4 ms·

Are you implying that a contract, legally entered into by a democratically elected government, should be able to be rescinded without need for compensation when

by abduhl 11y ago

Are you implying that a contract, legally entered into by a democratically elected government, should be able to be rescinded without need for compensation whenever the government or electorate feels like it? This is the type of thinking that leads to nationalization of property without compensation, such as that being done in Venezuela and that which is expressly prohibited by the US Constitution - and it's prohibited for good reason.

ZenoArrow 11y ago
> "Are you implying that a contract, legally entered into by a democratically elected government, should be able to be rescinded without need for compensation whenever the government or electorate feels like it?" In answer to your question, not on the whim of a government, but in the case of the electorate, yes, whenever they feel like it. We're not talking about a life or death situation here, we're talking about a company's profits vs. the will of the people. The population of a country should have the final say in what they want to do with their country, if a government makes a bad decision on their behalf that benefits companies over people that's their mistake. It's up to companies to decide if they want to risk profiting from these deals.
- abduhl 11y ago
  Please stop demonizing companies and recognize that companies are made up of employees. This very well could be a life or death situation for a company's employee. The will of the people is fickle and ruthless - that is the most pressing reason why the USA was cast as a republic rather than a democracy. Where does the ultimate power of the electorate end? Does the will of the people override your ability to travel to another state for better work or pay because you're needed desperately at your current locale? Does the will of the people stop you from working in tech because we need more people swinging a hammer? Where is the line in the sand? I know this comes off as a slippery slope argument and it is easy for people who agree with you to simply write these questions off because, gosh darnit, tobacco is bad and we've seen this with tobacco on an HBO show - but really, where is the line?
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    >"Please stop demonizing companies and recognize that companies are made up of employees. This very well could be a life or death situation for a company's employee." I'm not demonising all companies, it's possible to run a company with an ethical focus, so it is possible to put people or the environment over pure profits. However, companies that would put pure profits over people will not get my sympathy. As for life or death for a company's employees, that's one of the benefits of social security, you can remove undesirable economic activity without jeopardising the lives of the people linked to that economic activity. So basically in a well run country, it isn't really a matter of life and death to stop a company from trading in your country. On the other hand, it can be a matter of life and death if profit is put over people. The El Salvador gold mining story I linked to is one example of that, I have plenty of other examples if you're interested. >"Where does the ultimate power of the electorate end? Does the will of the people override your ability to travel to another state for better work or pay because you're needed desperately at your current locale?" The rights of the majority vs. the rights of the minority is one of the classic debates around what is important in a democracy. There's a need for a balancing act between the two. However, when it comes to the rights of the majority vs. the rights of a corporation to make money, the answer is much more clear cut. What we're talking about in this case is the laws we set to give the people the society they want, as well as (in our current society) the bounds that set what a company can and can't do. If a company relies on a certain law being the way it is to make money, and then the law changes, then the company either has to adapt or fold or convince people to change the law.
crdoconnor 11y ago
>Are you implying that a contract, legally entered into by a democratically elected government, should be able to be rescinded without need for compensation Yes. The idea that contracts should be sacrosanct is bullshit. >This is the type of thinking that leads to nationalization of property without compensation Remember when they freed the slaves? Slaveholders wanted compensation too. They almost got it too.

by abduhl 11y ago

ZenoArrow 11y ago

> "Are you implying that a contract, legally entered into by a democratically elected government, should be able to be rescinded without need for compensation whenever the government or electorate feels like it?" In answer to your question, not on the whim of a government, but in the case of the electorate, yes, whenever they feel like it. We're not talking about a life or death situation here, we're talking about a company's profits vs. the will of the people. The population of a country should have the final say in what they want to do with their country, if a government makes a bad decision on their behalf that benefits companies over people that's their mistake. It's up to companies to decide if they want to risk profiting from these deals.

abduhl 11y ago
Please stop demonizing companies and recognize that companies are made up of employees. This very well could be a life or death situation for a company's employee. The will of the people is fickle and ruthless - that is the most pressing reason why the USA was cast as a republic rather than a democracy. Where does the ultimate power of the electorate end? Does the will of the people override your ability to travel to another state for better work or pay because you're needed desperately at your current locale? Does the will of the people stop you from working in tech because we need more people swinging a hammer? Where is the line in the sand? I know this comes off as a slippery slope argument and it is easy for people who agree with you to simply write these questions off because, gosh darnit, tobacco is bad and we've seen this with tobacco on an HBO show - but really, where is the line?
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  >"Please stop demonizing companies and recognize that companies are made up of employees. This very well could be a life or death situation for a company's employee." I'm not demonising all companies, it's possible to run a company with an ethical focus, so it is possible to put people or the environment over pure profits. However, companies that would put pure profits over people will not get my sympathy. As for life or death for a company's employees, that's one of the benefits of social security, you can remove undesirable economic activity without jeopardising the lives of the people linked to that economic activity. So basically in a well run country, it isn't really a matter of life and death to stop a company from trading in your country. On the other hand, it can be a matter of life and death if profit is put over people. The El Salvador gold mining story I linked to is one example of that, I have plenty of other examples if you're interested. >"Where does the ultimate power of the electorate end? Does the will of the people override your ability to travel to another state for better work or pay because you're needed desperately at your current locale?" The rights of the majority vs. the rights of the minority is one of the classic debates around what is important in a democracy. There's a need for a balancing act between the two. However, when it comes to the rights of the majority vs. the rights of a corporation to make money, the answer is much more clear cut. What we're talking about in this case is the laws we set to give the people the society they want, as well as (in our current society) the bounds that set what a company can and can't do. If a company relies on a certain law being the way it is to make money, and then the law changes, then the company either has to adapt or fold or convince people to change the law.

crdoconnor 11y ago

>Are you implying that a contract, legally entered into by a democratically elected government, should be able to be rescinded without need for compensation Yes. The idea that contracts should be sacrosanct is bullshit. >This is the type of thinking that leads to nationalization of property without compensation Remember when they freed the slaves? Slaveholders wanted compensation too. They almost got it too.