6 ms·

I think it's a big mistake to blame Google and Facebook. They are just the latest symptoms of a long term trend. I think the real corruption started sometime in

I think it's a big mistake to blame Google and Facebook. They are just the latest symptoms of a long term trend. I think the real corruption started sometime in 70s or 80s when it became acceptable to declare that a company has no other obligations than to their shareholders.

tracker1 8y ago
Or the concept of corporate free speech, person-hood and "too big to let fail."
- humanrebar 8y ago
  Freedom is assembly and freedom of speech add up to freedom of group speech, including unions, political groups, ethnic groups, and so on. I don't know why corporations would be special groups without that right. But, yeah, corporate personhood and bailouts need to be revisited. It's too bad that we need to have a functional policital culture to make any significant changes like that.
  - skh 8y ago
    I own some Apple stock. I don’t influence in any meaningful way how Apple spends its money. I don’t influence in any meaningful way their corporate policy. The owners of Apple, save for a few individuals, don’t have a real say in how Apple uses its freedom of speech. Apple is not a group of people coming together in the same way political organizations are and Apple/Google/Exxon, etc. have far more money to send on political speech than any other organized group of people.
    - naveen99 8y ago
      You can sell your shares if you think Apple is spending money that is not good for making its shareholders more money. You selling shares will have non zero impact on the market price of Apple shares.
      - skh 8y ago
        I see you missed the entire point of my post.
      - maxxxxx 8y ago
        The shareholder still has no input if the only option is to sell. In the same spirit a country could tell its citizens that they should leave if they don't like it here.
        humanrebar 8y ago
        Leaving a country is a lot harder than selling some stock.
        skh 8y ago
        But suggestions are equally effective in terms of outcomes. Both suggestions are equally pointless which is maxxxx’s point.
      - tracker1 8y ago
        And Apple can have COMPLETELY open books for transparency if they choose to donate or fund political advertising and/or support. Individuals have rights. Corporations are a bargain for limited liability and should have limited rights as a result.
    - humanrebar 8y ago
      > I don’t influence in any meaningful way their corporate policy. And donating $15 to AARP doesn't give you any meaningful influence over its positions. > The owners of Apple, save for a few individuals, don’t have a real say in how Apple uses its freedom of speech. But that's mostly true of any consumer-level involvement of any very large organization. It doesn't matter if it's Apple, Greenpeace, or the Libertarian Party. > Apple/Google/Exxon, etc. have far more money to send on political speech than any other organized group of people. Probably, but while money is helpful to getting your message out, it's not the only important things. Worse funded candidates beat better funded opponents. If anything, incumbent advantages seem more important and worrisome. But with a more principled perspective, there isn't a mechanism by which free speech rights can be curtailed just because someone is especially resourced. If so, shouldn't we also criticize white collar professional societies for doctors, lawyers, realtors, and the like? They're much more capable of lobbying than associations of dishwashers (as if kitchen staff had time and energy for that).
      - skh 8y ago
        A company is not an organization of people who come together to exercise their free speech. This is especially true of large corporations. Large corporations are controlled by a few individuals and those individuals have at their disposal large sums of money. They have an outsized influence on the political process in a system that does not cap their ability to spend on political purposes. A company ought not have any free speech rights. It’s not a person and indeed is not a single individual. The free speech rights of employees and directors of a company are not in any way curtailed by limiting the ability of a company to influence the political process of a country. As I stated in my previous post the amount of money at a large corporation’s disposal far exceeds that of any other organization of people who come together to advocate on their behalf. Professional societies of doctors can’t come close to the amount of money that Apple or Google have at their disposal. The difference in money between the dishwashers and doctors is dwarfed by the difference between doctors and Apple. Countries like France and Germany are generally considered free and yet their corporations don’t have free speech rights and are limited in what they can do in terms of political spending. Before Citizens United most Americans considered America a free country and yet corporations weren’t considered to have the same free speech rights as humans. It’s been recognized by most people that money greatly influences elections and policy. Hence societies concerned about becoming oligarchies tend to have strict controls on political spending by a single individual and corporation. A corporation is not at all like a professional society of doctors or of any other group of people. It’s a matter of magnitudes of scale and differing purpose. We used to have laws against one company owning too much media and yet we felt free at the time. I’m not going to convince you to change your mind on whether or not corporations should have free speech. I’m just pointing out that corporations are, indeed, not like a professional society of doctors. A professional society of doctors is free to have a rule that members must pledge to be of a particular religion. Can a company have that rule? A company is not a group of people coming together for the purpose of influencing policy or expressing their free speech. I almost forgot to mention another thing to consider. Apple is owned in part by people living in other countries. Most people of a given country don’t want their politics unduly influenced by people who don’t live there.
