Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

Re:Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty pro... by dodobirdlord on Monday October 19, 2020 @11:19PM (#24833644)

Sure they do. Corporations are owned by people, and those people have speech interests. If corporations didn’t have the right to free speech then a group of people campaigning for a politics cause would suddenly lose their right to free speech if they formed a corporation to simplify the activities, such as the joint handling of money or purchasing of ads.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty pro... by sjm-lbm on Monday October 19, 2020 @11:46PM (#24833750)

Corporations also get a lot of benefits that individuals or unstructured associations don't - mainly things like liability protection - so it's not like it would be unreasonable to have corresponding limitations on what they are allowed to do.

And that's before we get to the point that corporations, as a practical matter, are formed under state laws, so why is the federal government giving them rights?

(and that's before the other issues with Citizen's United as a case, regardless of the decision as people usually remember it, but I'm starting to go off a bit..)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty pro... by danhak on Monday October 19, 2020 @11:55PM (#24833792)

> And that's before we get to the point that corporations, as a practical matter, are formed under state laws, so why is the federal government giving them rights?

That's an interesting point. Marriages are formed under state law as well, and it doesn't seem controversial to me that the federal government grants that relationship special privileges.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty pro... by Judgmentality on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @01:16AM (#24834134)

> Marriages are formed under state law as well, and it doesn't seem controversial to me that the federal government grants that relationship special privileges

I think the only reason this isn't controversial is because people don't think about it. The fact that people are conditioned to get married, not to mention the tax benefits, is pretty fucking weird if you stop and think about it. Supposedly our country was meant to separate church and state, but it's obvious it was such a new concept that many of the ideas were stolen from the mores of the conventional religions of the time.

I mean, why is marriage a legal thing at all? Why is the government involved? It made sense when there was a dowry involved, but today? Nobody cares until they realize what a fucking nightmare getting divorced is, and the number of conditions and loopholes is asinine. It's almost like the lawyers invented it, because divorce lawyers make an insane amount of money on the suffering of others (they are heavily incentivized to push for people to be combative, because they make more money that way - and it's easy to rile people up when custody of children is involved).

This is obviously a bit of a rant that went in a weird direction but whatever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZTOT6DKfZ8

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty pro... by owlie on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @09:16AM (#24836906)

> The fact that people are conditioned to get married, not to mention the tax benefits, is pretty fucking weird if you stop and think about it.

You might be interested in the concept of the relationship escalator, then.

https://solopoly.net/2012/11/29/riding-the-relationship-esca...

(Disclaimer: I'm not poly, but I really like how poly folk interrogate relationship norms. Don't be scared off by the poly blog!)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty pro... by mdorazio on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @02:42AM (#24834505)

> a group of people campaigning for a politics cause would suddenly lose their right to free speech if they formed a corporation to simplify the activities

This doesn't make any sense. Every person in the group retains their free speech rights and can exercise them however they want, it's only the non-human "person" entity in the form of the corporation that would be limited.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty pro... by staticautomatic on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @12:13AM (#24833860)

No. The owners have speech interests because they are people. The corporation itself does not.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty pro... by jayd16 on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @01:33AM (#24834200)

In a vacuum, it does not seem to follow from the 1st amendment that forming a corporation for financial expedience should also be protected speech. You don't lose speech by forming a new thing without speech if you retain your rights as an individual.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty pro... by 8note on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @01:27AM (#24834177)

Don't candidates in political campaigns have some limits imposed by law? Amounts you're allowed to spend and so on. Their campaign is a corporation if I'm not mistaken

[ Parent | on HN ]