3 ms·
I agree they have an obligation to obey the law. I disagree that they should lobby to change it. I understand that realistically that is what they will do, bu
by jlarocco 10y ago
I agree they have an obligation to obey the law.
I disagree that they should lobby to change it. I understand that realistically that is what they will do, but I don't think it's the ethically correct thing.
Laws are in place to benefit all of society, they shouldn't be changed on behalf of specific corporations, regardless of how much money the "donate".
- avehn 10y agoLaws are in place to benefit those in power not "all of society," as anyone who does not benefit from them can attest to. And I agree, corporations cannot be allowed to change the laws to suit them.
- nohugsneeded 10y agowell, corporations can't change laws. They can only lobby. And laws are passed by the majority to benefit a majority, that's how a democracy works.
- odbol 10y agoIf only we lived in an actual democracy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig
- AstralStorm 10y agoLaws are passed by a tiny percentage of the population, alleged (not necessarily de facto) representatives of the interests of majority. So not confuse republic with a direct democracy.
- fjdlwlv 10y agoIn a democracy, the voters are the ones in power
- yummyfajitas 10y agoSo you oppose Apple and other tech companies lobbying for gay and transgender rights? Or Google lobbying for net neutrality?
- jlarocco 10y agoYes, I'm against corporate lobbying in all cases, even when they're lobbying for causes that I believe in like LGBT rights and net neutrality. I would be quite a hypocrite if I only supported corporate lobbying when it was for causes that I agreed with. Ideally corporations would have no place in politics. And please don't conflate "doesn't support lobbying for XXX" with "doesn't support XXX". They're really orthogonal concepts.
- razorunreal 10y agoThat powers are sometimes used for good does not imply the existence of those powers is a net positive.
- someguydave 10y agoNo but I am for Google and Apple investors holding the management to their fiduciary duty to turn a profit. Lobbying for gay rights seems very loosely connected to that goal. Edit: There is not a fiduciary duty to turn a profit, but there is a fiduciary duty to put the corporation's interests above your personal interests.
- fjdlwlv 10y agoThere is no fiduciary duty to turn a profit
- someguydave 10y agoYou are right - thanks for the correction. However, there is certainly a fiduciary duty to put the interests of the corporation above your personal interests as a high-level manager.