Rant VIII: The Reckoning

As I understand, the board of directors of a company is appointed by shareholders, responsible for overseeing business according to their interests. As long as the actions of the management remain within the boundaries of what lawyers can successfully argue in court, then they are guilty of no crime, and the continuation of their management is up to the shareholders in the form of the BofD and their confidence in the actions of the management, to whom the management is responsible to. Certainly, if the employees or anyone else feels that they have been unlawfully harmed by the actions of the company, then they can bring the issue before a legal tribunal, which I believe is the proper method for dispute resolution in a civilised society.

Or have I misunderstood something?
And?
 
Or have I misunderstood something?
I'll try, though of course this is my own interpretation and have not directly asked MD for clarification.

If management/a board of directors identifies that their operational policies are screwing people over in the name of profit, their first priority should not be "find a way to do this legally," it should be "find a way to stop screwing these people over."

--Patrick
 
Wanting to make sure we're operating under a common frame of reference, I suppose. As I understand, the particulars of corporate management and culture practices differ across various areas of the globe.
I'll try, though of course this is my own interpretation and have not directly asked MD for clarification.

If management/a board of directors identifies that their operational policies are screwing people over in the name of profit, their first priority should not be "find a way to do this legally," it should be "find a way to stop screwing these people over."
I could agree with you in an ethical context, however I'm not sure if this fundamentally isn't more of a question of law rather than ethics. Companies are required to abide by law, so it is the task of legislators and the courts to set minimum standards in business practices that their society as a whole is willing to accept. Anything above and beyond that standard is completely voluntary for the company, and decided on likely according to their estimation on what is best for business. How large of a role ethics plays in that decision making depends on the particular corporate culture.
I legit can't imagine responding to someone complaining about their shitty job doing shitty stuff with "well these shitty policies will probably make the company more money."
Well, I did advise him that, if he is planning to quit his job, then he'd be better off finding a new one before leaving the old one. That is my honest and sincere advice, for what it may be worth.
 
I could agree with you in an ethical context, however I'm not sure if this fundamentally isn't more of a question of law rather than ethics.
My comment was originally intended to be a distillation/explanation of @MindDetective's response, though I will happily say I would stand behind it as a statement of my own. Your response appears worded in a way that suggests the letter of a law is more important than its spirit. I would retort that just because something is codified into law does not automatically make it ethical, nor should it automatically imply that law is immune from ethical scrutiny and testing. As the saying goes, "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should."

--Patrick
 
There's also an added layer of abstraction.
Companies don't do anything. Governments don't do anything. Crews don't do anything.
People do things. A corporation doesn't decide to... Cut down the Amazon for short term profit. People make that choice. And it's perfectly okay to think people should follow some basic ethical principles.
 
To kinda expand on my previous post, lemme quote my past self from some other threads:
In reality, there will always be those rules lawyers who game whatever system is in place in order to maximize their own advantage.
What offends me? Rule-breakers.
And I don't mean a guy that runs a stop sign now and again. I mean people who go through all the trouble of setting up and agreeing to the rules for something, but then don't follow them. This includes everything from the kid on the playground who claims you keep missing him and people who use HAXies in LAN tournaments all the way up to the fact that Congress can do all the insider trading it wants without penalty. This whole "do as I say, not as I do" thing didn't fly when I was ten, and it don't fly now, either.
[Pez and I are] arguing semantics here (Scam/Fraud = obtain by deceit, Monopoly/Monopsony = obtain by abusing marketplace position, Regulatory capture = obtain by changing the rules, etc), but it seems we are in agreement that businesses should conduct themselves in a manner that prioritizes not only their own well-being, but also the well-being of the ones who use the goods and services they provide.

