/townhall/ - Townhall

There has never been a separation between commerce and politics.

Individuals should be able to pressure corporations that they believe are doing harm to change.

Businesses should be in the market of wealth, not politics.
While I grant this is something of a naive pipe dream, I'm quite against the oligarchy of tech and finance cutting off people guilty of wrongthink or daring to donate to the wrong charity.
It's very cyberpunk, and I don't think it'll end well. Especially since the recent Russia stuff has rather demonstrated, it can just happen to anyone, for guilt by association reasons.

>>10652
What if that wealth comes at the cost of exploiting a group of people?
That is political, is it not?

I agree with you in that the current model is extremely flawed and must be overhauled, if not outright replaced.

Hmmmm

In general I don't want companies to run politics.

At the same time, huge companies dominate the markt and the advertising, so a more inclusive stance is very important to help shape the way for acceptance of things.

Like, I don't think the Coca cola executive should join politics to pass laws on domestic violence. But you don't want coca cola to portray domestic violence as an acceptable thing.

>>10648
>What are your thoughts?[...]

In short, if appealing to corporate leadership is the best way to change law, the government is not a democracy.  But, as everyone says, America is a Republic, and maybe it's still that.

>>10651
>There has never been a separation between commerce and politics.
True.  I suppose we could ask, whether greater or less connection is healthier for a Republic.

>>10652
I think you're talking about de-platforming.  That's certainly a big issue.  Disney is not yet a platform, but who knows?

>>10655
I read you as saying the connection might be acceptable when corporations influence in the right direction.

>>10658
When you say lesser what do you mean?

I'm individually inclined to think that everybody as a matter of personal engagement in the U.S. should certainly have the right to pressure corporations to take political stances: it's your absolute right to, say, a stockholder who's invested money in 'The Business of X' directly tell that place what they ought to do with your money. Since, after all, it's your money in the first place? Why wouldn't you want a lot of control over how it's managed?

Having said that, however, I think that it's fundamentally not necessarily a good idea in social terms for corporate power and political power to intermingled. This seems possibly negative for capitalist democracy as a cultural experiment in the long term. And even in the short run.

As with many other circumstances in life, just because you've the ethical and legal right to do something to benefit yourself at the possible expense of others doesn't mean that you, practically, should do that.

On the other hand, I certainly do understand as a multiple marginalized minority how important it's been both historically and now in the advancement of civil rights to push private actors to take anti-discriminatory social stances. Martin Luther King Jr.'s boycotts of multiple businesses ran by racist managers and employees some decades ago is a great example. It stands to reason that the general 'marketplace of ideas' in a free society must involve give-and-take in terms of corporate action.

In the specific case of Disney in 2022, I feel like current political efforts to enact discrimination against Americans who're Jewish, LGBT, and disabled are not just morally disgusting but also fundamentally damaging to the very fabric of centrist democratic government and basic human decency in the U.S. It's eighty years or so after the world experience with Hitler, the Nazis, and the Holocaust. That alone ought to be enough to teach moral examples. I think.

Thus, I can imagine somebody going: "Look, I want businesses to stay out of politics in general, but bigotry is a different matter, because being anti-bigotry makes you pro-human-being."

>>10653
Exploitation occurs through all interactions.
Unless we're going to go the route of 'everything is political', exploitation alone is not sufficient to be politics.
'Least as I see it.

If you feel you're being exploited unfairly, you ought petition your government for a new regulation, or find different work and let the company who's exploiting you fall out of business due to the lack of workers.
I wouldn't say the company ought be campaigning itself, though.

>>10658
I wouldn't quite say locking down your bank account and making it so you can't pay your bills is "deplatforming".

Deplatforming, as I understand it, is being denied a position to speak.
While both are certainly bad, I feel one's significantly worse than the other.

>>10671
How do you define politics?

I am unsure how one can be exploited fairly.

But companies now campaigning for deregulations with the only goal of maximizing profits without caring about ramifications, so shouldn't pressure be applied to places like that?

Also, there exists a multitude of factors on people being unable to leave a job. It seems unjust to ask them to make changes over policies and practices that are found to be repugnant.

>>10671
I could argue that being exploited past a severe, dangerous level involving direct harm (noting that all of those terms, such as "severe" and "direct", have fuzzy definitions) is something that's necessarily "political" because it involves you as a victim either getting outside help from a group of people (from "the polis") or just being hurt without recourse.

I agree that most interactions with big businesses aren't like this, but surely a lot of situations are.

>>10672
>How do you define politics?
In essence, the realm of law and state coercion.
That is the root of politics.

>I am unsure how one can be exploited fairly.
Depends on your definition, but the one I'm taking is " 1 : to make productive use of : utilize"
Essentially, to take advantage of something.
There are means to gain mutual advantage in deals.

