3 ms·

Why blame the company, instead of the individuals that voted for these representatives that are essentially getting "bribed".

• s73v3r 11y ago
  Because the company is the one who "bribed". I honestly do not understand this thought that a company should be able to do whatever they want, with no consequences, because they're trying to profit.
  • zo1 11y ago
    Who is saying that a company should be able to do "whatever they want", "without consequences"? For profit, or any other reason. Not even Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists believe that. So either you have some odd way of thinking about it, or you're constructing a fictional straw-man.
    • s73v3r 11y ago
      You're the one asking why the company should be blamed. You wouldn't be doing that if you didn't think that a company should be able to do stuff like this.
• dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Why blame the company, instead of the individuals that voted for these representatives that are essentially getting "bribed". Out of the three actors (well, one is a heterogenous set of actors, but still) involved (company, reps, and voters), only one is not engaged (at least, as far as this transaction goes) in a corrupt act. So, while certainly they would be well-advised to impose some accountability at the ballot box for the corruption, they are the least to blame for the actual corrupt act (unless, of course, evidence is presented, that has not as yet been, that they should have expected that the particular representatives were more likely to engage in this kind of corrupt behavior than the alternatives they actually had when they elected them, and they elected them anyway without legitimately supervening reasons.)