2 ms·
That argument assumes a dividing line between business and influence on lawmaking that doesn't exist. If Corp A is reaping the profit while the cost is diffuse
by Maybestring 8y ago
That argument assumes a dividing line between business and influence on lawmaking that doesn't exist.
If Corp A is reaping the profit while the cost is diffused then Corp A is in a far better place to influence future laws than those they are harming.
And by the same guiding principals, Corp A should influence the law to the extent allowable by law, including changes which allow them more legal influence, and remove the influence of others.
- carapace 8y agoOh yeah, I know. I took it as yet another example of how ideology or dogma degrades reasoning ability. The purity and simplicity of the "Friedman position" is seductive. But I just don't think it is fundamentally valid to e.g. pollute to make money just because you're acting on behalf of someone else.