5 ms·

What does this have to do with freedom? Private companies can’t take away freedom, only the government can.

by chickenpotpie 6y ago

fsflover 6y ago
They can if they are monopolies providing essential services.
- minikites 6y ago
  If it's truly essential then that company should be nationalized and run by the government.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    That would be terrible and only monopolize everything further. Essential services should be provided by multiple providers. That's called competition and ends up serving everyone better.
    - minikites 6y ago
      How do you propose having multiple electricity providers or multiple water/sewer providers? What about multiple emergency medial providers or multiple fire brigades? Sometimes the right move is in fact to put all your eggs in one basket and then watch that basket. Also, "competition" necessarily implies a company can refuse service to a customer, which is not what I (or most people) want with essential services like electricity, water, police, fire protection, etc.
      - manigandham 6y ago
        Things like fire and police should be provided by the state due to the authority and access they require over civilians. However we have multiple utilities already. They follow regulations to ensure a level of service and reliability, but are often entrenched by these very same regulations which is why others are prevented from serving the same area. If anything we should have even more competition so that we can actually see some progress instead of the regulatory gridlock and decaying infrastructure that exists. This is similar to ISPs. You can consider network services as essential need in the modern era, but nobody wants a slow nationalized ISP service (look at how Australia screwed that up). Instead multiple local competitive organizations have always delivered the best outcome whenever that's been allowed and encouraged.
        minikites 6y ago
        Am I understanding correctly that you think multiple companies should be allowed to run electric and telecom lines to every residence? So that every moderately dense city turns into https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Telefontornet_1890.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Telefontornet_1890.j... ?
        manigandham 6y ago
        You're definitely misunderstanding. Why can't companies reuse infrastructure? Does every delivery company build their own road?
        minikites 6y ago
        >If anything we should have even more competition so that we can actually see some progress instead of the regulatory gridlock and decaying infrastructure that exists. Then how does competition address decaying infrastructure if not by running new lines?
        manigandham 6y ago
        By fixing the existing infrastructure. We're getting lost in the technicalities here but private companies providing services doesn't displace public infrastructure or eliminate the need for state ownership and oversight. What I'm saying is that a single state-run provider isn't a great model for most things, even critical things like utilities. The state can own the rights and build the things that only the state can, while the rest can be leased, shared, operated and maintained by multiple private organizations that compete to offer the best service without the regulatory incumbency. Allowing use in return for upkeep and updates is a well-known model in many industries, especially real estate. It can be applied to the public sector easily. We're slowly seeing things change as private enterprise finds new ways like hyperlocal co-ops and distributed infrastructure like solar power, but there's still much more progress that can be made.
    - slothtrop 6y ago
      > monopolize everything further. Were it for profit, yes. > Essential services should be provided by multiple providers. I don't think this is demonstratively true anywhere.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    Food production is probably the most essential thing in society. Should all the farms be nationalized? It's been tried before many times in many places, and things went spectacularly wrong on each occasion.
    - minikites 6y ago
      There are massive farm subsidies and other market controls in agriculture in the USA, so the government already puts a massive thumb on the market "scale". I would argue farms in some sense are already nationalized.
