6 ms·

I don’t understand why people have so much trouble understanding that a “corporation” is just a proxy for the humans that own and control the corporation. In th

by rayiner 5mo ago

I don’t understand why people have so much trouble understanding that a “corporation” is just a proxy for the humans that own and control the corporation. In this case, non-residents who own a house on the island can vote according to the charter. The charter just says that this doesn’t change because you move ownership of the house into a legal entity that some human then owns and controls. The actual grievance seems to be unrelated to the corporation itself. People just associate “corporations” with rich people, and they won’t want rich people to vote.

tiahura 5mo ago
When I hear people grouse about the concept corporate rights, I always ask them why they hate New York Times _Co._ v. Sullivan.
- ceejayoz 5mo ago
  And they scratch your head and say "but... that ruling applies to regular people, like NYT staff and you and me." It simply sets a high standard for proving defamation claims by public figures.
  - rayiner 5mo ago
    “NYT” staff don’t publish the paper, the corporation does.
    - ceejayoz 5mo ago
      Irrelevant. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan - and the First Amendment it draws upon - applies to everyone, regardless of what corporation they may or may not work for. An unemployed person is protected from defamation claims by public figures under it just fine. It does not establish any special corporate rights.
      - rayiner 5mo ago
        Sullivan absolutely establishes corporate rights. Otherwise, Trump could enact a ban on “fake news” and say it applies only to the corporation itself, not the staff. The staff can write whatever they want, but the corporation can’t use its printing presses, etc., to disseminate what the government considers fake news.
        ceejayoz 5mo ago
        > Otherwise, Trump could enact a ban on “fake news” and say it applies only to the corporation itself, not the staff. That's some really tortured logic. Such an act would simply be a violation of the First Amendment (and Article I, for that matter). The corporate nature of its target is, again, entirely irrelevant. Sullivan sets a high standard for defamation claims by public figures. That's it. They protect you saying defamatory things about Hillary Clinton as long as you don't write down "I know this is false and I'm defaming her because I hate her guts" explicitly somewhere.
        rayiner 5mo ago
        > The corporate nature of its target is, again, entirely irrelevant. Why? In New York Times v. Sullivan, the corporation was being sued for what it did. The New York Times reporter didn’t print and distribute all those newspapers. The corporation did that. And what you’re calling “tortured logic” was in fact the government’s argument in Citizens United. It argued that it wasn’t regulating the filmmaker. It was regulating the corporation spending funds to make and distribute the film. So it sounds like we agree Citizens United was correctly decided!
        ceejayoz 5mo ago
        > In New York Times v. Sullivan, the corporation was being sued for what it did. And its status as a corporation was irrelevant to the result. If it was @ceejayoz v. Sullivan, the ruling would've been the same. > So it sounds like we agree Citizens United was correctly decided! There's that torturing again. I believe CU illegitimately impacts the voting rights of American citizens.
klaff 5mo ago
Is this rich person also voting in the place where they actually live? I'm not against a rich person voting, I just don't want them to get more than one vote. I haven't read the opinion to see if that's addressed.
- rayiner 5mo ago
  The town charter allows double voting in municipal elections because it allows non-residents to vote.
  - cucumber3732842 5mo ago
    Having grown up in a tourism/2nd home town I think this is probably a good thing. Keeps the place from being totally captured by local business interests. But it would likely lead to other problems because the owner demographics are generally out of touch.
    - pixl97 5mo ago
      > Keeps the place from being totally captured by local business interests. I'm pretty sure this is a fundimental design of the US system. There are things your city is allowed to do by state constitution. Things your county is allowed to do. And things only the state is allowed to do. This is expressly to enable the people that live in that place the right to self governance.
abejfehr 5mo ago
> ... they won’t want rich people to vote. I think it might be more than that
wat10000 5mo ago
If the corporation is just a proxy for the owners then why is this in court? Why aren't the humans just voting directly? It's well established that it's OK for humans to vote.
- rayiner 5mo ago
  Because the municipal charter in question confers to vote on the property owner. Which might technically be a corporation.
  - wat10000 5mo ago
    The question is, why did they bother to take it to court instead of just transferring ownership directly to their persons and then voting as humans? If corporations are just proxies then why bother with the lawyers and the court fees and the time?
    - rayiner 5mo ago
      Because they want the other benefits of the corporate form. Why should they have to choose between the benefits of the corporate structure and exercising the rights the municipality has given property owners?
      - ceejayoz 5mo ago
        > Why should they have to choose between the benefits of the corporate structure and exercising the rights the municipality has given property owners? Why shouldn't they? They're trading one benefit for another. The individual house owners don't get all the benefits of an LLC for similar reasons.
        rayiner 5mo ago
        > They're trading one benefit for another Why? What’s the logical basis for this idea that they should have to choose between these benefits?
trinsic2 5mo ago
The problem is corporations mostly don't have the same interests in communities as people and they are motivated by other concerns that can run counter to the good of society. So yea.
craftkiller 5mo ago
> they won’t want rich people to vote. I don't think anyone would object to a rich person casting a single vote and maybe putting a bumper sticker on their car or a sign in their yard. The issue people take with the rich and politics is the outsized influence they wield in elections. The whole "one person one vote" thing falls apart when the rich can throw millions at advertisements and millions at the "charities" run by the politicians they bought.
- BurningFrog 5mo ago
  This is just a disagreement with the principle of free speech. If you're only for free speech as long as it doesn't change people's minds, we have very different perspectives.
  - craftkiller 5mo ago
    The issue isn't that people are trying to change people's minds. There are two issues here: First, the rich have unimaginably more power in changing people's minds. This isn't sitting down at a bar and having a chat with hank to try to convince him to vote on prop 99. It is the wealthy putting their opinions on your phone, television, and billboards, reminding you of it multiple times per day. If politics is truly a contest of ideas, then the playing field needs to be level so that the ideas can be evaluated fairly, rather than it simply being a contest of who can buy enough ad space to brainwash people to vote against their interests. Second, the wealthy don't have to change people's minds. They can purchase politicians by "donating" to them, going to million-dollar-per-plate dinners hosted by them, directly giving them money by staying in their hotels, etc. You don't have to convince a politician that they should vote on prop 99, you just need to pay them however much they want for their vote. If the wealthy had exactly as much power in politics as a fireman or nurse, then I'd be all for their participation.
    - BurningFrog 5mo ago
      > First, the rich have unimaginably more power in changing people's minds If that was true everyone would love billionaires. I'm fascinated by the cluelessness of this assertion! The actual research on campaign finance says that once you've managed to inform the voters about what you stand for and who you are, further spending does very little. > simply being a contest of who can buy enough ad space to brainwash people to vote against their interests This is the most anti democratic statement I've seen in a while! If you think voters are such easily brainwashed fools, you can hardly be pro democracy!
esikich 5mo ago
Does a corporation need healthcare? Can a corporation be jailed? Does a corporation have a finite life in which they can pursue happiness? Does a corporation have offspring it's trying to raise? Does a corporation have hopes and dreams? Does a corporation wish to visit a park or visit with their neighbors? Are you for real?
- rayiner 5mo ago
  No, but the people who own and control the corporation all do.
  - EnergyAmy 5mo ago
    They can vote and act in their capacity as people. They can fuck off otherwise.
- Gormo 5mo ago
  Replace "corporation" in each of your questions above with "organizational model employed by people as a mechanism for coordinating complex activities", and the answers should all become clear. Much of the discourse on this topic involves muddled, contradictory thinking that simultaneously argues "corporations aren't people" and "corporations are exercising autonomous agency as singular entities distinct from the people who constitute them". These two premises cannot both be true.
  - Henchman21 5mo ago
    It _seems true_ when the people represented by the organizational model never face consequences for their actions, using the corporation as a liability shield. So while corporations aren't people, they do seem to be exercising autonomous agency as singular entities distinct from the people who constitute them. Because by definition that is what a limited liability corporation provides? It seems that this is the crux of a lot of angst?
    - Gormo 5mo ago
condis 5mo ago
[flagged]
SkyPuncher 5mo ago
The problem is voting has historically been limited to, real, living things. This has inherently limited the total amount of votes cast and where. Corporations are an artificial entity that literally anyone can make. Even things like property ownership are somewhat artificial. Lots can generally be split and joined through a process. This allowance of artificial entities voting seems to open a rabbit hole of secondary issues.
Hizonner 5mo ago
... and if they own 50 houses, each through a separate LLC, they can vote 50 times, even if they do not in fact even live in the area. ... and you can probably come up with a legal way to permanently bind a corporation to vote according to specific rules. ... and larger corporations have totally inhuman internal decision making processes that frequently arrive at conclusions no human would reach.
folkrav 5mo ago
"Corporations are controlled by humans, therefore critics are motivated by anti-rich sentiment" is definitely a take
- bit-anarchist 5mo ago
  Where did the "therefore" come from? From OP's comment it didn't, that's for sure.
EnergyAmy 5mo ago
This is an impressively awful take, congratulations. Corporations aren't people and don't have rights or votes. If you want to have a say in the way a place is run, you can do so in your capacity as a person. If you want to do so from a legal fiction "proxy", fuck off.
pavon 5mo ago
Setting aside the corporation part, is there precedent for allowing people to vote in multiple residences? In my experience, when you register to vote in one location you are no longer allowed to vote where you were previously registered, regardless of how many places you own houses. Some places cross-reference voter registrations to enforce this, and others don't really check, but it has been the rule everywhere I have lived.

by rayiner 5mo ago

tiahura 5mo ago

When I hear people grouse about the concept corporate rights, I always ask them why they hate New York Times _Co._ v. Sullivan.

ceejayoz 5mo ago
And they scratch your head and say "but... that ruling applies to regular people, like NYT staff and you and me." It simply sets a high standard for proving defamation claims by public figures.
- rayiner 5mo ago
  “NYT” staff don’t publish the paper, the corporation does.
  - ceejayoz 5mo ago
    Irrelevant. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan - and the First Amendment it draws upon - applies to everyone, regardless of what corporation they may or may not work for. An unemployed person is protected from defamation claims by public figures under it just fine. It does not establish any special corporate rights.
    - rayiner 5mo ago
      Sullivan absolutely establishes corporate rights. Otherwise, Trump could enact a ban on “fake news” and say it applies only to the corporation itself, not the staff. The staff can write whatever they want, but the corporation can’t use its printing presses, etc., to disseminate what the government considers fake news.
      - ceejayoz 5mo ago
        > Otherwise, Trump could enact a ban on “fake news” and say it applies only to the corporation itself, not the staff. That's some really tortured logic. Such an act would simply be a violation of the First Amendment (and Article I, for that matter). The corporate nature of its target is, again, entirely irrelevant. Sullivan sets a high standard for defamation claims by public figures. That's it. They protect you saying defamatory things about Hillary Clinton as long as you don't write down "I know this is false and I'm defaming her because I hate her guts" explicitly somewhere.
        rayiner 5mo ago
        > The corporate nature of its target is, again, entirely irrelevant. Why? In New York Times v. Sullivan, the corporation was being sued for what it did. The New York Times reporter didn’t print and distribute all those newspapers. The corporation did that. And what you’re calling “tortured logic” was in fact the government’s argument in Citizens United. It argued that it wasn’t regulating the filmmaker. It was regulating the corporation spending funds to make and distribute the film. So it sounds like we agree Citizens United was correctly decided!
        ceejayoz 5mo ago
        > In New York Times v. Sullivan, the corporation was being sued for what it did. And its status as a corporation was irrelevant to the result. If it was @ceejayoz v. Sullivan, the ruling would've been the same. > So it sounds like we agree Citizens United was correctly decided! There's that torturing again. I believe CU illegitimately impacts the voting rights of American citizens.

klaff 5mo ago

Is this rich person also voting in the place where they actually live? I'm not against a rich person voting, I just don't want them to get more than one vote. I haven't read the opinion to see if that's addressed.

rayiner 5mo ago
The town charter allows double voting in municipal elections because it allows non-residents to vote.
- cucumber3732842 5mo ago
  Having grown up in a tourism/2nd home town I think this is probably a good thing. Keeps the place from being totally captured by local business interests. But it would likely lead to other problems because the owner demographics are generally out of touch.
  - pixl97 5mo ago
    > Keeps the place from being totally captured by local business interests. I'm pretty sure this is a fundimental design of the US system. There are things your city is allowed to do by state constitution. Things your county is allowed to do. And things only the state is allowed to do. This is expressly to enable the people that live in that place the right to self governance.

abejfehr 5mo ago

> ... they won’t want rich people to vote. I think it might be more than that

wat10000 5mo ago

If the corporation is just a proxy for the owners then why is this in court? Why aren't the humans just voting directly? It's well established that it's OK for humans to vote.

rayiner 5mo ago
Because the municipal charter in question confers to vote on the property owner. Which might technically be a corporation.
- wat10000 5mo ago
  The question is, why did they bother to take it to court instead of just transferring ownership directly to their persons and then voting as humans? If corporations are just proxies then why bother with the lawyers and the court fees and the time?
  - rayiner 5mo ago
    Because they want the other benefits of the corporate form. Why should they have to choose between the benefits of the corporate structure and exercising the rights the municipality has given property owners?
    - ceejayoz 5mo ago
      > Why should they have to choose between the benefits of the corporate structure and exercising the rights the municipality has given property owners? Why shouldn't they? They're trading one benefit for another. The individual house owners don't get all the benefits of an LLC for similar reasons.
      - rayiner 5mo ago
        > They're trading one benefit for another Why? What’s the logical basis for this idea that they should have to choose between these benefits?

trinsic2 5mo ago

The problem is corporations mostly don't have the same interests in communities as people and they are motivated by other concerns that can run counter to the good of society. So yea.

craftkiller 5mo ago

> they won’t want rich people to vote. I don't think anyone would object to a rich person casting a single vote and maybe putting a bumper sticker on their car or a sign in their yard. The issue people take with the rich and politics is the outsized influence they wield in elections. The whole "one person one vote" thing falls apart when the rich can throw millions at advertisements and millions at the "charities" run by the politicians they bought.

BurningFrog 5mo ago
This is just a disagreement with the principle of free speech. If you're only for free speech as long as it doesn't change people's minds, we have very different perspectives.
- craftkiller 5mo ago
  The issue isn't that people are trying to change people's minds. There are two issues here: First, the rich have unimaginably more power in changing people's minds. This isn't sitting down at a bar and having a chat with hank to try to convince him to vote on prop 99. It is the wealthy putting their opinions on your phone, television, and billboards, reminding you of it multiple times per day. If politics is truly a contest of ideas, then the playing field needs to be level so that the ideas can be evaluated fairly, rather than it simply being a contest of who can buy enough ad space to brainwash people to vote against their interests. Second, the wealthy don't have to change people's minds. They can purchase politicians by "donating" to them, going to million-dollar-per-plate dinners hosted by them, directly giving them money by staying in their hotels, etc. You don't have to convince a politician that they should vote on prop 99, you just need to pay them however much they want for their vote. If the wealthy had exactly as much power in politics as a fireman or nurse, then I'd be all for their participation.
  - BurningFrog 5mo ago
    > First, the rich have unimaginably more power in changing people's minds If that was true everyone would love billionaires. I'm fascinated by the cluelessness of this assertion! The actual research on campaign finance says that once you've managed to inform the voters about what you stand for and who you are, further spending does very little. > simply being a contest of who can buy enough ad space to brainwash people to vote against their interests This is the most anti democratic statement I've seen in a while! If you think voters are such easily brainwashed fools, you can hardly be pro democracy!

esikich 5mo ago

Does a corporation need healthcare? Can a corporation be jailed? Does a corporation have a finite life in which they can pursue happiness? Does a corporation have offspring it's trying to raise? Does a corporation have hopes and dreams? Does a corporation wish to visit a park or visit with their neighbors? Are you for real?

rayiner 5mo ago
No, but the people who own and control the corporation all do.
- EnergyAmy 5mo ago
  They can vote and act in their capacity as people. They can fuck off otherwise.
Gormo 5mo ago
Replace "corporation" in each of your questions above with "organizational model employed by people as a mechanism for coordinating complex activities", and the answers should all become clear. Much of the discourse on this topic involves muddled, contradictory thinking that simultaneously argues "corporations aren't people" and "corporations are exercising autonomous agency as singular entities distinct from the people who constitute them". These two premises cannot both be true.
- Henchman21 5mo ago
  It _seems true_ when the people represented by the organizational model never face consequences for their actions, using the corporation as a liability shield. So while corporations aren't people, they do seem to be exercising autonomous agency as singular entities distinct from the people who constitute them. Because by definition that is what a limited liability corporation provides? It seems that this is the crux of a lot of angst?
  - Gormo 5mo ago

condis 5mo ago

[flagged]

SkyPuncher 5mo ago

The problem is voting has historically been limited to, real, living things. This has inherently limited the total amount of votes cast and where. Corporations are an artificial entity that literally anyone can make. Even things like property ownership are somewhat artificial. Lots can generally be split and joined through a process. This allowance of artificial entities voting seems to open a rabbit hole of secondary issues.

Hizonner 5mo ago

... and if they own 50 houses, each through a separate LLC, they can vote 50 times, even if they do not in fact even live in the area. ... and you can probably come up with a legal way to permanently bind a corporation to vote according to specific rules. ... and larger corporations have totally inhuman internal decision making processes that frequently arrive at conclusions no human would reach.

folkrav 5mo ago

"Corporations are controlled by humans, therefore critics are motivated by anti-rich sentiment" is definitely a take

bit-anarchist 5mo ago
Where did the "therefore" come from? From OP's comment it didn't, that's for sure.

EnergyAmy 5mo ago

This is an impressively awful take, congratulations. Corporations aren't people and don't have rights or votes. If you want to have a say in the way a place is run, you can do so in your capacity as a person. If you want to do so from a legal fiction "proxy", fuck off.

pavon 5mo ago

Setting aside the corporation part, is there precedent for allowing people to vote in multiple residences? In my experience, when you register to vote in one location you are no longer allowed to vote where you were previously registered, regardless of how many places you own houses. Some places cross-reference voter registrations to enforce this, and others don't really check, but it has been the rule everywhere I have lived.