top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 58 points 3 years ago

This is insane

  • source
  • [–] 56 points 3 years ago

    When corporations get inprisoned for commiting crimes maybe then i would think let them voting could be good.

  • source
  • [–] 54 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. This has to be nipped in the bud IMMEDIATELY. Can't be giving them ideas.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 26 points 3 years ago

    It’s funny because of the idea that corporations are people and deserve rights, but it would be instantly shot down if I set up way too many corporations to get communists elected to all the positions

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 47 points 3 years ago

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

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 3 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 3 years ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Yes. This is possibly the whole point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 3 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 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!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 3 years ago (8 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 3 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 23 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    So if corporations are people and can vote, can they be charged with crimes like murder?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 3 years ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago (9 children)

    Not American, but is that even constitutional?

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    From the article:

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    So what you're saying is that I can already spin up extra LLCs and get extra ballots?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago

    Seaford, Delaware, is so open-minded, their brains have fallen out.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago

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

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago

    What an absolutely awful idea.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 3 years ago

    Well, time to register 5000 new corporations in that town.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 3 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.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago

    What a stupid idea. Welcome to the neo digital feudalism age. We need to make proprietary goods illegal and start a jihad level campaign against corporate participation in politics.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago

    What - and I cannot emphasize this next part enough - the fuck

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    What a shock that this is the state where Biden is from. What a shock.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 5 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    I'm not too surprised. The City of London does the same.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    The vast majority of businesses headquartered in the state, including two-thirds of Fortune 500 companies, don't have a physical presence there.

    What.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    That's an error (or a typo). Those companies aren't "headquartered" there, but they are incorporated there.

    The typical large American public company is incorporated in Delaware, with their stock listed on an exchange in New York, and headquartered wherever they actually do their business: San Francisco or Houston or Chicago or Atlanta whatever. Delaware and New York monopolize their respective segment of the business of the administrative paperwork of being a registered company. As another example, older companies that have physical stock certificates mostly have them locked up in a vault in NYC, with the ownership of the certificates just changing over in a ledger with every stock trade (millions per day) without the actual paper certificates being touched.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago

    This sounds like the stupidest idea I've ever heard (so far, who knows what else will they think of).

  • source
  • Sounds about right for Delaware. There's literally more corporations registered there than people.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    Wow I really hate living here.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    This'll end well, I'm sure....

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›