4 ms·

We seem to be talking past each-other, but I'll take the bait. If I understand correctly, you seem to be saying that corporations should be afforded all of the

We seem to be talking past each-other, but I'll take the bait. If I understand correctly, you seem to be saying that corporations should be afforded all of the same rights as individual citizens. While certain rights (e.g. freedom from unjust seizure, trial rights, etc.) are important, on the whole, I disagree. Maybe that's where we differ, but I'm not sure if this is the point you are getting around to making. To make my position more clear, I do not believe that corporations should be afforded all of the same rights as citizens. History has shown this to be true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist). In order for capitalism to succeed and our economy to prosper, we need a proper regulatory environment that can protect the interests of individual citizens against organized groups of individuals (e.g. corporations). It is not enough to leave corporations to self-regulate because too often, our interests dramatically diverge. And again, this isn't an easy task, but I believe that it is one worthy of effort. N.B. I'm not all that interested in defending this point any further, but would be happy to hear you make an argument for it, as I haven't heard many great defenses of the "corporation as citizen" argument. Regarding the Citizens United ruling; here's what the Wikipedia article has to say on this case: The Supreme Court reversed the lower court, striking down those provisions of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting "electioneering communications." An "electioneering communication" was defined in McCain–Feingold as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary. From where I sit, this ruling removes barriers from corporations making political contributions (I'm not as concerned as you are with the medium that the electioneering communications are distributed in). This means that they are now better able to lobby for legislation that benefits them to the detriment of their young/upstart competitors (as someone posting on a board related to startups, I'm surprised that this doesn't concern you too). Again, this story was a good illustration of legislation benefiting the entrenched/monied interests over the interests of individual citizens. While it would be nice if the world were perfect, it isn't and we must deal with the realities presented to us.

anamax 15y ago
> If I understand correctly, you seem to be saying that corporations should be afforded all of the same rights as individual citizens. Not really. Since corporations, like families, partnerships, and groups of friends, are aggregations of people, I don't think that your distinction makes sense. How can me plus someone else have fewer free speech rights than either of us by ourselves? However, even if you insist on treating corporations differently than "individual citizens", that doesn't justify treating the NYT differently than my little corporation. > means that they are now better able to lobby for legislation that benefits them to the detriment of their young/upstart competitors (as someone posting on a board related to startups, I'm surprised that this doesn't concern you too). I reject that approach because it can't work. Large corps will never be signficantly constrained. However, small corps can be. It's unclear why you think that tilting the playing field like that is a good thing. Note that the real solution is to keep govt passing ot favors. Of course, that's a futile hope so long as "reformers" think that they can get the right result by tweaking the rules. I keep hoping that they'll catch on. And then there's the small problem that the real damage is done not by for-profit corps, but by "interest groups", such as AARP. I'm not saying that AARP shouldn't be allowed to rant to its members and tell congress "what its members think", but .....
- joelhaus 15y ago
  >Since corporations, like families, partnerships, and groups of friends, are aggregations of people, I don't think that your distinction makes sense. They have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits. That's enough of a difference for, but different strokes... Here's another discussion of the legal rationale if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood >I reject that approach because it can't work. Huh? Read about the Sherman Anti-trust Act. If it's not clear to you why it's necessary after that, then I give up. >the real solution is to keep govt passing ot favors Who decides what is a favor and what isn't? Is the recruitment of more troops for the Iraq war a handout to the high school kids with no college aspirations? Why can't they just put a bid for a private militia? While seemingly extreme, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Overall, this comes across as a very overly simplistic view of reality.

anamax 15y ago

> If I understand correctly, you seem to be saying that corporations should be afforded all of the same rights as individual citizens. Not really. Since corporations, like families, partnerships, and groups of friends, are aggregations of people, I don't think that your distinction makes sense. How can me plus someone else have fewer free speech rights than either of us by ourselves? However, even if you insist on treating corporations differently than "individual citizens", that doesn't justify treating the NYT differently than my little corporation. > means that they are now better able to lobby for legislation that benefits them to the detriment of their young/upstart competitors (as someone posting on a board related to startups, I'm surprised that this doesn't concern you too). I reject that approach because it can't work. Large corps will never be signficantly constrained. However, small corps can be. It's unclear why you think that tilting the playing field like that is a good thing. Note that the real solution is to keep govt passing ot favors. Of course, that's a futile hope so long as "reformers" think that they can get the right result by tweaking the rules. I keep hoping that they'll catch on. And then there's the small problem that the real damage is done not by for-profit corps, but by "interest groups", such as AARP. I'm not saying that AARP shouldn't be allowed to rant to its members and tell congress "what its members think", but .....

joelhaus 15y ago
>Since corporations, like families, partnerships, and groups of friends, are aggregations of people, I don't think that your distinction makes sense. They have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits. That's enough of a difference for, but different strokes... Here's another discussion of the legal rationale if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood >I reject that approach because it can't work. Huh? Read about the Sherman Anti-trust Act. If it's not clear to you why it's necessary after that, then I give up. >the real solution is to keep govt passing ot favors Who decides what is a favor and what isn't? Is the recruitment of more troops for the Iraq war a handout to the high school kids with no college aspirations? Why can't they just put a bid for a private militia? While seemingly extreme, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Overall, this comes across as a very overly simplistic view of reality.