3 ms·

You are ultimately saying within a sovereign nation you should abide by the law of that nation but the cultural values of another.

int_19h 8y ago
And again, no. I'm saying that you should abide by the law of the nation where you're performing an activity - say, designing and implementing some piece of software - regardless of where the fruits of your labor will eventually be deployed. And the law of that nation will, of course, be based on its cultural values. So if the culture of that nation frowns upon helping to oppress people in certain ways, then you shall not do so while in the jurisdiction of that nation, regardless of where the oppressed people are located. None of this imposes any cultural values on anyone who is not in the jurisdiction of our nation. If China wants to have their Panopticon, they can still do it - themselves. But Google doesn't get to help them to do so, because it is an American company, and people who implement these tools of oppression are American residents, subject to American laws and cultural values. China doesn't have any natural right to the fruits of their labor. Really, this is no different from prohibiting or regulating arms exports. Do you have similar objections to, say, arms embargo on DPRK?
- tsunamifury 8y ago
  I think the idea of a corporation as a single nationalized identity is where we disagree, and probably the law breaks down as well. As in function this is not true.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    Well, for starters, any corporation is headquartered somewhere, and I think it's not at all unreasonable that the country where it takes place can attach strings to it. After all, corporations don't pick a spot for their headquarters arbitrarily - they derive certain benefits from it - and if they are dodging the associated costs, then we have a free rider problem. But even setting that aside, my emphasis isn't on the corporation itself so much so as individuals working in it, who are the ones actually doing those things. I don't see why we can't impose restrictions on our residents, saying that they e.g. can't enable oppressive foreign regimes. And that, in practice, would have the same effect on the corporation - they wouldn't be able to do it here, and they'd have to relocate that entire operation into China or another place that would allow it. Or prohibit any resident from profiting from it, for that matter, e.g. by investing in a foreign corporation that does such things - which would also preclude US corporations from establishing foreign subsidiaries to dodge the responsibility but still partake in the profits.

int_19h 8y ago

And again, no. I'm saying that you should abide by the law of the nation where you're performing an activity - say, designing and implementing some piece of software - regardless of where the fruits of your labor will eventually be deployed. And the law of that nation will, of course, be based on its cultural values. So if the culture of that nation frowns upon helping to oppress people in certain ways, then you shall not do so while in the jurisdiction of that nation, regardless of where the oppressed people are located. None of this imposes any cultural values on anyone who is not in the jurisdiction of our nation. If China wants to have their Panopticon, they can still do it - themselves. But Google doesn't get to help them to do so, because it is an American company, and people who implement these tools of oppression are American residents, subject to American laws and cultural values. China doesn't have any natural right to the fruits of their labor. Really, this is no different from prohibiting or regulating arms exports. Do you have similar objections to, say, arms embargo on DPRK?

tsunamifury 8y ago
I think the idea of a corporation as a single nationalized identity is where we disagree, and probably the law breaks down as well. As in function this is not true.
- int_19h 8y ago
  Well, for starters, any corporation is headquartered somewhere, and I think it's not at all unreasonable that the country where it takes place can attach strings to it. After all, corporations don't pick a spot for their headquarters arbitrarily - they derive certain benefits from it - and if they are dodging the associated costs, then we have a free rider problem. But even setting that aside, my emphasis isn't on the corporation itself so much so as individuals working in it, who are the ones actually doing those things. I don't see why we can't impose restrictions on our residents, saying that they e.g. can't enable oppressive foreign regimes. And that, in practice, would have the same effect on the corporation - they wouldn't be able to do it here, and they'd have to relocate that entire operation into China or another place that would allow it. Or prohibit any resident from profiting from it, for that matter, e.g. by investing in a foreign corporation that does such things - which would also preclude US corporations from establishing foreign subsidiaries to dodge the responsibility but still partake in the profits.