6 ms·

I have interned with Microsoft in the past, and am scheduled to in the future. Therefore take everything I say with a metric ton of salt. Obviously my opinion

I have interned with Microsoft in the past, and am scheduled to in the future. Therefore take everything I say with a metric ton of salt. Obviously my opinions don't speak for them. Most corporations put their lobbying efforts behind or against legislation based on what's in their interest. I don't believe that the public can honestly expect them to act any differently so long as their behavior is in accordance with the law -- even if only technically, and even if the law should be changed. I don't like SOPA one bit, and I don't think it should pass. I think what this highlights, however, is that legislation should stem from principles and the interest of the people (individuals only, please). This is not currently the case, thanks in part to a long history of Supreme Court decisions (culminating in Citizens United v. FEC) which permits corporations to buy politicians. It is certainly not in most politicians' interest to alter the status quo. As with the Occupy Wall Street crowd, I say again: if corporations are following the law of the land in a way that's detrimental to the public, then the law is what's broken. In this case I'm increasingly of the opinion that all campaign contributions of any kind should be banned. In any case I'm appalled that the primary concern with sweeping and dangerous legislation is what will happen to the economy, and not the basis on which such a law is founded.

naner 15y ago
Right and this also explains other behavior. Take patents, for example. Microsoft took advantage of the laws pertaining to software patents and now that they have a massive patent portfolio, they use them to generate revenue and hurt competitors. And they try to influence the law to protect or enhance this revenue stream and competitive advantage. So Microsoft is somewhat a product of the legal terrain and the legal terrain is to some extent a reflection of Microsoft (and other companies). And our congresspeople could be imagined as mini corporations. Instead of selling goods and services they sell political influence. Instead of shareholders they have constituents. And they often act according to their best financial interests.
esrauch 15y ago
> In this case I'm increasingly of the opinion that all campaign contributions of any kind should be banned. Unfortunately the only real effect of this is that only the independently wealthy would be able to successfully run for office.
- Vivtek 15y ago
  Public funding. If getting information to the public about candidates costs money, then that's just another tragedy of the commons - an external cost of government that is simply ignored so that the rich and powerful can have government to themselves. It is very easy to argue that informing the public about their options in an election is essential and should therefore be covered by public funds.
  - pnathan 15y ago
    That's a very good place for using public funds, in my opinion.
  - tedunangst 15y ago
    Who decides which candidates get public money to spend?
    - Vivtek 15y ago
      Any registered candidate would have to get funding for public funding to make any sense. Since the registration is already in place, there you go. If you can't get your minimum signatures to register, you don't get funding. Seems fair to me.
      - tedunangst 15y ago
        Looking ahead to the next ca election with 2000 candidates... Give each candidate enough money to buy a tv ad and go bankrupt or give each candidate a nickel? I can't envision this system leading to more informed voters.
        Vivtek 15y ago
        Yeah, they were real informed last time without public funding. If you guys like to have a circus every time there's nothing I can say about that, but private funding isn't the answer. Because the outcome of that is Governor Schwarzenegger.
breck 15y ago
> I think what this highlights, however, is that legislation should stem from principles and the interest of the people (individuals only, please) Exactly. No bill should be longer than a couple of pages. The Constitution is less than 15 pages, no bill should be longer than that. (Or you can pick another arbitrary number as long as it is low). Special interests are unintentionally creating a worse world for all of us (and not just IP proponents, I mean all special interests from banking lobbyists to teacher unions), and the way they are doing it is because bills are impossible to understand (even if that's your job!), and so everyone tries to get their short term benefit while making the whole system worse in the long run. Make a constitutional amendment saying no bill can be more than 15 pages and I guarantee you countless problems will go away.
- morsch 15y ago
  Your constitution has spawned hundreds of years of bickering on how it is meant to be interpreted. I'm not sure this is a good model for all legislation. It's like those solutions to fight bureaucracy: it's easy to come up with a simpler solution, but invariably you end up finding out that there's a down side to it.
- lotu 15y ago
  Just make lots of short bills instead, or make a sort bill granting vast regulatory authority to another group. Congressmen are clever and they will get around arbitrary restrictions like that.
  - angelbob 15y ago
    If they have to individually pass 10 15-page bills to get 150 pages of legislation passed, that's still progress.
    - andrewflnr 15y ago
      Right. It will create friction discouraging frivolous legislation, and is almost equivalent to a line-item veto.
- 15y ago
freemarketteddy 15y ago
You are right....The notion that corporations (which is a group of individuals together to achieve a particular objective,most commonly money) have the same rights as individuals(objective:happiness) is the root of this mess!....But I dont know if such an old legal precedent like Dartmouth vs Woodward can be changed!...Not that people havent tried.....http://movetoamend.org/ http://movetoamend.org/! This should really be the aim of the OWS movement!
- steve-howard 15y ago
  The notion of corporations as people is fine with me as a legal fiction (the original intent). The major advance in the Dartmouth case was that contracts made by corporations were valid, and that the state didn't have the right to arbitrarily dissolve them. I wouldn't want that particular aspect to be any other way. More important is the conflation of artificial persons and actual people. In light of my previous concept of a corporation as an entity that does whatever's legal, however amoral, to make a profit, it's silly to apply moral concepts such as "inalienable rights" to them.
lukeschlather 15y ago
>I don't believe that the public can honestly expect them to act any differently so long as their behavior is in accordance with the law -- even if only technically, and even if the law should be changed. Corporations are composed of people, and I expect people to act morally. Laws are never going to properly capture morality, to put it another way legality is a weak indicator of morality. I humbly submit that it's not OK to be a sociopath in the service of a corporation, just because legally corporations are allowed to be sociopaths. People are just people, and should use their consciences.
- Terretta 15y ago
  Compositions of people are not individuals.
- guelo 15y ago
  Corporations' only moral code is greed. And I'm not talking abstractly, I've been part of discussions at companies where people adamantly say it is wrong to leave money on the table no matter what. The only time it is OK not to grab all money you can is if it might prevent the company from grabbing even more money in the future.
  - ericd 15y ago
    The REALLY long term game is helping your country be prosperous so that you have an educated workforce to draw from and people and people and companies wealthy enough to pay high prices for your products. That requires a pretty pervasive altruistic/moral attitude to make it work, though... tragedy of the commons and all that, otherwise.
    - steve-howard 15y ago
      Try selling national prosperity to shareholders.
      - ericd 15y ago
        It works fine for the buy and hold crowd...
sreque 15y ago
You can't force people to make the right choices through legislation. There will always be loopholes and technicalities, and a law system that attempted to do so would be so restrictive of individual freedoms as to be entirely impractical. If a society stops being composed primarily of good people that make the right choices for the right reasons, that society will crumble, and no amount of legislation will save it.

