3 ms·

A corporation is a creation of government. Why shouldn't they be able to regulate them any way they think best? Which isn't necessarily to say this is a good id

A corporation is a creation of government. Why shouldn't they be able to regulate them any way they think best? Which isn't necessarily to say this is a good idea, but... of course government should be able to tell companies how to operate.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
Except in ways that are constitutionally prohibited, right?
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Yeah, sure. For corporations that aren't closely held, it's not clear that changes much, though. [EDIT] Changes much legally, I mean. Ethically—well, again, corporations are a creation of of government, so it seems to me that can come with whatever strings attached the government cares to create (so far as what's ethical, if not what's a good idea), and if the folks running corporations don't like it, they can always... stop running corporations. No one's forcing them to run a corporation, and they can all go do whatever they like with full protection of the US Constitution and all that jazz, if they use their own personal resources and don't hide behind corporate liability shields.
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    Surely you don't think it would be legal for Congress to pass a law preventing newspaper publishers (whether persons natural or juridical) from, for example, endorsing presidential candidates?
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      > Surely you don't think it would be legal for Congress to pass a law preventing newspaper publishers from, for example, endorsing presidential candidates? Nah, but I also reckon there's a reason the press is mentioned specifically in that amendment.
      - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
        What about a law prohibiting unions from doing so?
        yamtaddle 4y ago
        I wouldn't want them to—again, that's separate—but yeah, maybe, since they're also effectively chartered by the government (as they pretty much can't exist in any useful way absent special government support of some kind or another—but then, same goes for corporations). I mean, they do in fact already dictate a lot about how both unions and corporations can operate, so yeah, prohibiting endorsement of candidates using union resources doesn't seem entirely crazy to me. Though, again, I'd rather they didn't.
scarface74 4y ago
So in that case, why not let the government just take over any company it sees fit? If you’re okay with the government controlling any legal organization do yoh feel the same way about government controlling churches? Advocacy groups?
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  > So in that case, why not let the government just take over any company it sees fit? Well, seizing is rather different than regulating, for one thing, and for another, because most of the time I'd probably think it was a bad idea. I do think it's an option that should be on the table in some circumstances. Just that it's probably wises rarely to use it. I didn't write that I thought the government ought to interfere with businesses constantly, to extremes, in all sorts of ways. I just think the justification for their ability to do so, if they want, falls out how incorporation works, and what a corporation is. > If you’re okay with the government controlling any legal organization do yoh feel the same way about government controlling churches? Advocacy groups? I'd rather they didn't take them over, if that's what your suggesting, but they in fact regulate tons of things about these organizations, including, specifically, speech.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    I bet Hobby Lobby and the Christian baker would beg to differ…

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago

Except in ways that are constitutionally prohibited, right?

yamtaddle 4y ago
Yeah, sure. For corporations that aren't closely held, it's not clear that changes much, though. [EDIT] Changes much legally, I mean. Ethically—well, again, corporations are a creation of of government, so it seems to me that can come with whatever strings attached the government cares to create (so far as what's ethical, if not what's a good idea), and if the folks running corporations don't like it, they can always... stop running corporations. No one's forcing them to run a corporation, and they can all go do whatever they like with full protection of the US Constitution and all that jazz, if they use their own personal resources and don't hide behind corporate liability shields.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  Surely you don't think it would be legal for Congress to pass a law preventing newspaper publishers (whether persons natural or juridical) from, for example, endorsing presidential candidates?
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    > Surely you don't think it would be legal for Congress to pass a law preventing newspaper publishers from, for example, endorsing presidential candidates? Nah, but I also reckon there's a reason the press is mentioned specifically in that amendment.
    - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
      What about a law prohibiting unions from doing so?
      - yamtaddle 4y ago
        I wouldn't want them to—again, that's separate—but yeah, maybe, since they're also effectively chartered by the government (as they pretty much can't exist in any useful way absent special government support of some kind or another—but then, same goes for corporations). I mean, they do in fact already dictate a lot about how both unions and corporations can operate, so yeah, prohibiting endorsement of candidates using union resources doesn't seem entirely crazy to me. Though, again, I'd rather they didn't.

scarface74 4y ago

So in that case, why not let the government just take over any company it sees fit? If you’re okay with the government controlling any legal organization do yoh feel the same way about government controlling churches? Advocacy groups?

yamtaddle 4y ago
> So in that case, why not let the government just take over any company it sees fit? Well, seizing is rather different than regulating, for one thing, and for another, because most of the time I'd probably think it was a bad idea. I do think it's an option that should be on the table in some circumstances. Just that it's probably wises rarely to use it. I didn't write that I thought the government ought to interfere with businesses constantly, to extremes, in all sorts of ways. I just think the justification for their ability to do so, if they want, falls out how incorporation works, and what a corporation is. > If you’re okay with the government controlling any legal organization do yoh feel the same way about government controlling churches? Advocacy groups? I'd rather they didn't take them over, if that's what your suggesting, but they in fact regulate tons of things about these organizations, including, specifically, speech.
- scarface74 4y ago
  I bet Hobby Lobby and the Christian baker would beg to differ…