Comment by chrischen | Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrischen | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I didn't vote you down, but I will offer my reasoning for why I don't think you understand the problem with treating companies as people.

I'm sure you've heard of the saying to separate business and personal stuff. Well that is the problem. Companies legally have to do what's in the companies own profit seeking interest. This is in the hopes that some of that profit seeking rubs off in benefit to society, but it's not directly resultant in benefit to society. Furthermore you can't treat a company as representative of the interests of a group of people because the company is an entity itself. The companies decision making is governed by rules and policies interpreted by the people running it. The people who run it have personal agendas, but when running the companies they have to do it a specific way for a specific set of interests. These interests conflict with those of a normal human being living in the United States.

The company is an entity, but not a citizen. It's characterized by policies and rules, and furthermore those policies and rules seek a well defined interest: profit.

1. Most people objecting to this have a problem with large corporations effecting elections -- this ruling had nothing to do with that. They could easily put money in PACs to buy adverting. All McCain-Feingold did was limit the ability of small groups of people and small companies to do the same thing through mountains of red tape.

2. Companies do not have to seek profit at all costs, public corporations have a responsibility to shareholders, but even then there is great leeway in what they're allowed to do.

1. I don't care what most people object to. I was explaining why the line of reasoning: treating companies as people, is wrong. Sure they could put money into PACs, they can bribe too. Doesn't mean it's right, certainly doesn't mean we have to tolerate it.

Companies do not share the same needs as a human citizen. Companies, as individual entities, do NOT share the same interests as a human citizen. Therefore companies cannot be given the same right to serve or lobby the people's interests.

Companies accrue their powers from means unrelated to potential agendas they push. Which means the voice of their agendas can potentially be inflated.

Secondly even if their agendas are directly related to how they get their power, then their agenda is directly related to corporate interest, because they get their power from profit.

A company may be an entity and not a citizen, but how do you differentiate between GE and its spending through its subsidiaries to broadcast various views (or Fox for that matter) from other companies? This ruling seems to simply level the playing field with other companies (especially given the case on which the ruling was based). Just because corporations are allowed to spend money to broadcast a message doesn't make it convincing or effective - but why should they be denied the ability to broadcast a message?

From the article on the original ruling: “When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

I don't care about the ruling. I'm explaining a flaw in the guy's logic.

I completely agree with you in that companies should be able to broadcast whatever message they want. After all it's the responsibility of the citizens to determine what's right.

But I think you're missing the point of my contention. I'm simply saying companies cannot be treated as a citizen in a government designed to serve the people. I'm saying companies are entities, and they are not a human being. They do not need to be fed food, or sleep, or care about people's suffering (unless it would be fiscally wise to do so).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com