this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
645 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3878 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Trader Joe's, SpaceX, and Meta are arguing in lawsuits that government agencies protecting workers and consumers—the NLRB and FTC—are "unconstitutional."

Trader Joe’s has become the second company in a month to sue the National Labor Relations Board for being “unconstitutional,” following the lead of Elon Musk’s SpaceX, as both companies face board charges for firing employees. These two major corporations aren’t alone in attempting to protect their interests by undermining public institutions; Meta is also arguing in an ongoing lawsuit that the Federal Trade Commission is unconstitutional.

A legal expert told Motherboard that these companies are attempting to take advantage of what they believe is a friendly Supreme Court—judges currently lean right by a six-to-three margin—while they can.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago (7 children)

I think the broader concept being worked on here is to 'dissolve' governments, or at least relegate them to a back seat while corporations are in the drivers seat.

I'm surprised form of corporate nationality hasn't been introduced, where some guaranteed set of rights is extended to you by a corporation, for an annual fee.

I also think this highlights a fundamental issue with constitutional republics, is that they failed to imagine a scenario where corporations would eclipse governments in the capability to wield raw power. This is why I dismiss arguments about censorship and freedom of speech on social media platforms. Its not about private versus public ownership, its about the power to suppress and reach. I don't think we can fault victorian era framers for not quite understanding the impacts technology would have on these things.

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Snow Crash presented a United States balkanized into little corporate microstates around every franchise, where the Federal Government was just one more franchise operator. Border crossings between Days Inn and Pizza Hut felt surprisingly credible, even in 1992, when Microsoft was the poster child of tech-nopoly. Nevermind the actual company towns of the 19th century, with their own currencies, their own laws, and their own police. The East India Company. Monopoly tends to see government as irrelevant but sometimes useful tool.

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

So are the people who started the whole sovereign citizen thing just doing Snow Crash as like a 4chan troll? The Gushing Granny of leagalese?

[–] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

they failed to imagine a scenario where corporations would eclipse governments in the capability to wield raw power

I'm pretty sure the power of the East India Company exceeded that of some governments.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

I agree and have considered this. It's why I consider the failure to be glaring and obvious.

[–] ikapoz@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

Why own the government when you can just subcontract it? Less hassle and you have somewhere to deflect blame.

[–] MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

That's just laissez-faire.

[–] itsonlygeorge@reddthat.com 1 points 9 months ago

I'm surprised form of corporate nationality hasn't been introduced, where some guaranteed set of rights is extended to you by a corporation, for an annual fee.

Don’t give them any more ideas.

[–] guacupado@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I think the broader concept being worked on here is to ‘dissolve’ governments, or at least relegate them to a back seat while corporations are in the drivers seat.

Aren't we already there? And have been for a while?