6 ms·

Im scared of such arguments. And im telling you as a libertarian. No, private companies should be regulated and shareholders cant be the only voice to be heard.

Im scared of such arguments. And im telling you as a libertarian. No, private companies should be regulated and shareholders cant be the only voice to be heard. I mean, what if starbucks shareholders decide that, lets say, african americans are no longer allowed to buy coffe on their shops. Would it be ok to allow it?

F147H34D 7y ago
No. We have the civil rights act of 1964.
- hnick 7y ago
  But presumably, were this discussion taking place in 1963, there would be someone saying: <company> will do whatever the hell it wants on its own property and has no obligation to listen to anyone except the voice of 51% of its shareholders.
  - F147H34D 7y ago
    This is all well documented history. I encourage you to look at the circumstances and conversations in govt that lead to the civil rights act.
    - hnick 7y ago
      I think that's really beside the point I am making. My argument is that history is full of people defending the status quo, until it stops being the status quo. Then it becomes taken as truth that the new status quo is how things must be. We can have discussions about what a business can and cannot do beyond what they are currently allowed to do.
  - randiantech 7y ago
    Yes. Exactly what I tried to suggest.
- dhimes 7y ago
  So you agree that they should be regulated. Law is regulation.
klyrs 7y ago
> I mean, what if starbucks shareholders decide that, lets say, african americans are no longer allowed to buy coffe on their shops. If the shareholders are motivated by religious belief? Great question. I'm afraid to consider how the supreme court would decide
conanbatt 7y ago
That would be against the interests of the shareholders. But if they all got together and decided to do so, the result would be that racists would go under, and I do not want to help racists succeed in business!
zanny 7y ago
I never said not to. But complaining on the platform itself is not petitioning your representatives to regulate Twitter. Its wasting time and throwing words into a bottomless hole. And given the studies showing how little the will of the people influences the conduct of congress in the US I'd strongly consider petitioning the government barely a step beyond an equal waste of time. Which isn't just rolling over and taking it - but actually fixing it goes way beyond a moment of outrage enshrined in text on the Internet.

F147H34D 7y ago

No. We have the civil rights act of 1964.

hnick 7y ago
But presumably, were this discussion taking place in 1963, there would be someone saying: <company> will do whatever the hell it wants on its own property and has no obligation to listen to anyone except the voice of 51% of its shareholders.
- F147H34D 7y ago
  This is all well documented history. I encourage you to look at the circumstances and conversations in govt that lead to the civil rights act.
  - hnick 7y ago
    I think that's really beside the point I am making. My argument is that history is full of people defending the status quo, until it stops being the status quo. Then it becomes taken as truth that the new status quo is how things must be. We can have discussions about what a business can and cannot do beyond what they are currently allowed to do.
- randiantech 7y ago
  Yes. Exactly what I tried to suggest.
dhimes 7y ago
So you agree that they should be regulated. Law is regulation.

klyrs 7y ago

> I mean, what if starbucks shareholders decide that, lets say, african americans are no longer allowed to buy coffe on their shops. If the shareholders are motivated by religious belief? Great question. I'm afraid to consider how the supreme court would decide

conanbatt 7y ago

That would be against the interests of the shareholders. But if they all got together and decided to do so, the result would be that racists would go under, and I do not want to help racists succeed in business!

zanny 7y ago

I never said not to. But complaining on the platform itself is not petitioning your representatives to regulate Twitter. Its wasting time and throwing words into a bottomless hole. And given the studies showing how little the will of the people influences the conduct of congress in the US I'd strongly consider petitioning the government barely a step beyond an equal waste of time. Which isn't just rolling over and taking it - but actually fixing it goes way beyond a moment of outrage enshrined in text on the Internet.