Corporations are people too, my friends. Special, unaccountable people.
June 15, 2014 8:01 AM Subscribe
...and that's saying something.
posted by ardgedee at 8:26 AM on June 15, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by ardgedee at 8:26 AM on June 15, 2014 [7 favorites]
Shit like this makes it really, really hard not to sound like a tin-foil-hat nutter when trying to seriously discuss our future.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:33 AM on June 15, 2014 [26 favorites]
posted by Thorzdad at 8:33 AM on June 15, 2014 [26 favorites]
At this point it seems to me that it isn't so much that the tin-foil-hat nutters are wrong.
It's that they're tin-foil-hat nutters.
So. Fnord.
posted by pan at 8:41 AM on June 15, 2014 [12 favorites]
It's that they're tin-foil-hat nutters.
So. Fnord.
posted by pan at 8:41 AM on June 15, 2014 [12 favorites]
The Court’s decision means that a “monopolist gets to use its monopoly power to insist on a contract effectively depriving its victims of all legal recourse.”
But when you try to bring things like this up in conversation, glazed looks and frowns pop up as someone tries to change the subject with something they read on TMZ...
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 8:53 AM on June 15, 2014 [11 favorites]
But when you try to bring things like this up in conversation, glazed looks and frowns pop up as someone tries to change the subject with something they read on TMZ...
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 8:53 AM on June 15, 2014 [11 favorites]
Well, you can't have the aristocracy being legally above the peasantry, because the enlightenment and universal inalienable human rights and all that, so the way around that is to create a class of pseudo-persons who are above ordinary people for reasons that look like technical oversights, and of course, the ownership of these powerful titans being only open to those who can afford them (i.e., the de facto aristocracy). It's a clever workaround, much like passively encouraging inmate-on-inmate prison brutality to get around the constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
posted by acb at 8:53 AM on June 15, 2014 [81 favorites]
posted by acb at 8:53 AM on June 15, 2014 [81 favorites]
The market can solve this problem perfectly. If mandatory arbitration is so anti-consumer, than surely consumers would pay more to do business with a company that doesn't insert those clauses into its contracts. Sounds like a good opportunity for T-Mobile or Discover Card to differentiate themselves.
posted by MattD at 8:55 AM on June 15, 2014
posted by MattD at 8:55 AM on June 15, 2014
The market can solve this problem perfectly. If mandatory arbitration is so anti-consumer, than surely consumers would pay more to do business with a company that doesn't insert those clauses into its contracts. Sounds like a good opportunity for T-Mobile or Discover Card to differentiate themselves.
LOL
Laughing Out Loud is a breach of our service terms under heading 4, section 17, paragraph c: Disparagement. You now owe us your 3 firstborn children.
posted by lalochezia at 8:59 AM on June 15, 2014 [44 favorites]
Oh no the article was so good and interesting until they cited Liebeck v McDonalds as "frivolous litigation" and now I'm making the baby eats lemon face.
posted by elizardbits at 8:59 AM on June 15, 2014 [67 favorites]
posted by elizardbits at 8:59 AM on June 15, 2014 [67 favorites]
I've made this point several times over the years. If corporations are people then they should be subject to equivalent criminal penalties that human persons are subject to. If a corporation is found guilty of actions, as a corporation, that amount to a crime that a human person would be jailed for then that corporation should have its freedom revoked. It can't be a company anymore. How this would work in practice is more than a little complicated, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. Instead of that, we're losing even civil remedies to crimes committed by corporations.
posted by runcibleshaw at 9:02 AM on June 15, 2014 [26 favorites]
posted by runcibleshaw at 9:02 AM on June 15, 2014 [26 favorites]
"If corporations are people, what would happen if a werewolf bit a corporation??" -Manning Krull
posted by komara at 9:07 AM on June 15, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by komara at 9:07 AM on June 15, 2014 [7 favorites]
The French aristocracy can solve this problem perfectly! If having enough to eat is so revolutionary, then surely all the aristocracy has to do is get their footmen to distribute limited quantities of cake and small portions of liberty at the palace gates on specially denoted holidays! Sounds like a good opportunity for some of France's leading families to step up and differentiate themselves!
posted by Sonny Jim at 9:07 AM on June 15, 2014 [14 favorites]
posted by Sonny Jim at 9:07 AM on June 15, 2014 [14 favorites]
“[T]he use of forced arbitration clauses has essentially immunized corporate America from any responsibility for its actions.”
So much so that it ends up looking like a breath of fresh air when companies bother to throw their customers a bone, like when DropBox allowed people to opt out of forced arbitration (but only for a month or so, of course).
posted by supermassive at 9:09 AM on June 15, 2014 [2 favorites]
So much so that it ends up looking like a breath of fresh air when companies bother to throw their customers a bone, like when DropBox allowed people to opt out of forced arbitration (but only for a month or so, of course).
posted by supermassive at 9:09 AM on June 15, 2014 [2 favorites]
The market can solve this problem perfectly.
