Re:Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary d...
by scarmig on Sunday October 13, 2019 @11:48AM
(#21241008)
Banning advertising here just restricts the freedom of corporations. Banning the item itself means individuals who want it can't get it.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary d...
by mellosouls on Sunday October 13, 2019 @11:52AM
(#21241029)
And corporations can't vote
.. :)
Re:Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary d...
by BubRoss on Sunday October 13, 2019 @12:02PM
(#21241089)
Corporations are a centralization of power that has obligations to money above all else.
Also if you give me the choice between being able to vote and being to to hire a lobbying firm, I know which would have more influence.
Re:Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary d...
by anticensor on Sunday October 13, 2019 @03:13PM
(#21242253)
Would you admit the corporation one vote or as many votes as total number of shares divided by number of shares held by smallest shareholder?
Re:Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary d...
by BubRoss on Sunday October 13, 2019 @09:00PM
(#21244438)
Is this a serious question? Are you talking about voting for politicians? Anyone can start as many corporations as they want.
Also corporations have roughly 100 million shares and anyone can buy a single share, so your formula would give one corporation more votes than the number of people who participated in the 2016 US election.
Do you really think corporations are under represented in the political process?
Re:Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary d...
by anticensor on Monday October 14, 2019 @02:17AM
(#21245650)
I wanted to illustrate sillyness of the idea. Partners of a corporation are already represented, no need to represent the whole partnership.