3 ms·

> Government, through the legal system and regulation, already has that authority. We all live and operate under the law; there are many things businesses (and

> Government, through the legal system and regulation, already has that authority. We all live and operate under the law; there are many things businesses (and individuals) can't do and and others they must do. I still don't see what distinguishes these rules from existing rules in that respect. If it already has that authority, then what is this law that Warren is proposing? My understanding is that it's a whole new sort of authority. Although there is a pending law in California that gives it the power to regulate board constitution, government is not currently able to do what the act allows. Or are you saying that there are laws that govern corporations therefore the government can do anything arbitrarily? If so, that's not really how things work. > Could you provide a substantial basis for this prediction? I suspect that I couldn't offer anything that you would accept. "General public benefit" is the one that most obviously suggests future malleability à la the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution.

forapurpose 8y ago
> I suspect that I couldn't offer anything that you would accept. To be clear, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but I'm just looking for what I can learn. If someone can't cite chapter and verse on HN, it doesn't make their point wrong, just temporarily inconclusive. > If it already has that authority, then what is this law that Warren is proposing? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that government does not have authority to regulate corporate behavior? My point is that they obviously do, and that a change in the rules is not a change in the fundamental power.
- billbrown 8y ago
  > To be clear, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but I'm just looking for what I can learn. If someone can't cite chapter and verse on HN, it doesn't make their point wrong, just temporarily inconclusive. Okay, I guess I've been burned in too many discussions by disingenuous people so I was reading in a motive that wasn't there. For a great example, think of the broadcast licenses and the FCC. Initially, they were just registrations to allocate spectrum. Over time, policies were put in place like the Fairness Doctrine, which added actual content requirements; diversity ownership; or diffusion of ownership requirements. This was all done through the renewal process, which is probably the mechanism by which the rechartering would occur. > I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that government does not have authority to regulate corporate behavior? My point is that they obviously do, and that a change in the rules is not a change in the fundamental power. The American government does not have the authority to regulate corporate behavior in the manner that Warren is proposing. That is why she is proposing this law. You're saying that government has this power, which is true because "government" can do anything to anyone anytime. The twentieth century has demonstrated the limitlessness of government power. But that's an equivocation. We're discussing the American government, which cannot do anything to anyone anytime.

forapurpose 8y ago

> I suspect that I couldn't offer anything that you would accept. To be clear, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but I'm just looking for what I can learn. If someone can't cite chapter and verse on HN, it doesn't make their point wrong, just temporarily inconclusive. > If it already has that authority, then what is this law that Warren is proposing? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that government does not have authority to regulate corporate behavior? My point is that they obviously do, and that a change in the rules is not a change in the fundamental power.

billbrown 8y ago
> To be clear, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but I'm just looking for what I can learn. If someone can't cite chapter and verse on HN, it doesn't make their point wrong, just temporarily inconclusive. Okay, I guess I've been burned in too many discussions by disingenuous people so I was reading in a motive that wasn't there. For a great example, think of the broadcast licenses and the FCC. Initially, they were just registrations to allocate spectrum. Over time, policies were put in place like the Fairness Doctrine, which added actual content requirements; diversity ownership; or diffusion of ownership requirements. This was all done through the renewal process, which is probably the mechanism by which the rechartering would occur. > I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that government does not have authority to regulate corporate behavior? My point is that they obviously do, and that a change in the rules is not a change in the fundamental power. The American government does not have the authority to regulate corporate behavior in the manner that Warren is proposing. That is why she is proposing this law. You're saying that government has this power, which is true because "government" can do anything to anyone anytime. The twentieth century has demonstrated the limitlessness of government power. But that's an equivocation. We're discussing the American government, which cannot do anything to anyone anytime.