3 ms·
Company towns were entirely opt-in too, at the start. The problems with concentrating power only rear their head down the road when conflict arises. Instead of
by jjoonathan 6y ago
Company towns were entirely opt-in too, at the start. The problems with concentrating power only rear their head down the road when conflict arises. Instead of worrying about getting fired, now you worry about getting simultaneously fired, evicted, jailed, and censored. Even if you are officially protected, how much can they do unofficially?
> "We already tried this, they are called company towns" is not a clever or insightful take.
That's not a clever or insightful dismissal.
- sneak 6y agoNothing suggests that the company operating the jurisdiction would be the sole, or even a significant, employer.
- jjoonathan 6y agoOk, strike "fired" from the list. Maybe. It's still a concentration of power and the same rules apply. Attractive at first, but then it goes sour when the people with concentrated power start using it for their own ends.
- ryanbrunner 6y agoGiven that cities often are responsible for zoning, and the company is taking on the role of city governance, a company could do a lot to ensure its the only employer in town. Obviously this depends on the particulars of the bill, but it doesn't seem far fetched that companies could put some serious disincentives towards other companies forming.