  - grigjd3 8y ago
    Corporations exist to limit the liability of owners, in particular to decrease risk to owners. Given that owners of corporations are given such special treatment, it makes perfect sense that such an organization does not inherit the rights of the citizens that are protected from the results of the corporation's actions.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Yes. And recall that, in the US before that late 1890s, only public-interest corporations were legal. Because that was the tradeoff for the ability to arbitrarily concentrate capital, with limited-liability. If a corporation violated its public-interest charter, it could be dissolved. But then the railroad corporations got big and rich enough to buy off Congress and the Supreme Court. They got human rights before women did ;)
    - simonh 8y ago
      Corporate personhood cuts both ways. If a corporation doesn't have free speech rights or any of the rights of a person, does it have legal obligations? Can it be sued? Can it enter into a contract and be held to it's terms? The ability of courts to hold corporations accountable under the law and the constitution, in the United States, also relies on the notion of corporate personhood. The notion that people do not lose their legal and constitutional rights when acting collectively seems to me to be a very dangerous one to want to revoke, and it's not obvious to me that any legal right granted by a specific law should entail any unstated or implicit revocation of any other such rights. Newspapers are corporations. Do they have no right of free speech? OK so you could start carving out all sorts of technical exceptions, but that way lies madness and a bonanza for the legal profession at little benefit so far as I can see. Finally as to limited liability, as I understand it limited liability corporations are generally subject to additional taxes as a cost of their liability privileges and that seems to me to be a practical and proportionate arrangement.
      - tracker1 8y ago
        All corporations have limited liability, the limits vary as do the requirements. The fact is, they only exist because the government permits them and assigns these rules, there's no practical reason that non-living entities cannot be restricted in exchange for those benefits assigned. Except now it would take a constitutional amendment to overcome supreme court precedent.
  - tracker1 8y ago
    There is already limited liability of the whole in lieu of personal rights... there doesn't need to be any reason to restrict rights of corporations beyond any typical group. Assembly is fine, but as far as I'm concerned, any organization that accepts donations for political purposes should be required to have open books, outlining where donations come from, and not allowing donations from foreign sources, including international conglomerates. That's just where I stand... I go very far on personal liberty, and the ability to form groups with public receipts, but that's where it should end.
droopyEyelids 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman and the Chicago School of economics are the nexus of the change you're describing. If you're sort of liberal, it's a real mind bender to listen to Milton's speeches on YouTube. It was the first time I really felt exposed to the philosophical core of the various negative things I thought were random externalities of 'capitalism'
- TIMECUB3 8y ago
  Any in particular you can recommend?
- busterarm 8y ago
  I guess ending compulsory military service, safety inspecting our food and opposing entirely state-controlled education systems are the negative core of capitalism then. Who knew.
  - busterarm 8y ago
    I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with any expressed opinions on Friedman, but it's interesting to see someone criticized by political opponents on both sides who fundamentally misunderstand everything he said and stood for. This persisted through his whole life and obviously after his passing as well. At his core, Friedman was fundamentally about a person's right to choose the direction of their own life. That's it -- really all you have to understand about the guy. The GOP seems to love Friedman right now, even though they don't understand him and that makes him an easy target for the opposition. In truth his arguments were fundamentally no different from his oft-adored 'liberal' peers: Henry Simons, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich von Hayek. Economic freedom is essential to attain political freedom.
    - yellowbuilding 8y ago
      One exception to those who misunderstand him are esspecially committed Marxists. The overlaps and differences are fundamental, but Marxists are fundamentally about all of the people’s rights to choose their own direction in life. Friedman’s vast understanding of his very fundamental arguments serve up just the right opposition. The way I understood it, at least, is that Marxists can never claim to come from such a fundamental angle in terms of solutions but their concerns are as fundamental as Friedman’s solutions.