I mean, you figure it would just be good business sense to ensure the existence of a customer base to consume the goods and services you provide, right?
...with ONE exception, of course. That being, should it come to pass that a business' goods/services are no longer required, it should willingly go gently into that good night, and not seek to artificially prolong its existence/relevance.
And this one in particular...
This is like the robber blaming the bank for not being secure enough.
Startlingly enough, I know a great many people who legitimately think like that: i.e., “If it was something you didn’t want me doing, then you should’ve made it impossible for me to do. Otherwise if I find I can do it, I’m gonna assume that means it’s allowed.”
Some people just have no concept of personal responsibility.
--Patrick
 
Today's another in a long string of bad days. I'm just so completely fucking done with everything. I don't...I don't really see the point? I mean, yeah, I'm sure some people are happy I'm alive, and some of them would hurt for a while if I wasn't. But...That's not a reason to live.
My job isn't making me happy. I'm not doing the best I can because I'm not motivated. I don't have any reason to try.
My hobbys aren't making me happy. There's nothing I do these days that I'm actually enjoying, nor is there anything I'd rather be doing.
My body isn't making me happy. I hurt. All the time. Chronic pain isn't fun, being "able to cope with it" so that nothing has to change and you can just go on living in pain sucks. Every bite I take hurts. Every time I smile, it hurts. My jaws just plain don't fit together.
My mind isn't making me happy. Whether it's obsessing over details, getting far too angry at far too litle, coping and reacting in completely wrong ways, letting myself be misled or be used as a footstool, my mind just isn't doing me any favors.
My relationship isn't making me happy. i'm not all that sexualyl attracted to my wife at the moment, and our sex life is just almost non-existant. We're constantly arguing over every small little point - we had a slamming-doors-in-the-face fight today over the bathroom! And that's utterly unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but it's just one of many. Doesn't matter what about, we argue, and we give each other stress. I'm sure I'm one of my wife's major stressors.

I'm not religious. I don't know if there's an afterlife or not, or rebirth, or what-have-you. I don't know if I'll be judged. If I am, I'll probably be found wanting no matter what. I've had a vasectomy - knowingly and deliberately - because I don't think I'm the person to add more people to this already overpopulated ball. I don't feel like I have any reason to live, right now. Hedonism? Just have as much fun as you can? Well, my life isn't filled with pleasure or joy. Frankly, the last time I could say I was genuinely happy and unencumbered was a long long time ago. As in many years. Including my wedding day and honeymoon. Duty? I don't have any, nor do I feel like anyone is wanting me to. Other people's happiness? Frankly, no. I don't think I should live just to avoid making a few other people sad. I'm sure my wife would be sad if I dropped dead right now, and I'm sure if I asked her she'd say that all the little arguments don't matter and she loves me and wants me around - but on the other hand, 5 years down the line she'd probably be better off without me. Even so, it's a pretty crappy idea to think I'd have to endure decades more pain and stress and anxiety just to avoid making a few other people sad or anxious. Why should I care any more about them than I do about myself? Why should I consider sacrificing years of myself to other people a good idea?
I don't matter, in the grand scheme of things. I don't! No kids, no great discoveries or talents to deploy, no great world change will come about because of me. The only reason I'm around is....because I'm around. Yeah, ok. So we're back to just making the best of life, get some fun out of it, enjoy the time you've got. But....I'm not enjoying it. At all. Life sucks, I don't have the capacity to deal with it. I don't want to deal with it. Letting life pass me by means I'm even more useless, but trying to interact with life is just scary, and hard, and painful, and stressful, and....why? So, I honestly can't think of a good reason for me for being here, rather than not being here.
Suicide would hurt a bunch of people, I know. My parents, my wife, some more friends and family, sure. I don't want someone to find my body and be traumatized. I don't want to traumatize a bus driver, or a train conductor, or whatever. So, I guess I'll muddle along a bit longer. I'm too scared and weak to just end it myself in some way that doesnt' hurt too much. There's no good way to go without being even more of a stressor and a source of pain and misery for other people, so I guess I'll just....hang around. For now. If I knew there was just absolutely nothing after death, and there was no judgement, no final tally, no moral comparison, no "hey, at least you tried"? I guess I'm still too morally bound to try and not hurt others, but that's more weakness - setting my own needs or wants behind other people's - than it is strength.

A part of me knows this is just the depression talking, really. But even not depressed, my life has no external point, nor an internal one. I've spent most of my life looking for meaning, and I sure haven't found any.
 
