4 ms·
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 com
by 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 agoDo you think non-people shouldn't be allowed to lobby? So not charities either?
- oneplane 5y agoVoters 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 agoThat 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 agoNo, it doesn't. Unless that charity is a sociopathic wealth hoarder. Then it does apply and then your point is also moot.
- chrisseaton 5y agoYou 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 agoExactly, 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.
- chrisseaton 5y agoIf voters are allowed to lobby, then a voter who owns, is employed by, or is a customer of, or chooses to represent my company can lobby on my behalf... and that's actually what's happening anyway! Obviously a company as an abstract entity does not lobby. An individual human being lobbies. A voter.
- oneplane 5y agoThat's the problem, isn't it. Sociopathic wealth hoarders should not control the population, and any scheme in which they do it anyway is problematic. That includes delegation.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]