5 ms·

break. up. Amazon. break up Apple, Meta, MSFT, etc... while we're at it. Or, keep it simpler - if a company passes a market cap of 1 trillion dollars, they mu

by NickC25 5mo ago

break. up. Amazon. break up Apple, Meta, MSFT, etc... while we're at it. Or, keep it simpler - if a company passes a market cap of 1 trillion dollars, they must forgo lobbying and "government relations". if you're worth a trillion dollars or more, you don't need the government to hold your hand.

kennywinker 5mo ago
A trillion? Why wouldn’t we set the bar at $0 - companies are not people, and allowing them to influence politics, at any size, corrupts democracy
- NickC25 5mo ago
  I like the way you think. But most wouldn't agree, they believe a company should have the right to influence government.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5mo ago
    Unproven, really. I don't think I'd argue that most people think that the individuals in a company (even its CEO) have the right to influence government. But the question is whether the corporation ("are people too, my friend) itself has this right. I'm not clear that most agree with that.
    - s1artibartfast 5mo ago
      The corporation is the primary structure for individuals to organize - from soul crushing businesses to chess clubs, environmental non-profits, or labor unition. Government influence primarily consistes of sharing information with votes passing flyers on the street or running adds. When framed this way, I dont think most people would agree that groups should be prevented from getting their message out.
      - kennywinker 5mo ago
        Are there actually chess clubs that are incorporated? Coops, unions, guilds, non-profit societies, knitting circles, meetups, etc. are all non-corporations. > Government influence primarily consistes of sharing information with votes passing flyers on the street or running adds. Lobbying, and superpacs are not about getting a message out - they are about spending money on ads to buy votes. That’s different from advocating for your hobby or interest. Not to mention the asymmetry. If 20,000 grain farmers want to lobby about wheat by spending $10 each, that’s different from one man spending the same $200,000k on getting a candidate in. Or millions - e.g. elon, etc last election.
        s1artibartfast 5mo ago
        Interesting.i was wrong about unions. You are wrong about co-ops and non-profits, both of which are almost universally Incorporated. So much so that I've never seen a non Incorporated Co-op. That said, we could also ban informal groups from political speech. How are these things different, getting the message out versus buying votes? Also where do I go to collect my vote payments? Getting the message out usually cost money. If you like some but not others, is it the content of the messaage you find disagreeable?
        kennywinker 5mo ago
        > That said, we could also ban informal groups from political speech. Money is not speech. Speech is free, everybody can speak. Money lets some people amplify their speech proportional to how rich they are. Thus the rich get richer and democracy goes hungry. > How are these things different, getting the message out versus buying votes “Grain is good” getting your message out. “Vote for jeff, a message from big grain” buying votes
        s1artibartfast 5mo ago
        So no paid speech? It would be interesting. It would give a lot of leverage to those who already own megaphones. You could talk to your neighbor but not donate or collaborate.
  - kennywinker 5mo ago
    Idk, i think this is incorrect. I think the majority oppose unlimited spending by corporations and individuals. 76% by one poll: https://issueone.org/press/new-polling-citizens-united-money-in-politics-reforms/ https://issueone.org/press/new-polling-citizens-united-money... The law and the majority don’t agree way more often than one would expect in a democratic society.
twoodfin 5mo ago
Unfortunately for this project, the First Amendment puts the right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” alongside freedoms of speech, the press, and religious exercise.
- NickC25 5mo ago
  Citizens can absolutely do that. Corporations might be "people" but they aren't citizens. Especially if they participate in shenanigans designed to "minimize" their tax exposure that involve shell corporations in other countries.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5mo ago
    As the bumper sticker/fridge magnet says, "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one of them".
    - s1artibartfast 5mo ago
      Almost certianly manufactured by a company that could otherwise be prohiited from printing it. Interesting.
      - red-iron-pine 5mo ago
        > Founder, Corporate sellout, well at least they're not hiding it
  - s1artibartfast 5mo ago
    it would be a very different and interesting world if individuals lost their right of free speach if they organize as a group
    - NickC25 5mo ago
      This is being disingenuous. Maybe not deliberately so, but still. There's a difference between a few people getting together and petitioning the government for redress; versus, a multitrillion dollar corporation (that pays little to no tax, and is the recipient of very generous government contracts) buying its way to the front of the line and whining until it gets its way.
s1artibartfast 5mo ago
It isnt just "hand holding", but legitimate information as well. X law will have y consequences. I think people seriously missunderstand what lobbying is.

