|
|
|
|
|
|
by s1artibartfast
599 days ago
|
|
|
I think you are still taking issue with the severity of penalties, not legal immunity. Should someone go to jail for HIV deaths in Africa, or heart attacks from McDonalds? I dont think the comparison to individuals is as clear as you make it out to be. We dont charge surgeons This is beside really besides the point tho when it comes to elections. Corporations are made up of people. If you restrict them, you are also restricting the individuals. Maybe we should- A lot of countries do! I just dont get why people get into all this complex theory about corporate personhood instead of just making that claim. If you dont like corporate donations, are you really OK with Gates or whoever making a $100M donation? do you really think corporate donations are somehow worse? |
|
|
We definitely do if they act in malice. "Do no harm" and all. I guess then it comes down to how stupid you think corporate leadership is.
IMO, most of the time they're not stupid. I don't think Tabacco executives genuinely though getting people hooked on nicotine was fine. Not to mention they did everything they could to make the occurrence of nicotine more potent...
> are you really OK with Gates or whoever making a $100M donation? do you really think corporate donations are somehow worse?
1. I'm not 100% okay with the ultra-wealthy influencing elections, because their interests are also at odds with the average American person (who is who your representatives should serve!), but:
2. I do think it's slightly better than corporations influencing elections. Bill Gates is still a person and probably doesn't advocate things that directly harm humanity. The same is not true for corporations - many of them literally exist solely to harm humanity (and make money in the process).