←back to thread

573 points gausswho | 6 comments | | HN request time: 1.668s | source | bottom
Show context
John23832 ◴[] No.44509670[source]
What consumer does this serve at all? What citizen does this serve at all?

This only serves to allow firms to erect effort barriers to keep rent seeking fro their customers. The "gotcha" that the Khan FTC didn't "follow the rules making process" is parallel construction.

replies(10): >>44509742 #>>44509759 #>>44510095 #>>44510337 #>>44510719 #>>44510834 #>>44511178 #>>44511684 #>>44511936 #>>44516884 #
1. giingyui ◴[] No.44510337[source]
Courts don’t only serve consumers and citizens. They also have to serve corporations. This is not a flippant remark; corporations also have rights to defend.
replies(3): >>44510626 #>>44510646 #>>44511137 #
2. sophacles ◴[] No.44510626[source]
Who the fuck cares? Seriously - a corporation is a piece of paper that separates ownership from responsibility. It's already a fucking stupid idea - You're deeply liable if you can't keep you trees maintained, or your car under control, but if you can't control you company, it's no problem?

We hand out these get-out-of-trouble cards to the type of useless trash that destroy lives (see pollution, workplace safety, dangerous products knowingly misadvertised as healthy, etc), let those disgusting shareholders profit, and then use tax dollars to cover the bill (if anyone does). Now you wan them to have rights on top of the special treatment? How about instead we do something that is sane, something that doesn't make a handful of people extremely powerful, and doesn't make millions of sad, pathetic tools who just want to pretend they matter complicit? How about we say, "Look if you want special protection, you have to follow these rules that limit the damage you do. If you want to do those damaging actions, you can be responsible", and put in a bunch of rules that stop these specially protected investors from profiting off other's suffering.

tl;dr - it's an incredibly stupid and ultimately harmful position that a paper granting special privileges has rights. Corporations are no more entitled to profit than anyone else, privileges should come with responsiblities equal to them.

replies(1): >>44511758 #
3. jonathanlb ◴[] No.44510646[source]
In theory, courts don't "serve" anyone, but they do serve the rule of law. Courts _should_ remain impartial. Given this, it's problematic when the rule of law favors corporations over consumer interests, e.g. Federal Arbitration Act, Citizens United, thanks to corporate lobbying.
4. GuinansEyebrows ◴[] No.44511137[source]
> This is not a flippant remark; corporations also have rights to defend.

this is Bad, Actually

5. zaphar ◴[] No.44511758[source]
Then get legislation through congress to change it. The courts are not there to fix legislation unless it is superseded by other higher legal authorities. Such as the constitution national or state. Current legislation gives them corporations rights. If you think that is wrong then the way to change it is to get people elected who can change that legislation.
replies(1): >>44513283 #
6. sophacles ◴[] No.44513283{3}[source]
One of the key steps to get Congress to change things is to first get support from voters for the change.