this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
767 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
59666 readers
3616 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think it's time to revisit the question of why these corporations exist as "people" under the law, when they clearly operate without humanity. The perversion of justice that granted them this right was taken directly from the 14th Amendment in 1886. That amendment was written to grant citizenship to freed slaves. What a coincidence that slavery ended, but was immediately replaced with a new structure called corporations.
It's a practical policy. You want corporations to be able to enter into contracts, pay taxes, have legal responsibilities, etc.
Corporations already existed before the 14th amendment. So many valid critiques of capitalism but I don't understand the fixation with this one.
If they weren't "persons" then contracts would simply change their wordings but would still be functionally the same. It's like changing the color of a sports team jersey.
You should be more concerned with the workers owning the means of production. That can happen with or without corporate personhood. And that will be what actually brings us an equitable society.
It's certainly "practical" for shareholders with controlling interests in these publicly traded companies, but very impractical for everyone else.
The word corporation may have existed before the 14th Amendment, but the legal definition was entirely different. The word "Country" was also used to describe the state a person was from in the 19th century, if asked about one's country, one would would reply with the name of their state of residence. The meaning over a word can change entirely in a couple generations.
What criticism of capitalism is more relevant than the abomination of corporate personhood? Toss a few more right-wing Supreme Court rulings into the mix like Citizen's United giving corporations the ability to spend unlimited and unregulated money lobbying (buying) the legislative system and you have a nation in decline with a failing economic system.
Legally only citizens are allowed to lobby congress, if corporations were no longer considered people, then real people would have more access to power than their corporate overlords.
Corporations have existed since before the USA was even a thing. It's a group of men with part ownership in some type of organization designed to make profit. Hell, corporations were arguably much more powerful back then. Just look at the British East India Company. It had over 260,000 troops and owned massive swathes of territory.
If corporations weren't persons and couldn't lobby for that single reason, then they would funnel money into actual persons and then those people would lobby.
The solution if you don't want people to lobby (which I agree, is a goal you should aim for) then get rid of lobbying altogether. Changing the legal mechanics by which it happens accomplishes nothing. Which is what I mean by changing color of a sports jersey. It's focusing on trivial details and ignoring the fundamental issue. Missing forest for the trees.
Thanks for the civil tone of your reply, I have to agree that even if corporate personhood was abolished the oligarchs would just find another way to control the political system keeping rigged to favor their interests. Lobbying in the US started during the Civil War from what I understand, this lad to the creation of a Military Industrial Complex that continues to lobby US lawmakers into conflicts motivated by greed and not diplomatic interests. If you don't believe me, please listen to the warning from President Eisenhower in his farewell address.
Do you think it's in the people's best interest to keep the current corporate structure in tact and legislate lobbying reforms instead?
I think unfortunately democracy lends itself to oligarchy. It's a constant war of back and forth between democracy trying to fight back and then the oligarchs taking back control. Eternal struggle, essentially.
Look at for examples in the 1800s with the expansion of the railroads. We realized monopolies were dangerous so we create anti-trust laws. For a while, the government enforces this to break monopolies. This is good for democracy- it reduces the power of large corporations controlling policies.
Eventually, however, they sneak back in. Look at the original AT&T. I forget the name but it was Edison's company. They became massive, were broken up, but then slowly merged together over a long period of time.
However by the time they combine together again, there is little public will to break them up. We're at the point today where we have powerful anti-trust legislation but our politicians either have no will to change it or are too scared to change it.
We could break up Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. They buy up their potential competitors before they are any risk and we live in a world where vast majority of internet traffic gets routed through the big 5. Google (YouTube, search), Meta (Facebook, Instagram, whatsapp), Twitter, reddit, tiktok.
Instead of breaking these companies up to maintain a free market with competition - we don't do anything. Why? It's a pendulum and corporate interests are in the driver's seat right now.
There are many other industries where a few big companies control everything. Internet like Comcast & AT&T.. Media - I remember reading in 2019 half of all movies that came out in theaters was owned by Disney. Airlines are another example. 80% of trips happen under 4 companies. American airlines, delta, southwest, and United.
There are similar oligopolies in many industries that are less visible. Pharmaceuticals, defense contractors, cloud infrastructure, etc.
As long as these companies have such power.. they will find a way to manipulate our democratic system. You can change the rules and they will get around them. For example we have anti-trust and depending on your interpretation many of the companies above can be broken up.
Yet we don't do it. So the law doesn't actually matter. What matters is where the real power is currently located. The laws are guidelines..
So the solution? I have no idea, really. I think there is no ultimate solution as long as there is capitalism. It will always be a war between people trying to assert their own private power and the institutions trying to keep the system legitimate.
However, I think we can make the situation better by breaking up the power of these companies by actually enforcing anti-trust laws and making it harder for them by for example getting rid of legal lobbying and making them do it illegally. That will incur extra costs for them, ultimately making them less effective.
When you launder money, you lose a good chunk of it. Somstimes a significant chunk.