5 ms·

U.S. Corporations Are Openly Trying to Destroy Core Public Institutions

41 points by gdilla 3y ago

justrealist 3y ago
Well. Is the structure of those organizations unconstitutional? If Vice is hammering on the litigant rather than the contents of the case, I sort of suspect the answer is yes.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- StopTheTechies 3y ago
  Known legal expert "vice media"
- jauntywundrkind 3y ago
  It depends a lot on which judges you ask. That is kind of the point: it's not a resolvable question. There is no one true perfect interpretation which is correct. And a huge part of America is braying mad to tear down governance & institutions. Now that they have so many of their people in such high seats of power, a bullet from the blue could come and topple any institution or governance.
- rectang 3y ago
  Germane quote from a document referenced in the article: > “Contemporary fights about labor are also inherently fights about constitutional law—about the rights to which citizens and residents are entitled, about governmental powers and structure, and ultimately about how we constitute ourselves as a nation,” Andrias wrote.
- CuriousCosmic 3y ago
  They aren't focusing on the contents of a specific case because there are multiple. And they link to articles that explain the contents of each of those cases. What the article is doing however is mostly providing historical context for these cases and how they are potentially dangerous given the supreme court's recent change in philosophy.
- sabarn01 3y ago
  They buried the lead. This is all really about Chevron doctrine which gives a large amount of deference to administrative agencies. The current court has indicated they might be willing to overturn Chevron which would mean rule making would be more constrained by the governing legislation. There is a lot of regulation that would come under scrutiny under a different standard. The real question everyone is missing is how much quasi legislative authority should be granted to the administrate state.
  - justrealist 3y ago
    The NLRB debate is not really about that. It's about leadership which can only be fired for cause.
beaeglebeached 3y ago
Good. Hopefully they're all privatized.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
olliej 3y ago
While also actively removing the rights of employees and claiming that is their constitutional right. Woo!
- beaeglebeached 3y ago
  Explain the constitutional basis for the civil rights act, a law stripping intrastate business owners of their civil rights while congress pulls the ability to regulate intrastate trade out of a hat. It all goes downhill from that insane legislation.
  - mrcode007 3y ago
    You get sovereignty in return. You know, if the history unfolded differently you could have been speaking French, or Spanish or something else. I think this is the fair basis. Citizens have rights and responsibilities. Why would corporations only have rights if they so insist on being treated as persons?
    - beaeglebeached 3y ago
      I'm talking about how congress can regulate intrastate trade in this manner. Most regulatory agencies stomp on that, and stuff like civil rights act is wildly unconstitutional and clearly designated to at best the states per the 10th.
      - kjkjadksj 3y ago
        It also protects equal representation and voting rights through power given to congress in the 14th and 15th amendment. As well as the Commerce clause.
        beaeglebeached 3y ago
        Does that mean I can apply for government issued lease of the Hawaiian Home Lands apportionment and sue when they deny me? The 14th doesn't seem to apply to the states, otherwise Hawaii couldn't restrict land to 'the blood' of the right race.
rhuru 3y ago
> the NLRB and FTC—are "unconstitutional." Neither of them are "core public institution". NLRB has probably destroyed more jobs that all recessions combines and might have hurt the poorest and most vulnerable population lot more. They have worked to spread the cancer of collective bargaining powers, coercive unions and other protections for their favourite people at the expense of american consumers. > FTC This should be considered unconstitutional. If you provide a service that is cheap you are "predatory", if you provide a service that is very expensive you are "price gauging" and if you are average your are "colluding". FTC is an evil eye of sauron that is on every damn successful business. I hope "trader joes" succeeds in putting a stake into hearts of these two vampires.
- rectang 3y ago
  Businesses are collective entities. They enjoy efficiencies of scale when crafting legal strategies and negotiating with workers. Workers should enjoy collective rights similar to business owners.
  - beaeglebeached 3y ago
    Workers can 'enjoy' ponying up the capital and risk and start employee owned business.
    - kjkjadksj 3y ago
