Corporate Evil Empires

I want to compile a list of evil businesses that should be boycotted. Essentially, a list of evil corporate empires. By the way, I don't consider all corporations evil. One example is Google. Google isn't perfect, and certainly has its share of ethically questionable problems (such as their agreements with the communist government of China). I also believe in redemption. IBM is not the IBM of the 1980s.

Here's what I have so far:

• Wal-mart
  
• Disney
  
• Microsoft
  
• RIAA* and all member organizations
  
• MPAA* and all member organizations
  
• BSA and its member organizations
  
• ADM
  
• Monsanto
  
• All tobacco companies
  
• SCO (actually, if things keep heading in the same direction for them, there won't, thankfully, be a company to boycott).
  
• McDonalds
  

* Sony is a member of these organizations, but I view them with great ambivalence

Intersting you do realize that if your are truly committed you have basically shut yourself out of grocery stores right?

ADM and Monsanto: Seed grains etc.
Altera Corp: AKA Phillip Morris also owner of Kraft Foods

and on and on and on and on and on. Where are you going to get your food?

Corperations don't have
Gulags
Concentration camps
Gas Chambers
Mass Graves
Make People Starve
Create Class Warfare

Socialism Does
USSR
Red China
Cambodia
Cuba
Nazi Germany

Looks like if I were to choose true evil I would pick socialism over Corperations all day and I would be correct. Facts suck

supercheetah, why don't you tell us exactly why you suggest we boycott these companies and not others.

thehamsamiam: Ok, firstly, I'm using the term "evil" somewhat loosely. Of course they don't have any of those things. They're not useful to their financial statements. I didn't say that these corporations are spawns of Satan, but rather they engage in massive amount of on-going, ethically/morally questionable deals. Just because they don't do any of the things that you list doesn't mean that we as consumers shouldn't question and force their hand on their problems with morality.

Off_The_Street:

• Wal-mart: their quest for for "low prices" pushes them to buy from companies that continue to run sweatshops around the world, and continue to make use of children for labor. Wal-mart's not the only one that does this, though. Once I've done more research, I'll be happy to list other companies that contribute to these problems.
  
• Disney: they would love to extend copyright to infinite. They don't seem to like the idea of copyright actually enriching culture. They have no respect for the original intentions of copyright.
  
• BSA, RIAA, and MPAA: they, too, don't respect copyright, or patents. Also, they tend to think that it's a good idea to treat their customers like criminals by using technology that greatly restricts the freedoms to which consumers should have a right. The EFF can give a better explanation.
  
• ADM
  
• McDonalds, Supersize me! Need I say more?
  
• Monsanto is much worse than ADM.
  
• SCO likes to make money on baseless lawsuits, particularly if it's a lawsuit against a Linux company.
  

FredT: For all you know I'm some hippie hacker that shops at his local village market. I'm not (the hippie part, not the hacker part), but I'm careful about what I buy no matter where I am. Believe it or not, it is possible to buy things such as organic products at grocery stores. I like making statements with my money.

If we truly want Capitalism to succed, then all consumers should be as informed as they possibly can about about the products they buy. The reason so many people believe that Capitalism has failed is because consumers know so little about the products buy, which, unbeknownst to them, continue to promote and proliferate many injustices in the world, and I would bet that if they knew better, they'd think twice about who they buy from.

[edit on 3/1/2005 by supercheetah]

If your going after the RIAA you have to include Sony which bankrolls a percentage of thier operation hence has some controll over thier activities.

Again where are you going to get your food? Do you have anyidea how pervasive the influence of ADM and Montsano is in the agriculture business?

McDonalds, but not Burger King? KFC? Taco Bell? et al

Originally posted by FredT
If your going after the RIAA you have to include Sony which bankrolls a percentage of thier operation hence has some controll over thier activities.

Again where are you going to get your food? Do you have anyidea how pervasive the influence of ADM and Montsano is in the agriculture business?

