Corporate membership in an organization whose purpose is to impose market and private mechanisms on whole populations by writing these into state and local law (this is precisely what ALEC does) should be interpreted as an irrevocable announcement that the management of the corporation does in fact endorse imposing its interests on whole populations using state and local law.
Amazon left ALEC but did not also replace its leadership at the same time, so its leaving can't be construed as a change of perspective on the imposition of legislation as a business strategy. At most you can say that Amazon's execs decided that the costs of openly associating with those aims were high enough to end open association.
Large corporations are members of many groups. The idea that the entire leadership of Amazon should be replaced because Amazon was a member of ALEC is nonsensical. Jeff Bezos should step down because Amazon was a member of ALEC? Really? What about Steve Jobs and Apple? They were a member too.
ALEC isn't some super nefarious group, but I do understand it was the target of three minutes of internet hate, so people seem to ascribe some super evil to its intents.
>The idea that the entire leadership of Amazon should be replaced because Amazon was a member of ALEC is nonsensical.
That's a ridiculous reading of what I wrote. I said, effectively, that the same people who joined Amazon to ALEC are the same people who still run Amazon. This fairly suggests the same people still support the aims and work of the group, which is to spam state laws and impose market and private structures on entire populations.
You also ridiculously scoff at the idea that ALEC membership presents any problems or costs, even though Amazon itself left the group.
I really don't understand how it's ridiculous reading of what you wrote:
> "Amazon left ALEC but did not also replace its leadership at the same time"
Amazon's leadership includes Jeff Bezos. Apple's leadership included Steve Jobs and Tim Cook.
In fact, what you said first mirrors what you just said:
> "I said, effectively, that the same people who joined Amazon to ALEC are the same people who still run Amazon."
The leadership of Apple is still mainly in place as well. Should they all be gotten rid of? Or is there just a specific list of people who should be dumped?
> "You also ridiculously scoff at the idea that ALEC membership presents any problems or costs, even though Amazon itself left the group."
No, I didn't in any way say that. I just said they weren't "super nefarious". Amazon left ALEC precisely because they determined it was presenting a problem.
> "Then you completely ignored ALEC's purpose as I accurately described it."
In what way? By saying their weren't "super nefarious"? I guess you think they are "super nefarious", but I just think they're sub-optimal.
>I really don't understand how it's ridiculous reading of what you wrote:
Let me help: I indicated that a corporate culture exists that openly accepted and endorsed what ALEC does, which necessarily indicates that said culture is capable of accepting and endorsing the imposition of private and market structures on entire populations by writing and passing state laws to do so. That is exactly what ALEC does.
Amazon's reversal of a decision to join ALEC without a concomitant reversal or update of that same corporate culture should not be read as a repudiation of that organization's aims and goals.
I think you're scoffing in the wrong direction: Amazon conducts itself repeatedly as antagonistic to regulation and taxation in every way and just about as intensely as a corporation can. The idea that they really don't want their business aims written into state law just because they backed away from ALEC fails every test of plausibility. They're the same boardroom. They act in their own interest exclusively. It's far more plausible that they saw that being an ALEC member (and taking the public relations costs associated with that) wasn't necessary to benefit from what ALEC does on behalf of business interests generally.
Corporate membership in an organization whose purpose is to impose market and private mechanisms on whole populations by writing these into state and local law (this is precisely what ALEC does) should be interpreted as an irrevocable announcement that the management of the corporation does in fact endorse imposing its interests on whole populations using state and local law.
Amazon left ALEC but did not also replace its leadership at the same time, so its leaving can't be construed as a change of perspective on the imposition of legislation as a business strategy. At most you can say that Amazon's execs decided that the costs of openly associating with those aims were high enough to end open association.