Why do code monkeys pretend that entering a work contract with

they can get a cheap power trip and abuse others while claiming moral reasons

>>62008777
It's a form of bootlicking. These people are born slaves and will always defend their masters.

People with radically different beliefs tend to make similar claims about supporting freedom and civil liberty. This is because they think anything they arbitrarily dislike is necessarily criminal and victimizes them; a lack of this is thus a "free" society, no matter how much violence and authority is used to enforce it.

Americans would let their government lobotomize them and surgically implant a spy camera in their body if it meant "combating terrorism".

>>62008879
But this is clearly the case where a strong government is needed to enforce free speech and bring corporations to heel.

>>62008777
>thinking people actually use Google+
How deluded are these people?

>>62008934
>enforce free speech
>I don't understand how free speech works in relation to the US Constitution: the post
You will say "b-but free speech isn't confined to the Constitution!!!1!!"
>but we need stronk government to /enforce/ free speech
Dumbass

>>62008934
And how is it free speech if corporate property owners aren't allowed to express *their* opinions?
"Free speech", in a formal political context, is an ontologically meaningless term based on the pipe dreams of people who think human society runs on magic and fairy dust. While this fact does not have any negative bearing on the concept of civil liberty itself, it is definitely not going to be a gentle realization for society.

>>62008777
Kim is a tranny right? Can tell from the avatar

>>62009109
Seemling it's used internally.

>>62009149
>>62009115
good goys

>>62008777
What do you mean?

Most people 'care' about free speech as long as their paycheck is not threatened.

Civilisation and savagery are 3 meals apart. And those bootlickers wouldn't risk even half.

>>62009149
>And how is it free speech if corporate property owners aren't allowed to express *their* opinions?
False dichotomy.

In a free society there are no 'corporate owners' who control your paycheck and whose opinion can make or break you financially, more than your opinion can make or break them.

>>62009451
>In a free society there are no 'corporate owners'
Why wouldn't there be? Would the government ban groups of individuals from forming contracts on their own free will?

>>62009622
>forming contracts on their own free will
This is such a retarded argument, it's not like every mentally competent adult sat down and agreed to the bullshit we live in now. The real world is not a sterile abstraction, and whether or not anyone wants to accept it, people are not rational actors.

>>62009661
So why wouldn't there be corporate owners in a "free" society?

>>62009681
Absolute equality of wealth is a fantasy, but the extreme disparities we see in real life are not the end result of a series of voluntary arrangements between consenting, well-informed and well-meaning adults. Billionaire chairmen with golden parachutes would simply not exist without the exploitation of others. It is a problem intrinsic to society that cannot be fixed by praying to the Free Market (PBUH).
I won't pretend to have an answer to this issue, but to pretend it doesn't exist would be naive at best and evil at worst.

>>62009733
Fight on my comrade.

File: american nations.jpg (1MB, 2875x2157px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2875x2157px

>>62008777
I refer you to the picture.

>>62008777
>as a manager within Google, my goal is to make things as difficult as possible for everyone by codifying bitch-ass office politics

>>62008777
There have been shit loads of threads the last few days about how sites are being booted off the net due to companies applying censorship (people crying about SJW and whatever), but you see no issue with the ability to get fired for making an off color joke.

>>62010049
its generally accepted that if you work for a company and have an opinion that is opposite of theirs, it can weigh down the company and be in their interests to fire you.

people hosting their own nazi website wasnt considered the above but since the normies invaded the net we've had less and less free speech. the companies that refuse to host these sites get good will and this ensures the first step towards a censored internet.

>>62008777
because code monkeys are usually nerds and the people who climb to management / HR are either insane nerds who love telling others what to do more than actually working, or Stacies who used to bully them in highschool and revert back to the same pattern

>>62009622
>Would the government ban groups of individuals from forming contracts on their own free will?
No, they wouldn't have to.

Nobody, among equals, would sign a contract that said 'you're the boss that gets paid 10x as much, and I'm the employee that works overtime for free'.
And even if some stockholm syndromes did, they wouldn't be in adequate numbers to form 'corporate owners'.

>>62010754
>among equals
People aren't equals.

>>62010781
Nobody owns natural resources, so access to them is de facto equal.

People's lifespan is more or less equal.

Even if you wanna talk IQs, IQ follows a bell curve and it's extremely unlikely that someone has double (200) the average IQ (100), and it's statistically impossible for in a 6-billion population for someone to have triple (300) the average IQ.

Even in that case, I'b be happy for a handful of poeple among 6billion to have double the average wealth/leverage/whatever, and absolutely nobody having triple that.


And that's if we accept the racialist view that IQ equates worth.

File: 4774565674567.gif (328KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 960x540px

>>62010781