501
Billionaires used to build libraries and hospital wings, now they just buy politicians. (lemmy.today)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/workreform@lemmy.world
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 3 months ago* (8 children)

  • Speech = Free: People have the right to say what they want. You can't keep a person from talking.

  • Spending = Speech: People have the right to spend money about political issues. You can't keep a person from spending.

...

  • Corporations = People: A group of people have the same rights that an individual has.

Basically, Citizens United says that for-profit companies can't be restricted from political activities. They are free to buy elections.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    Oh shit right thanks. Yeah that's simply wrong. The absolute minority controlling isn't what voting is about, as we all know.

    Get that "let them eat cake" era back and sort that whole damn mess out. What a corrupt entire system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    Yeah, what they should have said is that corporate personhood is a legal fiction. Corporations exist solely for purposes of legally distinguishing the conduct of business from the actions of individual shareholders of that business.

    Corporations exist solely to conduct commerce. Any "speech" by a corporation is an act of commerce, and commerce is well within the regulatory authority of Congress.

    But that would be reasonable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (5 children)

    Corporations exist solely for purposes of legally distinguishing the conduct of business from the actions of individual shareholders of that business.

    Which has, itself, not worked out so good. Shareholders and managers hiding behind the corporate veil have done irreparable harm.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    The alternative is that when your co-worker goes on vacation, gets in a car wreck three states away, and the victim's family takes your house in compensation.

    What I just described is the liability structure of a partnership, absent any remnant of the "corporate veil". Liability flows from your partner through the partnership and back to you. It is the corporate veil that isolates the company from the personal actions of its employees, and the employees from the business operations of the company.

    There's a little more nuance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (3 children)

    The alternative is that when your co-worker goes on vacation, gets in a car wreck three states away, and the victim’s family takes your house in compensation.

    That doesn't logically follow at all.

    What I just described is the liability structure of a partnership

    You do not have claim on someone's house because of an uninsured motorist claim on a business partner on vacation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    That doesn't logically follow at all.

    It does. When you eliminate the "corporate veil", liability doesn't end at the person, but reaches back to the person's business as well. If we eschew the traditional liability limits of a partnership by eliminating the veil (such as by commingling personal and business assets), the legal distinction ends. The partners and the business all become a single entity. Liabilities of one become liabilities of all.

    You do not have claim on someone's house because of an uninsured motorist claim on a business partner on vacation

    That is generally true, yes.

    But it is only true because of the concept of the corporate veil. In saying that the victim can't make such a claim, you are describing the veil. The only reason you do not have a claim on the partner's house is because of the veil.

    You do not get to simultaneously claim the veil is bad, and then hide behind it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    When you eliminate the “corporate veil”, liability doesn’t end at the person, but reaches back to the person’s business as well

    Get send you're totally unfamiliar with civil liability

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    Your arguments indicate an understanding of the concept of civil liability, but lack comprehension of the underlying principles.

    In attacking the "corporate veil", you are undercutting the foundation of the relevant component of civil liability. You are tearing down the wall of separation that restricts liability from crossing these boundaries, while simultaneously arguing in favor of the restrictions imposed by this wall.

    You don't seem to understand that these "two" issues are one and the same.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent