8 ms·

Flagged This is so stupid, people don't understand that groups of people should have the same rights as individuals. The campaign finance laws disallow small

Flagged This is so stupid, people don't understand that groups of people should have the same rights as individuals. The campaign finance laws disallow small groups and small companies to buy advertisements expressing their opinions while allow large groups and companies to setup PACS to do it.

ericd 17y ago
Care to justify that opinion that a company deserves the same rights as an individual? A company generally greatly magnifies the will of a single person, or a very small group of people, making their voice much stronger than that of a common citizen. This concentration of power in the hands of a corporate elite, combined with the rights of a citizen presents the opportunity for the creation of an oligarchy of corporate elites that effectively sway the decisions of many citizens. This is pretty counter to many of the ideas at the core of the country's foundation. That's what I and many others "don't understand" about your contention.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  A company does not have free speech or any other rights, but it's shareholders have the right to use their company for speech. Similarly, your computer does not have any rights, but you do have the right to post hacker news comments using your computer (provided pg lets you). If you truly believe people have the right to use their corporations for speech, then what prevents the government from censoring corporate newspapers like the NYT?
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - chrischen 17y ago
    > Similarly, your computer does not have any rights, but you do have the right to post hacker news comments using your computer (provided pg lets you). But you're assuming a company is purely a vessel to voice a group's opinions, when that's not the case. Furthermore the government is supposed to serve individual people and to make sure that every person gets an equal voice in government. Is it morally okay to let a company, which is designed to increase profit and power, to be used to also push certain agendas? For example, if Apple, who sells computers, decides to push an agenda to segregate schools using the money and influence it acquired from selling iPods and iPads, do you think this is okay? What the hell do iPods and iPads have to do with racial segregation? See the problem here? Apple has a vested interest in profit and sales. !!!If you let people use power accrued through unrelated methods push certain agendas, then special interests that stand weakly on their own merits' will have undeserved representation in our government!!! Contrast it with an organization designed to emphasize a certain agenda by collecting the people who support it together. The power and influence of that interest is directly correlated to its demand.
    - yummyfajitas 17y ago
      I'm absolutely assuming a company is purely a vessel to voice the shareholders opinions, provided that doing so is in accordance with the corporate charter. For example, if Apple, who sells computers, decides to push an agenda to segregate schools using the money and influence it acquired from selling iPods and iPads, do you think this is okay? It depends. As far as I know, the corporate charter of Apple is the standard "increase shareholder value" charter. In that case, it would not be acceptable for Apple to do this unless somehow segregation increased shareholder value. In fact, pushing segregation would be violating the rights of minority shareholders. However, pushing a "windows sux" law or candidate would not violate the rights of minority shareholders since such a corporate strategy could reasonably increase shareholder value. On the other hand, the corporate charter allowed Apple to devote 10% of their profits to general racism (or perhaps to general social causes, as agreed to by the board), then it would be acceptable regardless of the opinion of the minority. This is simply a question of contract law. If you don't like the charter of a company, don't buy shares. !!!If you let people use power accrued through unrelated methods push certain agendas, then special interests that stand weakly on their own merits' will have undeserved representation in our government!!! This is not an issue restricted to corporations. In general, we allow people to persuade other people to vote in all sorts of ways. Some people have persuasive power accrued through unrelated methods. For example, Barack Obama has verbal persuasive power accrued through methods (community organizing and teaching law) completely unrelated to government insurance, union bailouts and cash for clunkers. Should he be forbidden from speaking?
      - chrischen 17y ago
        > I'm absolutely assuming a company is purely a vessel to voice the shareholders opinions, provided that doing so is in accordance with the corporate charter. Then the company will become a vessel to voice the opinion of the corporate charter. > It depends. As far as I know, the corporate charter of Apple is the standard "increase shareholder value" charter. In that case, it would not be acceptable for Apple to do this unless somehow segregation increased shareholder value. In fact, pushing segregation would be violating the rights of minority shareholders. So isn't pushing agendas that have the sole purpose of increasing shareholder value potentially contradictory to the interests of the general public population of citizens, whom the government are obligated to serve? > On the other hand, the corporate charter allowed Apple to devote 10% of their profits to general racism (or perhaps to general social causes, as agreed to by the board), then it would be acceptable regardless of the opinion of the minority. Again the company now is acting as an inhuman entity. It has interests characterized by a charter, not by a human being's potentially malleable opinions. > This is simply a question of contract law. If you don't like the charter of a company, don't buy shares. Yes but some of us can't say no to an iPhone. Should we be forced to indirectly support segregation? > This is not an issue restricted to corporations. In general, we allow people to persuade other people