by NickC25 5mo ago

kennywinker 5mo ago

A trillion? Why wouldn’t we set the bar at $0 - companies are not people, and allowing them to influence politics, at any size, corrupts democracy

NickC25 5mo ago
I like the way you think. But most wouldn't agree, they believe a company should have the right to influence government.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5mo ago
  Unproven, really. I don't think I'd argue that most people think that the individuals in a company (even its CEO) have the right to influence government. But the question is whether the corporation ("are people too, my friend) itself has this right. I'm not clear that most agree with that.
  - s1artibartfast 5mo ago
    The corporation is the primary structure for individuals to organize - from soul crushing businesses to chess clubs, environmental non-profits, or labor unition. Government influence primarily consistes of sharing information with votes passing flyers on the street or running adds. When framed this way, I dont think most people would agree that groups should be prevented from getting their message out.
    - kennywinker 5mo ago
      Are there actually chess clubs that are incorporated? Coops, unions, guilds, non-profit societies, knitting circles, meetups, etc. are all non-corporations. > Government influence primarily consistes of sharing information with votes passing flyers on the street or running adds. Lobbying, and superpacs are not about getting a message out - they are about spending money on ads to buy votes. That’s different from advocating for your hobby or interest. Not to mention the asymmetry. If 20,000 grain farmers want to lobby about wheat by spending $10 each, that’s different from one man spending the same $200,000k on getting a candidate in. Or millions - e.g. elon, etc last election.
      - s1artibartfast 5mo ago
        Interesting.i was wrong about unions. You are wrong about co-ops and non-profits, both of which are almost universally Incorporated. So much so that I've never seen a non Incorporated Co-op. That said, we could also ban informal groups from political speech. How are these things different, getting the message out versus buying votes? Also where do I go to collect my vote payments? Getting the message out usually cost money. If you like some but not others, is it the content of the messaage you find disagreeable?
        kennywinker 5mo ago
        > That said, we could also ban informal groups from political speech. Money is not speech. Speech is free, everybody can speak. Money lets some people amplify their speech proportional to how rich they are. Thus the rich get richer and democracy goes hungry. > How are these things different, getting the message out versus buying votes “Grain is good” getting your message out. “Vote for jeff, a message from big grain” buying votes
        s1artibartfast 5mo ago
        So no paid speech? It would be interesting. It would give a lot of leverage to those who already own megaphones. You could talk to your neighbor but not donate or collaborate.
- kennywinker 5mo ago
  Idk, i think this is incorrect. I think the majority oppose unlimited spending by corporations and individuals. 76% by one poll: https://issueone.org/press/new-polling-citizens-united-money-in-politics-reforms/ https://issueone.org/press/new-polling-citizens-united-money... The law and the majority don’t agree way more often than one would expect in a democratic society.

twoodfin 5mo ago

Unfortunately for this project, the First Amendment puts the right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” alongside freedoms of speech, the press, and religious exercise.

NickC25 5mo ago
Citizens can absolutely do that. Corporations might be "people" but they aren't citizens. Especially if they participate in shenanigans designed to "minimize" their tax exposure that involve shell corporations in other countries.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5mo ago
  As the bumper sticker/fridge magnet says, "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one of them".
  - s1artibartfast 5mo ago
    Almost certianly manufactured by a company that could otherwise be prohiited from printing it. Interesting.
    - red-iron-pine 5mo ago
      > Founder, Corporate sellout, well at least they're not hiding it
- s1artibartfast 5mo ago
  it would be a very different and interesting world if individuals lost their right of free speach if they organize as a group
  - NickC25 5mo ago
    This is being disingenuous. Maybe not deliberately so, but still. There's a difference between a few people getting together and petitioning the government for redress; versus, a multitrillion dollar corporation (that pays little to no tax, and is the recipient of very generous government contracts) buying its way to the front of the line and whining until it gets its way.

s1artibartfast 5mo ago

It isnt just "hand holding", but legitimate information as well. X law will have y consequences. I think people seriously missunderstand what lobbying is.