upvote

points

by kmeisthax14 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby Arnt13 hours ago|
next
[-]
It's one share, one vote. And you have a choice: You can ask the company to pay you (ie. apply for a job there), or you can pay for a share in the company. Either way, the decisions are made by those who pay. And that can include you — anyone and everyone has the right to start a company and to employ others, anyone and everyone has the right to ask for shares in the company as part of negotiating compensation.

I employed a painter a few months ago, and I decided what colour the kitchen now is.

reply
upvoteby Timon310 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> It's one share, one vote.

This is just wrong. As kmeisthax mentioned, shares can have different voting weights - if any at all. Many shareholders have no voting power.

> I employed a painter a few months ago, and I decided what colour the kitchen now is.

Did you actually employ them, or did you buy a specific service?

reply
upvoteby Arnt9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Indeed, shares can have different voting weights. And that matters, if you care mostly about the corner cases.
reply
upvoteby Timon35 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Well, it matters a whole lot once you choose to bring up "One share, one vote" in response to "One person, one vote", since it shows that it's either wrong or shows a gross misunderstanding of democracy.
reply
upvoteby fc417fc8022 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
A hypothetical country with multiple classes of citizens that had different rights and voting powers would not inherently be undemocratic. It's not something I'm in favor of but equality != democracy.
reply
upvoteby Timon31 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
But said country would not fulfill "One person, one vote". Why should we weaken such fundamental ideas by allowing them to mean the opposite of their real meaning?

The same phenomenon is happening with "Opt-In by Default". This is newspeak.

reply
upvoteby fc417fc80220 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
You are asserting this "one person one vote" definition of democracy. I am questioning it. Where did this constraint on what qualifies as "real" democracy come from?

Keep in mind that the US is a democratic republic (thus a democracy) yet spent the first part of its history restricting who could vote based on (approximately) both gender and race.

reply
upvoteby worik3 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
> It's not one person, one vote, so it's not democracy

Voting is a democratic instrument, but a blunt one and not the most important.

"...those who spend five minutes voting every three years and call it democracy..."

Majoritarianism is undemocratic in that any desire less than 50% + 1 is deprecated.

If you care IMO the most important feature of a democracy is rule of law and access to the courts.

reply