3 ms·

Saying "I don't believe in the government obliging businesses to do things." seems to me akin to not believing in gravity. The government - including the US go

by blub 8y ago

Saying "I don't believe in the government obliging businesses to do things." seems to me akin to not believing in gravity. The government - including the US government - is obliging all companies operating on its territory to do certain things. That's one of the roles of government.

stcredzero 8y ago
Saying "I don't believe in the government obliging businesses to do things." seems to me akin to not believing in gravity. Believing in gravity doesn't mean that you then need to gain as much weight as possible. In fact, taking into account science like that, you might want to lose a certain amount of weight for your health. "The government obliging businesses to do things," is necessary, like carbohydrates are necessary. That said, you don't want too much of something.
- blub 8y ago
  The USG is doing too little of something. Namely of protecting citizens from predatory businesses.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    The banking reform laws that were billed as curbing the big banks turned out to have been gamed by those banks to give them a huge advantage in home mortgages, driving out the community banks. Given what lobbying and regulatory capture is like, more government seems as likely to increase the predatory nature of businesses.
- y4mi 8y ago
  > carbohydrates Are you doing that on purpose? I don't know if the keto diet is healthy, but making a statement like that is.. pretty much guranteed to step on somebody's toes.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    I don't know if the keto diet is healthy, but making a statement like that is.. pretty much guranteed to step on somebody's toes. Even if you don't consume any carbohydrates, your body will produce some to continue its processes. So it will step on someone's toes only if they're science ignorant. EDIT: Carbohydrates are used throughout your body. One example: as receptors on your cell membranes. The guff about "ketones are not carbs" below is a great example of how, "it will step on someone's toes only if they're science ignorant."
    - 2stop 8y ago
      Off topic, and likely you are just trolling. But: Ketones are not carbs. The body does not need carbs. Your analogy is incorrect
rifung 8y ago
I think the comment you're replying to meant more that they should be obliging businesses to do things but not specific businesses. E.g. make laws that apply to all companies as opposed to picking on one company or another. So I think you're actually agreeing since gravity applies to all things vs arbitrarily deciding which things to pull down.
- pdkl95 8y ago
  Bills of attainder (laws that target a specific person or group of people) have always been unconstitutional. The are explicitly prohibited federally in Article 1, Section 9: No Bill of Attainder ... shall be passed. States are explicitly prohibited in Section 10: No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder ... Any legislation that specifically targets Google would be quickly overturned by the court.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    A Bill of Attainder is much narrow than any legislation that targets a particular actor; this is a case where the specific details matter a lot (as does the mood of the Supreme Court, whose tests on this issue have evolved over time in shifting directions.)
jtwebman 8y ago
Last time I checked China doesn't fall under US law. This is an international company. They can do what ever they want for a site in China. I don't agree with it but I do agree that the company can do it if they want.
- dgoldstein0 8y ago
  This is probably true if it's a Google subsidiary doing it. But there are a lot of caveats here. Presumably US based Google employees are included in this Chinese search engine project, so there should be some legal way for the US government to involve itself if it wanted to. Not saying they should, just that a law could be written, if I've doesn't already exist, that would make it problematic.
  - 18pfsmt 8y ago
    >if I've doesn't already exist, that would make it problematic. This is not coherent English, and I think all HNers would appreciate it if you proof-read your comments. The internet has become a complete incoherent sesspool, and I hope we can prevent the same from happening here. It seemed like you might be making a sound (if wrong, IMO) point.
Bartweiss 8y ago
> not believing in gravity That metaphor holds if he doesn't believe that the US government has ever obliged a business to do anything; it's objectively true that the USG exists and asserts power over many businesses. But "believe in" there is pretty obviously a claim about desirability, and I think a lot of people don't believe gravity has intrinsic moral value. Actually, I like this metaphor. Gravity isn't intrinsically moral, but from a human perspective there are certainly right and wrong values. Deimos, where you can accidentally jump into orbit, has too little. Jupiter, where hydrogen is crushed into a metal, has too much. So now we're back to quibbling over the desirable amount of an amoral force, and comparisons to physics haven't changed the situation.