My comment was originally intended to be a distillation/explanation of @MindDetective's response, though I will happily say I would stand behind it as a statement of my own. Your response appears worded in a way that suggests the letter of a law is more important than its spirit. I would retort that just because something is codified into law does not automatically make it ethical, nor should it automatically imply that law is immune from ethical scrutiny and testing. As the saying goes, "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should."
I am not saying laws are beyond scrutiny, though. What I am trying to convey is that I believe laws are the only reliable way to eliminate the influence of personal opinions and incentive structures. Once a law has been passed on a subject, all of the above ceases to be of relevance as long as the law is in force, and every actor is required to abide by what the legislature has decreed on the subject, and the courts have decided on. As long as a law has not been passed on a subject, then "Your opinion is noted" remains a valid response to grievances or concerns brought up on grounds other than what is based on law, as in such a case no one is obligated to follow a particular course of action if they do not deem it fit to do so.
There's also an added layer of abstraction.
Companies don't do anything. Governments don't do anything. Crews don't do anything.
People do things. A corporation doesn't decide to... Cut down the Amazon for short term profit. People make that choice. And it's perfectly okay to think people should follow some basic ethical principles.
I think a person can well be ethical, but once they are part of an organisation their own ideas are simply one part of a complicated mix. They will have commitments to fulfill and expectations to meet, so the choices they make may not be exactly in accordance with what they themselves might believe, as there are outside influences on their decision making. I think requiring a person to never make compromises on their own personal moral code is a lot to ask of any individual human being.
 
Last edited:
I think requiring a person to never make compromises on their own personal moral code is a lot to ask of any individual human being.
Yeah, no, I don't think that's too much to ask. I've worked for companies that asked me to do amoral shit, and I've either refused, saying we won't do things that way, or if I was too low on the totem poll to make that decision I quit. Doing the right thing isn't some impossible task, and thinking that human beings are just some cog in a machine without choice over their actions is too cynical even for me.
 
What I am trying to convey is that I believe laws are the only reliable way to eliminate personal opinions and incentive structures.
I would be with you 100% on this... IF there was some way to guarantee that laws could never originate from personal opinion nor incentive... which many unfortunately do, and with disappointingly high frequency. In the United States, after all, we have a history of laws that said things like "White people should get preferential treatment," or "Women can't vote," or "The consumption of alcohol is prohibited."
the choices [a person] make(s) may not be exactly in accordance with what they themselves might believe, as there are outside influences on their decision making. I think requiring a person to never make compromises on their own personal moral code is a lot to ask of any individual human being.
This is also 100% true, but one wonders how a company and an individual working for that company could have a discrepancy so vast that the need to make such compromises could exist in the first place. It's one thing for an employee to say, "I really don't like getting out of bed before 10am," and have the company reply to that with, "Well we need you here by 8am." It would be something else entirely for a police department to say something like, "We need you to plant evidence on at least a dozen suspects per week to pad our numbers or else you're fired." Planting/falsifying evidence is something objectively wrong, and both sides should already know that regardless of the existence of any laws explicitly saying so.

--Patrick
 
I was asked to do things by a former boss I wasn’t comfortable with and refused. I paid the consequences of my refusal and in my mind, it’s a lower price than had I done as asked.
 
I want to also say it's not automatic that it's always the company that's the one in the "wrong" on these things. There are also plenty of examples of the individual worker being the one with the "bad" ideas, such as the guy who destroyed 500 COVID doses based on his belief that they would change people's DNA. But that still begs the question why someone with controversial beliefs towards vaccines would decide to work as a pharmacist, of all things.

--Patrick
 
Yeah, no, I don't think that's too much to ask. I've worked for companies that asked me to do amoral shit, and I've either refused, saying we won't do things that way, or if I was too low on the totem poll to make that decision I quit. Doing the right thing isn't some impossible task, and thinking that human beings are just some cog in a machine without choice over their actions is too cynical even for me.
I unironically think such moral rectitude is commendable, in all of the Halforumites who posted personal experiences above. To clarify, I'm not saying people should compromise to the extent of breaking any laws. If I may, I would like to illustrate my concerns with an example or two. Pedro is faced with a similar choice: when ordered to by his employer, he can either get into that bulldozer and start bulldozing the Amazon rainforest, something he has read in the newspaper is a bad thing which he does not want to do, or he can have his family go hungry as the breadwinner is no longer employed. I would not be very quick to fault Pedro and his co-workers for making the choice of feeding their families.

I'll give you another example. A group of western oil engineers is out having beers after-work in a west-African country. The youngest engineer, a few of years out of school, voices a concern: "Guys, do you think what we're doing here is wrong, what with the environmental impact, and feeding the rampant corruption in this country along with everything that entails for the local people, just to get crude to the company a few bucks cheaper?" Everyone in the group turns to look at him, before one of the senior engineers responds: "Maybe, but my wife really likes our yacht."