If the potential cost to a corporation of having to face the music in a real court with real laws is higher than the profit they stand to make by attracting consumers who don't want mandatory binding arbitration? Then no, the market cannot solve this problem. The market created this problem.
posted by 1adam12 at 9:10 AM on June 15, 2014 [12 favorites]
If the potential cost to a corporation of having to face the music in a real court with real laws is higher than the profit they stand to make by attracting consumers who don't want mandatory binding arbitration? Then no, the market cannot solve this problem. The market created this problem.
posted by 1adam12 at 9:10 AM on June 15, 2014 [12 favorites]
The thing about contracts is that you don't have to sign the SFOA for any service. Take a copy of the agreement, alter it and send it back. Alter the DOM of the online click through with Javascript or, in the case of an EULA, debugger and then accept it under your terms. Make sure to print a copy to PDF so you can send the company your version of the terms.
If companies are stupid enough to let us click through an agreement without reading it first (as many consumers often do) then hell, we should sure as hell alter the contract before clicking through.
Maybe we should test the waters by deleting the unilateral adjustment of contract terms from the first contract we sign along with mandatory arbitration and then sue the shit out of them when they inevitably try. This may be our only way to fight back against the tide of unilaterally imposed terms.
posted by Talez at 9:10 AM on June 15, 2014 [14 favorites]
If companies are stupid enough to let us click through an agreement without reading it first (as many consumers often do) then hell, we should sure as hell alter the contract before clicking through.
Maybe we should test the waters by deleting the unilateral adjustment of contract terms from the first contract we sign along with mandatory arbitration and then sue the shit out of them when they inevitably try. This may be our only way to fight back against the tide of unilaterally imposed terms.
posted by Talez at 9:10 AM on June 15, 2014 [14 favorites]
How this would work in practice is more than a little complicated, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.
I'm sure the new Corporate Congress will work out the details.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:11 AM on June 15, 2014 [4 favorites]
I'm sure the new Corporate Congress will work out the details.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:11 AM on June 15, 2014 [4 favorites]
Is there any recourse to this, or is all we can do just get more depressed? Because I'm not sure I see a way out, and if all we can do is get unproductively angry, then what?
posted by wanderingmind at 9:13 AM on June 15, 2014
posted by wanderingmind at 9:13 AM on June 15, 2014
The unaccountable privatization of government continues apace.
I'm just surprised that Supreme Court justices as a group are so willingly rushing off the cliff, to make themselves and their legal institution extinct.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:13 AM on June 15, 2014 [10 favorites]
I'm just surprised that Supreme Court justices as a group are so willingly rushing off the cliff, to make themselves and their legal institution extinct.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:13 AM on June 15, 2014 [10 favorites]
I just really want to figure out a way to 100% legally register my signature as some kind of representative contractual obligation which binds all those accepting my bill payments to mandatory arbitration under my terms and which automatically negates all their stated contractual terms and by cashing the check they agree to this unilaterally.
can i do this plz advise
posted by elizardbits at 9:14 AM on June 15, 2014 [11 favorites]
can i do this plz advise
posted by elizardbits at 9:14 AM on June 15, 2014 [11 favorites]
I'm just surprised that Supreme Court justices as a group are so willingly rushing off the cliff, to make themselves and their legal institution extinct.
Not just the courts. Legislatures, governments, etc. It really does seem there is this world-wide headlong rush in this direction, against all common sense, and despite the obvious implications and drawbacks. It's just...scary as fuck.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:20 AM on June 15, 2014 [12 favorites]
Not just the courts. Legislatures, governments, etc. It really does seem there is this world-wide headlong rush in this direction, against all common sense, and despite the obvious implications and drawbacks. It's just...scary as fuck.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:20 AM on June 15, 2014 [12 favorites]
The thing about contracts is that you don't have to sign the SFOA for any service. Take a copy of the agreement, alter it and send it back. Alter the DOM of the online click through with Javascript or, in the case of an EULA, debugger and then accept it under your terms. Make sure to print a copy to PDF so you can send the company your version of the terms.
I can't find it now but I'm positive the "edit the clickthrough button" trick was tried way back in the 90s & failed in court. I know it's something that had a lot of attention & discussion of the technique when clickthroughs first appeared.
posted by scalefree at 9:33 AM on June 15, 2014
I can't find it now but I'm positive the "edit the clickthrough button" trick was tried way back in the 90s & failed in court. I know it's something that had a lot of attention & discussion of the technique when clickthroughs first appeared.
posted by scalefree at 9:33 AM on June 15, 2014
Elizardbits: print all that in miniscule type at the bottom of the check.
posted by hobo gitano de queretaro at 9:35 AM on June 15, 2014
posted by hobo gitano de queretaro at 9:35 AM on June 15, 2014
Talez: The thing about contracts is that you don't have to sign the SFOA for any service. Take a copy of the agreement, alter it and send it back. Alter the DOM of the online click through with Javascript or, in the case of an EULA, debugger and then accept it under your terms. Make sure to print a copy to PDF so you can send the company your version of the terms.
