3 ms·

> Do we hold consumers responsible for purchasing things that use materials that were mined? Well a good first step would be forcing companies to disclose that

> Do we hold consumers responsible for purchasing things that use materials that were mined? Well a good first step would be forcing companies to disclose that so consumers had the ABILITY to choose. Until they have the ability, there is no way to blame them. Once they do... yes I do think consumers are responsible for the practices of the companies they buy from. It's pretty diffuse blame, but... > people choosing violent rebellion against law and order The specific case we're talking about was, at least from the perspective of the rebels, a violent rebellion against a _corrupt government_ and the profiteering corporation working with them. Nobody was like "you know what I hate! Law and order and infrastructure!"... no, they were like "we are being treated like slaves".

roenxi 7y ago
They weren't being treated like slaves. Rio would have been paying them more money than they'd ever seen in one place before, and I have it on excellent authority that the mine was trying hard to bring up the standards of living on the island. It is not reasonable to blame Rio Tinto for the PNG government was corrupt. That is the fault of the PNG government and the PNG people. As for the profiteering - operating a mine is not profiteering; it is pretty routine business. They had a 20-25% profit sharing agreement with PNG. They were investing in training the locals. Rio wasn't shooting at anyone and wasn't advocating shooting at anyone. They were using explosives on rocks, the Bougainvillians were using them on buildings. The locals and their own government are ultimately responsible for tensions escalating out of hand. I'm picking up that you might not like corporations here, but you can't call a company genocidal and responsible for war crimes because some backwater has a corrupt and ineffective government and it turns out they don't have an advanced enough social system to handle big infrastructure projects. Corporations simply do not have primacy over a government; governments get to do what they like and are responsible for that power. People who are in an active state of rebellion are also responsible for their own actions.

roenxi 7y ago

They weren't being treated like slaves. Rio would have been paying them more money than they'd ever seen in one place before, and I have it on excellent authority that the mine was trying hard to bring up the standards of living on the island. It is not reasonable to blame Rio Tinto for the PNG government was corrupt. That is the fault of the PNG government and the PNG people. As for the profiteering - operating a mine is not profiteering; it is pretty routine business. They had a 20-25% profit sharing agreement with PNG. They were investing in training the locals. Rio wasn't shooting at anyone and wasn't advocating shooting at anyone. They were using explosives on rocks, the Bougainvillians were using them on buildings. The locals and their own government are ultimately responsible for tensions escalating out of hand. I'm picking up that you might not like corporations here, but you can't call a company genocidal and responsible for war crimes because some backwater has a corrupt and ineffective government and it turns out they don't have an advanced enough social system to handle big infrastructure projects. Corporations simply do not have primacy over a government; governments get to do what they like and are responsible for that power. People who are in an active state of rebellion are also responsible for their own actions.