      Employees already shoulder the most risk in business due to how much of their income comes from the business. You can’t diversify your job across an arbitrary number of employers like a shareholder can diversifying their portfolio across many asset classes and potential movement directions as a hedge.
    - sapphicsnail 3y ago
      Very few people have the resources and connections to be able to do that.
- CuriousCosmic 3y ago
the_only_law 3y ago
Ah yes, another fine example of the retardation of HN. Tell me again how this place has so much better discussion than [site you cry about constantly].
303uru 3y ago
Why wouldn't they? They've got a supreme court filled with people essentially yelling "hey, throw me money and you'll get what you want!" Half of them worked on the supreme court overthrowing the will of voters in Bush vs Gore. They're corrupt to the core and sycophants to the billionaire class. At the end of the day, corporations and labor both see the writing on the wall. Immigration is not popular and younger generations in the US are shrinking, there's no replacement population. So theoretically labor should gain power and there is increased labor organization happening in the US. But, corporations are not going to sit back and let that happen. So we see attacks on all levels of government when it comes to labor protections. Hell, several states have already put children back to work. The new deal is fully under attack and I think a lot of the people cheering it on are going to be most hurt by it.
lowbloodsugar 3y ago
Bottom line, if you enjoy the protections of being a corporation then you follow these rules voluntarily. If you don't want to follow these rules, you are free to act as independent citizens outside the laws defining corporations. Good luck with that.
- jrs235 3y ago
  I agree. Government recognized corporations are formed/created "under" the government in cooperation with the "owners". In exchange for agreeing to being "under" the laws of the government and being regulated by the government the owners get limited liability. If humans don't want that privilege, they are more than welcome to operate under full liability and open up all their assets to any claims made against them...
sabarn01 3y ago
This is framed in a very specific way. The real question is how much latitude administrative agencies should be given. Chevron says a lot and it says that they don't have to be consistent, nor do they have to even meet the plain meaning of the legislation. The issue this causes is it allows congress to not legislate, but pass the buck to the administrate agency. Congress has been dysfunctional for so long we have come to expect it, but it doesn't mean it’s good for our system. If congress wants something regulated, they should pass a law and give guidance and the agency should have to meet the clear meaning of the law until its changed by congress. In general, a new president shouldn't affect how agencies implement the will of congress but chevron kinda implicitly allows this. There are lots of regulations that may be swept away if we do away with Chevron but I think it will make the system more accountable and force congress to do its job.
- toss1 3y ago
  Perhaps, but it is key to keep in mind the direction of the push and the trend here — this is strongly anti-democratic and pro-authoritarain. To gauge democracy, examine how power is distributed among the institutions, both within and outside of govt. In democracies, there is substantial or complete independence between the branches of govt — legislative, judicial, and executive, and portions of the executive, and various societal organizations — industry, academy, religions, social groups, sport, etc. Under authoritarianism, all of the branches of govt and the societal organizations are bent to the serve the ruling group. This is obviously an attempt by Musk, et. al. on these govt agencies to either eliminate them, or ensure that their will is subject to the whims of these would-be oligarchs. In short, it's a power grab, attempting to take a step towards turning workers back into serfs.
  - sabarn01 3y ago
    I view it as an effort to restore congress's power which it has frittered away. Congress is the most democratic institution we have and it gets refreshed every 2 years. The thing I want to happen is that there is a way to assure that the elected portion of government, the congress, gets to set our policy not unelected administrate officials. You also need to view this from both sides. The more freedom of action the agencies have the more they are effectively tools of the president. When you like the president that may seem great, but you always need to look at government power though the lense of the worst person you can image having that power.
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
[dupe] what happened to that other one? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39218463 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39218463
- the__alchemist 3y ago
  The linked thread is marked "Flagged" and "Dead"
  - fsflover 3y ago
    You could hit "vouch" button to restore that thread.