If companies are stupid enough to let us click through an agreement without reading it first (as many consumers often do) then hell, we should sure as hell alter the contract before clicking through.
This implies fair treatment under the law. If a corporate entity did this, its a smart business decision. If an ordinary peon does this, you're getting hauled into the very court that you barely had access to and will have your ass handed to you for acting in "bad faith" or some other nonsense.
posted by dr_dank at 9:36 AM on June 15, 2014 [11 favorites]
If companies are stupid enough to let us click through an agreement without reading it first (as many consumers often do) then hell, we should sure as hell alter the contract before clicking through.
This implies fair treatment under the law. If a corporate entity did this, its a smart business decision. If an ordinary peon does this, you're getting hauled into the very court that you barely had access to and will have your ass handed to you for acting in "bad faith" or some other nonsense.
posted by dr_dank at 9:36 AM on June 15, 2014 [11 favorites]
One interesting thing the article alluded to was how unexpectedly (to me, anyways) the support of arbitration split along liberal / conservative lines, with the liberals supporting it and the conservative justices opposing mandatory arbitration of purely state actions.
Makes sense once I realized it turns on the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state law and is of a piece with the jurisprudence of federalism.
posted by jpe at 9:37 AM on June 15, 2014
Makes sense once I realized it turns on the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state law and is of a piece with the jurisprudence of federalism.
posted by jpe at 9:37 AM on June 15, 2014
can i do this plz advise
So here's a thing I read about long ago. Google isn't helping me find it, and I have no idea if it's true.
I read that someone was shopping at a store that notoriously took down every customer's mailing address for junk mail purposes, no matter what they bought. (Possibly Radio Shack?) So they wrote a little contract on the check that set triple-digit fees for any advertisements sent. And then successfully sued them. (Probably in small claims court.)
posted by reprise the theme song and roll the credits at 9:39 AM on June 15, 2014
So here's a thing I read about long ago. Google isn't helping me find it, and I have no idea if it's true.
I read that someone was shopping at a store that notoriously took down every customer's mailing address for junk mail purposes, no matter what they bought. (Possibly Radio Shack?) So they wrote a little contract on the check that set triple-digit fees for any advertisements sent. And then successfully sued them. (Probably in small claims court.)
posted by reprise the theme song and roll the credits at 9:39 AM on June 15, 2014
Not just the courts. Legislatures, governments, etc.
I get why legislators do it: money and influence as they transition to the private sector. It's not immediately obvious what lifetime-appointment SCOTUS justices are getting out of hustling themselves out of a job, though. More vacation time?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:39 AM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
I get why legislators do it: money and influence as they transition to the private sector. It's not immediately obvious what lifetime-appointment SCOTUS justices are getting out of hustling themselves out of a job, though. More vacation time?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:39 AM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'm just surprised that Supreme Court justices as a group are so willingly rushing off the cliff, to make themselves and their legal institution extinct.
what cliff? there's still criminal cases - as much as they're going to need to keep themselves employed
posted by pyramid termite at 9:49 AM on June 15, 2014
what cliff? there's still criminal cases - as much as they're going to need to keep themselves employed
posted by pyramid termite at 9:49 AM on June 15, 2014
Aha! Finally, here's a left-wing drumbeat that I'm delighted to (partially) join. Enforcing arbitration clauses in clickwrap contracts is bullshit. The idea that a customer can give up the right to recourse to the entire judicial branch by clicking "agree" at the end of any of a dozen long "user agreements" he "agreed" to today without reading (and that at this point you have to regularly "sign" to be able to participate in society) is farcical.
Though I have nothing against arbitration in principle -- two corporations or two individuals in an arms-length transaction can certainly bargain away the right to sue. And conflating this with the corporate personhood stuff is really misleading, and just an excuse to further feed the MetaCorporationsGRARFilter machine.
posted by eugenen at 9:50 AM on June 15, 2014 [2 favorites]
Though I have nothing against arbitration in principle -- two corporations or two individuals in an arms-length transaction can certainly bargain away the right to sue. And conflating this with the corporate personhood stuff is really misleading, and just an excuse to further feed the MetaCorporationsGRARFilter machine.
posted by eugenen at 9:50 AM on June 15, 2014 [2 favorites]
This implies fair treatment under the law. If a corporate entity did this, its a smart business decision. If an ordinary peon does this, you're getting hauled into the very court that you barely had access to and will have your ass handed to you for acting in "bad faith" or some other nonsense.
Do you have any evidence of this happening in the real world?
posted by eugenen at 9:53 AM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
Do you have any evidence of this happening in the real world?
posted by eugenen at 9:53 AM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
It's not immediately obvious what lifetime-appointment SCOTUS justices are getting out of hustling themselves out of a job, though.