to vote in all sorts of ways. Some people have persuasive power accrued through unrelated methods. Yes we allow individuals to do that. But there is a reason corporations imposing their influence is frowned upon. I think your misunderstanding stems from the fact that you see a company as having the rights of a person. But a company is not a person. A company does not have the same needs as a person and thus it has the possibility of having conflicting interests with those of a citizen. The government is here to provide equal representation for citizens, not arbitrary entities. > For example, Barack Obama has verbal persuasive power accrued through methods (community organizing and teaching law) completely unrelated to government insurance, union bailouts and cash for clunkers. Should he be forbidden from speaking? No because Barack Obama is a human, he is not a corporation. He has a right to speak for human beings' interests because he is one (at least the last time I checked). A company is not a human. It has a distinct non-human character defined by your so called "corporate charter." A corporation accruing power (through money) is different from a human accruing power through money, or otherwise. A corporation does it because it has to, a human does it for a plethora of reasons unknown. But we do know that whatever the human's reasons are, they are because he/she is a human. And the government is supposed to represent the interest of human citizens.
- brg 17y ago
  Why the strong reaction against advertisements? Are they such a terribly efficient means of mind control that no collection of individuals banning together should be allowed to sponsor them? If so, then why allow any advertisement at all?
  - ericd 17y ago
    Advertising for products is of course fine. The reaction is against playing in the political arena with an agenda motivated by their profit rather than the overall good of the country.
    - chrischen 17y ago
      Not only that, but if I make money selling porn, do you want me to use my power accrued from people's lust to be used to promote some agenda completely unrelated like say... teaching creationism? People need porn, but most people don't want creationism. So should porno buyers be forced to indirectly support creationism? If something is beneficial to the people, the people will vote for it. It's the fundamental of democracy.
      - yummyfajitas 17y ago
        Do customers of your employer really want their money to indirectly support your political views? Probably not. Therefore, you (like a corporation) should be forbidden from spending your own money trying to persuade people that your point of view is correct.
        chrischen 17y ago
        I should not be forbidden because i'm a human. A company is inhuman. It may be like a human because it has corporate bylaws that can potentially change, but it is not a human. It does not have equal rights granted by the government. THe government serves humans.
        17y ago
pierrefar 17y ago
One alternative solution would be ban PACS. And groups of people constantly express their opinions in synchrony. We call them political parties.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  So basically, no one besides political parties (and groups of people too small to make a difference, I suppose) should be permitted to advocate for or against political candidates?
  - pierrefar 17y ago
    I didn't say that. Remember that in the various flavours of democracy, the indivdiual votes and make their opinions heard. These individuals, regardless of their company affiliation, can vote.
    - Semiapies 17y ago
      Which doesn't suggest anything either way for the issue at hand.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
chrischen 17y ago
I didn't vote you down, but I will offer my reasoning for why I don't think you understand the problem with treating companies as people. I'm sure you've heard of the saying to separate business and personal stuff. Well that is the problem. Companies legally have to do what's in the companies own profit seeking interest. This is in the hopes that some of that profit seeking rubs off in benefit to society, but it's not directly resultant in benefit to society. Furthermore you can't treat a company as representative of the interests of a group of people because the company is an entity itself. The companies decision making is governed by rules and policies interpreted by the people running it. The people who run it have personal agendas, but when running the companies they have to do it a specific way for a specific set of interests. These interests conflict with those of a normal human being living in the United States. The company is an entity, but not a citizen. It's characterized by policies and rules, and furthermore those policies and rules seek a well defined interest: profit.
- dantheman 17y ago
  1. Most people objecting to this have a problem with large corporations effecting elections -- this ruling had nothing to do with that. They could easily put money in PACs to buy adverting. All McCain-Feingold did was limit the ability of small groups of people and small companies to do the same thing through mountains of red tape. 2. Companies do not have to seek profit at all costs, public corporations have a responsibility to shareholders, but even then there is great leeway in what they're allowed to do.
  - chrischen 17y ago
    1. I don't care what most people object to. I was explaining why the line of reasoning: treating companies as people, is wrong. Sure they could put money into PACs, they can bribe too. Doesn't mean it's right, certainly doesn't mean we have to tolerate it. Companies do not share the same needs as a human citizen. Companies, as individual entities, do NOT share the same interests as a human citizen. Therefore companies cannot be given the same right to serve or lobby the people's interests. Companies accrue their powers from means unrelated to potential agendas they push. Which means the voice of their agendas can potentially be inflated. Secondly even if their agendas are directly related to how they get their power, then their agenda is directly related to corporate interest, because they get their power from profit.
rbanffy 17y ago
So... How do you arrest a corporation?

