4 ms·
Absolutely. It isn't collectivism to regulate industries and companies that have enormous power to do good or harm. This idea that private property is unconditi
by bobthechef 5y ago
Absolutely. It isn't collectivism to regulate industries and companies that have enormous power to do good or harm. This idea that private property is unconditionally off limits is radically individualist and libertarian and just as bad as collectivism. We aren't atomized individuals. We all live in a society with a proper order and a common good. When a company begins to do harm to the common good, it must be regulated (or at least certain activities should be criminalized which is probably a better default in general than regulation). The notion that "I can do what I want" as long as it takes place in the private sphere is absurd. The private is distinct from the public, but it also affects the public and vice versa. Thus the presumption is in favor of not regulating private activity, but not an absolute and universally binding one.
- CamperBob2 5y agoThe notion that "I can do what I want" as long as it takes place in the private sphere is absurd. So what's your take on Lawrence v. Texas?
- unethical_ban 5y agoNot the OP, but I think "companies" and "individuals" are very different, and discussions around corporate responsibility and society are different from regulating social behavior between two individuals.
- CamperBob2 5y agoSo what about regulating it between three individuals? Or four? Or four hundred? At what point does collective social behavior become (y)our concern?
- krastanov 5y agoSince when is a mathematical definition necessary for this? Finding the "exact line of separation" between a couple of individuals and a powerful megacorp sounds like a fun mental puzzle, but it is not something that comes up in practice. What is the thought experiment in which finding the exact delineation is of importance? On the other hand, it is pretty easy to distinguish the limiting cases. This is like worrying about how large an asteroid has to be in order to be called a planet.
- lmm 5y agoAt the point where a collective asks for the special privilege of forming a limited liability corporation?
- unethical_ban 5y agoProfit motive, the ability for newcomers in your market-space to challenge your position in your market, and the form of your organization. Two people in their house, a large, transparent non-profit advocacy organization, a dark money lobbying org, and a hundred-billion-dollar for-profit incumbent that acts as a pillar of human interaction for news, education and entertainment across the globe are very different situations. It isn't as simple as scaling up numbers.
- ssivark 5y agoTo add, I think that rather than a person -vs- company dichotomy, it’s better to frame the discussion in terms of the total resources that can be brought to bear, and whether that can have an “undue” influence (relative to the power of all the other agents in a sector). Eg: Bill Gates (an individual) is much closer in this sense to YouTube than a typical small company employing a dozen people.
- RedComet 5y agoSodomy should be illegal. But what does that have to do with Google censoring dissent in foreign countries?
- rob_c 5y agoWell that escalated quickly...