I think you're operating under the mistaken assumption that these justices were independent voices before being appointed. I submit that the fix has been in for decades. Getting your puppet justices appointed is cementing the actions of your puppet legislators as law.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:00 AM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
I think you're operating under the mistaken assumption that these justices were independent voices before being appointed. I submit that the fix has been in for decades. Getting your puppet justices appointed is cementing the actions of your puppet legislators as law.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:00 AM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
Missing from post and article both: "in the US". Those sorts of binding terms of use aren't legal in the EU and in any case cannot go against national law.
posted by MartinWisse at 10:02 AM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by MartinWisse at 10:02 AM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
Now in the US you can't check your parent into assisted living or nursing homes unless you commit to binding arbitration.
So if your parent gets abused or suffers wrongful death, it goes to their preferred arbitrator.
posted by surplus at 10:07 AM on June 15, 2014
So if your parent gets abused or suffers wrongful death, it goes to their preferred arbitrator.
posted by surplus at 10:07 AM on June 15, 2014
Missing from post and article both: "in the US".
I would assume that would go without saying, as few other countries in the world seem to handle things as stupidly as we do under the guise of fair and just democracy.
posted by elizardbits at 10:08 AM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
I would assume that would go without saying, as few other countries in the world seem to handle things as stupidly as we do under the guise of fair and just democracy.
posted by elizardbits at 10:08 AM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
Thorzdad: It really does seem there is this world-wide headlong rush in this direction, against all common sense, and despite the obvious implications and drawbacks. It's just...scary as fuck.
Agreed. What we're missing here is that this headlong rush was planned and orchestrated by a series of groups are willing to play a very long game to get what they want. And the game continues:
From Philip Mirowski: Neoliberalism and the Crisis of Democracy:
Early on they realized if neoliberalism was to ever have an impact beyond the intellectual sphere they’d need plenty of funding so several special-purpose foundations for the education and promotion of neoliberal doctrines were created; in its early days, these included entities such as the Volker Fund, the Earhart Foundation, the Relm Foundation, the Lilly Endowment, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, and the Foundation for Economic Education. (Mirowski, 906-908) They also realized they’d need institutional support so several “think tanks” were created: Institute for Economic Affairs, American Enterprise Institute, Schweizerisches Institut für Auslandforschung [Swiss Institute of International Studies], the Hoover Institution at Stanford) and satellite organizations such as the Federalist Society that sheltered neoliberals, who themselves might or might not also be members in good standing of various academic disciplines and universities.(Mirowski, 912-915) And, finally, for their globalist agenda they created the Atlas Economic Research Foundation which was founded in 1981 by Antony Fisher to assist other MPS-related groups in establishing neoliberal think tanks in their own geographic locations.(Mirowski, 918-920) To disseminate their agenda they recruited Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, Bertelsmann AG, and a wide array of Internet blog and social networking sites.(Mirowski, 925-926)I don't know enough about this stuff to know if there's a direct connection between specific think tanks and the legal precedent that the Washington Monthly article is discussing, but it's pretty clear that these institutions have developed a subtle (or not so subtle) and pervading control over a whole series of public dialogs. In my view, they are fundamentally changing the relationships we have with nations and corporations, and for the most part we're completely ignorant of this transition.
posted by sneebler at 10:11 AM on June 15, 2014 [7 favorites]
I am annoyed about this on a (petty) personal level lately because CyanogenMod, which is pretty much the best (and definitely the most widely available) custom Android version, inserted a forced-arbitration clause into its TOS last week as part of its general move toward becoming an actual player in the software market and not just a hobbyist thing. Which means I need to find the second best Android version and figure out how to make it do what I want, because like hell I'm going to play along with this bullshit when it's tied to a product I actually have a choice on.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:21 AM on June 15, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:21 AM on June 15, 2014 [9 favorites]
Someone needs to make a comprehensive list of all these ways we're screwed by corporations. That would be an excellent thing to pass to apathetic people.
posted by JHarris at 10:23 AM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by JHarris at 10:23 AM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
One simple question, please: If the market could solve this, why are corporations spending so much time/effort/money petitioning the fucking courts?
Even the market doesn't believe in the market.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 10:28 AM on June 15, 2014 [31 favorites]
Even the market doesn't believe in the market.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 10:28 AM on June 15, 2014 [31 favorites]
Exactly.
11. "The market (suitably reengineered and promoted) can always provide solutions to problems seemingly caused by the market in the first place."
posted by sneebler at 10:33 AM on June 15, 2014
11. "The market (suitably reengineered and promoted) can always provide solutions to problems seemingly caused by the market in the first place."
posted by sneebler at 10:33 AM on June 15, 2014
One simple question, please: If the market could solve this, why are corporations spending so much time/effort/money petitioning the fucking courts?
How do you mean? This issue comes up when a corporation is sued and asserts the contract's arbitration clause in response.
posted by eugenen at 10:35 AM on June 15, 2014 [2 favorites]
How do you mean? This issue comes up when a corporation is sued and asserts the contract's arbitration clause in response.
posted by eugenen at 10:35 AM on June 15, 2014 [2 favorites]
I'll tell you true recently I got an LLC and it definitely feels like I became a first class citizen.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 10:36 AM on June 15, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 10:36 AM on June 15, 2014 [4 favorites]
By reading this message you are denying its existence and implying consent.
posted by Segundus at 10:45 AM on June 15, 2014
posted by Segundus at 10:45 AM on June 15, 2014
Just to remind everyone, the phrase "Corporations are people, my friend" came from Mitt Romney before the election. It is true that the statement was taken out of context, but still, the deeper thinking behind the statement shows a problematic attitude that corporations are an unquestioned good.
Not that Obama, realistically, is particularly good either. Man went and appointed a cable industry lobbyist to head the damn FCC.
posted by JHarris at 10:48 AM on June 15, 2014 [4 favorites]
Not that Obama, realistically, is particularly good either. Man went and appointed a cable industry lobbyist to head the damn FCC.
posted by JHarris at 10:48 AM on June 15, 2014 [4 favorites]
Jindal Signs Bill Blocking Lawsuits Against Oil and Gas Companies and this evil live-action Howdy Doody doll wants to be your President so bad he thinks he can make it reality just for the wishing.
Even in context the Romney quote is damming.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:59 AM on June 15, 2014 [17 favorites]
Even in context the Romney quote is damming.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:59 AM on June 15, 2014 [17 favorites]
remember those few brief years when c montgomery burns was just an amusing and unrealistic caricature and not an actual factual slice of real life
posted by elizardbits at 11:05 AM on June 15, 2014 [32 favorites]
posted by elizardbits at 11:05 AM on June 15, 2014 [32 favorites]
Fracking companies also sued kids from being able to talk about it for their entire lives.
We really are getting into Womack territory here. Waiting for the CEO with a chainsaw-packing bodyguard.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 11:08 AM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
We really are getting into Womack territory here. Waiting for the CEO with a chainsaw-packing bodyguard.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 11:08 AM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
as few other countries in the world seem to handle things as stupidly as we do under the guise of fair and just democracy.
If by "other countries" you mean the EU, Scandinavia and perhaps UK Commonwealth countries -- with some massive counterexamples, particularly in the latter group -- sure. But there's still pretty much all of Asia, much of the former Soviet Bloc, most of Oceania and the rest of the Americas, which are variously but overall massively shitty in this regard.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:28 AM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
If by "other countries" you mean the EU, Scandinavia and perhaps UK Commonwealth countries -- with some massive counterexamples, particularly in the latter group -- sure. But there's still pretty much all of Asia, much of the former Soviet Bloc, most of Oceania and the rest of the Americas, which are variously but overall massively shitty in this regard.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:28 AM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
Al Franken: "Join Al and the more than 500,000 people who are calling for a constitutional amendment to get unlimited corporate money out of politics..."
posted by kliuless at 11:33 AM on June 15, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by kliuless at 11:33 AM on June 15, 2014 [4 favorites]
which are variously but overall massively shitty in this regard.
right, but as i said, they are not doing it under the guise of being the most enlightened freedom-loving democracy that ever existed in the history of human civilization
posted by elizardbits at 11:48 AM on June 15, 2014 [5 favorites]
right, but as i said, they are not doing it under the guise of being the most enlightened freedom-loving democracy that ever existed in the history of human civilization
posted by elizardbits at 11:48 AM on June 15, 2014 [5 favorites]
Missing from post and article both: "in the US". Those sorts of binding terms of use aren't legal in the EU and in any case cannot go against national law.
Among other things, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement seeks to create a international arbitration system outside the bounds of national law. These companies are international, and if a shield against liability is effective in the US, they will inevitably seek to expand it in other countries, one way or another.
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:52 AM on June 15, 2014 [5 favorites]
Among other things, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement seeks to create a international arbitration system outside the bounds of national law. These companies are international, and if a shield against liability is effective in the US, they will inevitably seek to expand it in other countries, one way or another.
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:52 AM on June 15, 2014 [5 favorites]
Even in context the Romney quote is damming.
Just to be clear, yes, just not in the way the quote is usually presented.
He's trying to say that corporations are made of people, so when a corporation does well, the people it's made of do well. Of course, he conveniently ignores that it does vastly better by its owners and executives giving mere crumbs to its employees, and this is because they control it and thus manipulate it to their own benefit instead those others, and that in the process they are warping our world out of shape by their efforts to wring yet more profit out of it.
posted by JHarris at 11:57 AM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
Just to be clear, yes, just not in the way the quote is usually presented.
