5 ms·

What do we do about this new dynamic of social corporatism? Do we not follow laws anymore and allow corporations to dictate social justice? (Nothing to do abou

What do we do about this new dynamic of social corporatism? Do we not follow laws anymore and allow corporations to dictate social justice? (Nothing to do about this specific law but corporations are increasingly taking issues, which should be left to the public voters, in their own hands… do we get to vote for CEOs?)

foolzcrow 5y ago
100% agree.
ViViDboarder 5y ago
This doesn’t seem particularly relevant here. I see folks touting that people can “vote” for companies through their wallets and that people who don’t like law of the land in an area can just leave. This is in-line with both of those views.
lokar 5y ago
How is the corporation not following the law? I imagine some (many?) SF employees in TX moved there for the job and did not expect this. SF feels at least partly responsible to these people and is offering to help.
nirav72 5y ago
I don't see how any laws are being violated here. if Salesforce was somehow encouraging their employees to ignore Texas laws, then thats another thing. But that's not the case here.
- version_five 5y ago
  Even if laws are being violated, civil disobedience is a valid response to unjust laws. I don't think there is anything wrong, or incompatible with western democracy about companies taking a principled stand against unjust laws, as a person would. The only problem comes when a special interest hijacks a company's notion of what kind of activism is reasonable.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
invalidname 5y ago
This move: helping employees move to a different state is actually totally OK. The problem is the dark money and superpacks (citizens united supreme court ruling etc). This is a bipartisan problem that both Obama and Trump claimed they would fight. Obama couldn't get any traction for this, I'm unaware of anything Trump tried to do other than attacking the liberal side of this. Biden also went out against this but it's very low on his priority list with everything going on... In the supreme court it's pretty clear whose side is at fault. The justices that voted for the case of citizens united are all from the right side of the map. So the only way to reverse this seems to be a complete overhaul of the supreme court which seems unlikely.
- lokar 5y ago
  Another view is that the constitution as written allows the $$$. That's bad, but the solution is to amend the constitution, not have SCOTUS ignore it.
  - landemva 5y ago
    Another view is that we tinkered to destruction by: direct election of senators and capping growth of house of representatives.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

foolzcrow 5y ago

100% agree.

ViViDboarder 5y ago

This doesn’t seem particularly relevant here. I see folks touting that people can “vote” for companies through their wallets and that people who don’t like law of the land in an area can just leave. This is in-line with both of those views.

lokar 5y ago

How is the corporation not following the law? I imagine some (many?) SF employees in TX moved there for the job and did not expect this. SF feels at least partly responsible to these people and is offering to help.

nirav72 5y ago

I don't see how any laws are being violated here. if Salesforce was somehow encouraging their employees to ignore Texas laws, then thats another thing. But that's not the case here.

version_five 5y ago
Even if laws are being violated, civil disobedience is a valid response to unjust laws. I don't think there is anything wrong, or incompatible with western democracy about companies taking a principled stand against unjust laws, as a person would. The only problem comes when a special interest hijacks a company's notion of what kind of activism is reasonable.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

invalidname 5y ago

This move: helping employees move to a different state is actually totally OK. The problem is the dark money and superpacks (citizens united supreme court ruling etc). This is a bipartisan problem that both Obama and Trump claimed they would fight. Obama couldn't get any traction for this, I'm unaware of anything Trump tried to do other than attacking the liberal side of this. Biden also went out against this but it's very low on his priority list with everything going on... In the supreme court it's pretty clear whose side is at fault. The justices that voted for the case of citizens united are all from the right side of the map. So the only way to reverse this seems to be a complete overhaul of the supreme court which seems unlikely.

lokar 5y ago
Another view is that the constitution as written allows the $$$. That's bad, but the solution is to amend the constitution, not have SCOTUS ignore it.
- landemva 5y ago
  Another view is that we tinkered to destruction by: direct election of senators and capping growth of house of representatives.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]