rights abuses. You can say what you like, but that's unethical.

It gets even more complicated with the threat of Linux in China (specifically, the "People's" Red Flag Linux).

If Microsoft withdraws from China, Linux would become the de-facto operating system in one of the most important, and soon to be the most important market.

So, now it is a case of "we would rather abuse human rights so that a competitor doesn't beat us out of a deal".

Well, that's the reasoning of a decent and virtuous person if ever I heard one.

Shareholders become upset, share prices falls, people lose their jobs...

You're just repeating what is in question. Do shareholders have the right to expect to profit from human rights abuses?

Any decent human being would say no. Of course, in the business papers there aren't many decent human beings.

Again, the problem isn't with Microsoft doing business in China (they would be completely stupid to withdraw from China over this). The problem is with the communists in China setting the laws.

You are repeating yourself again. I accept that the Chinese government is responsible. But that does not exonerate the corporations who collude with them. I've made this point several times and you haven't come close to responding to it.

I'm all for companies following local laws. I only wish communists weren't such inhumane, freedom-oppressing people.

So you're all for making money out of human rights abuses. That doesn't surprise me.

[Dinner]

It seems Microsoft is shaking hands with the devil (that'd be the Chinese Communist Party) in order to make money.

[Kidlicious]

You're right Aggy. He just goes on and on repeating the same old suck ass argument.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

IBM financed the development of the mainframe -- which kickstarted the digital computing age -- with profits from selling Hollerith counting machines to the Nazis.

So. Hitler started the second world war (a bad thing), which resulted in the formation of the United Nations (largely a good thing).

I guess Adolf's off the hook now.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It seems Microsoft is shaking hands with the devil (that'd be the Chinese Communist Party) in order to make money.

Yeah, not hard was it.

Please don't count me as a die hard supporter of the CCP. I think that censoring blogs is silly, perhaps unworkable anyway, but despicable anyway.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You're right Aggy. He just goes on and on repeating the same old suck ass argument.

It's like one of those monkeys with a barrel organ, eh?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It seems Microsoft is shaking hands with the devil (that'd be the Chinese Communist Party) in order to make money.

And? You do realize that the US has a TON of trade with China. If you stopped ALL of it tomorrow, the US would hit a depression, most likely.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Of course it does. It would cost them money, but they have a choice. So do all other companies who collude in suppression of human rights worldwide.

They don't have the choice if they want to remain a company.

You clearly don't have the business perspective on this. You live in a fantasy world...

So shareholders are now entitled to make money from human rights abuses. You can say what you like, but that's unethical.

I see it as unethical to force people who buy your music player to only buy from your music store, too.

I also find communism unethical, so...

So, now it is a case of "we would rather abuse human rights so that a competitor doesn't beat us out of a deal".

Well, that's the reasoning of a decent and virtuous person if ever I heard one.

Well, you're forgetting that the competitor would be doing the exact same "abuse of human rights". In the end, nothing changes...except Microsoft gets hugely disadvantaged.

You're just repeating what is in question. Do shareholders have the right to expect to profit from human rights abuses?

Shareholders have the right to expect the company to remain competitive. Shareholders with half a brain would realize the same kind of censorship would exist with or without Microsoft competing in the market, as well.

You are repeating yourself again. I accept that the Chinese government is responsible. But that does not exonerate the corporations who collude with them. I've made this point several times and you haven't come close to responding to it.

My point is they'll happen with or without Microsoft's products in the market.

The problem isn't censorship of Microsoft's products, it's the censorship of all products.

If Microsoft withdraws their product the ONLY result is a significant disadvantage for Microsoft with no change at all to the human rights situation in China.

You want Microsoft to withdraw from China because you don't like the company, and this whole RIDICULOUS argument you're presenting is as facetious as your Apple fanboyism is.