McDonalds, but not Burger King? KFC? Taco Bell? et al

The reason I said that I viewed Sony with great ambivalence is simply from the fact that they are so large that often times, the right hand doesn't know what the left had is doing. Not all of the divisions within Sony are evil, just most of them.

Ok, you posted that before I finished my edit of my previous post, but I did respond.

It's true that ADM and Monsanto are extremely persuasive. I can't deny that. That's not to say that there is lack of trying on my part. I do my research, and I try as hard as I can to be careful of what I buy. That's not to say that I'm impeccable, and I'd be suspicious of anyone who said so.

McDonalds: true, McDonalds just so happens to be the most pervasive. Honestly, I just avoid fast food restaurants in general. People, if they're at all concerned about their health, really should avoid fast food restaurants in general.

Heh, I guess I come off as unabashedly liberal, don't I? I ly somewhere along the line between liberal/libertarian. As I said before, I don't hate Capitalism. I only wish people would be more informed about the products they buy. The world would be so much of a better place.

PS Oh, and I just don't like Microsoft's insecure software. I'm a Linux user, so I'm admittedly somewhat biased. In my book, the only thing unethical they've is spread highly insecure software unto the world.

[edit on 3/1/2005 by supercheetah]

Do not get me wrong, If you can pull it off more power to you. My family is making an effort to not purchase goods made in China if others are available. Its not easy when you get down to it. Thats just goods from one country. But if you go up against giants it gets tougher.

supercheetah, I understand your rationale and I appreciate your posting it; however, I have several comments.

" Wal-mart: their quest for for "low prices" pushes them to buy from companies that continue to run sweatshops around the world, and continue to make use of children for labor."

What's your point? We have minimum wage laws, other countries don't. I am under no moral obligation to make another country raise its standards; that is the concern of the citizens of that country. And, although I do not like the concept of child labor, often it is a job like that which spells the difference beween that kid's family starving or eating.

Finally, Wal-Mart provides -- to people like me who can't afford Nordstrom's -- a place to buy stuff on a limited budget. Were Wal-Mart to try to force a foreign country to change its rules, it would damage the citizens of that country by depriving them of jobs and damage us by pricing many things out of our reach.

"Disney: they would love to extend copyright to infinite. They don't seem to like the idea of copyright actually enriching culture. They have no respect for the original intentions of copyright."

A copyright is intellectual property. It belongs to the person who generated the stuff and/or to the company that employed that person to do so or their respective assigns. In other words, it's like your grandpaw's farm or your great-aunt's fiddle. Why should a person's property expire at all? Using your logic, the family farm should revert to the government or to whomever wants to move there after, say, fifteen years.

No. Property is property, whether it's intellectual property or a piece of dirt. Taking away a copyright or taking away the farm is theft, either way.

"BSA, RIAA, and MPAA: they, too, don't respect copyright, or patents."

Wait a minute. Are you complaining that they don't "respect copyrights"? That sounds a bit in variance with your previous comment!

"Also, they tend to think that it's a good idea to treat their customers like criminals by using technology that greatly restricts the freedoms to which consumers should have a right."

The "freedoms" to which consumers "should have a right"? Are you re-writing the Constitution of the United States in your spare time?

It sounds to me like you want the "right" to download MPEGs or MP3s without paying for them. That's theft, too, whether you like it or not.

"ADM"

What is it about Archer-Daniels-Midland that upsets you? That they spend billions of dollars developing foodstuffs to feed the world and then make a profit on selling those foodstuffs? Or is it that you're upset because you expect to pay them one time for seeds and then, by re-using those seeds next generation, go into competition with ADM yourself?

ADM sells seeds for this year's crop and nothing more. They're not inthe business of putting other people in competition with them. If you buy a newspaper, do you think you have a "right" to a ten-year subscription to tht newspaper?

"McDonalds, Supersize me! Need I say more?'

McDonalds is evil because it sells people what they want. Wau! are you setting up yourself as the arbiter as to what people can buy and eat?