>But companies now campaigning for deregulations with the only goal of maximizing profits without caring about ramifications, so shouldn't pressure be applied to places like that?
see >>10652
>"Businesses should be in the market of wealth, not politics."
What you describe is a business getting into politics.
They shouldn't be involved in politics.
Individuals? Sure. Maybe the guy who founded some company has some good ideas.
He shouldn't be leveraging his company for that end, though.
Ford himself may campaign. Ford as a company shouldn't.

>Also, there exists a multitude of factors on people being unable to leave a job. It seems unjust to ask them to make changes over policies and practices that are found to be repugnant.
See >>10671
>"If you feel you're being exploited unfairly, you ought petition your government for a new regulation,"

>>10675
I feel there's some level of confusion of my sentiments.

I'm certainly not saying an individual should not seek a means to address their grievances through the state.
I'm saying specifically, businesses should not be doing so.
They are not individuals.

As I say in >>10671 , if you're being treated unfairly, you ought either petition your government for a redress of your grievances, or leave that labor for another.
I'm certainly not saying you must idly accept the demands of a job.

>>10680
>>10681
I am rather confused, and I hope that my questions are not coming off as hostile in any way, I honestly wish to understand your point of view.

>Depends on your definition, but the one I'm taking is " 1: to make productive use of: utilize"
>Essentially, to take advantage of something.
But not in the sense of treating unfairly, which is how I was using the word.

>There are means to gain a mutual advantage in deals.
I don't disagree that mutual beneficial deals can and do happen.
My contention is that entities that are taking advantage of people are far more common and need regulation, which I acknowledge you have said should be petitioned for by individuals.

>Ford himself may campaign. Ford as a company shouldn't.
But doesn't this present an issue? Ford had massive political sway due to the wealth of his company. The same still applies in that those with wealth have more access to lawmakers and therefore sway over the law.
This is not saying that people with wealth should not have a voice in politics or that people less fortunate have none. I only want to address that at some level there exists an inequality that people in positions of power, like Ford, would have a direct interest in upholding.

>"If you feel you're being exploited unfairly, you ought to petition your government for a new regulation,"
I don't feel this addresses what I said. As I stated above the issue of the inequality that exists causes this to be in constant conflict. What if people petition for the changes but nothing happens? What if the petition for changes is met with a counter from individuals like Ford?
Again, issues such as health care can make it hard to leave an employer for any reason, so wouldn't it be more prudent to apply pressure to the entities to adopt better practices that lead to the best mutually beneficial outcome?

>>10682
>But not in the sense of treating unfairly, which is how I was using the word.
Yes, that's right.
Thus my usage earlier, of saying "If you feel you're being exploited unfairly". I feel unfairly is something to add to exploitation, not something inherent.

>Ford had massive political sway due to the wealth of his company.
To an extent. But much of that wealth is tied to the company itself, and its shareholders, rather than Ford's pocket itself.

The bulk of lobbyists are financed not by individual pockets, but rather, large organizations. Especially in the case of business. Ford himself would have less resources than that.

> I only want to address that at some level there exists an inequality that people in positions of power, like Ford, would have a direct interest in upholding.
Understandable. Though I would make the case, wealth is less a determining factor as class and culture are.
Politicians, at least in the US, seem to be quite an insular group. More or less the only ones they seem to listen to are the media types, who're more in that metropolitan class than your average businessman. The connections are ones of education and lifestyle, rather than raw wealth.
I think this rather shows its form when you look at what politicians tend to focus on. At least when it comes to the public face of things.

In any case; I'm not sure there's a solution. Humans will segregate and coalesce based on common qualities.

>What if people petition for the changes but nothing happens?
The world is not obligated to cave to your demands.
That's simply reality.
Not everyone gets listened to, not everyone's ideas are given fruition, nor for that matter should everyone be listened to, nor their ideas be given fruition.

Negotiation requires compromise and mutual benefit.

>Again, issues such as health care can make it hard to leave an employer for any reason,
Then address the issue of healthcare, not the business.

Why is it the company's fault the system around medical care in the United States is fucked?
Most companies don't even want to offer it, as it's expensive. The state mandates it often enough, and ultimately pays for it anyway given tax breaks and funding.

It seems the better course to redress that grievance is to petition the state to change its ways, not the business.

>>10648
Corporations, as far as I'm concerned, do not have the right to political opinions, for one very good reason. People have the right to political opinions. If a person is made to express a political opinion they don't personally hold on behalf of a corporation that's telling them to do that or they're fired, then that's infringing on that employee's first amendment rights. I'd rather people keep their rights than to give the right to a political opinion to some evil, greedy, self-serving hydra of a corporation.

Can be said that most of us agree that "corporate personhood" shouldn't exist?

A company shouldn't be legally considered the same as a private individual and thus be allowed to as a whole enforce certain speech, certain religious practices, and so on?