Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 265 posts

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#251

Post by ummonk »

staticautomatic wrote: post #248
ummonk wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Corporations" here typically being not for profit corporations such as unions or public advocacy groups (including the eponymous "Citizens United").

We don’t face a binary choice between granting all money-earning organizations speech rights and depriving all public interest non profits of speech rights because we have a legislative process.

Sure, and Congress could potentially draft such legislation, which could be constitutional depending on the specifics, unlike the provisions in the McCain-Feingold act.

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#252

Post by ummonk »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #130
freeone3000 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fundamentally disagree with this, but on different grounds. I absolutely believe that groups of people have fewer rights than individual people. A corporation should have no right against self-incrimination, for instance. An LLC should have no right for freedom of religion. Groups are, by definition, not a monolith, and defending the rights of the group often infringes on the rights of the individual. Extending ind…

Supreme court cases build upon precedent. It sounds like your real issue is with corporate personhood. That was decided in a case that Citizens United built on, so I would recommend barking up that tree instead. In any case, I personally feel corporate personhood actually does make sense. It’s absurd that I as an individual can engage in speech but if I communicate through a company that I solely own now I can’t. Try…

It's also notable that people who complain about money in politics tend to bring up the Koch brothers most often, but the Koch brothers are an example of individuals spending large sums on speech, not corporations.

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#253

Post by freeone3000 »

rayiner wrote: post #204
mdorazio wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your argument. The church members individually have the right to practice their religion however they want so long as it doesn't impinge on others' rights or laws. The group aspect really doesn't come into play at all. In the same way, those same individuals can contribute as individuals to whatever cause they choose. The problem is when resources get pooled and an organization rather than its indi…

Very few religious people would consider allowing the practice of religion “without the group aspect” to be “freedom of religion.” That freedom, especially in the United States, necessarily encompasses groups of religious people pooling resources to build houses of worship, educate their children, participate in the community, and advocate for causes.

None of that actually requires specific religious protection. Protection of the freedom of religion is necessary when the beliefs of religious groups clash with the values of the community at large - for instance, Christian Scientists do not vaccinate as they avoid modern medicine in general. This is a carve-out to mandatory vaccination programs, in favor of religious freedom.

The group version of this right would be the Church of Christ, Scientist not needing to provide healthcare to its workers (not all of whom may be Christian Scientists themselves), in order to protect their deeply-held beliefs.

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#254

Post by uxp100 »

kd0amg wrote: post #245
uxp100 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were tax credits with requirements they did not meet. If they were planning on taking advantage of those credits, it seems like they would have put in the minimum effort to at least appear to meet them. Something a little stranger happened here. I think related to global politics, not just something with Trump or Scott Walker.

I got the sense that they did try to put in that minimum but misjudged how high the bar would be. They sent in their "we hired enough people so give us the money" message, but then (unexpected, I suspect) scrutiny by some civil servants revealed that they hadn't hired enough.

Yeah, I guess what the article describes seems shockingly incompetent. That's what I'm struggling with. The feeling that if they were really trying to a do a fraud they would have gotten closer to succeeding. But what the article describes seems like what would be in a satirical movie. I mean, I know multinational corporations have their moments, but this seems so beyond just average incompetence.

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#255

Post by geofft »

mrguyorama wrote: post #238
geofft wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it wouldn't be constitutional on the same grounds as Citizens United , namely, it would be a violation of the right to free speech. If I have a constitutional right as an individual to label things kosher or halal, why would I lose that right if I go into business with some friends? (I'm assuming I have this right as an individual, right?) I think it is a consistent view that I do lose that right when I incor…

YOU don't lose that right, but the corporation is never given that right

What's the difference, in practice? Not only can the corporation fire me for putting such a label on the food, they must, if such a law exists - if they don't, they're liable.

So, let's say I'm a baker selling, I dunno, kosher cookies. I can sell them to my friends and say, "By the way, these are kosher!" They're popular with my friends, and so I decide to make a business out of it. As soon as I do that, the business is never given the right of free speech, and the business is now given an obligation to prevent me-the-individual from saying certain things in the course of my job duties. That is, if I continue saying the same thing I said yesterday, the government can shut down my business.

