5 ms·

I think you have missed the point so many times it's hard to come up with a number... Intuit isn't a person, it didn't vote and it has no place telling the gov

I think you have missed the point so many times it's hard to come up with a number... Intuit isn't a person, it didn't vote and it has no place telling the government what to do for the people. A company has no opinions, only a bottom line and in many lobbying cases a bunch a shareholders. A government isn't a company and doesn't need to have financial gain, it needs to support the collective people of the country it governs.

chrisseaton 5y ago
What do you think is the difference between Intuit lobbying and a representative of Intuit lobbying? If the CEO of Intuit phones their representative and says they think some change to the tax code is bad that's lobbying and that's fine to me.
- NineStarPoint 5y ago
  The difference is that Intuit also throws money in directions that make sure they get heard. If the CEO of Intuit (or a representative of Intuit) just called the same phone line the rest of us get, sure there wouldn’t be a difference there. Even if the representatives were calling on Inuit from their side because they believed Intuit has relevant insights into the tax code, that would be fine. But that’s not what’s happening. It’s the way political donations buy access to representatives attention in ways that the non-rich don’t have access to that people take issue with.
- oneplane 5y ago
  It's not about what I "think" the difference is. The difference is, in fact, that a company is not a person. And a person doing something in the name of the company or as a representative of the company is not acting as a person either, but as an extension of the company. A company is essentially a sociopath that does not have to follow a social contract, has no limited lifespan, doesn't need to eat, sleep, have shelter, and doesn't feel pain or joy. All it does is extract as much value as possible, at any cost, including joy, safely and general lives of others. A government that panders to sociopathic wealth hoarders isn't a government, but just another company and the people in general are worse off for it.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    Do you think non-people shouldn't be allowed to lobby? So not charities either?
    - oneplane 5y ago
      Voters should be allowed to lobby. Ideally, sociopathic wealth hoarders should never be allowed to lobby or vote. But some of those are people, so those'd be the exception, sadly (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27698751 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27698751).
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        That would mean that for example a charity for vulnerable people not able to lobby for themselves would not be able to lobby on their behalf.
        oneplane 5y ago
        No, it doesn't. Unless that charity is a sociopathic wealth hoarder. Then it does apply and then your point is also moot.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        You said 'Voters should be allowed to lobby' - but a charity isn't a voter. Other things that aren't voters but most people think should be able to lobby in a healthy democracy include unions.
        oneplane 5y ago
        Exactly, I said 'Voters should be allowed to lobby'. Not 'exclusively'. I said that because you stated that I was say ing 'nobody should be allowed to lobby', which is also not what I was saying. It seems that you are constantly trying to make it fit your personal narrative. And even then, does it matter? The point is that voters, which is what the government exists for, should be the ones to assess what they want, not the sociopathic wealth hoarder with the most wealth. If you want to define an ultra specific scope around that, you can do that.
monocularvision 5y ago
Do you think the New York Times has the right to perform journalism?

chrisseaton 5y ago

What do you think is the difference between Intuit lobbying and a representative of Intuit lobbying? If the CEO of Intuit phones their representative and says they think some change to the tax code is bad that's lobbying and that's fine to me.

NineStarPoint 5y ago
The difference is that Intuit also throws money in directions that make sure they get heard. If the CEO of Intuit (or a representative of Intuit) just called the same phone line the rest of us get, sure there wouldn’t be a difference there. Even if the representatives were calling on Inuit from their side because they believed Intuit has relevant insights into the tax code, that would be fine. But that’s not what’s happening. It’s the way political donations buy access to representatives attention in ways that the non-rich don’t have access to that people take issue with.
oneplane 5y ago
It's not about what I "think" the difference is. The difference is, in fact, that a company is not a person. And a person doing something in the name of the company or as a representative of the company is not acting as a person either, but as an extension of the company. A company is essentially a sociopath that does not have to follow a social contract, has no limited lifespan, doesn't need to eat, sleep, have shelter, and doesn't feel pain or joy. All it does is extract as much value as possible, at any cost, including joy, safely and general lives of others. A government that panders to sociopathic wealth hoarders isn't a government, but just another company and the people in general are worse off for it.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Do you think non-people shouldn't be allowed to lobby? So not charities either?
  - oneplane 5y ago
    Voters should be allowed to lobby. Ideally, sociopathic wealth hoarders should never be allowed to lobby or vote. But some of those are people, so those'd be the exception, sadly (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27698751 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27698751).
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      That would mean that for example a charity for vulnerable people not able to lobby for themselves would not be able to lobby on their behalf.
      - oneplane 5y ago
        No, it doesn't. Unless that charity is a sociopathic wealth hoarder. Then it does apply and then your point is also moot.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        You said 'Voters should be allowed to lobby' - but a charity isn't a voter. Other things that aren't voters but most people think should be able to lobby in a healthy democracy include unions.
        oneplane 5y ago
        Exactly, I said 'Voters should be allowed to lobby'. Not 'exclusively'. I said that because you stated that I was say ing 'nobody should be allowed to lobby', which is also not what I was saying. It seems that you are constantly trying to make it fit your personal narrative. And even then, does it matter? The point is that voters, which is what the government exists for, should be the ones to assess what they want, not the sociopathic wealth hoarder with the most wealth. If you want to define an ultra specific scope around that, you can do that.

monocularvision 5y ago

Do you think the New York Times has the right to perform journalism?