- Splendor 6y ago
  Dailymotion, Vimeo, Facebook, etc.
- phs318u 6y ago
  Really? YouTube is essential? Essential to what? And how was that service made available before YouTube existed?
  - tathougies 6y ago
    > And how was that service made available before YouTube existed? I mean, we used to have this thing called visiting friends or gathering in a public space, which the governments of most states have currently prevented us from doing, leaving the internet to be the only option to reach any audience. So yes, insofar as the public square is an essential function and since it's been banned from physically being a reality, then the government must assure that there are alternatives, or undo the physical bans on gathering. There is no pandemic exception to basic civil rights. Unfortunately, what we have here is a major double standard where leftists can freely gather in the streets to protest police brutality, but right wingers cannot without severe media criticism, and police action by governments.
    - phs318u 6y ago
      Visiting friends = Skype/Zoom/Teams/etc != YouTube Gathering in a public space = Facebook/Twitter/Mastodon/etc != YouTube Broadcasting = YouTube And your last sentence about leftists/right-wingers and double-standards is demonstrably false. There have been just as many protests by pro-Trump/anti-lockdown/stop-the-steal groups as there have about BLM/count-the-votes protests. Both have attracted varying levels of police action (BLM the most by my assessment), and both have had various levels of pro/anti discussion/criticism in the media (depending on which you read). On the last point, freedom of assembly does not equal freedom from criticism. EDITED: to fix formatting.
      - fsflover 6y ago
        > Broadcasting = YouTube Youtube is a distributed (as in "many people") media, which is essential for democracy. In some countries, it's the only source of truth about the politics.
    - phs318u 6y ago
vorpalhex 6y ago
Companies can and do take freedoms away all the time - and sometimes we even let them. There's just not constitutional protections preventing companies from taking those freedoms away.
- chickenpotpie 6y ago
  Can you provide an example?
  - fsflover 6y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24722130 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24722130
    - chickenpotpie 6y ago
      I’m not sure how being able to use a specific app on a specific phone is a freedom
      - fsflover 6y ago
        I's freedom to fight oppressive government by spreading information. Practically journalism.
        chickenpotpie 6y ago
        Wouldn’t that mean the government took their freedoms away though?
        fsflover 6y ago
        How does it change the fact that Apple is on the oppressive side?
dgb23 6y ago
That’s more a question of leverage rather than being private or public.
Fargren 6y ago
That is a very narrow definition of freedom. For a simple example of freedom being taken away without state involvement: a person who (illegally) locks up another person is absolutely taking away another person's freedom. This idea that only freedom from the state counts is very pernicious, and it's at the root of the inordinate power corporations have in today's world. Freedom is the ability to do what you want. Any conditions that don't let you do what you want are restraints on your freedom, even if they are being enforced by a private company.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  I wish somebody would give me millions of dollars. Until then my freedom to do what I want is being infringed. This isn’t a very useful argument when balancing the rights of multiple entities in society though.
  - Fargren 6y ago
    I'll concede that defining freedom is a thorny subject, and there are limitations to the definition a I proposed. But I think that any definition of freedom that doesn't accept that private individuals can (and constantly do) limit each other's freedom regardless of the state is just as flawed.
betwixthewires 6y ago
That is an absolutist assertion that I'd argue is blatantly untrue. I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this statement.
tathougies 6y ago
Oh just like private companies who don't pay their employees a living wage can't take away freedom, because their employees are free to just work somewhere else, like Uber drivers right? Oh yeah, forgot about that.

