> If nobody will hire a whistleblower, that leads me to believe everyone has skeletons to hide.
That statement has a "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide" kind of vibe to me.
That statement has a "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide" kind of vibe to me.
1. "Why would you knowingly give them access even if you think you're doing everything right?"
Depending on the circumstances, maybe I respect their integrity and character for risking their livelihood and more to expose wrongdoing?
2. "It's just that we don't care because corporate citizens do not get the same rights as actual human citizens."
They shouldn't get the same rights. They only exist to be liability shields. Unlike the people they are composed of, nothing about them deserves empathy or fundamental rights---we grant them certain rights as a matter of public policy, not principle, because it makes our economic system work, and if that were ever to change, their rights should be changed or abolished accordingly.
For example, consider your taxes. Tax laws are always open to interpretation. You might believe you are doing everything correctly on your taxes, that the way you read the rules was correct. But would you still be undergoing a lot of stress if the IRS decided to do a compliance audit on you?
Or, you know, they could have just been privy to information that the company they work for was doing something shady.
> Why would you knowingly give them access even if you think you're doing everything right?
This is because you have the mindset that whistleblowers are little snitches just waiting for the opportunity to tattle.
If a company is breaking laws, they should be punished. Right?
What about that professor who pointed out that on average, most people commit 3 felonies a day? It's all a matter of what the authorities decide to prosecute.
Did you come to a full and complete stop the last time you encountered a stop sign?
Exposing ongoing crimes in an organization is "all downside and no upside" for the organization?
The laws that both support and constrain companies -- and also individuals -- really are supposed to be there for the public good.
I think you can make a good argument that limited liability corporations should serve the public good in return for the stockholders being shielded from financial and criminal liability. Stands to reason then that government has a right to demand something in return.