ericd 17y ago

Care to justify that opinion that a company deserves the same rights as an individual? A company generally greatly magnifies the will of a single person, or a very small group of people, making their voice much stronger than that of a common citizen. This concentration of power in the hands of a corporate elite, combined with the rights of a citizen presents the opportunity for the creation of an oligarchy of corporate elites that effectively sway the decisions of many citizens. This is pretty counter to many of the ideas at the core of the country's foundation. That's what I and many others "don't understand" about your contention.

yummyfajitas 17y ago
A company does not have free speech or any other rights, but it's shareholders have the right to use their company for speech. Similarly, your computer does not have any rights, but you do have the right to post hacker news comments using your computer (provided pg lets you). If you truly believe people have the right to use their corporations for speech, then what prevents the government from censoring corporate newspapers like the NYT?
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- chrischen 17y ago
  > Similarly, your computer does not have any rights, but you do have the right to post hacker news comments using your computer (provided pg lets you). But you're assuming a company is purely a vessel to voice a group's opinions, when that's not the case. Furthermore the government is supposed to serve individual people and to make sure that every person gets an equal voice in government. Is it morally okay to let a company, which is designed to increase profit and power, to be used to also push certain agendas? For example, if Apple, who sells computers, decides to push an agenda to segregate schools using the money and influence it acquired from selling iPods and iPads, do you think this is okay? What the hell do iPods and iPads have to do with racial segregation? See the problem here? Apple has a vested interest in profit and sales. !!!If you let people use power accrued through unrelated methods push certain agendas, then special interests that stand weakly on their own merits' will have undeserved representation in our government!!! Contrast it with an organization designed to emphasize a certain agenda by collecting the people who support it together. The power and influence of that interest is directly correlated to its demand.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    I'm absolutely assuming a company is purely a vessel to voice the shareholders opinions, provided that doing so is in accordance with the corporate charter. For example, if Apple, who sells computers, decides to push an agenda to segregate schools using the money and influence it acquired from selling iPods and iPads, do you think this is okay? It depends. As far as I know, the corporate charter of Apple is the standard "increase shareholder value" charter. In that case, it would not be acceptable for Apple to do this unless somehow segregation increased shareholder value. In fact, pushing segregation would be violating the rights of minority shareholders. However, pushing a "windows sux" law or candidate would not violate the rights of minority shareholders since such a corporate strategy could reasonably increase shareholder value. On the other hand, the corporate charter allowed Apple to devote 10% of their profits to general racism (or perhaps to general social causes, as agreed to by the board), then it would be acceptable regardless of the opinion of the minority. This is simply a question of contract law. If you don't like the charter of a company, don't buy shares. !!!If you let people use power accrued through unrelated methods push certain agendas, then special interests that stand weakly on their own merits' will have undeserved representation in our government!!! This is not an issue restricted to corporations. In general, we allow people to persuade other people to vote in all sorts of ways. Some people have persuasive power accrued through unrelated methods. For example, Barack Obama has verbal persuasive power accrued through methods (community organizing and teaching law) completely unrelated to government insurance, union bailouts and cash for clunkers. Should he be forbidden from speaking?
    - chrischen 17y ago
      > I'm absolutely assuming a company is purely a vessel to voice the shareholders opinions, provided that doing so is in accordance with the corporate charter. Then the company will become a vessel to voice the opinion of the corporate charter. > It depends. As far as I know, the corporate charter of Apple is the standard "increase shareholder value" charter. In that case, it would not be acceptable for Apple to do this unless somehow segregation increased shareholder value. In fact, pushing segregation would be violating the rights of minority shareholders. So isn't pushing agendas that have the sole purpose of increasing shareholder value potentially contradictory to the interests of the general public population of citizens, whom the government are obligated to serve? > On the other hand, the corporate charter allowed Apple to devote 10% of their profits to general racism (or perhaps to general social causes, as agreed to by the board), then it would be acceptable regardless of the opinion of the minority. Again the company now is acting as an inhuman entity. It has interests characterized by a charter, not by a human being's potentially malleable opinions. > This is simply a question of contract law. If you don't like the charter of a company, don't buy shares. Yes but some of us can't say no to an iPhone. Should we be forced to indirectly support segregation? > This is not an issue restricted to corporations. In general, we allow people to persuade other people to vote in all sorts of ways. Some people have persuasive power accrued through unrelated methods. Yes we allow individuals to do that. But there is a reason corporations imposing their influence is frowned upon. I think your misunderstanding stems from the fact that you see a company as having the rights of a person. But a company is not a person. A company does not have the same needs as a person and thus it has the possibility of having conflicting interests with those of a citizen. The government is here to provide equal representation for citizens, not arbitrary entities. > For example, Barack Obama has verbal persuasive power accrued through methods (community organizing and teaching law) completely unrelated to government insurance, union bailouts and cash for clunkers. Should he be forbidden from speaking? No because Barack Obama is a human, he is not a corporation. He has a right to speak for human beings' interests because he is one (at least the last time I checked). A company is not a human. It has a distinct non-human character defined by your so called "corporate charter." A corporation accruing power (through money) is different from a human accruing power through money, or otherwise. A corporation does it because it has to, a human does it for a plethora of reasons unknown. But we do know that whatever the human's reasons are, they are because he/she is a human. And the government is supposed to represent the interest of human citizens.
brg 17y ago
Why the strong reaction against advertisements? Are they such a terribly efficient means of mind control that no collection of individuals banning together should be allowed to sponsor them? If so, then why allow any advertisement at all?
- ericd 17y ago
  Advertising for products is of course fine. The reaction is against playing in the political arena with an agenda motivated by their profit rather than the overall good of the country.
  - chrischen 17y ago
    Not only that, but if I make money selling porn, do you want me to use my power accrued from people's lust to be used to promote some agenda completely unrelated like say... teaching creationism? People need porn, but most people don't want creationism. So should porno buyers be forced to indirectly support creationism? If something is beneficial to the people, the people will vote for it. It's the fundamental of democracy.
    - yummyfajitas 17y ago
      Do customers of your employer really want their money to indirectly support your political views? Probably not. Therefore, you (like a corporation) should be forbidden from spending your own money trying to persuade people that your point of view is correct.
      - chrischen 17y ago
        I should not be forbidden because i'm a human. A company is inhuman. It may be like a human because it has corporate bylaws that can potentially change, but it is not a human. It does not have equal rights granted by the government. THe government serves humans.
        17y ago