tracker1 8y ago

Or the concept of corporate free speech, person-hood and "too big to let fail."

humanrebar 8y ago
Freedom is assembly and freedom of speech add up to freedom of group speech, including unions, political groups, ethnic groups, and so on. I don't know why corporations would be special groups without that right. But, yeah, corporate personhood and bailouts need to be revisited. It's too bad that we need to have a functional policital culture to make any significant changes like that.
- skh 8y ago
  I own some Apple stock. I don’t influence in any meaningful way how Apple spends its money. I don’t influence in any meaningful way their corporate policy. The owners of Apple, save for a few individuals, don’t have a real say in how Apple uses its freedom of speech. Apple is not a group of people coming together in the same way political organizations are and Apple/Google/Exxon, etc. have far more money to send on political speech than any other organized group of people.
  - naveen99 8y ago
    You can sell your shares if you think Apple is spending money that is not good for making its shareholders more money. You selling shares will have non zero impact on the market price of Apple shares.
    - skh 8y ago
      I see you missed the entire point of my post.
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      The shareholder still has no input if the only option is to sell. In the same spirit a country could tell its citizens that they should leave if they don't like it here.
      - humanrebar 8y ago
        Leaving a country is a lot harder than selling some stock.
        skh 8y ago
        But suggestions are equally effective in terms of outcomes. Both suggestions are equally pointless which is maxxxx’s point.
    - tracker1 8y ago
      And Apple can have COMPLETELY open books for transparency if they choose to donate or fund political advertising and/or support. Individuals have rights. Corporations are a bargain for limited liability and should have limited rights as a result.
  - humanrebar 8y ago
    > I don’t influence in any meaningful way their corporate policy. And donating $15 to AARP doesn't give you any meaningful influence over its positions. > The owners of Apple, save for a few individuals, don’t have a real say in how Apple uses its freedom of speech. But that's mostly true of any consumer-level involvement of any very large organization. It doesn't matter if it's Apple, Greenpeace, or the Libertarian Party. > Apple/Google/Exxon, etc. have far more money to send on political speech than any other organized group of people. Probably, but while money is helpful to getting your message out, it's not the only important things. Worse funded candidates beat better funded opponents. If anything, incumbent advantages seem more important and worrisome. But with a more principled perspective, there isn't a mechanism by which free speech rights can be curtailed just because someone is especially resourced. If so, shouldn't we also criticize white collar professional societies for doctors, lawyers, realtors, and the like? They're much more capable of lobbying than associations of dishwashers (as if kitchen staff had time and energy for that).
    - skh 8y ago
      A company is not an organization of people who come together to exercise their free speech. This is especially true of large corporations. Large corporations are controlled by a few individuals and those individuals have at their disposal large sums of money. They have an outsized influence on the political process in a system that does not cap their ability to spend on political purposes. A company ought not have any free speech rights. It’s not a person and indeed is not a single individual. The free speech rights of employees and directors of a company are not in any way curtailed by limiting the ability of a company to influence the political process of a country. As I stated in my previous post the amount of money at a large corporation’s disposal far exceeds that of any other organization of people who come together to advocate on their behalf. Professional societies of doctors can’t come close to the amount of money that Apple or Google have at their disposal. The difference in money between the dishwashers and doctors is dwarfed by the difference between doctors and Apple. Countries like France and Germany are generally considered free and yet their corporations don’t have free speech rights and are limited in what they can do in terms of political spending. Before Citizens United most Americans considered America a free country and yet corporations weren’t considered to have the same free speech rights as humans. It’s been recognized by most people that money greatly influences elections and policy. Hence societies concerned about becoming oligarchies tend to have strict controls on political spending by a single individual and corporation. A corporation is not at all like a professional society of doctors or of any other group of people. It’s a matter of magnitudes of scale and differing purpose. We used to have laws against one company owning too much media and yet we felt free at the time. I’m not going to convince you to change your mind on whether or not corporations should have free speech. I’m just pointing out that corporations are, indeed, not like a professional society of doctors. A professional society of doctors is free to have a rule that members must pledge to be of a particular religion. Can a company have that rule? A company is not a group of people coming together for the purpose of influencing policy or expressing their free speech. I almost forgot to mention another thing to consider. Apple is owned in part by people living in other countries. Most people of a given country don’t want their politics unduly influenced by people who don’t live there.
- grigjd3 8y ago
  Corporations exist to limit the liability of owners, in particular to decrease risk to owners. Given that owners of corporations are given such special treatment, it makes perfect sense that such an organization does not inherit the rights of the citizens that are protected from the results of the corporation's actions.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Yes. And recall that, in the US before that late 1890s, only public-interest corporations were legal. Because that was the tradeoff for the ability to arbitrarily concentrate capital, with limited-liability. If a corporation violated its public-interest charter, it could be dissolved. But then the railroad corporations got big and rich enough to buy off Congress and the Supreme Court. They got human rights before women did ;)
  - simonh 8y ago
    Corporate personhood cuts both ways. If a corporation doesn't have free speech rights or any of the rights of a person, does it have legal obligations? Can it be sued? Can it enter into a contract and be held to it's terms? The ability of courts to hold corporations accountable under the law and the constitution, in the United States, also relies on the notion of corporate personhood. The notion that people do not lose their legal and constitutional rights when acting collectively seems to me to be a very dangerous one to want to revoke, and it's not obvious to me that any legal right granted by a specific law should entail any unstated or implicit revocation of any other such rights. Newspapers are corporations. Do they have no right of free speech? OK so you could start carving out all sorts of technical exceptions, but that way lies madness and a bonanza for the legal profession at little benefit so far as I can see. Finally as to limited liability, as I understand it limited liability corporations are generally subject to additional taxes as a cost of their liability privileges and that seems to me to be a practical and proportionate arrangement.
    - tracker1 8y ago
      All corporations have limited liability, the limits vary as do the requirements. The fact is, they only exist because the government permits them and assigns these rules, there's no practical reason that non-living entities cannot be restricted in exchange for those benefits assigned. Except now it would take a constitutional amendment to overcome supreme court precedent.
- tracker1 8y ago
  There is already limited liability of the whole in lieu of personal rights... there doesn't need to be any reason to restrict rights of corporations beyond any typical group. Assembly is fine, but as far as I'm concerned, any organization that accepts donations for political purposes should be required to have open books, outlining where donations come from, and not allowing donations from foreign sources, including international conglomerates. That's just where I stand... I go very far on personal liberty, and the ability to form groups with public receipts, but that's where it should end.

