We definitely do if they act in malice. "Do no harm" and all. I guess then it comes down to how stupid you think corporate leadership is.
IMO, most of the time they're not stupid. I don't think Tabacco executives genuinely though getting people hooked on nicotine was fine. Not to mention they did everything they could to make the occurrence of nicotine more potent...
> are you really OK with Gates or whoever making a $100M donation? do you really think corporate donations are somehow worse?
1. I'm not 100% okay with the ultra-wealthy influencing elections, because their interests are also at odds with the average American person (who is who your representatives should serve!), but:
2. I do think it's slightly better than corporations influencing elections. Bill Gates is still a person and probably doesn't advocate things that directly harm humanity. The same is not true for corporations - many of them literally exist solely to harm humanity (and make money in the process).
We definitely do if they act in malice. "Do no harm" and all. I guess then it comes down to how stupid you think corporate leadership is.
IMO, most of the time they're not stupid. I don't think Tabacco executives genuinely though getting people hooked on nicotine was fine. Not to mention they did everything they could to make the occurrence of nicotine more potent...
> are you really OK with Gates or whoever making a $100M donation? do you really think corporate donations are somehow worse?
1. I'm not 100% okay with the ultra-wealthy influencing elections, because their interests are also at odds with the average American person (who is who your representatives should serve!), but:
2. I do think it's slightly better than corporations influencing elections. Bill Gates is still a person and probably doesn't advocate things that directly harm humanity. The same is not true for corporations - many of them literally exist solely to harm humanity (and make money in the process).