41 points by gdilla 3y ago

Well. Is the structure of those organizations unconstitutional? If Vice is hammering on the litigant rather than the contents of the case, I sort of suspect the answer is yes.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
StopTheTechies 3y ago
Known legal expert "vice media"
jauntywundrkind 3y ago
It depends a lot on which judges you ask. That is kind of the point: it's not a resolvable question. There is no one true perfect interpretation which is correct. And a huge part of America is braying mad to tear down governance & institutions. Now that they have so many of their people in such high seats of power, a bullet from the blue could come and topple any institution or governance.
rectang 3y ago
Germane quote from a document referenced in the article: > “Contemporary fights about labor are also inherently fights about constitutional law—about the rights to which citizens and residents are entitled, about governmental powers and structure, and ultimately about how we constitute ourselves as a nation,” Andrias wrote.
CuriousCosmic 3y ago
They aren't focusing on the contents of a specific case because there are multiple. And they link to articles that explain the contents of each of those cases. What the article is doing however is mostly providing historical context for these cases and how they are potentially dangerous given the supreme court's recent change in philosophy.
sabarn01 3y ago
They buried the lead. This is all really about Chevron doctrine which gives a large amount of deference to administrative agencies. The current court has indicated they might be willing to overturn Chevron which would mean rule making would be more constrained by the governing legislation. There is a lot of regulation that would come under scrutiny under a different standard. The real question everyone is missing is how much quasi legislative authority should be granted to the administrate state.
- justrealist 3y ago
  The NLRB debate is not really about that. It's about leadership which can only be fired for cause.

beaeglebeached 3y ago

Good. Hopefully they're all privatized.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

olliej 3y ago

While also actively removing the rights of employees and claiming that is their constitutional right. Woo!

beaeglebeached 3y ago
Explain the constitutional basis for the civil rights act, a law stripping intrastate business owners of their civil rights while congress pulls the ability to regulate intrastate trade out of a hat. It all goes downhill from that insane legislation.
- mrcode007 3y ago
  You get sovereignty in return. You know, if the history unfolded differently you could have been speaking French, or Spanish or something else. I think this is the fair basis. Citizens have rights and responsibilities. Why would corporations only have rights if they so insist on being treated as persons?
  - beaeglebeached 3y ago
    I'm talking about how congress can regulate intrastate trade in this manner. Most regulatory agencies stomp on that, and stuff like civil rights act is wildly unconstitutional and clearly designated to at best the states per the 10th.
    - kjkjadksj 3y ago
      It also protects equal representation and voting rights through power given to congress in the 14th and 15th amendment. As well as the Commerce clause.
      - beaeglebeached 3y ago
        Does that mean I can apply for government issued lease of the Hawaiian Home Lands apportionment and sue when they deny me? The 14th doesn't seem to apply to the states, otherwise Hawaii couldn't restrict land to 'the blood' of the right race.

rhuru 3y ago

> the NLRB and FTC—are "unconstitutional." Neither of them are "core public institution". NLRB has probably destroyed more jobs that all recessions combines and might have hurt the poorest and most vulnerable population lot more. They have worked to spread the cancer of collective bargaining powers, coercive unions and other protections for their favourite people at the expense of american consumers. > FTC This should be considered unconstitutional. If you provide a service that is cheap you are "predatory", if you provide a service that is very expensive you are "price gauging" and if you are average your are "colluding". FTC is an evil eye of sauron that is on every damn successful business. I hope "trader joes" succeeds in putting a stake into hearts of these two vampires.

rectang 3y ago
Businesses are collective entities. They enjoy efficiencies of scale when crafting legal strategies and negotiating with workers. Workers should enjoy collective rights similar to business owners.
- beaeglebeached 3y ago
  Workers can 'enjoy' ponying up the capital and risk and start employee owned business.
  - kjkjadksj 3y ago
    Employees already shoulder the most risk in business due to how much of their income comes from the business. You can’t diversify your job across an arbitrary number of employers like a shareholder can diversifying their portfolio across many asset classes and potential movement directions as a hedge.
  - sapphicsnail 3y ago
    Very few people have the resources and connections to be able to do that.
CuriousCosmic 3y ago

the_only_law 3y ago

Ah yes, another fine example of the retardation of HN. Tell me again how this place has so much better discussion than [site you cry about constantly].