"Monsanto is much worse than ADM."

See above.

"SCO likes to make money on baseless lawsuits, particularly if it's a lawsuit against a Linux company."

So they're taking advantage of a litigous company, like the people who sue doctors who make a mistake on the operating table or the woman who sued McDonald's for the hot coffee she was served. Actually, I agree with you that our tort system is designed to line the pockets of the trial lawyers, who seem to make up a disproportionate part of our legislatures. But why blame a company for taking advantage of a system that that the average person would take advantage of if he thought he could get away with it?

Supercheetah, I think that, in many cases, you seem to rule a company as "evil" if they do not choose to share the fruits of their labors with any bum who comes along; or who dares to make an honest profit.

I suggest that if you do not like the way a company does business, either with its foreign/domestic suppliers or its consumers, that you boycott that company, rather than paint it in neotheological terms.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
supercheetah, I understand your rationale and I appreciate your posting it; however, I have several comments.

" Wal-mart: their quest for for "low prices" pushes them to buy from companies that continue to run sweatshops around the world, and continue to make use of children for labor."

What's your point? We have minimum wage laws, other countries don't. I am under no moral obligation to make another country raise its standards; that is the concern of the citizens of that country. And, although I do not like the concept of child labor, often it is a job like that which spells the difference beween that kid's family starving or eating.

Finally, Wal-Mart provides -- to people like me who can't afford Nordstrom's -- a place to buy stuff on a limited budget. Were Wal-Mart to try to force a foreign country to change its rules, it would damage the citizens of that country by depriving them of jobs and damage us by pricing many things out of our reach.

You're right on all of those points, but I would argue that encouraging the behavior by simply buying those products doesn't help. I have heard of groups of people buying stocks into such companies so that they can have a vote in what they do. The idea being that companies are beholden to their stockholders. I can't find a website at the moment, but I'll put one up whe I get a chance to.

"Disney: they would love to extend copyright to infinite. They don't seem to like the idea of copyright actually enriching culture. They have no respect for the original intentions of copyright."

A copyright is intellectual property. It belongs to the person who generated the stuff and/or to the company that employed that person to do so or their respective assigns. In other words, it's like your grandpaw's farm or your great-aunt's fiddle. Why should a person's property expire at all? Using your logic, the family farm should revert to the government or to whomever wants to move there after, say, fifteen years.

No. Property is property, whether it's intellectual property or a piece of dirt. Taking away a copyright or taking away the farm is theft, either way.

Oh, it's so simple to you, isn't it? A family farm needs to be maintained, or the forces of nature will eventually make it unusable. The farmer and his family needs to continually invest and reinvest upon this maintenance. This is not true of intellectual property.

Copyright, and other forms of "intellectual property" are meant to advance the sciences and arts, not stifle them so that a pig of a company can sit on its laurels, and still make money.

Also, do you not believe in the saying, "Standing on the shoulders of giants?" Creativity often makes use of information already out there. Very few plot lines, if any at all, are truly original these days. What would writers do if Poe's works were still copyrighted?

"BSA, RIAA, and MPAA: they, too, don't respect copyright, or patents."

Wait a minute. Are you complaining that they don't "respect copyrights"? That sounds a bit in variance with your previous comment!

"Also, they tend to think that it's a good idea to treat their customers like criminals by using technology that greatly restricts the freedoms to which consumers should have a right."

The "freedoms" to which consumers "should have a right"? Are you re-writing the Constitution of the United States in your spare time?

It sounds to me like you want the "right" to download MPEGs or MP3s without paying for them. That's theft, too, whether you like it or not.

I'm not advocating piracy of any kind. In fact, I'm very much against it. I don't download MP3s or MPEGs to which I don't have a right. However, I happen to use esoteric software like Linux, and I should have the right to listen to the music I buy under it without hassle. Putting things like DRM on music and CSS on movies makes this much more difficult. I shouldn't have to buy some approved player just to listen to the music or watch the movie. Not to mention that I'm also a programmer, so I should have the right to be able to write my own music player, and play my legally bought music under it without having to go begging for permission or paying for some license if I don't want to do so.

