Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Of course owners have the right to run their companies as they see fit, just as long as it's within the bounds of the law and achieves shareholder approval.

[Henry Case]

No, they aren't. Many companies need to adhere to regulators and regulations even if not doing so is Constitutionally legal

[Sy Borg]

No, they aren't. Many companies need to adhere to regulators and regulations even if not doing so is Constitutionally legal

I'm talking about corporations being bound by the entire legal framework. I was not claiming that they were bound by laws, but not by associated regulations. Anyone even a little bit familiar with law knows that regulations and standards necessarily extrapolate on legal details.

[Henry Case]

No, regulations and standards do not necessarily extrapolate on legal details...apparently you don't know as much about them as you think

Many, if not most regulations, go far beyond the restraints of actual codified law

[Sy Borg]

I worked as a paralegal for a couple of years, so you are the one who is struggling. There will be an overarching constitution, or constitutions, laws, regulations and standards. I used to have to look them up all the time for work. The Acts would refer to the Regs and the Regs would refer to national standards (which tend to be influenced by international standards).

Whatever, companies are obviously bound by *legal considerations*, but otherwise they can do as they wish, as long as the shareholders are on side.

[Pattern-chaser]

We did not vote for them to control and censor public discourse....that must be a European thing.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I suggested this:

I agree that government 'interference' should be kept to a minimum, but their observation and (where necessary) supervision is desirable, I think.

There is a big difference between coercion and moderation.

And I am not my government and they are not me...that must be a thing you British embrace; of course you let racist royals into your government matters, so I'm not surprised you like such hegemony

Our racist and fascist royals are (happily) nothing more than a remnant of centuries-old tradition. They have no authority, and play no part in government, except perhaps as media ambassadors, going where they are told, and doing what they are told, by our elected government.

And many of us didn't vote for the government in place, so your point is further erroneous...

This is a common misunderstanding. It is part of democracy, of the democratic process, that those who vote accept the will of the majority, even if *they* didn't vote for them. It's the way it works, the only way it can work.

[Pattern-chaser]

Sorry, but spending billions on a company doesn't mean you can run it as you please.

I wish you were right, but you aren't. This is Disney-world, where only profit matters, and where rich — not "might" — makes right.

Perhaps this is something that should be changed? I suggest that companies should exist for the benefit of their employees, customers, and investors (in that order)?

[Henry Case]

I worked as a paralegal for a couple of years, so you are the one who is struggling. There will be an overarching constitution, or constitutions, laws, regulations and standards. I used to have to look them up all the time for work. The Acts would refer to the Regs and the Regs would refer to national standards (which tend to be influenced by international standards).

Whatever, companies are obviously bound by *legal considerations*, but otherwise they can do as they wish, as long as the shareholders are on side.

This doesn't counter anything I said, so you're still the one struggling...even as an ex-paralegal. The facts remain that regulations still go above and beyond the laws of the constitution. There are no regulations of the tech industry in the Constitution

[Henry Case]

We did not vote for them to control and censor public discourse....that must be a European thing.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I suggested this:

I agree that government 'interference' should be kept to a minimum, but their observation and (where necessary) supervision is desirable, I think.

There is a big difference between coercion and moderation.

And I am not my government and they are not me...that must be a thing you British embrace; of course you let racist royals into your government matters, so I'm not surprised you like such hegemony

Our racist and fascist royals are (happily) nothing more than a remnant of centuries-old tradition. They have no authority, and play no part in government, except perhaps as media ambassadors, going where they are told, and doing what they are told, by our elected government.

And many of us didn't vote for the government in place, so your point is further erroneous...

This is a common misunderstanding. It is part of democracy, of the democratic process, that those who vote accept the will of the majority, even if *they* didn't vote for them. It's the way it works, the only way it can work.

I didn't put words in your mouth. You put words in mine as I never said "coercion"...and supervision and moderation IS censorship; censorship you call for and support. And yes the royalty has had input on policy for it's entire existence; you're just not paying attention..And the misunderstanding is all yours as accepting the democratic process does not mean accepting the will of the majority. The will of the majority in America once approved slavery and segregation; you must think everyone should have accepted that.

[Sy Borg]

I worked as a paralegal for a couple of years, so you are the one who is struggling. There will be an overarching constitution, or constitutions, laws, regulations and standards. I used to have to look them up all the time for work. The Acts would refer to the Regs and the Regs would refer to national standards (which tend to be influenced by international standards).

Whatever, companies are obviously bound by *legal considerations*, but otherwise they can do as they wish, as long as the shareholders are on side.

This doesn't counter anything I said, so you're still the one struggling...even as an ex-paralegal. The facts remain that regulations still go above and beyond the laws of the constitution. There are no regulations of the tech industry in the Constitution :)

Let's try another angle and see if you can make some sense. What restrictions currently apply to corporate activities, and how does this differ from the regulatory framework (including laws [sic]) that you would recommend?

[Henry Case]

The only one not making sense is you. I never said there shouldn't be regulations per se, so your question is irrelevant

[Sy Borg]

The only one not making sense is you. I never said there shouldn't be regulations per se, so your question is irrelevant

Then we agree that laws, regulations, official standards shareholder demands limit corporate behaviour.

[Henry Case]

We certainly agree no specific laws, regulations, or official standards have to limit corporate behavior or social media sites HAVE to censor

[Sy Borg]

We certainly agree no specific laws, regulations, or official standards have to limit corporate behavior or social media sites HAVE to censor

Are you saying that the laws etc don't need to be enforced?

[Henry Case]

I said what I said...feel free to address what I said at any time