naner 15y ago

Right and this also explains other behavior. Take patents, for example. Microsoft took advantage of the laws pertaining to software patents and now that they have a massive patent portfolio, they use them to generate revenue and hurt competitors. And they try to influence the law to protect or enhance this revenue stream and competitive advantage. So Microsoft is somewhat a product of the legal terrain and the legal terrain is to some extent a reflection of Microsoft (and other companies). And our congresspeople could be imagined as mini corporations. Instead of selling goods and services they sell political influence. Instead of shareholders they have constituents. And they often act according to their best financial interests.

esrauch 15y ago

> In this case I'm increasingly of the opinion that all campaign contributions of any kind should be banned. Unfortunately the only real effect of this is that only the independently wealthy would be able to successfully run for office.

Vivtek 15y ago
Public funding. If getting information to the public about candidates costs money, then that's just another tragedy of the commons - an external cost of government that is simply ignored so that the rich and powerful can have government to themselves. It is very easy to argue that informing the public about their options in an election is essential and should therefore be covered by public funds.
- pnathan 15y ago
  That's a very good place for using public funds, in my opinion.
- tedunangst 15y ago
  Who decides which candidates get public money to spend?
  - Vivtek 15y ago
    Any registered candidate would have to get funding for public funding to make any sense. Since the registration is already in place, there you go. If you can't get your minimum signatures to register, you don't get funding. Seems fair to me.
    - tedunangst 15y ago
      Looking ahead to the next ca election with 2000 candidates... Give each candidate enough money to buy a tv ad and go bankrupt or give each candidate a nickel? I can't envision this system leading to more informed voters.
      - Vivtek 15y ago
        Yeah, they were real informed last time without public funding. If you guys like to have a circus every time there's nothing I can say about that, but private funding isn't the answer. Because the outcome of that is Governor Schwarzenegger.

