3 ms·

>Um, be drafted? Pay taxes? Yes. We can force each other to play by rules. Taxes are a (perhaps) necessary evil. It is best not to use necessary evils as prece

by jimmyk 16y ago

>Um, be drafted? Pay taxes? Yes. We can force each other to play by rules. Taxes are a (perhaps) necessary evil. It is best not to use necessary evils as precedent for other infringements on human rights. And drafts are also an infringement on human rights. >Fundamental human right? Bah. Ok.. >It's well established that in the US companies can be forced to do business with minorities, protestants, females, Democrats...plenty of people they may otherwise wish they didn't have to (well, maybe not Democrats). It was well established until the 1860's that humans could be slaves. That something is established is not justification for that thing. >This idea that companies should be able to do whatever they can is nonsense (in fact, I'd go so far as to say it's poisonous, but that's for another post). Who said anything about that? >Besides, I'm not forcing them to do anything. They are welcome to move their company to Sierra Leone. Seriously? How does this sound: You can either give me your money, or I can torch your house. I'm not forcing you to do anything, but if you don't want to give me your money, I'll torch your house. You can always move down the road, but your house is gone if I don't get your money. Sound good to you? Or does it sound like I'm forcing you to do something?

dhimes 16y ago
Sorry- travel day for me. >It's well established that in the US companies can be forced to do business with minorities, protestants, females, Democrats...plenty of people they may otherwise wish they didn't have to (well, maybe not Democrats)...It was well established until the 1860's that humans could be slaves. That something is established is not justification for that thing. So you really are arguing that...companies should be allowed to...wait... What exactly are you aguing? That a fundamental human right is being denied to a company? Which one? Why should companies have fundamental human rights? They are legal entities, not humans. And they are not allowed, by the way, to violate the human rights of those who work for them. The people who make up the company != company. And to the point your were making on my comment: I agree with that fact that we can force terms of business on companies (even mine), and I agree with the now well-established fact that it is illegal to have human slaves. Seriously? How does this sound: You can either give me your money, or I can torch your house. I'm not forcing you to do anything, but if you don't want to give me your money, I'll torch your house. You can always move down the road, but your house is gone if I don't get your money. Sound good to you? Or does it sound like I'm forcing you to do something? It is at this point that I suspected you were trolling, but your profile says you are "well established" on this board so, contrary to your argument above, I should take it seriously. Your analogy could be improved, as you are using extortion as your hypothesis. Try this: You can either stop beating your wife, or we will put you in jail. If you wish to continue beating your wife, you should move your family to a place where you can get away with such behavior. But we won't let you do it here.
- jimmyk 16y ago
  > That a fundamental human right is being denied to a company? Which one? The right to freely trade with whoever they want on terms that are mutually agreeable to both parties with no coercion involved. >Why should companies have fundamental human rights? They are legal entities, not humans. Companies are not necessarily legal entities. The only companies that are legal entities are corporations. I won't defend corporations, but I will defend the rights of the people that work for them. >And they are not allowed, by the way, to violate the human rights of those who work for them. No, they're certainly not allowed to violate human rights. No one is. That's why it's illegal, unless of course a government does it because they have the guns. >The people who make up the company != company. That holds true for a corporation, but not a company that isn't incorporated. >and I agree with the now well-established fact that it is illegal to have human slaves. That's somewhat humorous given your earlier statement in support of the draft. And yes I'm aware that you agree with those things. But your agreement does not equate to justification. Nor does their status as being "established". >Your analogy could be improved, as you are using extortion as your hypothesis. Try this: Using the definition that extortion is illegally using coercion to obtain property or services of another person, your "plan" is extortion as well. It is illegal (trivially) because it is not currently legal as you pointed out earlier, and it is coercion by any definition I've heard. Yes my example is not a perfect analogy, but it is not fundamentally different. A perfect analogy would be that you have the option of giving me your money and keeping your house or not giving me your money and not keeping your house. Either way, if you owned your house, you would be upset with me. Your analogy is in fact incorrect in a fundamental way, which is that in your analogy, I am currently violating someone's right. My hypothetical wife has a right to not be beaten. Manning's defense fund does not have a right to use PayPal's services, so PayPal is not violating anyone's rights. (Though I will grant to you that since PayPal is a legal corporation which traded some of its rights to the government for some legal protection, I would not fight to the death for their right to refuse him service)
  - dhimes 16y ago
    >> That a fundamental human right is being denied to a company? Which one? >The right to freely trade with whoever they want on terms that are mutually agreeable to both parties with no coercion involved. This is, as is your final paragraph, succumbing to the fallacy of the consequent. They don't have that right- that's the point. A baker is not allowed to not sell goods to Chinese people. I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree, and let this go. Thanks for the thread- I found it enjoyable and refreshing.

by jimmyk 16y ago

dhimes 16y ago

Sorry- travel day for me. >It's well established that in the US companies can be forced to do business with minorities, protestants, females, Democrats...plenty of people they may otherwise wish they didn't have to (well, maybe not Democrats)...It was well established until the 1860's that humans could be slaves. That something is established is not justification for that thing. So you really are arguing that...companies should be allowed to...wait... What exactly are you aguing? That a fundamental human right is being denied to a company? Which one? Why should companies have fundamental human rights? They are legal entities, not humans. And they are not allowed, by the way, to violate the human rights of those who work for them. The people who make up the company != company. And to the point your were making on my comment: I agree with that fact that we can force terms of business on companies (even mine), and I agree with the now well-established fact that it is illegal to have human slaves. Seriously? How does this sound: You can either give me your money, or I can torch your house. I'm not forcing you to do anything, but if you don't want to give me your money, I'll torch your house. You can always move down the road, but your house is gone if I don't get your money. Sound good to you? Or does it sound like I'm forcing you to do something? It is at this point that I suspected you were trolling, but your profile says you are "well established" on this board so, contrary to your argument above, I should take it seriously. Your analogy could be improved, as you are using extortion as your hypothesis. Try this: You can either stop beating your wife, or we will put you in jail. If you wish to continue beating your wife, you should move your family to a place where you can get away with such behavior. But we won't let you do it here.

jimmyk 16y ago
> That a fundamental human right is being denied to a company? Which one? The right to freely trade with whoever they want on terms that are mutually agreeable to both parties with no coercion involved. >Why should companies have fundamental human rights? They are legal entities, not humans. Companies are not necessarily legal entities. The only companies that are legal entities are corporations. I won't defend corporations, but I will defend the rights of the people that work for them. >And they are not allowed, by the way, to violate the human rights of those who work for them. No, they're certainly not allowed to violate human rights. No one is. That's why it's illegal, unless of course a government does it because they have the guns. >The people who make up the company != company. That holds true for a corporation, but not a company that isn't incorporated. >and I agree with the now well-established fact that it is illegal to have human slaves. That's somewhat humorous given your earlier statement in support of the draft. And yes I'm aware that you agree with those things. But your agreement does not equate to justification. Nor does their status as being "established". >Your analogy could be improved, as you are using extortion as your hypothesis. Try this: Using the definition that extortion is illegally using coercion to obtain property or services of another person, your "plan" is extortion as well. It is illegal (trivially) because it is not currently legal as you pointed out earlier, and it is coercion by any definition I've heard. Yes my example is not a perfect analogy, but it is not fundamentally different. A perfect analogy would be that you have the option of giving me your money and keeping your house or not giving me your money and not keeping your house. Either way, if you owned your house, you would be upset with me. Your analogy is in fact incorrect in a fundamental way, which is that in your analogy, I am currently violating someone's right. My hypothetical wife has a right to not be beaten. Manning's defense fund does not have a right to use PayPal's services, so PayPal is not violating anyone's rights. (Though I will grant to you that since PayPal is a legal corporation which traded some of its rights to the government for some legal protection, I would not fight to the death for their right to refuse him service)
- dhimes 16y ago
  >> That a fundamental human right is being denied to a company? Which one? >The right to freely trade with whoever they want on terms that are mutually agreeable to both parties with no coercion involved. This is, as is your final paragraph, succumbing to the fallacy of the consequent. They don't have that right- that's the point. A baker is not allowed to not sell goods to Chinese people. I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree, and let this go. Thanks for the thread- I found it enjoyable and refreshing.