And then there is of course this gem:

I would be with you 100% on this... IF there was some way to guarantee that laws could never originate from personal opinion nor incentive... which many unfortunately do, and with disappointingly high frequency. In the United States, after all, we have a history of laws that said things like "White people should get preferential treatment," or "Women can't vote," or "The consumption of alcohol is prohibited."
I'm afraid I do not see very many credible alternatives for a reliable system. Something is either required/banned, or it is voluntary. As long as it is voluntary, then although you can incentivise and dis-incentivise, I don't think you can actually require different actors to act in a certain way, as they do not necessarily possess the same views and priorities and thereby don't come to the same conclusions on what is best. They are after all free to act as they wish. Laws aren't a perfect solution by any margin, but what would be a better real-world alternative?
 
I unironically think such moral rectitude is commendable, in all of the Halforumites who posted personal experiences above. To clarify, I'm not saying people should compromise to the extent of breaking any laws. If I may, I would like to illustrate my concerns with an example or two. Pedro is faced with a similar choice: when ordered to by his employer, he can either get into that bulldozer and start bulldozing the Amazon rainforest, something he has read in the newspaper is a bad thing which he does not want to do, or he can have his family go hungry as the breadwinner is no longer employed. I would not be very quick to fault Pedro and his co-workers for making the choice of feeding their families.

I'll give you another example. A group of western oil engineers is out having beers after-work in a west-African country. The youngest engineer, a few of years out of school, voices a concern: "Guys, do you think what we're doing here is wrong, what with the environmental impact, and feeding the rampant corruption in this country along with everything that entails for the local people, just to get crude to the company a few bucks cheaper?" Everyone in the group turns to look at him, before one of the senior engineers responds: "Maybe, but my wife really likes our yacht."

And then there is of course this gem:


I'm afraid I do not see very many credible alternatives for a reliable system. Something is either required/banned, or it is voluntary. As long as it is voluntary, then although you can incentivise and dis-incentivise, I don't think you can actually require different actors to act in a certain way, as they do not necessarily possess the same views and priorities and thereby don't come to the same conclusions on what is best. They are after all free to act as they wish. Laws aren't a perfect solution by any margin, but what would be a better real-world alternative?
In your first example, Pedro doesn't actually have any autonomy, he is just as much as exploited resource as the rainforest in question. The people above him telling him to do this do, and can and should be held accountable.

As for your second example? Fuck 'em, and fuck everyone who knowingly profits off of human suffering and environmental destruction. You keep bringing up the law, and I want to point out that none of the amoral things I was asked to do were illegal. To quote the philosopher Killer Mike, "Fuck the fucking law." Laws are made by those in power and are not a good indicator of what is or isn't moral.


While I realize this is a very complex and multilayered problem, it really shouldn't be that hard a concept
 
Today's another in a long string of bad days. I'm just so completely fucking done with everything. I don't...I don't really see the point? I mean, yeah, I'm sure some people are happy I'm alive, and some of them would hurt for a while if I wasn't. But...That's not a reason to live.
My job isn't making me happy. I'm not doing the best I can because I'm not motivated. I don't have any reason to try.
My hobbys aren't making me happy. There's nothing I do these days that I'm actually enjoying, nor is there anything I'd rather be doing.
My body isn't making me happy. I hurt. All the time. Chronic pain isn't fun, being "able to cope with it" so that nothing has to change and you can just go on living in pain sucks. Every bite I take hurts. Every time I smile, it hurts. My jaws just plain don't fit together.
My mind isn't making me happy. Whether it's obsessing over details, getting far too angry at far too litle, coping and reacting in completely wrong ways, letting myself be misled or be used as a footstool, my mind just isn't doing me any favors.
My relationship isn't making me happy. i'm not all that sexualyl attracted to my wife at the moment, and our sex life is just almost non-existant. We're constantly arguing over every small little point - we had a slamming-doors-in-the-face fight today over the bathroom! And that's utterly unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but it's just one of many. Doesn't matter what about, we argue, and we give each other stress. I'm sure I'm one of my wife's major stressors.

