4 ms·

You're willfully misinterpreting the GP. "Separation of corporation of state" should be interpreted in the same light as separation of church and state - using

You're willfully misinterpreting the GP. "Separation of corporation of state" should be interpreted in the same light as separation of church and state - using the state to clearly define boundaries and avoid interference on the state from the church (or corporations), not to give them autonomous and unregulated powers. Citizens United gives corporations leeway to spend as much as they want to help elect officials and influence citizens' electoral decisions, thus inverting the power structure and reinforcing the de facto oligarchy. To separate, we need to regulate.

ByteJockey 6y ago
> using the state to clearly define boundaries and avoid interference on the state from the church There's also a clearly defined boundary where the church is immune from government influence. So, if the government isn't allowed to regulate what churches preach, what's the equivalent for corporations? Not being allowed to regulate what they sell?
- selfsimilar 6y ago
  There is at least some regulation of what churches preach. Hate speech and incitements to violence can and has brought the attention of the FBI on various churches and sects. But I would say there's already a very similar light regulation on advertisements. Truth in advertising is a thing, but not much of one.
  - ByteJockey 6y ago
    > There is at least some regulation of what churches preach. Hate speech and incitements to violence can and has brought the attention of the FBI on various churches and sects. I'm a bit confused here. I think we're using the word regulation differently. I don't tend to think of regulation as paying attention to people who do legal things that happen to correlate with doing illegal things. I don't particularly like this practice, but out of the many labels I could think of to apply to it, regulation isn't one of them. I tend to think of regulation as making a specific behavior (or perhaps a specific way of doing something) illegal, especially if there are financial penalties applied to preforming said behavior. Would you mind elaborating on what definition you were using here? I don't think I've ever run into this particular use of the word before.

ByteJockey 6y ago

> using the state to clearly define boundaries and avoid interference on the state from the church There's also a clearly defined boundary where the church is immune from government influence. So, if the government isn't allowed to regulate what churches preach, what's the equivalent for corporations? Not being allowed to regulate what they sell?

selfsimilar 6y ago
There is at least some regulation of what churches preach. Hate speech and incitements to violence can and has brought the attention of the FBI on various churches and sects. But I would say there's already a very similar light regulation on advertisements. Truth in advertising is a thing, but not much of one.
- ByteJockey 6y ago
  > There is at least some regulation of what churches preach. Hate speech and incitements to violence can and has brought the attention of the FBI on various churches and sects. I'm a bit confused here. I think we're using the word regulation differently. I don't tend to think of regulation as paying attention to people who do legal things that happen to correlate with doing illegal things. I don't particularly like this practice, but out of the many labels I could think of to apply to it, regulation isn't one of them. I tend to think of regulation as making a specific behavior (or perhaps a specific way of doing something) illegal, especially if there are financial penalties applied to preforming said behavior. Would you mind elaborating on what definition you were using here? I don't think I've ever run into this particular use of the word before.