You'd say that this is constitutional?

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#256

Post by staticautomatic »

ummonk wrote: post #251
staticautomatic wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don’t face a binary choice between granting all money-earning organizations speech rights and depriving all public interest non profits of speech rights because we have a legislative process.

Sure, and Congress could potentially draft such legislation, which could be constitutional depending on the specifics, unlike the provisions in the McCain-Feingold act.

The Constitution is legislation.

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#257

Post by evan_ »

uxp100 wrote: post #254
kd0amg wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got the sense that they did try to put in that minimum but misjudged how high the bar would be. They sent in their "we hired enough people so give us the money" message, but then (unexpected, I suspect) scrutiny by some civil servants revealed that they hadn't hired enough.

Yeah, I guess what the article describes seems shockingly incompetent. That's what I'm struggling with. The feeling that if they were really trying to a do a fraud they would have gotten closer to succeeding. But what the article describes seems like what would be in a satirical movie. I mean, I know multinational corporations have their moments, but this seems so beyond just average incompetence.

I don’t know anything about the leadership but it makes me wonder if they’re used to a certain grift-effort level in China and they weren’t adjusting to the slightly higher grift-threshold in the US.

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#258

Post by jonstewart »

rhino369 wrote: post #241
jonstewart wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The essential problem, which Justice Kennedy seemed not to understand, is that money is not speech. The easy test to show this as nonsense is quantification, i.e., it’s clearly the case that some citizens have more money than others, but it’s nonsense to think that some citizens have more free speech than others. One of Justice Kennedy’s clerks in 2009-2010 was Misha Tseytlin, a Federalist Society member who undoubte…

Whether or not money is speech, most of the time speech needs money. Banning spending money on newspaper is banning the newspaper. Banning spending money on advertisement is banning the advertisement. Under the dissenting view in Citizens United, Congress could ban the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, etc. from talking about politics. That's just absurd. Congress could have banned the Federalist Papers! I've always tried to find a mi…

I find your reply unconvincing and disjointed. Among many other potential avenues for debate, the lowest hanging fruit seems to be noting that you’ve seemingly forgotten about freedom of the press with all your examples.

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#259

Post by Thorrez »

mdorazio wrote: post #164
Thorrez wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that the church itself doesn't have freedom of religion. But for the members of the church to have freedom of religion they need to be able to exercise their freedom as an organized group. The end result is the same: the government is limited in what restrictions it can place on the group, because to restrict the group is to restrict the members.

I don't understand your argument. The church members individually have the right to practice their religion however they want so long as it doesn't impinge on others' rights or laws. The group aspect really doesn't come into play at all. In the same way, those same individuals can contribute as individuals to whatever cause they choose. The problem is when resources get pooled and an organization rather than its indi…

Yeah, I wasn't talking about money or political activism, but about freedom of religion.

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#260

Post by Thorrez »

freeone3000 wrote: post #253
rayiner wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very few religious people would consider allowing the practice of religion “without the group aspect” to be “freedom of religion.” That freedom, especially in the United States, necessarily encompasses groups of religious people pooling resources to build houses of worship, educate their children, participate in the community, and advocate for causes.

None of that actually requires specific religious protection. Protection of the freedom of religion is necessary when the beliefs of religious groups clash with the values of the community at large - for instance, Christian Scientists do not vaccinate as they avoid modern medicine in general. This is a carve-out to mandatory vaccination programs, in favor of religious freedom. The group version of this right would be…

> None of that actually requires specific religious protection.

It requires specific religious protection if you're afraid of countries that persecute specific religions and want to take every measure to avoid becoming one. The Pilgrims came to America because of religious persecution. England still has a state church to this day.

I guess what I'm saying sort of agrees with you, but that I'm seeing how "clash with the values of the community at large" could refer to "have any religion except the official one" or even "have a religion". There's a possibility that the community at large could become hostile to many or even all religions in the future.

Post reply on HN