• fades@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    2 years ago

    Democracy is hanging by a thread and this is essentially a diamond tipped blade heading straight for it

  • reric88🧩@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    2 years ago

    Maybe my little caveman brain just can’t comprehend this, but in my head, this is so simple a kid should understand. Corporations have owners, and those owners already vote. Why should they get a second vote? That doesn’t make sense to me.

    • greenskye@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      2 years ago

      Which is also why corporations shouldn’t be able to give money to political causes. If my ceo wants to donate to some politician let him. But he shouldn’t get to do that and also direct company funds there as well.

  • ArtZuron@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    2 years ago

    In my humble opinion, just as “no taxation without representation” is a thing the gov should abide by; “no representation without taxation” is probably good too. If these company’s want to vote, have them pay 50% of all the money they every make to taxes.

    Actually, not even then. If they want to vote, even if they paid 99% of their profits towards taxes to vote it would be a bad idea.

    • reverendz@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      2 years ago

      Any entity that cannot be executed or imprisoned does not have to navigate the same fears and dangers of citizen beings.

      Corps as persons is one of the most monstrous ideas ever. Yes, legally it made some things easier, but we see the outcome.

      The whole idea and rules regarding incorporation needs to be revamped from the ground up.

      • ArtZuron@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 years ago

        You have no criticism from me on this. Companies either should have no say in politics at all, or a whole shit ton of actual, meaningful penalties for abuse if they do.

      • hglman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 years ago

        I would consider it if owners were punished for all crimes committed by the company by any member. And not by fines.

    • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 years ago

      The government already doesn’t abide by that principle. Votes cast by people in left-leaning areas count for a small fraction of what votes cast in right-leaning areas count for. Those convicted of a crime may not vote at all. Nor those without citizenship. Yet all of these groups pay taxes.

      If taxation without representation were generally considered revolution-worthy, as it once was, there would have been a revolution decades ago.

      • ArtZuron@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        I’d say tax them equivalent to all the individuals in the company combined. If there’s a 1000 employees, charge them the same you’d take 1000 people all at once. Then maybe triple it to account for the fact that they amplify the efforts of those people many times over.

    • Panteleimon@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If an entity is not subject to the legal restrictions of an individual, it should not benefit from the legal rights of an individual.

  • anji@lemmy.anji.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    2 years ago

    We continue to inch closer to full-blown corporatocracy. We’ve all watched and read enough cyberpunk to see where that leads.

  • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    2 years ago

    Isn’t it possible for one person to create multiple LLCs? Hence being able to vote multiple times?

      • jarfil@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        At that point… they could just make it official and say “$1 net worth = 1 vote”.

        It’s not like reality is that far from that already, when “1 person = 1 vote” can only cast their vote on a representative financed by someome with large enough net worth, then discard a bunch of “1 person” votes, and end up with “1 representative = 1 vote” who can further be lobbied based on someone’s or some company’s net worth.

    • howey@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      Sydney Australia allows businesses to vote in local elections. Businesses get 2 votes, humans get 1. So you don’t even need to own multiple companies to have an advantage over the commoners - it’s built right into the system!

    • bayjird@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 years ago

      From the article:

      A handful of other Delaware towns, including Fenwick Island, Henlopen Acres and Dagsboro, already allow corporations to vote

        • Blakerboy777@feddit.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          2 years ago

          The corporations themselves cannot vote. This law allows the owner of the corporation to vote even if they do not live within the city proper. No one can vote twice - whether you live in the city and own a corporation or own multiple corporations. And it’s only for corporations that own property. While it’s easy to imagine this backfiring, the steelman position is - you own a small business one town over, you have a significant role in the local economy, giving you one vote the same as any resident sounds pretty reasonable. Rich folk who own a house and live their 2 months out of the year are potentially eligible to vote as well, so it’s potentially more justified that the owner of the local bakery gets to vote too. Could this end up being horribly abused? I don’t know that there are enough safeguards against it. But this doesn’t immediately scream the end of democracy to me.

          • AveragePigeon@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 years ago

            I guess my main concern would be, are these owners or part-time residents voting elsewhere also? Would give new meaning to “vote early, vote often” if so.

    • ddh@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      Not American, but wondering how easy it is for foreigners to control US corporations.

      • Blakerboy777@feddit.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        It’s extremely easy, and I believe this bill also allows for them to vote by proxy, which exacerbates that concern. But on the other hand, they do need to own property, so it isn’t a totally costless endevour.

  • root_beer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 years ago

    Until corporations can be incarcerated or sentenced to death, they should not be given the right to vote.

  • rocketpoweredredneck@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 years ago

    This is just about the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen. Corporations should never have been granted any rights in the first place, and here’s Delaware, already giving corps a vote and trying to expand it. This is pants on head level stupidity.