303uru 3y ago

Why wouldn't they? They've got a supreme court filled with people essentially yelling "hey, throw me money and you'll get what you want!" Half of them worked on the supreme court overthrowing the will of voters in Bush vs Gore. They're corrupt to the core and sycophants to the billionaire class. At the end of the day, corporations and labor both see the writing on the wall. Immigration is not popular and younger generations in the US are shrinking, there's no replacement population. So theoretically labor should gain power and there is increased labor organization happening in the US. But, corporations are not going to sit back and let that happen. So we see attacks on all levels of government when it comes to labor protections. Hell, several states have already put children back to work. The new deal is fully under attack and I think a lot of the people cheering it on are going to be most hurt by it.

lowbloodsugar 3y ago

Bottom line, if you enjoy the protections of being a corporation then you follow these rules voluntarily. If you don't want to follow these rules, you are free to act as independent citizens outside the laws defining corporations. Good luck with that.

jrs235 3y ago
I agree. Government recognized corporations are formed/created "under" the government in cooperation with the "owners". In exchange for agreeing to being "under" the laws of the government and being regulated by the government the owners get limited liability. If humans don't want that privilege, they are more than welcome to operate under full liability and open up all their assets to any claims made against them...

sabarn01 3y ago

This is framed in a very specific way. The real question is how much latitude administrative agencies should be given. Chevron says a lot and it says that they don't have to be consistent, nor do they have to even meet the plain meaning of the legislation. The issue this causes is it allows congress to not legislate, but pass the buck to the administrate agency. Congress has been dysfunctional for so long we have come to expect it, but it doesn't mean it’s good for our system. If congress wants something regulated, they should pass a law and give guidance and the agency should have to meet the clear meaning of the law until its changed by congress. In general, a new president shouldn't affect how agencies implement the will of congress but chevron kinda implicitly allows this. There are lots of regulations that may be swept away if we do away with Chevron but I think it will make the system more accountable and force congress to do its job.

toss1 3y ago
Perhaps, but it is key to keep in mind the direction of the push and the trend here — this is strongly anti-democratic and pro-authoritarain. To gauge democracy, examine how power is distributed among the institutions, both within and outside of govt. In democracies, there is substantial or complete independence between the branches of govt — legislative, judicial, and executive, and portions of the executive, and various societal organizations — industry, academy, religions, social groups, sport, etc. Under authoritarianism, all of the branches of govt and the societal organizations are bent to the serve the ruling group. This is obviously an attempt by Musk, et. al. on these govt agencies to either eliminate them, or ensure that their will is subject to the whims of these would-be oligarchs. In short, it's a power grab, attempting to take a step towards turning workers back into serfs.
- sabarn01 3y ago
  I view it as an effort to restore congress's power which it has frittered away. Congress is the most democratic institution we have and it gets refreshed every 2 years. The thing I want to happen is that there is a way to assure that the elected portion of government, the congress, gets to set our policy not unelected administrate officials. You also need to view this from both sides. The more freedom of action the agencies have the more they are effectively tools of the president. When you like the president that may seem great, but you always need to look at government power though the lense of the worst person you can image having that power.

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

[dupe] what happened to that other one? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39218463 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39218463

the__alchemist 3y ago
The linked thread is marked "Flagged" and "Dead"
- fsflover 3y ago
  You could hit "vouch" button to restore that thread.