Corporations and politics
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-06-2016, 04:52 PM
RE: Corporations and politics
(24-06-2016 05:15 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-06-2016 02:42 PM)BnW Wrote:  No, they can't.

Got any more inane questions?

If they can't be stopped from boycotting areas in an effort to influence the politics of that area, why can they be stopped from spending money on political ads? I'm trying to figure out why some people think it is okay for Disney to threaten to not make any movies in North Carolina, but it is not okay for Disney to spend as much money as they want on a candidate.

I think Disney should be able to do both.

The government cannot compel a business to expand. The government can and does place limits on the freedom of speech -- rightfully so, in most cases, I think. Citizens United was a bad decision because the individuals who comprise the business would still be free to engage in political support, even if the company had limits placed on its donor activities.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2016, 04:57 PM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2016 05:46 PM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Corporations and politics
(24-06-2016 07:09 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-06-2016 07:02 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  That does not dispute what he said. Banks were free not to lend at all, but if they wished to have that business they needed to follow those guidelines. But then you are dumb as dog shit.

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.

Now I am not advocating any of this. I think Paypal and Disney should be free to use their resources for political gain. I'm just saying that if it is possible to make a business invest in a particular neighborhood, it would also be possible to make them invest in a particular state.

But really, what I want to know is how people who are against big business funding campaigns, can be perfectly fine with big businesses boycotting states for political gain? I would accept as a reasonable answer that you're not okay with it, but that you just don't see how it could be effectively regulated. There is nothing wrong with that answer.

I would think the decision to not do business there is driven as much by the desire to avoid a consumer boycott themselves. That is a legitimate business concern.
.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2016, 06:24 PM
RE: Corporations and politics
(25-06-2016 12:02 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  The system does not discriminate based on racial qualifications, it discriminates based on intelligence/sophistication
Oh good you have expanded your ignorance to markets and economics too. Markets are primarily people driven, and people discriminate for a whole host of reasons. Including race.


(25-06-2016 12:02 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  somewhat like how you discriminate. You do not like people who you perceive to be stupid and so you call them names in an effort to change their thinking
It's not so much that anyone perceives you to be stupid it's that you actually ARE stupid and you demonstrate this regularly.


(25-06-2016 12:02 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  but really it is you who is an idiot, because you are not sophisticated to figure it out and only see that the result in this situation is that most minorities are not too sophisticated.
Thanks for the input Adolph, now back to the bunker with you.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2016, 07:25 PM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2016 07:29 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Corporations and politics
(25-06-2016 06:24 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Oh good you have expanded your ignorance to markets and economics too. Markets are primarily people driven, and people discriminate for a whole host of reasons. Including race.

You're exercising the deception of category error by replacing the system of corporations with markets.Bangin

The system is not made of people, it is made of corporate rules and civil laws regulating those rules; and civil law prohibits corporate rules from discriminating based on race and gender and all that other shit.Laughat

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2016, 09:28 PM
RE: Corporations and politics
(25-06-2016 07:25 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  You're exercising the deception of category error by replacing the system of corporations with markets.Bangin
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that a loser who can't even hold a job doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to economics. You can't replace the "system of corporations" with markets because corporations ARE part of the market, one facet of it. Corporations are one of many puzzle pieces that make up the puzzle that is the market. Is that...is that simple enough terms for you to understand?
Rhetorical question, I know it's not.

(25-06-2016 07:25 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  The system is not made of people, it is made of corporate rules and civil laws regulating those rules
*sigh*
A corporation is a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
Who writes the laws, enforces the laws and is subject to the laws? Do you ever get tired of being wrong all the time?

(25-06-2016 07:25 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  and civil law prohibits corporate rules from discriminating based on race and gender and all that other shit.Laughat
The law also prohibits the sale and manufacture of Meth for fucking retard, hows that working out? Oh right, people still do it.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2016, 12:48 AM
RE: Corporations and politics
(25-06-2016 04:57 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  I would think the decision to not do business there is driven as much by the desire to avoid a consumer boycott themselves. That is a legitimate business concern.

It certainly can be. But almost always the motivation for a businesses to spend money on politics is to further their business....so doesn't that make it a legitimate business concern too?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2016, 12:59 AM
RE: Corporations and politics
(25-06-2016 02:30 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(25-06-2016 12:26 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Alfred Herrhausen was rich, had good security....What happened to him? If I am rich, I would still worry about inciting the psychotics regardless of how good my security is. I would want my contributions to remain anonymous.
I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but this guy wasn't assassinated by some random guy who sent him death threats. At least to me, it looks like he was killed because his debt forgiveness proposals upset some (((very powerful people))).

