4 ms·

You would be incorrect. Humans, not companies, engage in civil disobedience. Regardless, whether its Ross, Travis or anyone else, why would or should ideologic

You would be incorrect. Humans, not companies, engage in civil disobedience. Regardless, whether its Ross, Travis or anyone else, why would or should ideological motivation be relevant to whether or not any given act is legal or how it should be punished? When libertarians, for whatever reason, choose to start businesses in CA, they are explicitly consenting to our government & to obeying our democratically enacted laws. Ideology is not a shield for consequences--and, for both Travis & Ross, using Ayn Rand to justify their behavior only makes them less sympathetic to judges, prosecutors & juries.

orblivion 9y ago
Again, just for the sake of fun/discussion. Not trying to make any significant point here. > You would be incorrect. Humans, not companies, engage in civil disobedience. Is this a point of observation ("I've never heard of a company doing this"), law ("Companies have no legal grounds to claim civil disobedience"), or logic ("companies cannot act, only its constituent humans act")? If it's the first, I'm claiming to give you a contradictory observation. If it's the second, you yourself said that civil disobedience has no legal significance anyway (just a possible source of sympathy when it comes time for the judge's discretion) so in this sense I don't see why a human's civil disobedience is any more real than a company's. If it's the third, fair enough, but it wasn't clear to me that this was your point.
- gotothedoctor 9y ago
  It is relevant for humans in a legal setting; it is not relevant for corporations. I did not say that civil disobedience has no legal significance for humans--I said it has no legal significance for corporations. Nor did I say it was a source of sympathy--I said it could mitigate liability or punishment. While it is not a defense for law-breaking by humans, asserting civil disobedience can mitigate punishment or liability for humans; it cannot be used to do the same for corporations. Jurisdictions, laws and rules make it difficult to generalize (eg some courts accept some mitigating factors but not others), but I've never come across or heard of any case where a corporation could or did claim "civil disobedience" as a mitigating factor for liability or punishment.
  - orblivion 9y ago
    Got it. When you had said that it would mitigate punishment, I assumed you meant in a purely unofficial subjective way. Thanks.
    - gotothedoctor 9y ago
      could, not would. There are many variables. My comments are not intended as official or objective:)
  - raleighm 9y ago
    > "cannot be used to do the same for corporations" What is the basis of that "cannot"? Sentencing guidelines? Inference from cases where it was asserted but rejected because it came from a corporation? Edit: Not asking for a citation. Just want to understand the basis for your view, because the point is an important one (current context aside) and your responses thus far about it feel circular (e.g., doesn't apply because it's irrelevant).
avar 9y ago
I was under the impression that Silk Road wasn't a company but a private website run by Ross. Reading over the Wikipedia article and the indictment I can't find any mention of it being incorporated. Although the indictment mentions at one point that he had an employee, but he may have been paying him privately and not as part of a corporate structure. Does that change anything vis-a-vis the argument you're making with regards to civil disobedience? My reading of your comments is that a corporation doesn't have certain rights private individuals have. That makes sense, but does your argument still hold if Silk Road is a purely private website without any corporate structure? 1. https://ia600406.us.archive.org/17/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.238311/gov.uscourts.mdd.238311.4.0.pdf https://ia600406.us.archive.org/17/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.23...
- gotothedoctor 9y ago
  Aka "I'm not a businessman, I'm a business, man." No, it changes literally nothing. Criminal enterprises tend to be lean on corporate structure and paperwork for a variety of reasons. There is also no such thing as a purely private website where everything is legal and there is no liability.
  - avar 9y ago
    Right, but let's say for example that some guy X publishes embarrassing classified information on a protest sign that he's holding in front of the White House, this could be construed as civil disobedience, right? But it couldn't if Google had the same information and published it on its front page, since it's a corporation. 1. But what if guy X publishes it on his personal blog? 2. What if he occasionally sells used goods via his blog? 3. What if the main point of the blog is to sell those used goods, with a small "notes from the author" section where the information is published? 4. What if it's purely a commercial enterprise & isn't incorporated? 5. And then if it's incorporated it should be clear-cut, since as you said "only people [and not corporations] engage in civil disobedience". My question is when civil disobedience stops being a defense. Your original comment points out that Uber can't use that because it falls into #5, but then you're saying it wouldn't apply to Silk Road either which as far as I can tell falls into #4. How about #1-3?
mtempm 9y ago
>why would or should ideological motivation be relevant to whether or not any given act is legal or how it should be punished? When libertarians, for whatever reason, choose to start businesses in CA, they are explicitly consenting to our government & to obeying our democratically enacted laws. Ideology is not a shield for consequences--and, for both Travis & Ross, using Ayn Rand to justify their behavior only makes them less sympathetic to judges, prosecutors & juries. I didnt work for the Justice Department, but this appears to not be consistently logical. If ideology doesnt matter, why does valuing liberty negatively influence a judge's or prosecuter's actions towards you? That doesn't seem right. Also, if ideological motivation should not play a role in prosecuting crimes, then why does our justice system sometimes do the opposite (consider hate crimes, or other cases where motivation is considered when prosecuting crimes, i.e. different versions of murder charges.)
- gotothedoctor 9y ago
  I did not say that ideology does not matter. I asked why it should be relevant to the definition of a crime or whether or not it ought to be punished. (my words could've been tighter here: ideology, like civil disobedience, may be relevant to mitigation--or it may increase liability & punishment.) I also did not say that "valuing liberty" has a negative influence. That is not how I was using the word "libertarian" Nor did I say ideological motivation should not or does not play a role in prosecuting crimes. Whether it should or not is probably not important--because ideology does play a role prosecution, particularly in jurisdictions where they're elected. As you know, motive (mens rea) is an element of some criminal charges, including murder. Motivation matters basically for public policy reasons--for example, we punish hate crimes more harshly because we, as a society, decided crimes motivated by hate are more damaging to society & harsher punishment is a deterant. Similarly, sometimes "crimes of passion" are punished less harshly, because society has decided that harsher punishment would not be a deterrant or effective. What I said was: ideology is not a defense. And, in Travis's & Ross's cases, such ideology is more likely to increase, rather than mitigate, liability. And, what I meant was: neither Uber nor the Silk Road would, could or should attempt to assert a defense based on not consenting to CA law, democracy, and/or denying the legitimacy of federal courts. Not only will it irritate the humans whose legitimacy is being questioned, but such a defense is not procedurally permissible in any court that I am aware of. Basically, it won't help either of them--its more likely to increase liability than anything else. My sense is that we define words like libertarian quite differently, so I'm going to leave it here.

