this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
75 points (97.5% liked)

politics

24405 readers
2260 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 2 years 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.

all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In a nation where corporations literally have more rights and fewer responsibilities than people, I see this as theater.

The owners will get their way. They own this fucking place.

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm going to start an employee-owned guillotine manufacturing company

[–] Gork@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

I'm going to create custom electronic components as attachments for the guillotines. In particular, a screen that can be placed in front of the user. A Heads-Up Display.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

INCORPORATION IS A PRIVILEGE

It is far beyond time for these shitheads' privileges to be revoked.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yup. If corporations are people, then where is the death penalty when you actually need it.

[–] MrMcGasion@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Exactly! Also, for lesser punishments, maybe sometimes rather than meaningless fines, revoke some patents or trademarks.

Excuse me? What the fuck? Get the fuck out of here assholes. How did someone not throw this case out? This is why I don't support US companies anymore especially the mega corporations. Good thing I'm not American but good luck to my southern neighbours

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Democracy is unconstitutional. Only old men in robes may decide!

PS: Older article on this most important issue: https://www.thenation.com/article/society/we-are-witnessing-the-biggest-judicial-power-grab-since-1803/

[–] ZzyzxRoad@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's like we're being invaded, but it's by corporations instead of an army.

[–] irreticent@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

~~It's like~~ we're being invaded, but it's by corporations instead of an army.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 3 points 1 year ago

Some companies, like Starbucks and Trader Joe’s, have sued their worker unions for trademark infringement.

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We should all be gathering torches and pitchforks.

[–] YeetPics@mander.xyz 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Why revert to old tech when drones seem to be so effective?

Congress:

best I can do is giving more tax cuts to the corporations you’re worried about

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Certain people are asking SOME of the right questions, but the actions allowing these narcissistic ass hats to run wild is certainly clear.

We need a solid change of guard in the US to wrestle us back from teetering on the edge of a true Corporatocracy, but I fear we're kind of already there having seen what's happening with all these companies just absorbing smaller entities at breakneck speed to remove competition, and little to no barriers to slow or stop them. Everyone is so quick to sellout instead of working hard to compete. Pretty sad.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

bernie was literally the last hope we had to bring change, and guess what;

obama, clinton personally killed that potential progress

if anyone is to blame its fucking Obama and the DNC for demanding conservatism in the face of fascists.

[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Bill Clinton killed off any rejection of Reagan. The rest is the lack of any political structure beyond the state and corporations.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

obama and clinton personallly interfered with, and prevented his being chosen by the DNC at the DNCs request in 2016.

obama the conservative prevented progress by enabling other conservative democrats to endorse the conservative hillary over bernie.

fuck obama

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Lol. GPT much?

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

one time i went to a labor studies department at a Big University and i said "i have a bachelors degree and i think i'd like to maybe go for an advanced degree in labor studies before i find myself singing union hymns on the street corner out of sheer frustration" and we talked for a while about the kind of organizing the professor himself had done and some of his colleagues, and i expressed frustration, then, with the existence of taft-hartley because it hamstrings union organizing so much, and the professor said, i shit you not "we got some good rulings out of the nlrb"

i was flabbergasted. we don't need the nlrb if we can throw wildcat strikes and solidarity strikes, which the NLRB will never support.

all this to say i hope the nlrb is abolished because then the professional labor organizing people won't have an excuse not to attack the real problem.

[–] Infynis@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've been saying from the beginning that the thing Trump did that would truly damage the country the most was appoint these justices

Yup. And McConnell was right behind him going at light speed with other federal court judge appointments.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 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.

[–] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year 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 1 year ago

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

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] AshMan85@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] aStonedSanta@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is corporatism rather than facism. Don’t be like the anti communist idiot and miss apply the word everywhere like they do with socialist.

[–] AshMan85@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well fortunately I'm entitled to my own opinion and if you knew anything about fascism you would know that corporatism and fascism go hand in hand.

[–] Jonna@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, and I know the Mussolini quote you're referencing. Mussolini was deliberately dismissing the several aspects of fascism that made it look re brutal than mere corporatism. The integration of mobilized militias with government, the criminalization of all descent and popular organization, the elimination of out groups, etc.

You're being dismissive of what rights we have to protest and organize. Or the rights of some people to just exist. Guessing you don't use them so why would you appreciate them.

[–] AshMan85@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Only person that is dismissing others rights, like individual opinion, is you.

[–] Jonna@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

To paraphrase James Baldwin, 'we can love and disagree with each other, as long as that disagreement isn't about my humanity and right to exist'

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

corporatism is indistiguishable from fascism. when corporations rule the state, the state's interests include the maintaining of the corporatocracy, and the corporations serve the state. every social institution becomes subsumed either by the state directly or by corporate interests directly, but regardless of which expression of power seizes the institution, they are serving the fascists state.

qed

[–] aStonedSanta@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In a way yes. But also in a way no. As there isn’t a state. There are just corporations. There is no state to feed.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

the state must protect the private property claims.

[–] Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That lacks imagination. This is America, after all. We can have corporate armies and police.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago

the courts are still part of the trappings of legitimacy.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius ♒️

[–] _number8_@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

why should most of us be worried? most of us can't do shit; they are literally not going to listen to us

well, we failed to solve for prevention of the 'billionaire' class, so they are going to use those funds to dismantle democracy.

we got what we paid for.