6 ms·

Government of the people, by the people and for the people.[1] 1. Corporations have been determined to be people.

megaman821 3y ago
Blah, this generic sentiment is so tired. What specific rights should we take away from groups of people but are present as individuals?
- son_of_gloin 3y ago
  Corporations aren't democratic organizations though so every individual in the group doesn't really have an equal access to these rights.
  - polski-g 3y ago
    Publicly traded corporations are democratic organizations. You get one vote per share you hold. If you want something to happen, the shareholders can vote for it.
  - megaman821 3y ago
    Presumably the board could stop corporate speech the majority does not agree with. It would be interesting to re-litigate this case with a company like Facebook where Zuckerberg has special voting shares. If donating to a PAC is just a group of people exercising their free speech, can you delegate your right to free speech to someone else?
    - g-b-r 3y ago
      The most f* up aspect is interpreting corruption as "free speech", for both individuals and corporations.
  - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
    What’s not clear to me is why a corporation’s specific governance would matter. When a company “speaks”, it’s still an individual ultimately expressing themselves, just with the benefit of compensation.
    - g-b-r 3y ago
      Sure, expressing themselves...
      - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        You may not like their motives or incentives, but I don't see a compelling argument that makes their expression less legitimate than mine.
        sgift 3y ago
        The compelling argument is that it should be quite obvious that companies do not speak for all of their employees, cause most of them are - to what degree can be argued until the end of time - basically coerced to express the "opinion" of the company. At most it's the opinion of the owners, artificially amplified. And to the question why the owners should not be able to express themselves: They can express themselves individually all they want, but if they want to use a company to do it they should also be personally responsible for everything the company does. And since one of the primary reasons to have a company is to isolate the owners from being sued personally ... there's a bit of a problem here.
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        But that’s not the claim. A “company” doesn’t speak, individuals do. Just because the individuals do as a result of compensation, doesn’t mean they lose their right to free expression. You’re focusing on the “group” aspect of this, but that’s irrelevant to the argument. A PR spokesperson has individual rights, even if they choose to use that voice to advance a company’s goals.
- g-b-r 3y ago
  Corporations are systems generally set up to earn as much as possible disregarding everything else, definitely not "groups of people"....
  - megaman821 3y ago
    Corporations are what their shareholders want them to be. Since a lot of the shareholders came to be shareholders by buying in, they generally want to see a return on investment. It doesn't have to be that way if you can convince the shareholders differently. You are free to bring up a vote to Disney shareholders to change their mission into finding every mouse in the world and naming it Mickey.
    - g-b-r 3y ago
      That's why I said generally By the way, there's a very widespread view that companies are legally required to maximize their shareholders' monetary profit. Can you name many corporations that in the long term were shown to not having behaved so?
- rqtwteye 3y ago
  They should go to prison like individuals. Instead of the endless settlements suspend their business for a while. They would pay way more attention.
  - megaman821 3y ago
    Write the Attorney General, corporations don't shield individuals from criminal liability just financial. If we are making a wishlist; government bailouts to corporations should trigger a termination clause for the the whole c-suite.

Blah, this generic sentiment is so tired. What specific rights should we take away from groups of people but are present as individuals?

son_of_gloin 3y ago
Corporations aren't democratic organizations though so every individual in the group doesn't really have an equal access to these rights.
- polski-g 3y ago
  Publicly traded corporations are democratic organizations. You get one vote per share you hold. If you want something to happen, the shareholders can vote for it.
- megaman821 3y ago
  Presumably the board could stop corporate speech the majority does not agree with. It would be interesting to re-litigate this case with a company like Facebook where Zuckerberg has special voting shares. If donating to a PAC is just a group of people exercising their free speech, can you delegate your right to free speech to someone else?
  - g-b-r 3y ago
    The most f* up aspect is interpreting corruption as "free speech", for both individuals and corporations.
- WendyTheWillow 3y ago
  What’s not clear to me is why a corporation’s specific governance would matter. When a company “speaks”, it’s still an individual ultimately expressing themselves, just with the benefit of compensation.
  - g-b-r 3y ago
    Sure, expressing themselves...
    - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
      You may not like their motives or incentives, but I don't see a compelling argument that makes their expression less legitimate than mine.
      - sgift 3y ago
        The compelling argument is that it should be quite obvious that companies do not speak for all of their employees, cause most of them are - to what degree can be argued until the end of time - basically coerced to express the "opinion" of the company. At most it's the opinion of the owners, artificially amplified. And to the question why the owners should not be able to express themselves: They can express themselves individually all they want, but if they want to use a company to do it they should also be personally responsible for everything the company does. And since one of the primary reasons to have a company is to isolate the owners from being sued personally ... there's a bit of a problem here.
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        But that’s not the claim. A “company” doesn’t speak, individuals do. Just because the individuals do as a result of compensation, doesn’t mean they lose their right to free expression. You’re focusing on the “group” aspect of this, but that’s irrelevant to the argument. A PR spokesperson has individual rights, even if they choose to use that voice to advance a company’s goals.
g-b-r 3y ago
Corporations are systems generally set up to earn as much as possible disregarding everything else, definitely not "groups of people"....
- megaman821 3y ago
  Corporations are what their shareholders want them to be. Since a lot of the shareholders came to be shareholders by buying in, they generally want to see a return on investment. It doesn't have to be that way if you can convince the shareholders differently. You are free to bring up a vote to Disney shareholders to change their mission into finding every mouse in the world and naming it Mickey.
  - g-b-r 3y ago
    That's why I said generally By the way, there's a very widespread view that companies are legally required to maximize their shareholders' monetary profit. Can you name many corporations that in the long term were shown to not having behaved so?
rqtwteye 3y ago
They should go to prison like individuals. Instead of the endless settlements suspend their business for a while. They would pay way more attention.
- megaman821 3y ago
  Write the Attorney General, corporations don't shield individuals from criminal liability just financial. If we are making a wishlist; government bailouts to corporations should trigger a termination clause for the the whole c-suite.