He's trying to say that corporations are made of people, so when a corporation does well, the people it's made of do well. Of course, he conveniently ignores that it does vastly better by its owners and executives giving mere crumbs to its employees, and this is because they control it and thus manipulate it to their own benefit instead those others, and that in the process they are warping our world out of shape by their efforts to wring yet more profit out of it.
posted by JHarris at 11:57 AM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
If the market could solve this, why are corporations spending so much time/effort/money petitioning the fucking courts?
A. To keep up appearances that this is a Democracy.
B. To make sure some errant citizen-friendly legislation doesn't somehow sneak through.
C. To remind legislators who's boss.
D. All of the above.
Extra credit: Profit!
posted by Thorzdad at 11:58 AM on June 15, 2014 [4 favorites]
A. To keep up appearances that this is a Democracy.
B. To make sure some errant citizen-friendly legislation doesn't somehow sneak through.
C. To remind legislators who's boss.
D. All of the above.
Extra credit: Profit!
posted by Thorzdad at 11:58 AM on June 15, 2014 [4 favorites]
the most enlightened freedom-loving democracy that ever existed in the history of human civilization
If you're not free to fuck over the people who are defenseless against you, are you really free?
posted by Slothrup at 12:06 PM on June 15, 2014 [14 favorites]
If you're not free to fuck over the people who are defenseless against you, are you really free?
posted by Slothrup at 12:06 PM on June 15, 2014 [14 favorites]
Is there any legal principle (as opposed to psychological reason, corruption-turned-precedent, etc) explaining why the following never happens?
The corporation says "they signed a contract obligating them not to go to court", the court asks what consideration was exchanged for that promise, the answer is "the corporation's contractual obligations", and then the court has to determine whether the corporation upheld its half of the contract before it can determine whether the consumer needs to be held to their clauses too.
If there is such a legal principle, how far does it extend? Are there other circumstances in which having a signed piece of paper which says "You do A and I do B" really lets one enforce "You do A and I do whatever" instead?
posted by roystgnr at 12:19 PM on June 15, 2014
The corporation says "they signed a contract obligating them not to go to court", the court asks what consideration was exchanged for that promise, the answer is "the corporation's contractual obligations", and then the court has to determine whether the corporation upheld its half of the contract before it can determine whether the consumer needs to be held to their clauses too.
If there is such a legal principle, how far does it extend? Are there other circumstances in which having a signed piece of paper which says "You do A and I do B" really lets one enforce "You do A and I do whatever" instead?
posted by roystgnr at 12:19 PM on June 15, 2014
If the corp breaches, the contract isn't voided. The remedy is to sue or arbitrate for damages suffered, rather than to rip up the contract. The other clauses stay in effect. A failure of one side to perform relieves the other of the obligation to perform but a forum selection clause should be unimpacted.
posted by jpe at 12:38 PM on June 15, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by jpe at 12:38 PM on June 15, 2014 [2 favorites]
right, but as i said, they are not doing it under the guise of being the most enlightened freedom-loving democracy that ever existed in the history of human civilization
Apart from a few unblushingly holdout emirates or caliphates or equivalent, every country claims to be this, quite loudly, despite any amount of hilariously overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even, like, Belarus.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:54 PM on June 15, 2014
Apart from a few unblushingly holdout emirates or caliphates or equivalent, every country claims to be this, quite loudly, despite any amount of hilariously overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even, like, Belarus.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:54 PM on June 15, 2014
If the corp breaches, the contract isn't voided. The remedy is to sue or arbitrate for damages suffered, rather than to rip up the contract.
The gotcha is in the fine print, though. The corporation reserves the right to unilaterally alter the contract at any time and without notice. Continued use of the service constitutes the consumer's acceptance of the changes.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:58 PM on June 15, 2014 [2 favorites]
The gotcha is in the fine print, though. The corporation reserves the right to unilaterally alter the contract at any time and without notice. Continued use of the service constitutes the consumer's acceptance of the changes.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:58 PM on June 15, 2014 [2 favorites]
fine omg every literally single country on earth is the most terrible possible country every last one all of them good i don't caaaare
posted by elizardbits at 1:02 PM on June 15, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by elizardbits at 1:02 PM on June 15, 2014 [4 favorites]
I'm sure the new Corporate Congress will work out the details.
Calling Kiera Cameron.....
posted by theartandsound at 1:03 PM on June 15, 2014 [2 favorites]
Calling Kiera Cameron.....
posted by theartandsound at 1:03 PM on June 15, 2014 [2 favorites]
fine omg every literally single country on earth is the most terrible possible country every last one all of them good i don't caaaare
Er, no, I was saying that calling oneself an enlightened democracy of the people with the rule of law etc. is the usual claim for a country these days, irrespective of their actual practical governance. I wasn't saying "all countries are evil" or anything like it.
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:09 PM on June 15, 2014
Er, no, I was saying that calling oneself an enlightened democracy of the people with the rule of law etc. is the usual claim for a country these days, irrespective of their actual practical governance. I wasn't saying "all countries are evil" or anything like it.
