Comment by ismaildonmez

Corporations are not “de facto” governments just because they’re large and profitable. They may have governance structure within themselves, but they don’t have a monopoly on the use of force anywhere, they don’t tax, and they’re not sovereign. Moreover, what de jure government do they functionally supersede in the places where they’re the de facto government? This is a tortured argument.

> It is a de facto government

Say you're a US citizen. You can choose not to buy an Apple product. You cannot chose to not pay your taxes.

This is just one of many distinctions between a government and a corporation.

From an assets and income standpoint, maybe, but they’re not a de facto government unless they have sovereignty, and they don’t. Once they can decide on which wars to start with which countries, maybe we can talk then.

It is not a government, de facto or otherwise.

Apple does not have tax authority over you.

Apple does not have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in any geographic region.

Apple does not pass or enforce laws or have citizens.

It is big and rich and powerful, and like all big and rich things with that much reach, literally cannot do anything without making someone angry.

This does not make it a government, and pretending it is one is a silly distraction from holding it to account when it does something bad.

Money alone does not a government make.

> It is a de facto government

I can't understand why you'd think that.

What characteristics of a government do you think it has? Assets and income? A government is something that 'governs', not something that has assets and income.

You should have said, Apple has the same amount of POWER as some governments. That would be more appropriate.

Presumably not, as long as those government requests/demands are valid within the eyes of local law.

To say otherwise is to suggest that companies should exist above the law, and ignore the rule of law where it’s inconvenient. I don’t think that’s a precedent you want to set.

With regards to moral obligations of US companies seeking to do business in countries that don’t uphold the same standards as the US. I would argue a better place to have that conversation is in Congress, which could then seek to apply export controls to all companies. Rather than just relying on the good will and moral judgment of amoral companies.

I would personally love to see restrictions on trade with China tied to their human rights violations. But don’t think right approach is campaigning individual companies.

I don't think we should expect companies to be moral agents. It's not that they shouldn't be, but more that it's impractical because what's right and wrong (or simply acceptable) depends on who you ask. Furthermore, companies willing to operate immorally have a competitive advantage over those which don't -- if Apple didn't cooperate with authoritarian governments or exploit developing countries for cheap labour they won't stay competitive and a company that does those things will take its place.

The answer IMO has to be regulation. We have to cut off the incentives companies have to act immorally. The problem of course is that this could then make the economy as a whole uncompetitive so politicians are equally unlikely to take action.

Not to be a doomer, but on the issue of China the West has probably waited too long to take action at this point. This would have been easier in the past, but now China has become so dominant, and with Western companies and economies being so dependant on China for labour and manufacturing it's hard to imagine any significant business or political intervention happening.

In fact, this is likely just the beginning, in the future when China is the core market for most multinational companies political intervention basically becomes impossible. No company is going to pull out of their largest market (especially if it's growing faster than the US).

This is gross misrepresentation. They did not lobby against it, they lobbied for some changes including being clearer and more specific about which Chinese organisations were covered. They did ask for some deadlines to be extended but do not oppose the law. Apple has a strong anti-slavery policy, polices it's supply chain and has excluded suppliers for violations. Can you provide any examples of another company doing more?

One could argue this to be evidence that Apple is willing to disagree with an authoritarian government.