"ADM"

What is it about Archer-Daniels-Midland that upsets you? That they spend billions of dollars developing foodstuffs to feed the world and then make a profit on selling those foodstuffs? Or is it that you're upset because you expect to pay them one time for seeds and then, by re-using those seeds next generation, go into competition with ADM yourself?

ADM sells seeds for this year's crop and nothing more. They're not inthe business of putting other people in competition with them. If you buy a newspaper, do you think you have a "right" to a ten-year subscription to tht newspaper?

That's not the evil for which I protest against them. They have engaged in may questionable business practices in the past, which portends that they will likely do so in the future. It's in the link I provided, or are you just too lazy to read for yourself?

"McDonalds, Supersize me! Need I say more?'

McDonalds is evil because it sells people what they want. Wau! are you setting up yourself as the arbiter as to what people can buy and eat?

Ok, I have to concede that I don't really consider them evil. They simply have the problem of looking away from the problems their food costs their customers. That's not the ethical way to handle the situation.

"Monsanto is much worse than ADM."

See above.

Again, see the links I've provided already.

"SCO likes to make money on baseless lawsuits, particularly if it's a lawsuit against a Linux company."

So they're taking advantage of a litigous company, like the people who sue doctors who make a mistake on the operating table or the woman who sued McDonald's for the hot coffee she was served. Actually, I agree with you that our tort system is designed to line the pockets of the trial lawyers, who seem to make up a disproportionate part of our legislatures. But why blame a company for taking advantage of a system that that the average person would take advantage of if he thought he could get away with it?

Maybe because it's not ethical? I don't understand what you're trying to get at with this one. You almost agree, and then you don't. What would you say about a person that sues you over something that has no basis in truth? Would you about about that person what you said above?

Supercheetah, I think that, in many cases, you seem to rule a company as "evil" if they do not choose to share the fruits of their labors with any bum who comes along; or who dares to make an honest profit.

No, not at all, but that doesn't hurt. Sun Microsystems doesn't share much of their fruits of their labors, but I wouldn't call them evil. They do make some stupid business decisions and say some stupid things to the press, but I wouldn't call them evil. I would also say the same things about HP, Dell, Ikea, and others.

I suggest that if you do not like the way a company does business, either with its foreign/domestic suppliers or its consumers, that you boycott that company, rather than paint it in neotheological terms.

I see your point, but I'm not a religious person, and the term "evil" doesn't have any theological persuasion with me. I guess for that, I apologize.

Corporations are not here to make the world a better place or help anyone. They are in the business of making money and taking power. If they harm the 'little guy' in the process it is really of no concern to their agenda. The only thing that matters is for the public to believe that hey care hence clever marketing and deceptive public affair campaigns.

As for Evil being involved, it is all relative to one's sense of morality and agenda. The companies themselves are not Evil. They merely have a less than humanitarian goal from the perspective of someone outside of the benefits aquired through their goals.

Oh crap! I think I just described the current US administration.

Originally posted by Jonna
Corporations are not here to make the world a better place or help anyone. They are in the business of making money and taking power. If they harm the 'little guy' in the process it is really of no concern to their agenda. The only thing that matters is for the public to believe that hey care hence clever marketing and deceptive public affair campaigns.

As for Evil being involved, it is all relative to one's sense of morality and agenda. The companies themselves are not Evil. They merely have a less than humanitarian goal from the perspective of someone outside of the benefits aquired through their goals.

Oh crap! I think I just described the current US administration.

This is exactly why it's so important for today's consumers to be active and do some research into the products they buy. The only way that these companies will change is if people tell them to do so with their money. If a consumer has some form of a spirituality, then being informed on such things could only be a good thing for their spirituality, I would think.