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:09 PM on June 15, 2014
Yeah, it's more that the bad ones are liars and the (relatively) good ones are braggarts.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:39 PM on June 15, 2014
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:39 PM on June 15, 2014
no it's too late, everything is now terrible forever, this is your legacy
posted by elizardbits at 2:19 PM on June 15, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by elizardbits at 2:19 PM on June 15, 2014 [9 favorites]
I never said it wasn't, technically.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:22 PM on June 15, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:22 PM on June 15, 2014 [2 favorites]
corporation reserves the right to unilaterally alter the contract at any time and without notice
Nah, they need to provide notice otherwise it's an illusory contract.
posted by jpe at 2:34 PM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
Nah, they need to provide notice otherwise it's an illusory contract.
posted by jpe at 2:34 PM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
Corporate personhood was long-ago established (on May 10, 1886) in the USSC Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad decision. Either it took US 120 years to realize that, or it took THEM 120 years of waiting for the froggie to boil.
I suspect these corporate "people" have been striving to convince US that WE are mere blood corpuscles in the interiors of their shockingly awesome personhoods. And that, therefore, we need to bow and pray. If that sounds familiar, like the middle ages, I suspect that's the direction we are being herded. These "people", however, clearly are not from this planet. They care little for it, only for ultimate sacrifice. "Profit today, fuck tomorrow."
posted by Twang at 3:00 PM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
I suspect these corporate "people" have been striving to convince US that WE are mere blood corpuscles in the interiors of their shockingly awesome personhoods. And that, therefore, we need to bow and pray. If that sounds familiar, like the middle ages, I suspect that's the direction we are being herded. These "people", however, clearly are not from this planet. They care little for it, only for ultimate sacrifice. "Profit today, fuck tomorrow."
posted by Twang at 3:00 PM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
Regarding EULAs, after getting one too many pop-ups saying things like "By viewing this website, you agree to allow cookies and x, y, z...", I changed by browser user agent identifier to this.
posted by chortly at 3:00 PM on June 15, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by chortly at 3:00 PM on June 15, 2014 [7 favorites]
As kliuless pointed out above, Al Franken is at least trying to address this.
The exchanged transcribed from this Senate Judiciary Committee hearing is pretty great. He introduced a bill last year: The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2013.
I'm still pretty annoyed with Franken for supporting SOPA/PIPA, but he's on the right side of so many issues, including this one; one-sided mandatory arbitration agreements have bothered me since long before the lawsuits mentioned in TFA.
posted by kristi at 3:23 PM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
The exchanged transcribed from this Senate Judiciary Committee hearing is pretty great. He introduced a bill last year: The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2013.
I'm still pretty annoyed with Franken for supporting SOPA/PIPA, but he's on the right side of so many issues, including this one; one-sided mandatory arbitration agreements have bothered me since long before the lawsuits mentioned in TFA.
posted by kristi at 3:23 PM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
Corporate personhood was long-ago established (on May 10, 1886) in the USSC Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad decision.
Was that the actual decision or just the way the summary says and the initial summary was not correct?
posted by rough ashlar at 4:32 PM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
Was that the actual decision or just the way the summary says and the initial summary was not correct?
posted by rough ashlar at 4:32 PM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
remember those few brief years when c montgomery burns was just an amusing and unrealistic caricature and not an actual factual slice of real life
Only if you are young and your exposure to Corporations was a cartoon VS the way things have been.
The cartoon was a reflection of the reality 1st.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:34 PM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
Only if you are young and your exposure to Corporations was a cartoon VS the way things have been.
The cartoon was a reflection of the reality 1st.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:34 PM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
and then sue the shit out of them when they inevitably try.
It is my understanding that lawyer malpractice insurance is $30-40K a year. So beyond the $100-150K debt a new lawyer has, the expense for an office along with the research material to make the case they also has to pay for helping staff.
Unless *YOU* are going to self-represent.....how exactly are you going to afford the suing recommended here? How are you going to make the record that your choice of an abusive contract was limited? Can you figure out how to drag in the 1948 Deceleration of Human Rights that the US of A signed and yet doesn't seem to have the force of law?
And if you are going to self-represent you need to win on occasions so you have something to point to so its hard to have you declared a vexatious litigant.
(and per someone I know in the office of Lawyer regulation - this MIGHT be due to my bi-yearly filing of lawyer grievances it seems that 50% of the new law school grads won't be working as a lawyer a year out from graduation. A little something on Bar Grievances. )
posted by rough ashlar at 4:47 PM on June 15, 2014
It is my understanding that lawyer malpractice insurance is $30-40K a year. So beyond the $100-150K debt a new lawyer has, the expense for an office along with the research material to make the case they also has to pay for helping staff.
