[pjc50]

Every time this subject comes up people wheel out "the only obligation a company has is to its _shareholders_". Usually when they're complaining about DEI or social obligations being imposed on them.

Competence you can argue, but there is no guarantee that any company is more aligned with _the public as a whole_ than an elected government. It may turn out that they are in particular cases, but elections remain a real means for public to control governments that doesn't apply to companies.

[BulgarianIdiot]

Well, I'm not wheeling out any of that. Politicians are only truly obligated to their sponsors as well, but they won't say that out loud. Does this make things better?

In truth, a government also depends on its voters, and a company also depends on its customers. But none of this what I'm talking about. I'm talking about governments implementing FORCE on corporations because they're big enough to be heard and seen and to challenge them. Is that good? Why?

Take a country like Russia where only what Putin says matters, everyone else is his pawn, even if on paper they may be billionaires holding big companies. Is that an improvement over having genuine corporate voices making their point?

[pyrale]

> Is that an improvement over having genuine corporate voices making their point?

Corporations don't have a voice, and large shareholders usually get more than their fair share of attention.

[pjc50]

People need to distinguish between "force" and "law".

In a rule of law country, governments can't just push around companies at a whim. That's the basis of Disney vs De Santis: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/florida-board-may-ban-disne...

[BulgarianIdiot]

Oh, really. Who defines law?

If you're convinced, for some silly reason, that you live in a legit republic, I recommend researching how a banana republic operates, or say Russia, which is also a democracy & a republic on paper, and learn how every single procedure and institution is subverted and behind the decorum, the rulers are doing whatever they want, basically.

And once you do this... look back to your country with new eyes, and you'll be shocked. It's the same thing. But with more make-up on.

[oblio]

> Take a country like Russia where only what Putin says matters, everyone else is his pawn, even if on paper they may be billionaires holding big companies. Is that an improvement over having genuine corporate voices making their point?

Russia is not a democracy so your premise is flawed from the start.

[BulgarianIdiot]

Oh yes it, they have elections and everything. "But it's just superficial, not real". Well, let's look at France now. People elected someone, and he flipped on them, and their protested. What's the end result, in this democracy? President 1, people 0.

[oblio]

Are you really comparing a representative democracy where the currently elected officials will probably be ousted in a few years with a place where protesting gets you thrown ostentatiously out of a window, to prove a point to everyone?

[BulgarianIdiot]

Yes, I am.