Corporations and politics
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-06-2016, 08:27 PM
RE: Corporations and politics
(24-06-2016 05:08 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-06-2016 12:54 PM)Ace Wrote:  you have to be incredibly stupid to think corporation are like actual people with human rights

You have to be incredibly stupid to think that people lose their human rights when they come together as a group to do stuff.....like conduct business.

No one has lost their individual rights. Your framing of the issue is utterly absurd.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2016, 08:31 PM
RE: Corporations and politics
(24-06-2016 08:22 PM)BnW Wrote:  No, you don't. Maybe that's what you think you do, but it's not close to reality. Equating a decision to not complete an action to cash donations for influence is not in anyway challenging people to defend their positions. Who other than you ever took such an inane position?

In both situations corporate resources are being utilized to influence politics. Don't pass the law we want, we will move out. Don't pass the law we want, we will stop donating to your party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heywood Jahblome's post
24-06-2016, 08:33 PM
RE: Corporations and politics
(24-06-2016 08:31 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  In both situations corporate resources are being utilized to influence politics. Don't pass the law we want, we will move out. Don't pass the law we want, we will stop donating to your party.

That is the problem with politics and corporations; they are entirely too linked.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2016, 08:33 PM
RE: Corporations and politics
(24-06-2016 07:09 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Paypal would be free to wind up there business if they decided they really did not want to do business in North Carolina. If Paypal wants to do business in the United States, they cannot discriminate against North Carolina for the politics that go on there.

Once again your framing is absurd. PayPal is doing business in N.C., they are just not opening an operations center there.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
24-06-2016, 08:45 PM
RE: Corporations and politics
(24-06-2016 08:01 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  So what is wrong with passing a law that says if company X states they are boycotting a state because of politics, they are subject to being fined. Why couldn't that be done? It would seem to me that anyone who is favor of curtailing big business from using their resources to influence politics, would be in favor of such a law.

Because fining them would constitute an attack on their capacity to choose where they want to make business. The way freedom of enterprise work is that the state makes the business rules and business, if they are okay with them, instal themselves in the area. If they don't like them, they move away or don't instal themselves there. It would also cause problem with non US company. If they refuse to instal themselves in your country because of let say your taxation regulation, would you fine them too? How can you impose your court decision?

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like epronovost's post
24-06-2016, 09:02 PM
RE: Corporations and politics
(24-06-2016 08:45 PM)epronovost Wrote:  
(24-06-2016 08:01 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  So what is wrong with passing a law that says if company X states they are boycotting a state because of politics, they are subject to being fined. Why couldn't that be done? It would seem to me that anyone who is favor of curtailing big business from using their resources to influence politics, would be in favor of such a law.

Because fining them would constitute an attack on their capacity to choose where they want to make business. The way freedom of enterprise work is that the state makes the business rules and business, if they are okay with them, instal themselves in the area. If they don't like them, they move away or don't instal themselves there. It would also cause problem with non US company. If they refuse to instal themselves in your country because of let say your taxation regulation, would you fine them too? How can you impose your court decision?

Thanks for your thought out response. I disagree. They would still be able to choose to stop doing business or cancel an investment. They just wouldn't be able to state that the reason they did it was because they wanted to influence politics.

If Paypal simply issued a press release stating they decided against opening a call center in North Carolina and left it at that, their boycott would become a lot less effective at influencing politics. Nobody would know why they canceled and politics would go on as usual.

Paypal did 2 things. 1. They canceled the call center. 2. They pubically stated the reason they canceled the call center. If you already agree that it is okay to regulate corporate speech, why can't you then regulate action 2?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2016, 09:04 PM
RE: Corporations and politics
In the end, Mr. Hollywood is quite intelligent.

Do not blame him for your misunderstandings.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2016, 09:27 PM (This post was last modified: 24-06-2016 09:32 PM by epronovost.)
RE: Corporations and politics
(24-06-2016 09:02 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Thanks for your thought out response. I disagree. They would still be able to choose to stop doing business or cancel an investment. They just wouldn't be able to state that the reason they did it was because they wanted to influence politics.

If Paypal simply issued a press release stating they decided against opening a call center in North Carolina and left it at that, their boycott would become a lot less effective at influencing politics. Nobody would know why they canceled and politics would go on as usual.

Paypal did 2 things. 1. They canceled the call center. 2. They pubically stated the reason they canceled the call center. If you already agree that it is okay to regulate corporate speech, why can't you then regulate action 2?

Isn't a bit stupid to punish a corporation to say why they didn't want to do business in your area? If you want them in your area, like it was the case in North Carolina, and they don't want to be their, wouldn't you want to know why, so that you may improve yourself and be more desirable for investors and companies? Considering the quantity of reason why company don't instal themselves in certain area from strong pro union regulation, high corporative taxes, restricitve envioronmental rules, high minimum wage, all of which are directly uner the control of the State what would be a non punishable reason to leave (or not instal you there)? Furthermore, by punishing that sort of input, wouldn't you endanger the competitivity of your region when it comes to attracting business? As mention before, private corporation aren't force to give their services. If you don't want business to influence unfairly your politics pass anti lobby laws or prevent them from financing political party (or both). I don't think it would be legitimate or even prudent to punish a company, or anybody, for its opinion on your business laws. Like it or not, corporation are part of the social tissue of a State. They will have an influence on politics if only because they own the means of production. Capitalism and private property laws inevitably concentrate power into the hands of a minority by design. Are you considering some virtues in communism or facism right now? Both of these system hold some solution to your dilemma.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2016, 09:29 PM
RE: Corporations and politics
(24-06-2016 09:02 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-06-2016 08:45 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Because fining them would constitute an attack on their capacity to choose where they want to make business. The way freedom of enterprise work is that the state makes the business rules and business, if they are okay with them, instal themselves in the area. If they don't like them, they move away or don't instal themselves there. It would also cause problem with non US company. If they refuse to instal themselves in your country because of let say your taxation regulation, would you fine them too? How can you impose your court decision?

Thanks for your thought out response. I disagree. They would still be able to choose to stop doing business or cancel an investment. They just wouldn't be able to state that the reason they did it was because they wanted to influence politics.

If Paypal simply issued a press release stating they decided against opening a call center in North Carolina and left it at that, their boycott would become a lot less effective at influencing politics. Nobody would know why they canceled and politics would go on as usual.

Paypal did 2 things. 1. They canceled the call center. 2. They pubically stated the reason they canceled the call center. If you already agree that it is okay to regulate corporate speech, why can't you then regulate action 2?

I don't believe you are genuine in your arguments at all but, what the hell, I'll play for a minute.

A company that involves itself in a social issue is taking a chance. Target took a very public position on the transgender issue in the hopes of influencing the public debate. It is their company and they are free to do that and they do so at their own risk. The public can disagree with their stance and refuse to shop there. If it impacts their share price, it is likely they will get a shareholder revolt and the incumbent management can find itself out of jobs. But, they are only using their business model to try to influence opinion. And, the consuming public can make up their own minds. But, it's an attempt to impact public opinion. Corporations don't vote in elections but their actions can influence those who can (and that influence obviously is not always going to be positive or at least not viewed positively by all involved).

Paying money into government officials is a vastly different proposition. There are now laws that require public disclosure of payments, but there are a number of loopholes and Citizens United exacerbated that situation. The sources of money are not always disclosed and the public does not necessarily realize who is buying influence or what type of influence is being. But, you are not trying to sway public opinion to force politicians on how to act.

Democracies function best when there is open debate and discussion of issues among the population. Money paid directly to politicians is a direct attempt to circumvent the public debate aspect and basically buy an outcome. Obviously, corporations refusing to bring jobs to a given location is going to have a greater impact and influence than a bunch of people holding a sign and complaining, but it's done in the open and the voting/consuming public as the opportunity to fight back. Not so with money.

They are, quite simply, two completely different things.

Btw, punishing an entity for stating an opinion is going to be a blatant 1st Amendment violation. So, there's that too.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BnW's post
24-06-2016, 11:31 PM
RE: Corporations and politics
(24-06-2016 09:29 PM)BnW Wrote:  
(24-06-2016 09:02 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Thanks for your thought out response. I disagree. They would still be able to choose to stop doing business or cancel an investment. They just wouldn't be able to state that the reason they did it was because they wanted to influence politics.

If Paypal simply issued a press release stating they decided against opening a call center in North Carolina and left it at that, their boycott would become a lot less effective at influencing politics. Nobody would know why they canceled and politics would go on as usual.

Paypal did 2 things. 1. They canceled the call center. 2. They pubically stated the reason they canceled the call center. If you already agree that it is okay to regulate corporate speech, why can't you then regulate action 2?

I don't believe you are genuine in your arguments at all but, what the hell, I'll play for a minute.

A company that involves itself in a social issue is taking a chance. Target took a very public position on the transgender issue in the hopes of influencing the public debate. It is their company and they are free to do that and they do so at their own risk. The public can disagree with their stance and refuse to shop there. If it impacts their share price, it is likely they will get a shareholder revolt and the incumbent management can find itself out of jobs. But, they are only using their business model to try to influence opinion. And, the consuming public can make up their own minds. But, it's an attempt to impact public opinion. Corporations don't vote in elections but their actions can influence those who can (and that influence obviously is not always going to be positive or at least not viewed positively by all involved).

Paying money into government officials is a vastly different proposition. There are now laws that require public disclosure of payments, but there are a number of loopholes and Citizens United exacerbated that situation. The sources of money are not always disclosed and the public does not necessarily realize who is buying influence or what type of influence is being. But, you are not trying to sway public opinion to force politicians on how to act.

Democracies function best when there is open debate and discussion of issues among the population. Money paid directly to politicians is a direct attempt to circumvent the public debate aspect and basically buy an outcome. Obviously, corporations refusing to bring jobs to a given location is going to have a greater impact and influence than a bunch of people holding a sign and complaining, but it's done in the open and the voting/consuming public as the opportunity to fight back. Not so with money.

They are, quite simply, two completely different things.

Btw, punishing an entity for stating an opinion is going to be a blatant 1st Amendment violation. So, there's that too.

Good post, thanks.

I do think you have a rational reason to treat one situation differently than the other. Regarding disclosure. I just got done with Good Profit by Charles Koch. In that book he mentions that he received over 150 death threats over the course of a year. Now given an environment where some members of society threaten violence against those who support the things they don't want supported, why wouldn't you want your contribution to be private?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: