4 ms·

> I'm just saying the "it's not appropriate to pressure a company for political views, companies should be off limits from politics" You haven't actually prese

> I'm just saying the "it's not appropriate to pressure a company for political views, companies should be off limits from politics" You haven't actually presented a supporting argument for it, though. What exactly is the problem with applying pressure to get a corporation to stop taking money from an organization/corporation/government/person that you find immoral? You are interfering with their freedom of association. You must weigh the morality of that violation vs what you hope to gain. It's not an obvious answer and is why the example of Boeing selling bombers actively being used to bomb civilians is misleading and why I objected to it.

drewbug01 7y ago
> You are interfering with their freedom of association. A corporation has no inherent "freedom of association." A corporation has exactly what rights we choose to give it, because it is fundamentally a legal fiction - the concept of a "corporate person" is useful for legal reasons, so we create such a thing in our laws. But it only has the rights we ascribe to it, because it isn't an actual being. With that in mind: we've given corporations no "freedom of association." But even if we accepted your claim here - how does "pressuring a company to drop a contract" violate its supposed "freedom of association?" "Freedom of association" is not freedom from consequences. "Freedom of association" means "you may associate with whomever you please and the government may not interfere". It does not mean "you may associate with whomever you please and no one may protest."
- Goladus 7y ago
  The only question that matters in this argument is whether a corporation's freedom to do business is worth more than stopping the action you consider immoral. Your attempts at refutation are all general and fail to address the critical equation.
  - drewbug01 7y ago
    If you will, describe what exactly you think a "corporation's freedom to do business" entails? Where do you find such a definition? Is it in the same place you found a corporation's "freedom of association"? It makes sense that you don't think my refutations are valid: I fundamentally disagree with your underlying premise that a corporation has any rights beyond the limited ones explicitly assigned in various bodies of law. And I specifically disagree that a corporation has a "freedom of association" or a "freedom to do business." So of course I'm not engaging with your question of "is whether a corporation's freedom to do business is worth more than stopping the action you consider immoral". Why would I? I disagree with the whole, underlying, fundamental premise of your question. A company has no freedom of association! It has no freedom to do business! These things do not exist, so refuting your question is impossible! (And, setting aside the whole absurdity of the central question: even if companies had these rights as you claim, how on earth would a letter from concerned developers infringe upon those rights? It's patently absurd to think that a group of customers sending a letter to a company somehow infringes upon its rights, unless you think that these "rights" entail freedom to do business without any criticism or bad press whatsoever)
  - dwild 7y ago
    > The only question that matters in this argument is whether a corporation's freedom to do business is worth more than stopping the action you consider immoral. Can you explain to me how does people pressuring them to stop a contract affect their freedom to do business? This is a free market, Github can still do business with ICE, they just know that people won't share that same view and that theses peoples may move their business elsewhere. Let say there's 2 business that sell chocolate, you want to buy chocolate. One is 1$ cheaper, but they kill a kittens for each purchase. Is it wrong to go buy the one that doesn't kill kittens because for you it infringe on their freedom to do business?
llamataboot 7y ago
yes, it's not an obvious answer and reasonable people may disagree on what lines to draw, but I don't think there's any inherent line that says "interfering with corporate profits is off-limits" - I'd actually argue that pressure on corporations and indeed the entire supply chain of many businesses is an under-utilized and effective method of political pressure. I would, for example, expect climate change activists to start actively interfering with shipping logistics (the ILWU has long used pressure at ports for political goals) causing the possibilities of large amounts of economic costs across entire industries if there isn't significant movement towards addressing their goals.

drewbug01 7y ago

> You are interfering with their freedom of association. A corporation has no inherent "freedom of association." A corporation has exactly what rights we choose to give it, because it is fundamentally a legal fiction - the concept of a "corporate person" is useful for legal reasons, so we create such a thing in our laws. But it only has the rights we ascribe to it, because it isn't an actual being. With that in mind: we've given corporations no "freedom of association." But even if we accepted your claim here - how does "pressuring a company to drop a contract" violate its supposed "freedom of association?" "Freedom of association" is not freedom from consequences. "Freedom of association" means "you may associate with whomever you please and the government may not interfere". It does not mean "you may associate with whomever you please and no one may protest."

Goladus 7y ago
The only question that matters in this argument is whether a corporation's freedom to do business is worth more than stopping the action you consider immoral. Your attempts at refutation are all general and fail to address the critical equation.
- drewbug01 7y ago
  If you will, describe what exactly you think a "corporation's freedom to do business" entails? Where do you find such a definition? Is it in the same place you found a corporation's "freedom of association"? It makes sense that you don't think my refutations are valid: I fundamentally disagree with your underlying premise that a corporation has any rights beyond the limited ones explicitly assigned in various bodies of law. And I specifically disagree that a corporation has a "freedom of association" or a "freedom to do business." So of course I'm not engaging with your question of "is whether a corporation's freedom to do business is worth more than stopping the action you consider immoral". Why would I? I disagree with the whole, underlying, fundamental premise of your question. A company has no freedom of association! It has no freedom to do business! These things do not exist, so refuting your question is impossible! (And, setting aside the whole absurdity of the central question: even if companies had these rights as you claim, how on earth would a letter from concerned developers infringe upon those rights? It's patently absurd to think that a group of customers sending a letter to a company somehow infringes upon its rights, unless you think that these "rights" entail freedom to do business without any criticism or bad press whatsoever)
- dwild 7y ago
  > The only question that matters in this argument is whether a corporation's freedom to do business is worth more than stopping the action you consider immoral. Can you explain to me how does people pressuring them to stop a contract affect their freedom to do business? This is a free market, Github can still do business with ICE, they just know that people won't share that same view and that theses peoples may move their business elsewhere. Let say there's 2 business that sell chocolate, you want to buy chocolate. One is 1$ cheaper, but they kill a kittens for each purchase. Is it wrong to go buy the one that doesn't kill kittens because for you it infringe on their freedom to do business?

llamataboot 7y ago

yes, it's not an obvious answer and reasonable people may disagree on what lines to draw, but I don't think there's any inherent line that says "interfering with corporate profits is off-limits" - I'd actually argue that pressure on corporations and indeed the entire supply chain of many businesses is an under-utilized and effective method of political pressure. I would, for example, expect climate change activists to start actively interfering with shipping logistics (the ILWU has long used pressure at ports for political goals) causing the possibilities of large amounts of economic costs across entire industries if there isn't significant movement towards addressing their goals.