3 ms·
Point taken. I can't edit my original post, but I'd be happy to apply this logic to any company, large or small. Company profits are not more important that vot
by mikem170 3y ago
Point taken. I can't edit my original post, but I'd be happy to apply this logic to any company, large or small. Company profits are not more important that voters.
- DangitBobby 3y agoPretty much all voters work for companies or buy from companies and are impacted by the costs which are passed on to them.
- mikem170 3y agoWe can imagine situations where voters place more importance on things other than money, right? Like maybe the voters would prefer human police officers as opposed to armed drones, even if the drones were cheaper. Or maybe the voters don't want to be tracked by cameras everywhere they go, given how this data can be abused, even if it costs them $x more per year to shop.
- DangitBobby 3y agoI'm just saying legal costs impact everyone and giving money to legions of lawyers isn't free for John Q Voter.
- mikem170 3y agoBut couldn't it also go the other way, where small local companies who don't need a legion of lawyers would have a competitive advantage over larger companies trying to operate across many jurisdictions? I assume this depends on the regulations being imposed. We already have large companies with legions of lawyers who have the resources to manipulate federal and state politicians in their favor, using regulatory capture and other means to avoid competition. There's a cost associated with that, too.
- wombatpm 3y agoI love how costs are immediately passed on to consumers and employees, but profits remain and should never be allowed to decrease ever for shareholders