Unless *YOU* are going to self-represent.....how exactly are you going to afford the suing recommended here? How are you going to make the record that your choice of an abusive contract was limited? Can you figure out how to drag in the 1948 Deceleration of Human Rights that the US of A signed and yet doesn't seem to have the force of law?
And if you are going to self-represent you need to win on occasions so you have something to point to so its hard to have you declared a vexatious litigant.
(and per someone I know in the office of Lawyer regulation - this MIGHT be due to my bi-yearly filing of lawyer grievances it seems that 50% of the new law school grads won't be working as a lawyer a year out from graduation. A little something on Bar Grievances. )
posted by rough ashlar at 4:47 PM on June 15, 2014
Another recent article from this author: How America became uncompetitive and unequal
posted by homunculus at 5:56 PM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 5:56 PM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
that amount to a crime that a human person would be jailed for then that corporation should have its freedom revoked. It can't be a company anymore. How this would work in practice is more than a little complicated, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. Instead of that, we're losing even civil remedies to crimes committed by corporations.
Bu-but, think about all the jobs that would be lost!!
posted by MikeKD at 6:04 PM on June 15, 2014
Bu-but, think about all the jobs that would be lost!!
posted by MikeKD at 6:04 PM on June 15, 2014
Oh no the article was so good and interesting until they cited Liebeck v McDonalds as "frivolous litigation" and now I'm making the baby eats lemon face.
I read it as them mentioning that case as one that was championed in the press as an example of that, not one that the writer personally thought was an example. It would certainly fly in the face of every other thing they wrote in this piece of that wasn't the case.
Bu-but, think about all the jobs that would be lost!!
the more intelligent discussions of this sort of thing i've heard hinged on employees still being paid and employed, possibly at some reduced level, and business taking place... but just that everyones income above a certain level would be capped at some rate(think SAG acting rates, but determined for each profession and specialty) and all profits would be seized. Continued operations would be taken over by the government, similar to when a bank or insurer assigns someone to continue a project or production they had insured or lent for.
After all, you get paid pennies an hour in prison! corporation becomes insolvent due to employees bailing and finding new jobs? well people lose their jobs for going to jail or prison all the time!
Of course none of this will ever happen, but it isn't a hilariously ill thought out plan or anything. And it's well within the type of things that banks or insurers do to companies that default or create too much risk or whatever.
posted by emptythought at 7:18 PM on June 15, 2014 [2 favorites]
I read it as them mentioning that case as one that was championed in the press as an example of that, not one that the writer personally thought was an example. It would certainly fly in the face of every other thing they wrote in this piece of that wasn't the case.
Bu-but, think about all the jobs that would be lost!!
the more intelligent discussions of this sort of thing i've heard hinged on employees still being paid and employed, possibly at some reduced level, and business taking place... but just that everyones income above a certain level would be capped at some rate(think SAG acting rates, but determined for each profession and specialty) and all profits would be seized. Continued operations would be taken over by the government, similar to when a bank or insurer assigns someone to continue a project or production they had insured or lent for.
After all, you get paid pennies an hour in prison! corporation becomes insolvent due to employees bailing and finding new jobs? well people lose their jobs for going to jail or prison all the time!
Of course none of this will ever happen, but it isn't a hilariously ill thought out plan or anything. And it's well within the type of things that banks or insurers do to companies that default or create too much risk or whatever.
posted by emptythought at 7:18 PM on June 15, 2014 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Comment deleted. Please don't do the FTFY argument style where you change people's words to something they aren't saying at all. Just go ahead and speak for yourself.
posted by taz (staff) at 11:05 PM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by taz (staff) at 11:05 PM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]
"I'm still pretty annoyed with Franken for supporting SOPA/PIPA, but he's on the right side of so many issues, including this one; one-sided mandatory arbitration agreements have bothered me since long before the lawsuits mentioned in TFA."
Heh. There's a regular poster here that many perceive as right wing, even a reactionary conservative, who sticks with the Dems largely because they recognize "tort reform" and mandatory arbitration as one of the bigger threats that Americans face in terms of exercising their rights.
I will say that I won't ever donate to a politician that makes any mouth noises about tort reform or being pro-arb, simply because they've got wealthier patrons already.
posted by klangklangston at 10:47 AM on June 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
Heh. There's a regular poster here that many perceive as right wing, even a reactionary conservative, who sticks with the Dems largely because they recognize "tort reform" and mandatory arbitration as one of the bigger threats that Americans face in terms of exercising their rights.
I will say that I won't ever donate to a politician that makes any mouth noises about tort reform or being pro-arb, simply because they've got wealthier patrons already.
posted by klangklangston at 10:47 AM on June 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
The solution is simple (and politically impossible to ever implement): Jail all the C-level execs, keep the corporation running, and hire new C-levels to clean up.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:53 AM on June 16, 2014
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:53 AM on June 16, 2014
« Older 350-year-old photographs | The Final Countdown Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Sticherbeast at 8:23 AM on June 15, 2014 [1 favorite]