There is surely a business out there that does fit your world view, though the pay and conditions might not.
In my view, the need for growth at any cost is toxic and leads to all sorts of horrible behaviours.
I’ve looked at every possible organization that could theoretically fit including; MSF a.k.a. doctors without borders, swords to plowshares, goodwill industries (who employ significant numbers of disabled people for sub min wages while the CEO makes 3M+), Mondragon etc… and they all have exactly the same fucked up incentives
why? because there is no way to survive as a structure, if your org is made up of people who want to eat and don’t want to be a monk.
unless your organization is the lead maximalist resource dominator you will be overrun by some organization with no ethics
Ultimately it comes down to the fact that people have to trade physical and mental work for money to survive. So there is no alternative to do the “right thing” without also risking your own safety and stability in your chosen society. 99.99999% of people are completely unwilling to risk their life on behalf of any particular philosophy - if only because those people don’t feel strongly enough about any particular philosophy to actually put themselves on the line for it.
So whoever has the most money, has the ability to get the most people to work for their goals.
Unfortunately the people with all the money/power do not care about anything other than growing their own personal power
I want to argue that the rule of law is one moral system that applies to all organizations. Sure, some overstep and may gain some advantage due to that. But in principle and hopefully on average the result should be net negative. In democratic countries the laws are more or less directly the will of the people, about as egalitarian as we can get, no? Anyways, following the rule of laws should lead to “morally sound” corporations as defined by the people. Corporations can go further than what is legally required, too. That is often used in marketing.
Finally i think the same principles apply wherever humans (or other species) compete. Humans on the whole are not entirely cruel barbarians, we try to care for individuals who are not able to care for themselves etc. Whether “true” altruism exists is another discussion, but it certainly looks like it. So if that’s how people act, why should corporations be more corrupt than the bodies that make them up and govern them?
The rich and powerful through lobbying and direct corruption. Here’s a link just from today: https://www.somo.nl/the-secretive-cabal-of-us-polluters-that...
So any “rules based order” simply locks in the rules of whomever has the most money to bribe politicians
There are no corruption free entities because they are starting with corrupt roots and grow through nepotism and political favors
The proof of this is dripping out of every seam of human organization
Sports teams and leagues are primarily owned by billionaires - like the amount of discussion around who is the owner is a significant portion of sports reporting
The only exception I know off the top of my head I believe is the Packers are community owned but even then I would be skeptical as to how the power dynamics play out in practice
But I want to add, that workplace democracy would be turning the billionaire owned companies into democracies themselves. That is the goal of economic democracy at least, changing the fiefdoms into democracies can't be a worse system.
At the most basic biological level the human species can’t organize action larger than a few hundred people in any kind of coherent way.
There are no coherent organizations that are larger than a few hundred people.
It is a biological impossibility for the human species to maintain long lasting (thousands of years) groups that can have social structures that last long enough to encode genetic fitness changes at the rate of environmental change.,
We do not have the ability to comfortably maintain coherent heirarchies, and subordinated structures, around a coherent epistemological grounding.
Humans are not eusocial.
I just fundamentally don’t see any future for the species level organization whatsoever
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehn%E2%80%93Meidner_model
Sounds similar to what you're asking for.
My question was about sports federations, and not about leagues and commercial clubs (and definitely not in US). Take FIS (International Ski and Snowboard Federation) for example, or smaller European national and regional federations.
You know what, forget it. I thought you have some interesting/insightful framework and thoughts about power/structures in organisations and happy to share it.
that’s what you should take away
there is no solution there’s no answer
the insight is that you should stop working on the problem because it’s intractable
The worse offenders in terms of corrupting power structures seem to be religious organisations, so being a monk is out too.
That power eventually corrupts shouldn’t rule out an organisation, but if it does, start your own and keep it to one employee.
What does it mean, exactly? (I assume it's a typo - s/ask/all/, "all sources funding are corrupted")?
Still, what does it mean? Why all sources of funding are "corrupted"?
Because of the nature of this transactional process it corrupts any possible transfer of power
So consolidated power in any form, is not equitable and the state of physics doesn’t allow for another regime. It’s a munchausen trilemma
And I mean… “don’t want to live like a monk” seems like a telling qualifier: the whole monastic lifestyle seems pretty widespread and enduring across cultures and through time… is the humbler mode of religious devotion an example of what you’re looking for?
In any case you’ve clearly thought deeply and widely about this question—I’d be interested to read your thoughts if you end up collecting them somewhere!