> 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

> 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)