3 ms·

One vote won't make a difference either, should people not vote? I'm not saying the FAA shouldn't also intervene, I'm simply pointing out that consumers almost

One vote won't make a difference either, should people not vote? I'm not saying the FAA shouldn't also intervene, I'm simply pointing out that consumers almost always seem to ignore their own power in the situation. What you're describing feels much like a tragedy of the commons problem. If I chose not to fly everyone else still will and I'll be left driving around like a schmuck. I might as well fly too, and when I'm worried about safety I'll just call for more regulation.

bombcar 3y ago
> One vote won't make a difference either, should people not vote? Basically, yes. Voting changes you way more than it ever changes the world, and introspection about that is worth considering.
- strogonoff 3y ago
  Your single vote changes nothing, but having to vote changes you. You start considering politics. You debate policies, online and online. You get your opinions across and evolve them. You persuade your community, your friends and family, and they do the same with theirs. Eventually, it turns out it’s not just your single vote. That’s what happens where people can vote and expect that their vote actually counts.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  Why is it important for everyone to cast a single vote that itself won't make a difference, but unimportant for one yo choose not to partake in an industry that they either disagree with or distrust? If one vite is worth casting simply fr the fact that it can help a person think more deeply about issues that matter to them, certainly the same could be said for how they choose to spend their money as well.
Eisenstein 3y ago
Unfortunately corporations are not democracies, so no matter what happens, they can ignore our 'vote' when we use dollars. Spending or not spending money does not compel any company to do anything. So, the comparison is not valid.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  Companies are entirely driven by money. If one person chooses not to patronize the business it probably won't change anything. But ehst if a hundred do? Or a hundred thousand? Agree or disagree with the politics behind it, Budweiser was absolutely rocked by a large enough number of customers deciding to no longer buy their product. The comparison is absolutely valid from where I sit. One vote or one customs makes little to no difference. Enough people raising their voice, though, can fundamentally shake the system.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    They may be driven by money, but they are not mandated to take any course of action because of it. Case in point -- Zuckerberg is blowing billions of dollars on VR without a path to profitability. No one can make him do anything -- he can tank Facebook/Meta if he wants to, regardless of how many people do or do not buy Quests. Stop trying to defend the view that corporations are somehow beholden to the public just because the public sometimes buys things some of them sell.
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      > Stop trying to defend the view that corporations are somehow beholden to the public just because the public sometimes buys things some of them sell. I never made that claim and wouldn't defend it. I was arguing that consumers collectively have some power over corporations via their wallets. Consumers can choose not to fly on commercial airlines, or specifically not to take flights on certain models of plane. I never said anything about them being beholden to the public, only the dollar. > They may be driven by money, but they are not mandated to take any course of action because of it. That's not true for publicly traded companies, they are legally obligated to do what is best for their shareholders. Obviously no one can predict the future so they only do what they believe is best and can get it wrong, like Zuckerberg seems to have done with the metaverse bet.
      - Eisenstein 3y ago
        > I never made that claim and wouldn't defend it. I was arguing that consumers collectively have some power over corporations via their wallets. Consumers can choose not to fly on commercial airlines, or specifically not to take flights on certain models of plane. I never said anything about them being beholden to the public, only the dollar. Regulation is the answer to this question. Asking a person to not fly and pretending that makes a difference to a huge airline is minimizing how much of a burden it is to have to deal with as an individual (a lot) vs how much difference it might make to the company (none). By comparing it to a democratic vote (mandating a change in government forcing accountability to the populace), I see it as effectively stating that money can take the place of democracy and that means that those with more money get more votes. This is a terrible way to think the world should work, so let's work on getting corporations to do the right thing by making them do it and not hoping they might because we decided not to give them money that they didn't know they didn't get from us.

bombcar 3y ago

> One vote won't make a difference either, should people not vote? Basically, yes. Voting changes you way more than it ever changes the world, and introspection about that is worth considering.

strogonoff 3y ago
Your single vote changes nothing, but having to vote changes you. You start considering politics. You debate policies, online and online. You get your opinions across and evolve them. You persuade your community, your friends and family, and they do the same with theirs. Eventually, it turns out it’s not just your single vote. That’s what happens where people can vote and expect that their vote actually counts.
_heimdall 3y ago
Why is it important for everyone to cast a single vote that itself won't make a difference, but unimportant for one yo choose not to partake in an industry that they either disagree with or distrust? If one vite is worth casting simply fr the fact that it can help a person think more deeply about issues that matter to them, certainly the same could be said for how they choose to spend their money as well.

Eisenstein 3y ago

Unfortunately corporations are not democracies, so no matter what happens, they can ignore our 'vote' when we use dollars. Spending or not spending money does not compel any company to do anything. So, the comparison is not valid.

_heimdall 3y ago
Companies are entirely driven by money. If one person chooses not to patronize the business it probably won't change anything. But ehst if a hundred do? Or a hundred thousand? Agree or disagree with the politics behind it, Budweiser was absolutely rocked by a large enough number of customers deciding to no longer buy their product. The comparison is absolutely valid from where I sit. One vote or one customs makes little to no difference. Enough people raising their voice, though, can fundamentally shake the system.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  They may be driven by money, but they are not mandated to take any course of action because of it. Case in point -- Zuckerberg is blowing billions of dollars on VR without a path to profitability. No one can make him do anything -- he can tank Facebook/Meta if he wants to, regardless of how many people do or do not buy Quests. Stop trying to defend the view that corporations are somehow beholden to the public just because the public sometimes buys things some of them sell.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    > Stop trying to defend the view that corporations are somehow beholden to the public just because the public sometimes buys things some of them sell. I never made that claim and wouldn't defend it. I was arguing that consumers collectively have some power over corporations via their wallets. Consumers can choose not to fly on commercial airlines, or specifically not to take flights on certain models of plane. I never said anything about them being beholden to the public, only the dollar. > They may be driven by money, but they are not mandated to take any course of action because of it. That's not true for publicly traded companies, they are legally obligated to do what is best for their shareholders. Obviously no one can predict the future so they only do what they believe is best and can get it wrong, like Zuckerberg seems to have done with the metaverse bet.
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      > I never made that claim and wouldn't defend it. I was arguing that consumers collectively have some power over corporations via their wallets. Consumers can choose not to fly on commercial airlines, or specifically not to take flights on certain models of plane. I never said anything about them being beholden to the public, only the dollar. Regulation is the answer to this question. Asking a person to not fly and pretending that makes a difference to a huge airline is minimizing how much of a burden it is to have to deal with as an individual (a lot) vs how much difference it might make to the company (none). By comparing it to a democratic vote (mandating a change in government forcing accountability to the populace), I see it as effectively stating that money can take the place of democracy and that means that those with more money get more votes. This is a terrible way to think the world should work, so let's work on getting corporations to do the right thing by making them do it and not hoping they might because we decided not to give them money that they didn't know they didn't get from us.