I'm not religious. I don't know if there's an afterlife or not, or rebirth, or what-have-you. I don't know if I'll be judged. If I am, I'll probably be found wanting no matter what. I've had a vasectomy - knowingly and deliberately - because I don't think I'm the person to add more people to this already overpopulated ball. I don't feel like I have any reason to live, right now. Hedonism? Just have as much fun as you can? Well, my life isn't filled with pleasure or joy. Frankly, the last time I could say I was genuinely happy and unencumbered was a long long time ago. As in many years. Including my wedding day and honeymoon. Duty? I don't have any, nor do I feel like anyone is wanting me to. Other people's happiness? Frankly, no. I don't think I should live just to avoid making a few other people sad. I'm sure my wife would be sad if I dropped dead right now, and I'm sure if I asked her she'd say that all the little arguments don't matter and she loves me and wants me around - but on the other hand, 5 years down the line she'd probably be better off without me. Even so, it's a pretty crappy idea to think I'd have to endure decades more pain and stress and anxiety just to avoid making a few other people sad or anxious. Why should I care any more about them than I do about myself? Why should I consider sacrificing years of myself to other people a good idea?
I don't matter, in the grand scheme of things. I don't! No kids, no great discoveries or talents to deploy, no great world change will come about because of me. The only reason I'm around is....because I'm around. Yeah, ok. So we're back to just making the best of life, get some fun out of it, enjoy the time you've got. But....I'm not enjoying it. At all. Life sucks, I don't have the capacity to deal with it. I don't want to deal with it. Letting life pass me by means I'm even more useless, but trying to interact with life is just scary, and hard, and painful, and stressful, and....why? So, I honestly can't think of a good reason for me for being here, rather than not being here.
Suicide would hurt a bunch of people, I know. My parents, my wife, some more friends and family, sure. I don't want someone to find my body and be traumatized. I don't want to traumatize a bus driver, or a train conductor, or whatever. So, I guess I'll muddle along a bit longer. I'm too scared and weak to just end it myself in some way that doesnt' hurt too much. There's no good way to go without being even more of a stressor and a source of pain and misery for other people, so I guess I'll just....hang around. For now. If I knew there was just absolutely nothing after death, and there was no judgement, no final tally, no moral comparison, no "hey, at least you tried"? I guess I'm still too morally bound to try and not hurt others, but that's more weakness - setting my own needs or wants behind other people's - than it is strength.

A part of me knows this is just the depression talking, really. But even not depressed, my life has no external point, nor an internal one. I've spent most of my life looking for meaning, and I sure haven't found any.
I want to reach out and actually hug you so much. You do matter. I know things suck and as the spouse of someone living with chronic pain, we notice. Please talk with your wife about these feelings. Be honest with her. She may be feeling just as bad for not being able to help you. At any rate, she should at least be supportive of you. I think you have already taken the first step in realizing this is the depression talking. It is not you, don't listen to it. If you are able, seek out a professional to help you sort through everything.
 
I want to reach out and actually hug you so much. You do matter. I know things suck and as the spouse of someone living with chronic pain, we notice. Please talk with your wife about these feelings. Be honest with her. She may be feeling just as bad for not being able to help you. At any rate, she should at least be supportive of you. I think you have already taken the first step in realizing this is the depression talking. It is not you, don't listen to it. If you are able, seek out a professional to help you sort through everything.
Thank you. Some long discussion with my wife and therapist did help. I'm still not feeling anywhere near good, but quite a bit better than yesterday, at least.
 
Dear client,

I just want to point out that you are hiring us to translate stuff for you because we know more about translation than you do. I also want to point out that your English sucks, and your "corrections" to our translations make them significantly worse because you've added a bunch of English errors and weird sentence structures. I further want to point out that you're already paying us quite a low fee for this translation because COVID's hit everyone hard so we're now taking cases at lower rates than we usually would, so asking for a discount after we delivered the (perfectly good quality) translation is, frankly, not on. Additionally, I want you to note that you are:

1. Stupid, because you think you're better translators than us.
2. Stupid, because if you were better translators than us you wouldn't have come to us in the first place.
3. Stupid, because you think you can get away with trying to slash our fee for this bullshit.
4. Stupid, because you're under the impression that I'm not going to tear you a new one by going through every single edit you made and explain exactly why your edits are stupid.
5. Stupid, because you think you're going to be able to out-argue me when it comes to English grammar and collocation.
6. Stupid, because you think I'm stupid.
7. Stupid, because you think everyone at my company is stupid.
8. Stupid, because you don't even have the capacity to recognize you're stupid.
9. Stupid, because you would've used "your" instead of "you're" in the above entry, which basically illustrates how monumentally stupid you guys are.