orblivion 9y ago

Again, just for the sake of fun/discussion. Not trying to make any significant point here. > You would be incorrect. Humans, not companies, engage in civil disobedience. Is this a point of observation ("I've never heard of a company doing this"), law ("Companies have no legal grounds to claim civil disobedience"), or logic ("companies cannot act, only its constituent humans act")? If it's the first, I'm claiming to give you a contradictory observation. If it's the second, you yourself said that civil disobedience has no legal significance anyway (just a possible source of sympathy when it comes time for the judge's discretion) so in this sense I don't see why a human's civil disobedience is any more real than a company's. If it's the third, fair enough, but it wasn't clear to me that this was your point.

gotothedoctor 9y ago
It is relevant for humans in a legal setting; it is not relevant for corporations. I did not say that civil disobedience has no legal significance for humans--I said it has no legal significance for corporations. Nor did I say it was a source of sympathy--I said it could mitigate liability or punishment. While it is not a defense for law-breaking by humans, asserting civil disobedience can mitigate punishment or liability for humans; it cannot be used to do the same for corporations. Jurisdictions, laws and rules make it difficult to generalize (eg some courts accept some mitigating factors but not others), but I've never come across or heard of any case where a corporation could or did claim "civil disobedience" as a mitigating factor for liability or punishment.
- orblivion 9y ago
  Got it. When you had said that it would mitigate punishment, I assumed you meant in a purely unofficial subjective way. Thanks.
  - gotothedoctor 9y ago
    could, not would. There are many variables. My comments are not intended as official or objective:)
- raleighm 9y ago
  > "cannot be used to do the same for corporations" What is the basis of that "cannot"? Sentencing guidelines? Inference from cases where it was asserted but rejected because it came from a corporation? Edit: Not asking for a citation. Just want to understand the basis for your view, because the point is an important one (current context aside) and your responses thus far about it feel circular (e.g., doesn't apply because it's irrelevant).