breck 15y ago

> I think what this highlights, however, is that legislation should stem from principles and the interest of the people (individuals only, please) Exactly. No bill should be longer than a couple of pages. The Constitution is less than 15 pages, no bill should be longer than that. (Or you can pick another arbitrary number as long as it is low). Special interests are unintentionally creating a worse world for all of us (and not just IP proponents, I mean all special interests from banking lobbyists to teacher unions), and the way they are doing it is because bills are impossible to understand (even if that's your job!), and so everyone tries to get their short term benefit while making the whole system worse in the long run. Make a constitutional amendment saying no bill can be more than 15 pages and I guarantee you countless problems will go away.

morsch 15y ago
Your constitution has spawned hundreds of years of bickering on how it is meant to be interpreted. I'm not sure this is a good model for all legislation. It's like those solutions to fight bureaucracy: it's easy to come up with a simpler solution, but invariably you end up finding out that there's a down side to it.
lotu 15y ago
Just make lots of short bills instead, or make a sort bill granting vast regulatory authority to another group. Congressmen are clever and they will get around arbitrary restrictions like that.
- angelbob 15y ago
  If they have to individually pass 10 15-page bills to get 150 pages of legislation passed, that's still progress.
  - andrewflnr 15y ago
    Right. It will create friction discouraging frivolous legislation, and is almost equivalent to a line-item veto.
15y ago

freemarketteddy 15y ago

You are right....The notion that corporations (which is a group of individuals together to achieve a particular objective,most commonly money) have the same rights as individuals(objective:happiness) is the root of this mess!....But I dont know if such an old legal precedent like Dartmouth vs Woodward can be changed!...Not that people havent tried.....http://movetoamend.org/ http://movetoamend.org/! This should really be the aim of the OWS movement!

steve-howard 15y ago
The notion of corporations as people is fine with me as a legal fiction (the original intent). The major advance in the Dartmouth case was that contracts made by corporations were valid, and that the state didn't have the right to arbitrarily dissolve them. I wouldn't want that particular aspect to be any other way. More important is the conflation of artificial persons and actual people. In light of my previous concept of a corporation as an entity that does whatever's legal, however amoral, to make a profit, it's silly to apply moral concepts such as "inalienable rights" to them.

lukeschlather 15y ago

>I don't believe that the public can honestly expect them to act any differently so long as their behavior is in accordance with the law -- even if only technically, and even if the law should be changed. Corporations are composed of people, and I expect people to act morally. Laws are never going to properly capture morality, to put it another way legality is a weak indicator of morality. I humbly submit that it's not OK to be a sociopath in the service of a corporation, just because legally corporations are allowed to be sociopaths. People are just people, and should use their consciences.

Terretta 15y ago
Compositions of people are not individuals.
guelo 15y ago
Corporations' only moral code is greed. And I'm not talking abstractly, I've been part of discussions at companies where people adamantly say it is wrong to leave money on the table no matter what. The only time it is OK not to grab all money you can is if it might prevent the company from grabbing even more money in the future.
- ericd 15y ago
  The REALLY long term game is helping your country be prosperous so that you have an educated workforce to draw from and people and people and companies wealthy enough to pay high prices for your products. That requires a pretty pervasive altruistic/moral attitude to make it work, though... tragedy of the commons and all that, otherwise.
  - steve-howard 15y ago
    Try selling national prosperity to shareholders.
    - ericd 15y ago
      It works fine for the buy and hold crowd...

sreque 15y ago

You can't force people to make the right choices through legislation. There will always be loopholes and technicalities, and a law system that attempted to do so would be so restrictive of individual freedoms as to be entirely impractical. If a society stops being composed primarily of good people that make the right choices for the right reasons, that society will crumble, and no amount of legislation will save it.