droopyEyelids 8y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman and the Chicago School of economics are the nexus of the change you're describing. If you're sort of liberal, it's a real mind bender to listen to Milton's speeches on YouTube. It was the first time I really felt exposed to the philosophical core of the various negative things I thought were random externalities of 'capitalism'

TIMECUB3 8y ago
Any in particular you can recommend?
busterarm 8y ago
I guess ending compulsory military service, safety inspecting our food and opposing entirely state-controlled education systems are the negative core of capitalism then. Who knew.
- busterarm 8y ago
  I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with any expressed opinions on Friedman, but it's interesting to see someone criticized by political opponents on both sides who fundamentally misunderstand everything he said and stood for. This persisted through his whole life and obviously after his passing as well. At his core, Friedman was fundamentally about a person's right to choose the direction of their own life. That's it -- really all you have to understand about the guy. The GOP seems to love Friedman right now, even though they don't understand him and that makes him an easy target for the opposition. In truth his arguments were fundamentally no different from his oft-adored 'liberal' peers: Henry Simons, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich von Hayek. Economic freedom is essential to attain political freedom.
  - yellowbuilding 8y ago
    One exception to those who misunderstand him are esspecially committed Marxists. The overlaps and differences are fundamental, but Marxists are fundamentally about all of the people’s rights to choose their own direction in life. Friedman’s vast understanding of his very fundamental arguments serve up just the right opposition. The way I understood it, at least, is that Marxists can never claim to come from such a fundamental angle in terms of solutions but their concerns are as fundamental as Friedman’s solutions.