avar 9y ago

I was under the impression that Silk Road wasn't a company but a private website run by Ross. Reading over the Wikipedia article and the indictment I can't find any mention of it being incorporated. Although the indictment mentions at one point that he had an employee, but he may have been paying him privately and not as part of a corporate structure. Does that change anything vis-a-vis the argument you're making with regards to civil disobedience? My reading of your comments is that a corporation doesn't have certain rights private individuals have. That makes sense, but does your argument still hold if Silk Road is a purely private website without any corporate structure? 1. https://ia600406.us.archive.org/17/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.238311/gov.uscourts.mdd.238311.4.0.pdf https://ia600406.us.archive.org/17/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.23...

gotothedoctor 9y ago
Aka "I'm not a businessman, I'm a business, man." No, it changes literally nothing. Criminal enterprises tend to be lean on corporate structure and paperwork for a variety of reasons. There is also no such thing as a purely private website where everything is legal and there is no liability.
- avar 9y ago
  Right, but let's say for example that some guy X publishes embarrassing classified information on a protest sign that he's holding in front of the White House, this could be construed as civil disobedience, right? But it couldn't if Google had the same information and published it on its front page, since it's a corporation. 1. But what if guy X publishes it on his personal blog? 2. What if he occasionally sells used goods via his blog? 3. What if the main point of the blog is to sell those used goods, with a small "notes from the author" section where the information is published? 4. What if it's purely a commercial enterprise & isn't incorporated? 5. And then if it's incorporated it should be clear-cut, since as you said "only people [and not corporations] engage in civil disobedience". My question is when civil disobedience stops being a defense. Your original comment points out that Uber can't use that because it falls into #5, but then you're saying it wouldn't apply to Silk Road either which as far as I can tell falls into #4. How about #1-3?

mtempm 9y ago

>why would or should ideological motivation be relevant to whether or not any given act is legal or how it should be punished? When libertarians, for whatever reason, choose to start businesses in CA, they are explicitly consenting to our government & to obeying our democratically enacted laws. Ideology is not a shield for consequences--and, for both Travis & Ross, using Ayn Rand to justify their behavior only makes them less sympathetic to judges, prosecutors & juries. I didnt work for the Justice Department, but this appears to not be consistently logical. If ideology doesnt matter, why does valuing liberty negatively influence a judge's or prosecuter's actions towards you? That doesn't seem right. Also, if ideological motivation should not play a role in prosecuting crimes, then why does our justice system sometimes do the opposite (consider hate crimes, or other cases where motivation is considered when prosecuting crimes, i.e. different versions of murder charges.)

gotothedoctor 9y ago
I did not say that ideology does not matter. I asked why it should be relevant to the definition of a crime or whether or not it ought to be punished. (my words could've been tighter here: ideology, like civil disobedience, may be relevant to mitigation--or it may increase liability & punishment.) I also did not say that "valuing liberty" has a negative influence. That is not how I was using the word "libertarian" Nor did I say ideological motivation should not or does not play a role in prosecuting crimes. Whether it should or not is probably not important--because ideology does play a role prosecution, particularly in jurisdictions where they're elected. As you know, motive (mens rea) is an element of some criminal charges, including murder. Motivation matters basically for public policy reasons--for example, we punish hate crimes more harshly because we, as a society, decided crimes motivated by hate are more damaging to society & harsher punishment is a deterant. Similarly, sometimes "crimes of passion" are punished less harshly, because society has decided that harsher punishment would not be a deterrant or effective. What I said was: ideology is not a defense. And, in Travis's & Ross's cases, such ideology is more likely to increase, rather than mitigate, liability. And, what I meant was: neither Uber nor the Silk Road would, could or should attempt to assert a defense based on not consenting to CA law, democracy, and/or denying the legitimacy of federal courts. Not only will it irritate the humans whose legitimacy is being questioned, but such a defense is not procedurally permissible in any court that I am aware of. Basically, it won't help either of them--its more likely to increase liability than anything else. My sense is that we define words like libertarian quite differently, so I'm going to leave it here.