this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2023
222 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10186 readers
128 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] demvoter@kbin.social 54 points 1 year ago

This is insane

[–] MrComradeTaco@lemmy.fmhy.ml 51 points 1 year ago

When corporations get inprisoned for commiting crimes maybe then i would think let them voting could be good.

[–] UngodlyAudrey@beehaw.org 49 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. This has to be nipped in the bud IMMEDIATELY. Can't be giving them ideas.

[–] Shinhoshi@infosec.pub 26 points 1 year ago

It’s funny because of the idea that corporations are people and deserve rights, but it would be instantly shot down if I set up way too many corporations to get communists elected to all the positions

[–] fades@beehaw.org 44 points 1 year ago

Democracy is hanging by a thread and this is essentially a diamond tipped blade heading straight for it

[–] reric88@beehaw.org 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe my little caveman brain just can't comprehend this, but in my head, this is so simple a kid should understand. Corporations have owners, and those owners already vote. Why should they get a second vote? That doesn't make sense to me.

[–] greenskye@beehaw.org 24 points 1 year ago

Which is also why corporations shouldn't be able to give money to political causes. If my ceo wants to donate to some politician let him. But he shouldn't get to do that and also direct company funds there as well.

[–] ArtZuron@beehaw.org 25 points 1 year ago (4 children)

In my humble opinion, just as "no taxation without representation" is a thing the gov should abide by; "no representation without taxation" is probably good too. If these company's want to vote, have them pay 50% of all the money they every make to taxes.

Actually, not even then. If they want to vote, even if they paid 99% of their profits towards taxes to vote it would be a bad idea.

[–] reverendz@beehaw.org 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Any entity that cannot be executed or imprisoned does not have to navigate the same fears and dangers of citizen beings.

Corps as persons is one of the most monstrous ideas ever. Yes, legally it made some things easier, but we see the outcome.

The whole idea and rules regarding incorporation needs to be revamped from the ground up.

[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

I would consider it if owners were punished for all crimes committed by the company by any member. And not by fines.

[–] ArtZuron@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

You have no criticism from me on this. Companies either should have no say in politics at all, or a whole shit ton of actual, meaningful penalties for abuse if they do.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago

The government already doesn't abide by that principle. Votes cast by people in left-leaning areas count for a small fraction of what votes cast in right-leaning areas count for. Those convicted of a crime may not vote at all. Nor those without citizenship. Yet all of these groups pay taxes.

If taxation without representation were generally considered revolution-worthy, as it once was, there would have been a revolution decades ago.

[–] Buzz4074@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Tax them as an individual.

[–] ArtZuron@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

I'd say tax them equivalent to all the individuals in the company combined. If there's a 1000 employees, charge them the same you'd take 1000 people all at once. Then maybe triple it to account for the fact that they amplify the efforts of those people many times over.

[–] potsnpans@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If an entity is not subject to the legal restrictions of an individual, it should not benefit from the legal rights of an individual.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] deaf_fish@lemm.ee 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Isn't it possible for one person to create multiple LLCs? Hence being able to vote multiple times?

[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes. This is possibly the whole point.

[–] howey@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago

Sydney Australia allows businesses to vote in local elections. Businesses get 2 votes, humans get 1. So you don't even need to own multiple companies to have an advantage over the commoners - it's built right into the system!

[–] bridger@tucson.social 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So if corporations are people and can vote, can they be charged with crimes like murder?

[–] Kettlepants@lemm.ee 23 points 1 year ago

No, don't be silly. Only poor people can commit crimes. ^/s

[–] anji@lemmy.anji.nl 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We continue to inch closer to full-blown corporatocracy. We've all watched and read enough cyberpunk to see where that leads.

[–] Lightninhopkins@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

With Keanu Reeves blowing up a skyscraper?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SilentStorms@lemmy.fmhy.ml 16 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Not American, but is that even constitutional?

[–] bayjird@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From the article:

A handful of other Delaware towns, including Fenwick Island, Henlopen Acres and Dagsboro, already allow corporations to vote

[–] borkcorkedforks@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So what you're saying is that I can already spin up extra LLCs and get extra ballots?

[–] Blakerboy777@feddit.online 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The corporations themselves cannot vote. This law allows the owner of the corporation to vote even if they do not live within the city proper. No one can vote twice - whether you live in the city and own a corporation or own multiple corporations. And it's only for corporations that own property. While it's easy to imagine this backfiring, the steelman position is - you own a small business one town over, you have a significant role in the local economy, giving you one vote the same as any resident sounds pretty reasonable. Rich folk who own a house and live their 2 months out of the year are potentially eligible to vote as well, so it's potentially more justified that the owner of the local bakery gets to vote too. Could this end up being horribly abused? I don't know that there are enough safeguards against it. But this doesn't immediately scream the end of democracy to me.

[–] TheTrueLinuxDev@beehaw.org 20 points 1 year ago

But it definitely screams the death of a town when corporate find a way to game the system.

[–] AveragePigeon@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

I guess my main concern would be, are these owners or part-time residents voting elsewhere also? Would give new meaning to "vote early, vote often" if so.

[–] Cylinsier@beehaw.org 14 points 1 year ago

With this SCOTUS constitutionality no longer matters.

[–] MinnePuffin@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

It doesn't feel constitutional, but you can make any law as long as no one takes you to court.

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not American, but wondering how easy it is for foreigners to control US corporations.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] xuxebiko@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

Seaford, Delaware, is so open-minded, their brains have fallen out.

[–] arefx@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago

What an absolutely awful idea.

[–] pseudorandom@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

Well, time to register 5000 new corporations in that town.

[–] root_beer@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

Until corporations can be incarcerated or sentenced to death, they should not be given the right to vote.

This is just about the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Corporations should never have been granted any rights in the first place, and here's Delaware, already giving corps a vote and trying to expand it. This is pants on head level stupidity.

[–] TheOtherJake@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago

What a stupid idea. Welcome to the neo digital feudalism age. We need to make proprietary goods illegal and start a jihad level campaign against corporate participation in politics.

[–] queue@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

What a shock that this is the state where Biden is from. What a shock.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] imkmiaw@lemmy.fmhy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

This sounds like the stupidest idea I've ever heard (so far, who knows what else will they think of).

[–] potsnpans@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

What - and I cannot emphasize this next part enough - the fuck

[–] Shhalahr@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The vast majority of businesses headquartered in the state, including two-thirds of Fortune 500 companies, don't have a physical presence there.

What.

[–] BarryZuckerkorn@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's an error (or a typo). Those companies aren't "headquartered" there, but they are incorporated there.

The typical large American public company is incorporated in Delaware, with their stock listed on an exchange in New York, and headquartered wherever they actually do their business: San Francisco or Houston or Chicago or Atlanta whatever. Delaware and New York monopolize their respective segment of the business of the administrative paperwork of being a registered company. As another example, older companies that have physical stock certificates mostly have them locked up in a vault in NYC, with the ownership of the certificates just changing over in a ledger with every stock trade (millions per day) without the actual paper certificates being touched.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not too surprised. The City of London does the same.

[–] zhunk@beehaw.org 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For clarity's sake, I think it's worth pointing out that you're talking about the City of London, the 1 square mile with a population of under 10,000.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 5 points 1 year ago

And Seaford, Delaware also has a population less than 10,000.

But I agree it is important to clarify which of the two Londons I'm talking about.

[–] sergio@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago

Wow I really hate living here.

[–] Stanley_Pain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago

This'll end well, I'm sure....

Sounds about right for Delaware. There's literally more corporations registered there than people.

load more comments
view more: next ›