3 ms·

I really don't understand how it's ridiculous reading of what you wrote: > "Amazon left ALEC but did not also replace its leadership at the same time" Amazon'

I really don't understand how it's ridiculous reading of what you wrote: > "Amazon left ALEC but did not also replace its leadership at the same time" Amazon's leadership includes Jeff Bezos. Apple's leadership included Steve Jobs and Tim Cook. In fact, what you said first mirrors what you just said: > "I said, effectively, that the same people who joined Amazon to ALEC are the same people who still run Amazon." The leadership of Apple is still mainly in place as well. Should they all be gotten rid of? Or is there just a specific list of people who should be dumped? > "You also ridiculously scoff at the idea that ALEC membership presents any problems or costs, even though Amazon itself left the group." No, I didn't in any way say that. I just said they weren't "super nefarious". Amazon left ALEC precisely because they determined it was presenting a problem. > "Then you completely ignored ALEC's purpose as I accurately described it." In what way? By saying their weren't "super nefarious"? I guess you think they are "super nefarious", but I just think they're sub-optimal.

harrumph 12y ago
>I really don't understand how it's ridiculous reading of what you wrote: Let me help: I indicated that a corporate culture exists that openly accepted and endorsed what ALEC does, which necessarily indicates that said culture is capable of accepting and endorsing the imposition of private and market structures on entire populations by writing and passing state laws to do so. That is exactly what ALEC does. Amazon's reversal of a decision to join ALEC without a concomitant reversal or update of that same corporate culture should not be read as a repudiation of that organization's aims and goals. I think you're scoffing in the wrong direction: Amazon conducts itself repeatedly as antagonistic to regulation and taxation in every way and just about as intensely as a corporation can. The idea that they really don't want their business aims written into state law just because they backed away from ALEC fails every test of plausibility. They're the same boardroom. They act in their own interest exclusively. It's far more plausible that they saw that being an ALEC member (and taking the public relations costs associated with that) wasn't necessary to benefit from what ALEC does on behalf of business interests generally.

harrumph 12y ago

>I really don't understand how it's ridiculous reading of what you wrote: Let me help: I indicated that a corporate culture exists that openly accepted and endorsed what ALEC does, which necessarily indicates that said culture is capable of accepting and endorsing the imposition of private and market structures on entire populations by writing and passing state laws to do so. That is exactly what ALEC does. Amazon's reversal of a decision to join ALEC without a concomitant reversal or update of that same corporate culture should not be read as a repudiation of that organization's aims and goals. I think you're scoffing in the wrong direction: Amazon conducts itself repeatedly as antagonistic to regulation and taxation in every way and just about as intensely as a corporation can. The idea that they really don't want their business aims written into state law just because they backed away from ALEC fails every test of plausibility. They're the same boardroom. They act in their own interest exclusively. It's far more plausible that they saw that being an ALEC member (and taking the public relations costs associated with that) wasn't necessary to benefit from what ALEC does on behalf of business interests generally.