5 ms·

I'm not sure I understand what the alternative is - should you pretend that corporations are not ruthless profit maximizers, and allow them to have undue sway o

I'm not sure I understand what the alternative is - should you pretend that corporations are not ruthless profit maximizers, and allow them to have undue sway over our legislative system all the same? It seems like the root of the problem is that we've let the institutions which are supposed to hold our politicians to account when they exhibit blatant corruption fall into disrepair.

katbyte 4y ago
Do not allow corporations to lobby and influence the law. Do no allow politicians to profit from changes to the law (ie playing the stock markets) Companies are not people and do not have rights.
- themitigating 4y ago
  The US Surpreme court ruled they are people. https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-become-people-excavating-the-legal-evolution https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-...
  - Drakim 4y ago
    The funny thing is that corporations have a bunch of advantages like limited liability on top of the US Supreme court ruling them to have the same rights as people, which means that corporations actually have more rights than regular people.
    - fallingknife 4y ago
      People also have limited liability. You can't be sued for the actions of another person, or held responsible for the debt of another person.
      - anticensor 4y ago
        Limited liability of business companies is much stricter. Natural persons do not have an automatic protection against debts beyond one's own wealth.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    It was a normative statement I believe ("companies should not be people and should not have rights") rather than a factual one (I'm sure they're aware & that's why they felt compelled to make the declaration). English is sadly lacking in this regard, where you often get to make a strongly worded statement or an unambiguous statement, but it's very difficult to do both at the same time.
- butlerm 4y ago
  A corporation is a type of association and has rights that are derivative of its member's rights. An association is composed of people. The only reason why a corporation (or other association) has First Amendment rights is because it is exercising the First Amendment rights of its owners and members. The personhood of a corporation is a legal fiction. The personhood of the ultimate members or shareholders of a corporation is not.
  - trinsic2 4y ago
    Corporations rights don't trump the rights of people. They are subject to the people for a reason, they are organizations that exist for the people, of the people and by the people. This is why we ALLOW them to exist with charters to operate and the discretion of the people. And by the way that part has also been corrupted, charters essentially don't even matter now.
    - anticensor 4y ago
      In Swedish law, corporations' (Aktienbolayet) interests do actually trump their own shareholders' interest.
      - trinsic2 4y ago
        I'm not sure what that means in terms of the common people. In my mind, shareholders, in the shareholding position, are the same as the corporations. When a person has a vested interest that could run counter to the will of the people, then In my mind that is not role where the person has rights that trump the will of the common people. I know laws are made differently in different countries. But the idea of common law is more about doing whats right for everyone involved in daily living regardless of country. Corporations and making profit, in principle, is a byproduct of people and when those for-profit situations runs counter to the will of people, then in principle, that system should be subject to conditions set by people who actual care about its effects on the world.
- abigail95 4y ago
  But people have rights and just because you organise together as a union or a company, the government can't use that as a backdoor to limit your rights (Citizens United).
  - amelius 4y ago
    Why not? If you organize together that means you have more power than an individual. Governments can and should certainly try to equalize that imbalance where possible and where it makes sense.
- codekansas 4y ago
  I mean, doesn't that necessarily follow from an implicit understanding that corporations are ruthless profit maximizers though? I fail to see the supposed ideological inconsistency...
college_physics 4y ago
there are plenty of remedies. the interface of private (narrow) and public (broad) interest is vital and unavoidable but it should be subject to outmost transparency and independent checks. further, corporate structures (size, contracts etc) can change themselves (they are just legal constructs after all) to reduce perverse incentives.
- codekansas 4y ago
  Isn't the first part just rephrasing what I said?
fallingknife 4y ago
The problem is that while corporations are in fact ruthless profit maximizers, government officials are ruthless power maximizers. So not sure how to manage the interaction between them. The goal should be to keep them fighting, though.
- college_physics 4y ago
  > The goal should be to keep them fighting, though. Yep. Perversely, various pathologies are actually entrenched because "fighting" is avoided via all sorts of collusion, cartels, revolving doors etc.

katbyte 4y ago

Do not allow corporations to lobby and influence the law. Do no allow politicians to profit from changes to the law (ie playing the stock markets) Companies are not people and do not have rights.

themitigating 4y ago
The US Surpreme court ruled they are people. https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-become-people-excavating-the-legal-evolution https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-...
- Drakim 4y ago
  The funny thing is that corporations have a bunch of advantages like limited liability on top of the US Supreme court ruling them to have the same rights as people, which means that corporations actually have more rights than regular people.
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    People also have limited liability. You can't be sued for the actions of another person, or held responsible for the debt of another person.
    - anticensor 4y ago
      Limited liability of business companies is much stricter. Natural persons do not have an automatic protection against debts beyond one's own wealth.
- maxbond 4y ago
  It was a normative statement I believe ("companies should not be people and should not have rights") rather than a factual one (I'm sure they're aware & that's why they felt compelled to make the declaration). English is sadly lacking in this regard, where you often get to make a strongly worded statement or an unambiguous statement, but it's very difficult to do both at the same time.
butlerm 4y ago
A corporation is a type of association and has rights that are derivative of its member's rights. An association is composed of people. The only reason why a corporation (or other association) has First Amendment rights is because it is exercising the First Amendment rights of its owners and members. The personhood of a corporation is a legal fiction. The personhood of the ultimate members or shareholders of a corporation is not.
- trinsic2 4y ago
  Corporations rights don't trump the rights of people. They are subject to the people for a reason, they are organizations that exist for the people, of the people and by the people. This is why we ALLOW them to exist with charters to operate and the discretion of the people. And by the way that part has also been corrupted, charters essentially don't even matter now.
  - anticensor 4y ago
    In Swedish law, corporations' (Aktienbolayet) interests do actually trump their own shareholders' interest.
    - trinsic2 4y ago
      I'm not sure what that means in terms of the common people. In my mind, shareholders, in the shareholding position, are the same as the corporations. When a person has a vested interest that could run counter to the will of the people, then In my mind that is not role where the person has rights that trump the will of the common people. I know laws are made differently in different countries. But the idea of common law is more about doing whats right for everyone involved in daily living regardless of country. Corporations and making profit, in principle, is a byproduct of people and when those for-profit situations runs counter to the will of people, then in principle, that system should be subject to conditions set by people who actual care about its effects on the world.
abigail95 4y ago
But people have rights and just because you organise together as a union or a company, the government can't use that as a backdoor to limit your rights (Citizens United).
- amelius 4y ago
  Why not? If you organize together that means you have more power than an individual. Governments can and should certainly try to equalize that imbalance where possible and where it makes sense.
codekansas 4y ago
I mean, doesn't that necessarily follow from an implicit understanding that corporations are ruthless profit maximizers though? I fail to see the supposed ideological inconsistency...

college_physics 4y ago

there are plenty of remedies. the interface of private (narrow) and public (broad) interest is vital and unavoidable but it should be subject to outmost transparency and independent checks. further, corporate structures (size, contracts etc) can change themselves (they are just legal constructs after all) to reduce perverse incentives.

codekansas 4y ago
Isn't the first part just rephrasing what I said?

fallingknife 4y ago

The problem is that while corporations are in fact ruthless profit maximizers, government officials are ruthless power maximizers. So not sure how to manage the interaction between them. The goal should be to keep them fighting, though.

college_physics 4y ago
> The goal should be to keep them fighting, though. Yep. Perversely, various pathologies are actually entrenched because "fighting" is avoided via all sorts of collusion, cartels, revolving doors etc.