...with capitalism the power of the state is not utilized to oppress and control the masses. — Hanover
It's not coincidental that the existence of free markets coincides with free societies generally.
Requiring public businesses to cater to all comers is something that arose out of necessity in the old South, where African Americans literally could not find places to lodge, to eat, or to repair their vehicles if they broke down along the way. While I recognize that improper discrimination is a wrong regardless of who it is committed against on a theoretical level, I see the situation between not being able to find lodging very different than a gay couple who insists that a resistant baker bake them a cake. The gay couple could easily find someone more receptive and get their cake (and from someone who's not going to half bake it). — Hanover
protection against individuals and businesses that wanted to deny homosexuals certain services. For example, if a baker didn't want to bake a wedding cake with two grooms on it, then the law would protect their right from a lawsuit or other sanction for that discrimination. — Hanover
So pretty trivial on the specific level but if you abstract away from it and consider the possibility that gays could be discriminated everywhere all the time, it's clear why you need to nip this in the butt as quickly as possible. — Benkei
Are those opposed to corporate power's influence in our democracy opposed to the process that resulted in the veto of this bill? Or does the fact that the preferred result was achieved negate the corrupt process that brought about the result? Or, do you think that the process was not corrupt at all and that corporations play an important role in our democratic process by using their influence to get results? — Hanover
"The Corporation" isn't a citizen, isn't a voter, isn't a person, and doesn't have opinions or positions on political issues. — Bitter Crank
Accordingly, the tactic you've singled out here is morally compatible with an interest in reforming the role of corporations in politics, and it's utility is to some extent independent of the current degree or state of corporate influence in politics. — Cabbage Farmer
The solution, if you have any historic sense of the development of the corporate body, is most definitely not providing them more access to the political process. — Benkei
Explain, why you cannot assume, that this is actually the case? Many of friends are entrepeneurs in IT and finance. And over the last couple of years our discussion base shifted, from idealists, who wanted to make the world a better place, to more practical points of interests.That a person is dependent on a corporation should not be confused with an alignment of interests. In general they are not. — Benkei
Which means, the alternative is to deny them rights and control them totally? If so only government offcials (since they cant be private obv. and not corporate) can influence corporation? Thats sounds familiar. I am considering myself a marxist as well. But in all honesty we are not ready for something like that. And of course, why should they be less corrupted, than corporate leader now?That corporations, as opposed to small business, has become so important is a result of granting them to many rights. — Benkei
I do not want to give them access, because I assume, they already have it — Ralph Luther
Corporations are accidental relational structures between people — Benkei
pls note, i don't know if corporate have to make their balances public, in every country. In my country they have to. And will face dire consequences if they are late, tempered with in form. — Ralph Luther
Public for-profit corporations in the US have to issue regular financial reports. Non-profit corporations are not obligated to do so, and privately owned companies (even very big ones) don't have to, either. — Bitter Crank
But... as legal entities, corporations should not be counted as persons or citizens. [...] There is no reason to count a 'box' as anything more than a structure. — Bitter Crank
:D But you said yourself, that there is a big if, an antecedens, if you will. You need money! Because of that big if, isn't it more sensible to assume, that even so status and wealth of a person are part of his private-autonomy, a wealthy citizen can influence political officals more, than a poorer person would be able to? Wouldn't it therefore be safer to assume, that any person of considerable wealth and his political interests are of public relevance? And are therefore to be treated accordingly? The radius of impact a rich person has is far beyond any middleclass citizen can reach.chew on Paul Ryan's ear. — Bitter Crank
But why should they be trated as "boxes"? Are those entities not capable of change and reason? They shape our lifes as well, as we shapes theirs. — Ralph Luther
At the moment corporations influence politics in backroom meetings, because it would invoke public outrage, they would lose coustomers and probably be in the center of a major shitstorm. By making their influence official, they could act as before... — Ralph Luther
By making their influence official, they could act as before, but the public would have chance to be involved. — Ralph Luther
Well, an organization can learn nothing because it is an abstraction. The employees of an organization can learn or forget, but the organization can not do anything of the sort. — Bitter Crank
But just because we can differentiate personal and professional believes, it does not entail, that they are always separated. A backroom meeting wouldn't be set up by rich person, just for fun, but most likely to further the interest of his corporation. All i am proposing is just, if the professional and personal political interest of a person if significant impact are aligning, it should be made official. The only way to ensure that, would be to held not himself responsible, because that would be to much to ask from any human, but his corporation.Again, "corporations" do not influence politics, or anything else. The board of directors, the operating management, and employees of a corporation influence politics... — Bitter Crank
Exaclty, and as long as corporations are holding most our wealth and are in charge of the production of things we depend on, they have to be held socially responsible. Can't hold anyone responsible, without making their actions known, can you?As Lenin observed, "quantity has a quality all its own". — Bitter Crank
I can definitely recommend you: Peter Ulrich — Ralph Luther
Of course I don't mean that Organizations are literally capable of reason. — Ralph Luther
as long as corporations are holding most our wealth — Ralph Luther
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.