The point is any security envelope has it vulnerabilities. Below is a picture of Mark Zuckerberg running with his security team.....do you think he is vulnerable here? Also I suspect that Koch gets a lot more death threats because the left has effectively demonized him into worst bogeyman ever in the minds of their foot zombies. Anonymous donations give people more political freedom.

[Image: 0225-mark-zuckerberg-berlin-running-splash-6.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2016, 11:25 AM (This post was last modified: 26-06-2016 11:34 AM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Corporations and politics
(25-06-2016 09:28 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that a loser who can't even hold a job doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to economics. You can't replace the "system of corporations" with markets because corporations ARE part of the market, one facet of it. Corporations are one of many puzzle pieces that make up the puzzle that is the market. Is that...is that simple enough terms for you to understand?

Yeah, that's the definition of category error - genius. They call it "category mistake," now, and they divide it into two parts: fallacy of composition and fallacy of division.
Quote:The fallacy of composition is the converse of the fallacy of division; it may be contrasted with the case of emergence, where the whole possesses properties not present in the parts.


And, let's review what markets are.
Quote:A market is one of the many varieties of systems, institutions, procedures, social relations and infrastructures whereby parties engage in exchange. While parties may exchange goods and services by barter, most markets rely on sellers offering their goods or services (including labor) in exchange for money from buyers. It can be said that a market is the process by which the prices of goods and services are established. Markets facilitate trade and enables the distribution and allocation of resources in a society. Markets allow any trade-able item to be evaluated and priced. A market emerges more or less spontaneously or may be constructed deliberately by human interaction in order to enable the exchange of rights (cf. ownership) of services and goods.

Obviously, not the focus point of a thread about corporations - genius.


(25-06-2016 09:28 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(25-06-2016 07:25 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  The system is not made of people, it is made of corporate rules and civil laws regulating those rules
*sigh*
A corporation is a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
Who writes the laws, enforces the laws and is subject to the laws? Do you ever get tired of being wrong all the time?

Yeah, you left out the further description requiring a charter - you're a lame debater.

Quote:Early incorporated entities were established by charter (i.e. by an ad hoc act granted by a monarch or passed by a parliament or legislature). Most jurisdictions now allow the creation of new corporations through registration.

Corporations come in many different types but are usually divided by the law of the jurisdiction where they are chartered into two kinds: by whether or not they can issue stock, or by whether or not they are for profit.

(25-06-2016 09:28 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(25-06-2016 07:25 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  and civil law prohibits corporate rules from discriminating based on race and gender and all that other shit.Laughat
The law also prohibits the sale and manufacture of Meth for fucking retard, hows that working out? Oh right, people still do it.

So, what is your solution to this problem you so cleverly draw our attention to, bitch?
Consider
God controls everything???

I'm starting to think that one of these days, your wife is going to get to suck my dick.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2016, 04:12 PM
RE: Corporations and politics
(26-06-2016 12:48 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(25-06-2016 04:57 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  I would think the decision to not do business there is driven as much by the desire to avoid a consumer boycott themselves. That is a legitimate business concern.

It certainly can be. But almost always the motivation for a businesses to spend money on politics is to further their business....so doesn't that make it a legitimate business concern too?

The difference is in the effect. A vast infusion of cash into a candidate's coffers generally leads to corruption. A decision to not do business somewhere, not so much.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
27-06-2016, 04:45 PM
RE: Corporations and politics
(26-06-2016 12:59 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(25-06-2016 02:30 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but this guy wasn't assassinated by some random guy who sent him death threats. At least to me, it looks like he was killed because his debt forgiveness proposals upset some (((very powerful people))).

The point is any security envelope has it vulnerabilities. Below is a picture of Mark Zuckerberg running with his security team.....do you think he is vulnerable here? Also I suspect that Koch gets a lot more death threats because the left has effectively demonized him into worst bogeyman ever in the minds of their foot zombies. Anonymous donations give people more political freedom.

[Image: 0225-mark-zuckerberg-berlin-running-splash-6.jpg]
Come on, mate. If you're going to respond to my post, at least respond to the whole thing (e.g. the part where I argued in favor of anonymous donations up until a certain amount). I think it's in the public's best interest to know whether or not and by whom a given politician has been bought; this kind of knowledge plays an important part in many people's voting decision after all. It would be very unfair to the voter population if a candidate who runs on a pro-renewable energy and anti-fossil fuels platform, for example, would be able to hide the fact that he receives millions of dollars in donations from Big Oil. The fact that not a single billionaire in the US has ever been assassinated for donating money to the 'wrong' political candidate should tell you that their safety is only a theoretical concern, not a realistic one.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: