Meanwhile, Libertardians are at it again
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (45)
sorted by:
The government isn't going to limit the power of corporations that are used by the government to circumvent the Constitution.
Precisely this.
They have government contracts, they control the speech the government doesn't want you to use, and they do the bidding while Lolbertarians continue to defend them with "muh private company" as a safeguard against all of the anti-trust violations they've committed over the years.
Speaking as a Libertarian, this is the correct point.
These corporations are not private in the first place. They are public corporations first by their aspect of being publicly traded (and thereby publicly owned); followed by the fact that these specific corporations exist at the behest of the US government to regulate speech because these corporations are protected by anti-competitive regulations that guarantee their monopoly, and they are funded by a litany of public funds.
They recently admitted to teaming up with George Soros to prevent online radicalism. As such, the answer is either "Yes" or "effectively Yes, split the difference".
Is it a corporation?
Then it is my enemy.
~Tits~ Sole Proprietorship or get out.
That depends on who can buy ownership stake, and who is the purpose of the company serving. If it explicitly exists to benefit it's investors, then the effective owner might also be the public. But you're right, if we are talking about legal ownership, it might relate to who has an ownership stake.
Although, it's possible for the largest public investor to become the owner as well.
I guess my fundamental point is that they aren't the private property of a single person. Corporations are not sole proprietorships.
I see where meme of car analogies being terrible comes from.
Who owns your car if 30 people buy it from you because you broke up the ownership right to it in 30 pieces?