This is from the reddit discussion, but the philosophical argument the judge references in the decision's introduction is this one which is a write-in submission to a magazine. The author is...
This is from the reddit discussion, but the philosophical argument the judge references in the decision's introduction is this one which is a write-in submission to a magazine.
The author is barely a published philosopher, much less a well known or respected one. Not trying to disrespect Diogo Joao Baptista Gomes, but I can't imagine he wrote 3 paragraphs for a magazine contest question in 2022 expecting it to be the basis of a legal decision saying corporations can vote in the US.
It very much seems like the Judge went to the nth google page or asked an AI for a supporting argument for "What is a Person?" and got this.
Just as Hawaii decides that corporations have no ability to even donate to political campaigns, Delaware is going the opposite direction entirely. It's a wild world.
Just as Hawaii decides that corporations have no ability to even donate to political campaigns, Delaware is going the opposite direction entirely. It's a wild world.
It makes sense for Delaware, as a state whose outsized power comes from its incredibly corporation-friendly set of laws, to go all in on corporate power. It's a terrible precedent, and presages a...
It makes sense for Delaware, as a state whose outsized power comes from its incredibly corporation-friendly set of laws, to go all in on corporate power. It's a terrible precedent, and presages a future of immortal lords who rule over their mortals serfs in perpetuity, but it makes sense in the short term.
Ehhh there's a nuance here being missed (not that it isn't mostly right) As Elon demonstrated with twitter, Delaware has been the "thunderdome" of major megacorp decisions. It's dumb but it...
It makes sense for Delaware, as a state whose outsized power comes from its incredibly corporation-friendly set of laws, to go all in on corporate power
Ehhh there's a nuance here being missed (not that it isn't mostly right)
As Elon demonstrated with twitter, Delaware has been the "thunderdome" of major megacorp decisions. It's dumb but it reminds of a joke where one lawyer bribes a judge for $5k and the other for $10k, the judge gives $5k back to the second one and says we're going to decide this fair and square.
When you've got two entities with the funds to drag things out forever, Delaware was an option to actually get a ruling and a result, which is one of the more healthy things their corporate sweetheart nature provides.
I see this ruling/activity as a switch away from the reputation they've built, perhaps in response to Elon/Trump's success with "fuck the rules" and "i'll take my ball and go home to Texas" behavior.
I guess to be clear, I think this is much worse than it appears, as even people like me who might have said Delaware serves a useful point, even if going past it, are going to say this is a sign the rules just don't matter anymore.
I don’t like it either and I hope the ruling will be reversed on appeal. However, I’m also wondering how much difference it would make in practical terms? It seems like it depends on how many...
I don’t like it either and I hope the ruling will be reversed on appeal. However, I’m also wondering how much difference it would make in practical terms? It seems like it depends on how many votes they get? I would hope it couldn’t be gamed just by creating a large number of shell corporations?
Alternatively, it should be gamed by creating many shell corporations and voting in a democratic supermajority. "Play the game and win unfairly" sounds about right.
Alternatively, it should be gamed by creating many shell corporations and voting in a democratic supermajority. "Play the game and win unfairly" sounds about right.
In local elections like this, there are so few total votes that any number of corporate votes can make a difference. Just looked up a vote count from 2024 and only about 1000 votes total were...
In local elections like this, there are so few total votes that any number of corporate votes can make a difference. Just looked up a vote count from 2024 and only about 1000 votes total were cast, with only about a 50 vote margin between the loser and the winner with fewest votes. Very easy to see much narrower margins occurring, and in that case it could be an extremely large advantage for a corporate backed candidate.
Delaware Superior Court Judge Craig Karsnitz said the beach town of Fenwick Island was not diluting human votes by allowing companies and other legal entities that own property to cast votes in municipal elections.
...
The group said entities make up about 12% of registered voters in the town.
...
The town's mayor, Natalie Magdeburger, did not immediately respond to a request for comment but told Reuters in March that the city believes "a property owner who pays taxes and is subject to our ordinances should have a say in who represents them on our Town Council."
...
Nonresident voting in local elections has been permitted in Fenwick Island since it was incorporated in 1953, according to the court ruling. In 2008, Delaware's General Assembly amended the charter to allow non-resident voting by artificial entities, including corporations, partnerships, trusts and limited liability companies, which must be chartered in Delaware.
Several other towns in Delaware allow companies and other legal entities to vote in local elections if they own property in the municipality.
So, not that new, and it has to be a corporation that owns property there.
Owning property is easy. Each of the 1000 corporations will hold a .1% share of the cheapest single plot of land in town. Unlike a human, who might need to have enough land to live or work on, the...