by blub 8y ago

stcredzero 8y ago

Saying "I don't believe in the government obliging businesses to do things." seems to me akin to not believing in gravity. Believing in gravity doesn't mean that you then need to gain as much weight as possible. In fact, taking into account science like that, you might want to lose a certain amount of weight for your health. "The government obliging businesses to do things," is necessary, like carbohydrates are necessary. That said, you don't want too much of something.

blub 8y ago
The USG is doing too little of something. Namely of protecting citizens from predatory businesses.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  The banking reform laws that were billed as curbing the big banks turned out to have been gamed by those banks to give them a huge advantage in home mortgages, driving out the community banks. Given what lobbying and regulatory capture is like, more government seems as likely to increase the predatory nature of businesses.
y4mi 8y ago
> carbohydrates Are you doing that on purpose? I don't know if the keto diet is healthy, but making a statement like that is.. pretty much guranteed to step on somebody's toes.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  I don't know if the keto diet is healthy, but making a statement like that is.. pretty much guranteed to step on somebody's toes. Even if you don't consume any carbohydrates, your body will produce some to continue its processes. So it will step on someone's toes only if they're science ignorant. EDIT: Carbohydrates are used throughout your body. One example: as receptors on your cell membranes. The guff about "ketones are not carbs" below is a great example of how, "it will step on someone's toes only if they're science ignorant."
  - 2stop 8y ago
    Off topic, and likely you are just trolling. But: Ketones are not carbs. The body does not need carbs. Your analogy is incorrect

rifung 8y ago

I think the comment you're replying to meant more that they should be obliging businesses to do things but not specific businesses. E.g. make laws that apply to all companies as opposed to picking on one company or another. So I think you're actually agreeing since gravity applies to all things vs arbitrarily deciding which things to pull down.

pdkl95 8y ago
Bills of attainder (laws that target a specific person or group of people) have always been unconstitutional. The are explicitly prohibited federally in Article 1, Section 9: No Bill of Attainder ... shall be passed. States are explicitly prohibited in Section 10: No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder ... Any legislation that specifically targets Google would be quickly overturned by the court.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  A Bill of Attainder is much narrow than any legislation that targets a particular actor; this is a case where the specific details matter a lot (as does the mood of the Supreme Court, whose tests on this issue have evolved over time in shifting directions.)

jtwebman 8y ago

Last time I checked China doesn't fall under US law. This is an international company. They can do what ever they want for a site in China. I don't agree with it but I do agree that the company can do it if they want.

dgoldstein0 8y ago
This is probably true if it's a Google subsidiary doing it. But there are a lot of caveats here. Presumably US based Google employees are included in this Chinese search engine project, so there should be some legal way for the US government to involve itself if it wanted to. Not saying they should, just that a law could be written, if I've doesn't already exist, that would make it problematic.
- 18pfsmt 8y ago
  >if I've doesn't already exist, that would make it problematic. This is not coherent English, and I think all HNers would appreciate it if you proof-read your comments. The internet has become a complete incoherent sesspool, and I hope we can prevent the same from happening here. It seemed like you might be making a sound (if wrong, IMO) point.

Bartweiss 8y ago

> not believing in gravity That metaphor holds if he doesn't believe that the US government has ever obliged a business to do anything; it's objectively true that the USG exists and asserts power over many businesses. But "believe in" there is pretty obviously a claim about desirability, and I think a lot of people don't believe gravity has intrinsic moral value. Actually, I like this metaphor. Gravity isn't intrinsically moral, but from a human perspective there are certainly right and wrong values. Deimos, where you can accidentally jump into orbit, has too little. Jupiter, where hydrogen is crushed into a metal, has too much. So now we're back to quibbling over the desirable amount of an amoral force, and comparisons to physics haven't changed the situation.