pierrefar 17y ago

One alternative solution would be ban PACS. And groups of people constantly express their opinions in synchrony. We call them political parties.

yummyfajitas 17y ago
So basically, no one besides political parties (and groups of people too small to make a difference, I suppose) should be permitted to advocate for or against political candidates?
- pierrefar 17y ago
  I didn't say that. Remember that in the various flavours of democracy, the indivdiual votes and make their opinions heard. These individuals, regardless of their company affiliation, can vote.
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    Which doesn't suggest anything either way for the issue at hand.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]

chrischen 17y ago

I didn't vote you down, but I will offer my reasoning for why I don't think you understand the problem with treating companies as people. I'm sure you've heard of the saying to separate business and personal stuff. Well that is the problem. Companies legally have to do what's in the companies own profit seeking interest. This is in the hopes that some of that profit seeking rubs off in benefit to society, but it's not directly resultant in benefit to society. Furthermore you can't treat a company as representative of the interests of a group of people because the company is an entity itself. The companies decision making is governed by rules and policies interpreted by the people running it. The people who run it have personal agendas, but when running the companies they have to do it a specific way for a specific set of interests. These interests conflict with those of a normal human being living in the United States. The company is an entity, but not a citizen. It's characterized by policies and rules, and furthermore those policies and rules seek a well defined interest: profit.

dantheman 17y ago
1. Most people objecting to this have a problem with large corporations effecting elections -- this ruling had nothing to do with that. They could easily put money in PACs to buy adverting. All McCain-Feingold did was limit the ability of small groups of people and small companies to do the same thing through mountains of red tape. 2. Companies do not have to seek profit at all costs, public corporations have a responsibility to shareholders, but even then there is great leeway in what they're allowed to do.
- chrischen 17y ago
  1. I don't care what most people object to. I was explaining why the line of reasoning: treating companies as people, is wrong. Sure they could put money into PACs, they can bribe too. Doesn't mean it's right, certainly doesn't mean we have to tolerate it. Companies do not share the same needs as a human citizen. Companies, as individual entities, do NOT share the same interests as a human citizen. Therefore companies cannot be given the same right to serve or lobby the people's interests. Companies accrue their powers from means unrelated to potential agendas they push. Which means the voice of their agendas can potentially be inflated. Secondly even if their agendas are directly related to how they get their power, then their agenda is directly related to corporate interest, because they get their power from profit.

rbanffy 17y ago

So... How do you arrest a corporation?