So by all means, come waste my time by trying to argue your case. I should be using my time on more productive cases for more appreciative clients, but honestly I'm having a stressful month so I'll treat ripping you guys to shreds as a welcome break.
 
Dear client,

I just want to point out that you are hiring us to translate stuff for you because we know more about translation than you do. I also want to point out that your English sucks, and your "corrections" to our translations make them significantly worse because you've added a bunch of English errors and weird sentence structures. I further want to point out that you're already paying us quite a low fee for this translation because COVID's hit everyone hard so we're now taking cases at lower rates than we usually would, so asking for a discount after we delivered the (perfectly good quality) translation is, frankly, not on. Additionally, I want you to note that you are:

1. Stupid, because you think you're better translators than us.
2. Stupid, because if you were better translators than us you wouldn't have come to us in the first place.
3. Stupid, because you think you can get away with trying to slash our fee for this bullshit.
4. Stupid, because you're under the impression that I'm not going to tear you a new one by going through every single edit you made and explain exactly why your edits are stupid.
5. Stupid, because you think you're going to be able to out-argue me when it comes to English grammar and collocation.
6. Stupid, because you think I'm stupid.
7. Stupid, because you think everyone at my company is stupid.
8. Stupid, because you don't even have the capacity to recognize you're stupid.
9. Stupid, because you would've used "your" instead of "you're" in the above entry, which basically illustrates how monumentally stupid you guys are.

So by all means, come waste my time by trying to argue your case. I should be using my time on more productive cases for more appreciative clients, but honestly I'm having a stressful month so I'll treat ripping you guys to shreds as a welcome break.
 
Dear client,

I just want to point out that you are hiring us to translate stuff for you because we know more about translation than you do. I also want to point out that your English sucks, and your "corrections" to our translations make them significantly worse because you've added a bunch of English errors and weird sentence structures. I further want to point out that you're already paying us quite a low fee for this translation because COVID's hit everyone hard so we're now taking cases at lower rates than we usually would, so asking for a discount after we delivered the (perfectly good quality) translation is, frankly, not on. Additionally, I want you to note that you are:

1. Stupid, because you think you're better translators than us.
2. Stupid, because if you were better translators than us you wouldn't have come to us in the first place.
3. Stupid, because you think you can get away with trying to slash our fee for this bullshit.
4. Stupid, because you're under the impression that I'm not going to tear you a new one by going through every single edit you made and explain exactly why your edits are stupid.
5. Stupid, because you think you're going to be able to out-argue me when it comes to English grammar and collocation.
6. Stupid, because you think I'm stupid.
7. Stupid, because you think everyone at my company is stupid.
8. Stupid, because you don't even have the capacity to recognize you're stupid.
9. Stupid, because you would've used "your" instead of "you're" in the above entry, which basically illustrates how monumentally stupid you guys are.

So by all means, come waste my time by trying to argue your case. I should be using my time on more productive cases for more appreciative clients, but honestly I'm having a stressful month so I'll treat ripping you guys to shreds as a welcome break.
Their response:
27E7BF50-C5DF-4511-8ED4-2EB1FAEE5F3C.jpeg

(It’s a good book, btw. I recommend it to anyone)
 
Do you ever have someone around you who is having a really bad time lash out at you, and while you know that you're supposed to be the bigger person and overlook it due to their circumstances, the attack was so oddly specific that it just keeps burrowing in your brain and pissing you off days later when everyone else seems to have completely moved on?

Yeah, me neither.
 
I'm afraid I do not see very many credible alternatives for a reliable system. [...] what would be a better real-world alternative?
Nor I, which is why it's so frustrating. The best compromise I can think of is to act to ensure that only people with the highest ethical standards get placed into those positions that propose/enforce the laws. And that's not easy.

--Patrick
 
Nor I, which is why it's so frustrating. The best compromise I can think of is to act to ensure that only people with the highest ethical standards get placed into those positions that propose/enforce the laws. And that's not easy.

--Patrick
But whose ethical standards? :p
 
Top