Again, corporations act in their rational self interest. Sure, industry specific regulation and abortion access are both political. But conflating them is not particularly useful.

I suppose industry specific regulation may be more direct, but if a company has a majority of employees who strongly believe in a specific social issue, such as abortion access, then couldn't it also be in the company's interest to lobby for that specific issue?

How did that work out for Disney?

I'm confused at how that follows what you were saying. I thought you were saying businesses try to act in their rational self-interest and I was trying to highlight how political issues could be in their rational self-interest.

I don't think the effects of one's actions, such as those of Disney's, would negate whether the company intended to do something to help their own company.

My comment was flippant, I apologise.

What I meant was taking sides on divisive hot button issues is fraught with peril. The probability of blowback is high.

Even if a large proportion of employees held a particular political position, I'd imagine only a small number of activist employees would be disgruntled by the company choosing to stay out of it.

It's ok, I appreciate the apology and as with any internet interaction, realize it's hard for me to know what's going on in your life beyond the screen so I hope all is well.

Oh, I strongly agree that it could be riskier and most companies would probably prefer to appear apolitical, especially with those charged topics. I was a part of a global organization that seemed to take much pride in saying it was apolitical, but had many many many views on how society should be organized, so I think yes, the corporate culture can strongly discourage the appearance of being involved in politics or religion or sex or some taboo topics and to also discourage not just appearance but action as well.

I also act in rational self interest, so I guess that makes all of my positions apolitical.

With that being said, abortion should be legal at the federal level. By your logic, this isn't a political statement.

Most people also support political positions that are orthogonal to or even against their self interest. That is what makes them different from corporations.

Literally nobody will benefit from a ban on abortions. That doesn't stop people from taking such a position.

You're using your own personal definition of "political", in which positions taken in rational self interest are not political, but this isn't how it works. It's difficult to have a discussion if you're using your own definitions of words.

It seems what you're really trying to say is that corporations should only act in rational self interest. As has been pointed out, there are circumstances in which a corporation can be acting in rational self interest by supporting abortion, or by taking other politically-charged positions.

The whole rational-vs.-political dichotomy you're trying to put forth is a false one; being political is not synonymous with being irrational or whatever you're suggesting.

> Literally nobody will benefit from a ban on abortions

The political class benefits from constituencies terrorized by leaders who criminalize health care

They often don't take political positions, they make them.