5 ms·

Banning TikTok violates the rights of Americans who use the platform, and also Americans who work there. More generally, violating one right of one American th

by javert 6y ago

Banning TikTok violates the rights of Americans who use the platform, and also Americans who work there. More generally, violating one right of one American threatens all rights of all Americans. TikTok should be banned if and only if it presents a military or intelligence threat.

Craighead 6y ago
It does present that threat
gruez 6y ago
>Banning TikTok violates the rights of Americans who use the platform What rights? 1st amendment? Your speech isn't being curtailed, you just have to take it elsewhere. If you interpret this as a trade dispute everything looks fine. Banning Chinese printers don't violate the rights of Americans either. >also Americans who work there. what rights are we talking about?
- javert 6y ago
  I think your conception of rights is far too narrow. If the government forces me against my will when I am not harming someone, it's a violation of my rights. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are not intended to be exhaustive. One reason some people opposed the Bill of Rights was because they feared that it would later be misunderstood to be exhaustive. > Banning Chinese printers don't violate the rights of Americans either. It absolutely does. It prevents me from buying a printer from whoever I want. Look, I get it: like most people, you probably don't care about a theoretical way of looking at rights. Nonetheless, we should all agree that the American government shouldn't do things that harm Americans. Does arbitrarily banning certain businesses, even if owned by foreigners, hurt Americans? Yes, it absolutely does. It's not in our self interest as individual Americans. The point of developing a theoretical way of looking at rights is to delineate, ahead of time, all the things government can do that will be contra the interest of citizens, and disallow them. That's what rights are for.
  - gruez 6y ago
    > I think your conception of rights is far to narrow. If the government forces me against my will when I am not harming someone, it's a violation of my rights. Is this something that's recognized by the courts, or your own headcanon? If it's the latter, there no point arguing because it basically devolves into a generic "what's the role of government" discussion. >Does arbitrarily banning certain businesses, even if owned by foreigners, hurt Americans? Yes, it absolutely does. It's not in our self interest as individual Americans. So does setting tariffs, yet that's widely accepted (as a government power) by both parties. >The point of developing a theoretical way of looking at rights is to delineate, ahead of time, all the things government can do that will be contra the interest of citizens, and disallow them. That's what rights are for. This is probably why you're being downvoted. When you say "x violates your rights", most people take that as to mean it violates your legal rights. They don't mean some amorphous concept that roughly equates to "is the government doing the right thing?".
    - javert 6y ago
      It is a generic "what's the role of government" discussion. It already was, even before I commented. Not sure why you got involved if you don't want to have that discussion.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - gruez 6y ago
        >Not sure why you got involved if you don't want to have that discussion. The main issue is that it looks like you're attempting to do a motte and bailey. You start off by making a bold claim (the bailey) of "Banning TikTok violates the rights of Americans" (which is commonly understood by most people to mean it violates the constitution/legal rights of Americans). A few comments later, you retreat back to the motte by saying that what you meant by "violates the rights of Americans" is "harms Americans". [1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey Also, regarding your other comment > You added more to your post after I responded, so here is my new response to the new content. It probably makes more sense to edit your existing comment and delete that one rather than starting two comment trees.
aeternum 6y ago
Banning TikTok may be a violation of the principle of free trade, however that is not an American right. Many economists have successfully argued that free trade is overall a net gain, even if other countries do enact free trade themselves. The problem with TikTok and China in general is it's not just about free trade. The Chinese government owns a significant part of each company and uses those companies/apps to gather intelligence. They also often do not enforce IP, which blurs the line between trade and theft.

by javert 6y ago

Craighead 6y ago

It does present that threat

gruez 6y ago

>Banning TikTok violates the rights of Americans who use the platform What rights? 1st amendment? Your speech isn't being curtailed, you just have to take it elsewhere. If you interpret this as a trade dispute everything looks fine. Banning Chinese printers don't violate the rights of Americans either. >also Americans who work there. what rights are we talking about?

javert 6y ago
I think your conception of rights is far too narrow. If the government forces me against my will when I am not harming someone, it's a violation of my rights. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are not intended to be exhaustive. One reason some people opposed the Bill of Rights was because they feared that it would later be misunderstood to be exhaustive. > Banning Chinese printers don't violate the rights of Americans either. It absolutely does. It prevents me from buying a printer from whoever I want. Look, I get it: like most people, you probably don't care about a theoretical way of looking at rights. Nonetheless, we should all agree that the American government shouldn't do things that harm Americans. Does arbitrarily banning certain businesses, even if owned by foreigners, hurt Americans? Yes, it absolutely does. It's not in our self interest as individual Americans. The point of developing a theoretical way of looking at rights is to delineate, ahead of time, all the things government can do that will be contra the interest of citizens, and disallow them. That's what rights are for.
- gruez 6y ago
  > I think your conception of rights is far to narrow. If the government forces me against my will when I am not harming someone, it's a violation of my rights. Is this something that's recognized by the courts, or your own headcanon? If it's the latter, there no point arguing because it basically devolves into a generic "what's the role of government" discussion. >Does arbitrarily banning certain businesses, even if owned by foreigners, hurt Americans? Yes, it absolutely does. It's not in our self interest as individual Americans. So does setting tariffs, yet that's widely accepted (as a government power) by both parties. >The point of developing a theoretical way of looking at rights is to delineate, ahead of time, all the things government can do that will be contra the interest of citizens, and disallow them. That's what rights are for. This is probably why you're being downvoted. When you say "x violates your rights", most people take that as to mean it violates your legal rights. They don't mean some amorphous concept that roughly equates to "is the government doing the right thing?".
  - javert 6y ago
    It is a generic "what's the role of government" discussion. It already was, even before I commented. Not sure why you got involved if you don't want to have that discussion.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - gruez 6y ago
      >Not sure why you got involved if you don't want to have that discussion. The main issue is that it looks like you're attempting to do a motte and bailey. You start off by making a bold claim (the bailey) of "Banning TikTok violates the rights of Americans" (which is commonly understood by most people to mean it violates the constitution/legal rights of Americans). A few comments later, you retreat back to the motte by saying that what you meant by "violates the rights of Americans" is "harms Americans". [1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey Also, regarding your other comment > You added more to your post after I responded, so here is my new response to the new content. It probably makes more sense to edit your existing comment and delete that one rather than starting two comment trees.

aeternum 6y ago

Banning TikTok may be a violation of the principle of free trade, however that is not an American right. Many economists have successfully argued that free trade is overall a net gain, even if other countries do enact free trade themselves. The problem with TikTok and China in general is it's not just about free trade. The Chinese government owns a significant part of each company and uses those companies/apps to gather intelligence. They also often do not enforce IP, which blurs the line between trade and theft.