4 ms·

Agreed it is probably a bad state to be in; Chinese companies buying up ours. But if I own a company, I shouldn't need permission from Washington to do with it

Agreed it is probably a bad state to be in; Chinese companies buying up ours. But if I own a company, I shouldn't need permission from Washington to do with it as I please as long as I'm not defrauding or directly harming others. Freedom is messy.

killjoywashere 8y ago
If you're the sole manufacturer or patent-holder for critical communications equipment (e.g. Qualcomm) then I do think the Government is representing the people's interest by preventing your sale.
frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
>as long as I'm not defrauding or directly harming others I'm curious, why "directly harming others"? The argument here is that you doing as you please (selling critical technology to the Chinese) is indirectly harming others so I'm curious about the distinction you draw between when it's okay to harm others and when it's not.
- djschnei 8y ago
  Included "directly" very intentionally. I'm of the mind set that you never give government subjective authority over something. You put up very strict guardrails for their power. "Indirectly harming others" is way too subjective and leaves far too much room for abuse of power/corruption. I don't judge laws by their best meant intentions, but by their worst case scenarios.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
    I would say harm vs. not harm is much less subjective than direct harm vs. indirect harm. Is yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater direct or indirect harm? Defining that seems much trickier than just defining whether it's harm.
    - djschnei 8y ago
      "No direct Harm Vs. Harm" is essentially "No Harm Vs. Harm". The "direct" is only included to limit it's interpretations or to be more specific. Proving "direct harm", in this case, is proving "harm". Without being able to prove a direct causal relationship, the government would have no justification to act. Inaccurately and purposefully yelling "fire!" in a crowded space is a direct attempt to cause panic. In other words, you would never be prosecuted for yelling "fire!" in a crowded space when there actually was a fire. It is not the act of yelling "fire!" that is illegal, it is purposefully causing a false panic that is illegal.

killjoywashere 8y ago

If you're the sole manufacturer or patent-holder for critical communications equipment (e.g. Qualcomm) then I do think the Government is representing the people's interest by preventing your sale.

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago

>as long as I'm not defrauding or directly harming others I'm curious, why "directly harming others"? The argument here is that you doing as you please (selling critical technology to the Chinese) is indirectly harming others so I'm curious about the distinction you draw between when it's okay to harm others and when it's not.

djschnei 8y ago
Included "directly" very intentionally. I'm of the mind set that you never give government subjective authority over something. You put up very strict guardrails for their power. "Indirectly harming others" is way too subjective and leaves far too much room for abuse of power/corruption. I don't judge laws by their best meant intentions, but by their worst case scenarios.
- frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
  I would say harm vs. not harm is much less subjective than direct harm vs. indirect harm. Is yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater direct or indirect harm? Defining that seems much trickier than just defining whether it's harm.
  - djschnei 8y ago
    "No direct Harm Vs. Harm" is essentially "No Harm Vs. Harm". The "direct" is only included to limit it's interpretations or to be more specific. Proving "direct harm", in this case, is proving "harm". Without being able to prove a direct causal relationship, the government would have no justification to act. Inaccurately and purposefully yelling "fire!" in a crowded space is a direct attempt to cause panic. In other words, you would never be prosecuted for yelling "fire!" in a crowded space when there actually was a fire. It is not the act of yelling "fire!" that is illegal, it is purposefully causing a false panic that is illegal.