What does this have to do with freedom? Private companies can’t take away freedom, only the government can.

fsflover 6y ago

They can if they are monopolies providing essential services.

minikites 6y ago
If it's truly essential then that company should be nationalized and run by the government.
- manigandham 6y ago
  That would be terrible and only monopolize everything further. Essential services should be provided by multiple providers. That's called competition and ends up serving everyone better.
  - minikites 6y ago
    How do you propose having multiple electricity providers or multiple water/sewer providers? What about multiple emergency medial providers or multiple fire brigades? Sometimes the right move is in fact to put all your eggs in one basket and then watch that basket. Also, "competition" necessarily implies a company can refuse service to a customer, which is not what I (or most people) want with essential services like electricity, water, police, fire protection, etc.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      Things like fire and police should be provided by the state due to the authority and access they require over civilians. However we have multiple utilities already. They follow regulations to ensure a level of service and reliability, but are often entrenched by these very same regulations which is why others are prevented from serving the same area. If anything we should have even more competition so that we can actually see some progress instead of the regulatory gridlock and decaying infrastructure that exists. This is similar to ISPs. You can consider network services as essential need in the modern era, but nobody wants a slow nationalized ISP service (look at how Australia screwed that up). Instead multiple local competitive organizations have always delivered the best outcome whenever that's been allowed and encouraged.
      - minikites 6y ago
        Am I understanding correctly that you think multiple companies should be allowed to run electric and telecom lines to every residence? So that every moderately dense city turns into https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Telefontornet_1890.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Telefontornet_1890.j... ?
        manigandham 6y ago
        You're definitely misunderstanding. Why can't companies reuse infrastructure? Does every delivery company build their own road?
        minikites 6y ago
        >If anything we should have even more competition so that we can actually see some progress instead of the regulatory gridlock and decaying infrastructure that exists. Then how does competition address decaying infrastructure if not by running new lines?
        manigandham 6y ago
        By fixing the existing infrastructure. We're getting lost in the technicalities here but private companies providing services doesn't displace public infrastructure or eliminate the need for state ownership and oversight. What I'm saying is that a single state-run provider isn't a great model for most things, even critical things like utilities. The state can own the rights and build the things that only the state can, while the rest can be leased, shared, operated and maintained by multiple private organizations that compete to offer the best service without the regulatory incumbency. Allowing use in return for upkeep and updates is a well-known model in many industries, especially real estate. It can be applied to the public sector easily. We're slowly seeing things change as private enterprise finds new ways like hyperlocal co-ops and distributed infrastructure like solar power, but there's still much more progress that can be made.
  - slothtrop 6y ago
    > monopolize everything further. Were it for profit, yes. > Essential services should be provided by multiple providers. I don't think this is demonstratively true anywhere.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  Food production is probably the most essential thing in society. Should all the farms be nationalized? It's been tried before many times in many places, and things went spectacularly wrong on each occasion.
  - minikites 6y ago
    There are massive farm subsidies and other market controls in agriculture in the USA, so the government already puts a massive thumb on the market "scale". I would argue farms in some sense are already nationalized.
Splendor 6y ago
Dailymotion, Vimeo, Facebook, etc.
phs318u 6y ago
Really? YouTube is essential? Essential to what? And how was that service made available before YouTube existed?
- tathougies 6y ago
  > And how was that service made available before YouTube existed? I mean, we used to have this thing called visiting friends or gathering in a public space, which the governments of most states have currently prevented us from doing, leaving the internet to be the only option to reach any audience. So yes, insofar as the public square is an essential function and since it's been banned from physically being a reality, then the government must assure that there are alternatives, or undo the physical bans on gathering. There is no pandemic exception to basic civil rights. Unfortunately, what we have here is a major double standard where leftists can freely gather in the streets to protest police brutality, but right wingers cannot without severe media criticism, and police action by governments.
  - phs318u 6y ago
    Visiting friends = Skype/Zoom/Teams/etc != YouTube Gathering in a public space = Facebook/Twitter/Mastodon/etc != YouTube Broadcasting = YouTube And your last sentence about leftists/right-wingers and double-standards is demonstrably false. There have been just as many protests by pro-Trump/anti-lockdown/stop-the-steal groups as there have about BLM/count-the-votes protests. Both have attracted varying levels of police action (BLM the most by my assessment), and both have had various levels of pro/anti discussion/criticism in the media (depending on which you read). On the last point, freedom of assembly does not equal freedom from criticism. EDITED: to fix formatting.
    - fsflover 6y ago
      > Broadcasting = YouTube Youtube is a distributed (as in "many people") media, which is essential for democracy. In some countries, it's the only source of truth about the politics.
  - phs318u 6y ago

vorpalhex 6y ago

Companies can and do take freedoms away all the time - and sometimes we even let them. There's just not constitutional protections preventing companies from taking those freedoms away.

chickenpotpie 6y ago
Can you provide an example?
- fsflover 6y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24722130 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24722130
  - chickenpotpie 6y ago
    I’m not sure how being able to use a specific app on a specific phone is a freedom
    - fsflover 6y ago
      I's freedom to fight oppressive government by spreading information. Practically journalism.
      - chickenpotpie 6y ago
        Wouldn’t that mean the government took their freedoms away though?
        fsflover 6y ago
        How does it change the fact that Apple is on the oppressive side?

dgb23 6y ago

That’s more a question of leverage rather than being private or public.

Fargren 6y ago

That is a very narrow definition of freedom. For a simple example of freedom being taken away without state involvement: a person who (illegally) locks up another person is absolutely taking away another person's freedom. This idea that only freedom from the state counts is very pernicious, and it's at the root of the inordinate power corporations have in today's world. Freedom is the ability to do what you want. Any conditions that don't let you do what you want are restraints on your freedom, even if they are being enforced by a private company.

amanaplanacanal 6y ago
I wish somebody would give me millions of dollars. Until then my freedom to do what I want is being infringed. This isn’t a very useful argument when balancing the rights of multiple entities in society though.
- Fargren 6y ago
  I'll concede that defining freedom is a thorny subject, and there are limitations to the definition a I proposed. But I think that any definition of freedom that doesn't accept that private individuals can (and constantly do) limit each other's freedom regardless of the state is just as flawed.

betwixthewires 6y ago

That is an absolutist assertion that I'd argue is blatantly untrue. I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this statement.

tathougies 6y ago

Oh just like private companies who don't pay their employees a living wage can't take away freedom, because their employees are free to just work somewhere else, like Uber drivers right? Oh yeah, forgot about that.