Owning property is easy. Each of the 1000 corporations will hold a .1% share of the cheapest single plot of land in town. Unlike a human, who might need to have enough land to live or work on, the corporations don't have any need to use it for anything other than a fig leaf to control the town so they can hold a tiny slice purely to establish ownership. Unless the "entities" already there require that someone own a certain amount of the town to be able to vote, and then what does that do to renters?
Maybe, but that depends on the town's specific rules, which we don't know. I'm skeptical that such legal trickery would work. Even if it did, I'd guess it only works once.
Maybe, but that depends on the town's specific rules, which we don't know. I'm skeptical that such legal trickery would work. Even if it did, I'd guess it only works once.
Out of sheer anti-capitalist, anti-nationalist spite, I would like to see a corporation prove it's a U.S. citizen in order to vote. Bet that process didn't occur to the judge.
Out of sheer anti-capitalist, anti-nationalist spite, I would like to see a corporation prove it's a U.S. citizen in order to vote. Bet that process didn't occur to the judge.
This is from the reddit discussion, but the philosophical argument the judge references in the decision's introduction is this one which is a write-in submission to a magazine.
The author is barely a published philosopher, much less a well known or respected one. Not trying to disrespect Diogo Joao Baptista Gomes, but I can't imagine he wrote 3 paragraphs for a magazine contest question in 2022 expecting it to be the basis of a legal decision saying corporations can vote in the US.
It very much seems like the Judge went to the nth google page or asked an AI for a supporting argument for "What is a Person?" and got this.
Just as Hawaii decides that corporations have no ability to even donate to political campaigns, Delaware is going the opposite direction entirely. It's a wild world.
It makes sense for Delaware, as a state whose outsized power comes from its incredibly corporation-friendly set of laws, to go all in on corporate power. It's a terrible precedent, and presages a future of immortal lords who rule over their mortals serfs in perpetuity, but it makes sense in the short term.
Ehhh there's a nuance here being missed (not that it isn't mostly right)
As Elon demonstrated with twitter, Delaware has been the "thunderdome" of major megacorp decisions. It's dumb but it reminds of a joke where one lawyer bribes a judge for $5k and the other for $10k, the judge gives $5k back to the second one and says we're going to decide this fair and square.
When you've got two entities with the funds to drag things out forever, Delaware was an option to actually get a ruling and a result, which is one of the more healthy things their corporate sweetheart nature provides.
I see this ruling/activity as a switch away from the reputation they've built, perhaps in response to Elon/Trump's success with "fuck the rules" and "i'll take my ball and go home to Texas" behavior.
I guess to be clear, I think this is much worse than it appears, as even people like me who might have said Delaware serves a useful point, even if going past it, are going to say this is a sign the rules just don't matter anymore.
I don't know what to say to this except WTF...
I don’t like it either and I hope the ruling will be reversed on appeal. However, I’m also wondering how much difference it would make in practical terms? It seems like it depends on how many votes they get? I would hope it couldn’t be gamed just by creating a large number of shell corporations?
Alternatively, it should be gamed by creating many shell corporations and voting in a democratic supermajority. "Play the game and win unfairly" sounds about right.
Delaware has been completely Democrat controlled since 2009.
In local elections like this, there are so few total votes that any number of corporate votes can make a difference. Just looked up a vote count from 2024 and only about 1000 votes total were cast, with only about a 50 vote margin between the loser and the winner with fewest votes. Very easy to see much narrower margins occurring, and in that case it could be an extremely large advantage for a corporate backed candidate.
It costs $90 to establish a corporation in Delaware. Spinning up 1000 voters and absolutely controlling a town for under $100k is very cheap.
From this article:
...
...
...
So, not that new, and it has to be a corporation that owns property there.
Owning property is easy. Each of the 1000 corporations will hold a .1% share of the cheapest single plot of land in town. Unlike a human, who might need to have enough land to live or work on, the corporations don't have any need to use it for anything other than a fig leaf to control the town so they can hold a tiny slice purely to establish ownership. Unless the "entities" already there require that someone own a certain amount of the town to be able to vote, and then what does that do to renters?
Maybe, but that depends on the town's specific rules, which we don't know. I'm skeptical that such legal trickery would work. Even if it did, I'd guess it only works once.
When it comes to absurd voter manipulation like this, it only needs to work once, and suddenly someone owns the whole town.
Out of sheer anti-capitalist, anti-nationalist spite, I would like to see a corporation prove it's a U.S. citizen in order to vote. Bet that process didn't occur to the judge.