4 ms·

There is a qualitative difference between you as a freelancer, and a company like Visa that controls all consumer commerce in America. When the First Amendment

There is a qualitative difference between you as a freelancer, and a company like Visa that controls all consumer commerce in America. When the First Amendment was written, the idea of Visa was impossible. Protections from entities like that could be enshrined into law without harming free speech.

lesuorac 2y ago
> When the First Amendment was written, the idea of Visa was impossible. [Citation Needed]. Straight up, a singular company having control over something was well established at the time of the First Amendment. 1. "Monopoly" is a greek word which was used to describe a company that had a monopoly in Greece. This long pre-dates the first amendment. 2. Kings routinely gave out exclusivity of a product to a company, this is the whole backstory on the Tea Act [1]. 3. Being denied access to something isn't a new concept. They could've written the first 10 amendments to address private citizens and choose not to. It's not like private citizens didn't try to surpress speech. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act
- Miraste 2y ago
  A single company controlling all consumer transactions was unthinkable and technologically impossible in 1789, yes. The US didn't even have standardized currency at the time. Control of tea is not analogous.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    A single company controlled countries _plural_ in those days. Times are not new. Technology is new. Every problem is old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company
- psadauskas 2y ago
  Corporations didn't exist at the time of the revolution, and the revolution was as much an overthrow of corporations like the Massachusetts Bay Company, the Hudson's Bay Company, and the British East India Company as it was the British Empire. The few hundred corporations that existed by 1800 were chartered by individual states, couldn't do business outside that state, weren't allowed to participate in the political process, and couldn't buy stock in other corporations. During and after the civil war is when "modern" corporations started to show. They made huge profits from procurement contracts and took advantage of the disorder and corruption of the times to buy legislatures, judges and even presidents. They lobbied and bribed their way to more relaxed laws that allowed them to accrue even more money and political power, leading to the first Gilded Age. Then in 1886, the Supreme Court decided that Corporations are People, too[1], and it went downhill from there (except for a brief blip in the 1930s). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern....
  - tptacek 2y ago
    It is not reasonable to compared the chartered companies of the 18th century, which were state-sponsored entities, to commercial enterprise today. The target of the American Revolution was the British government, not capitalism.

lesuorac 2y ago

> When the First Amendment was written, the idea of Visa was impossible. [Citation Needed]. Straight up, a singular company having control over something was well established at the time of the First Amendment. 1. "Monopoly" is a greek word which was used to describe a company that had a monopoly in Greece. This long pre-dates the first amendment. 2. Kings routinely gave out exclusivity of a product to a company, this is the whole backstory on the Tea Act [1]. 3. Being denied access to something isn't a new concept. They could've written the first 10 amendments to address private citizens and choose not to. It's not like private citizens didn't try to surpress speech. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act

Miraste 2y ago
A single company controlling all consumer transactions was unthinkable and technologically impossible in 1789, yes. The US didn't even have standardized currency at the time. Control of tea is not analogous.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  A single company controlled countries _plural_ in those days. Times are not new. Technology is new. Every problem is old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company
psadauskas 2y ago
Corporations didn't exist at the time of the revolution, and the revolution was as much an overthrow of corporations like the Massachusetts Bay Company, the Hudson's Bay Company, and the British East India Company as it was the British Empire. The few hundred corporations that existed by 1800 were chartered by individual states, couldn't do business outside that state, weren't allowed to participate in the political process, and couldn't buy stock in other corporations. During and after the civil war is when "modern" corporations started to show. They made huge profits from procurement contracts and took advantage of the disorder and corruption of the times to buy legislatures, judges and even presidents. They lobbied and bribed their way to more relaxed laws that allowed them to accrue even more money and political power, leading to the first Gilded Age. Then in 1886, the Supreme Court decided that Corporations are People, too[1], and it went downhill from there (except for a brief blip in the 1930s). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern....
- tptacek 2y ago
  It is not reasonable to compared the chartered companies of the 18th century, which were state-sponsored entities, to commercial enterprise today. The target of the American Revolution was the British government, not capitalism.