4 ms·

I think you are saying companies should break US laws regarding a topic (religious discrimination) while abroad in order to honor foreign laws if that is necess

I think you are saying companies should break US laws regarding a topic (religious discrimination) while abroad in order to honor foreign laws if that is necessary in order to operate in a country. I think they should not consider operating in that fashion. They can push for regulation themselves if on their withdrawal they want to prevent an advantage to less ethical US competitors who stay.

passivate 6y ago
I don't get it. Why would any government allow a business to operate if they don't respect local laws. Would the US allow that? On principle, I sort of reject this notion that a giant corporation(s) should be encouraged to meddle in the internal matters of other countries. I think these kinds of moves will be perceived very differently by the locals. The famous line "They will welcome us as liberators with open arms..." (paraphrased) comes to mind :) I think it is far better to promote your ideas peacefully using other means, rather than by forcing a government to adopt your views because you threaten them with economic consequences by pulling out of the country.
- foolmeonce 6y ago
  Finance is the peaceful other means if you enforce laws on the people you can in order to keep it peaceful. US companies won't be running Uyghur reeducation camps in China even though that is lawful in China and may be their best way to source the right labor. Is everything happening anyway and with more cost by keeping a separation between US companies/nationals and crimes under US law? Sure. Is it still better? Mercenaries that come back having done "legal" things in foreign countries are a social plague and their connections to groups the US considers criminal are problematic. To not pick only on China, any US national who works with spyware for the Saudi regime is a criminal under US law, and that is important because they need to be watched when they return to the US to prevent them from assisting in assasinations in US/Canada. Does it matter if the crown prince made their actions in Saudi Arabia legal?
  - passivate 6y ago
    For a US company to do business in another country, if they are unable to conduct business without breaking US law, then the answer is clear. They simply cannot do business without incorporating separately as a new entity in the foreign country. In the case of a national, they may have to change their citizenship if they wish to take up that job, etc. Yes, it totally sucks that the world cannot agree on certain basic principles, but I believe we must promote change peacefully without threats/force. In any case, I think we're way off topic here, trying to solve the worlds problems in the comment section. The last word is yours :)

passivate 6y ago

I don't get it. Why would any government allow a business to operate if they don't respect local laws. Would the US allow that? On principle, I sort of reject this notion that a giant corporation(s) should be encouraged to meddle in the internal matters of other countries. I think these kinds of moves will be perceived very differently by the locals. The famous line "They will welcome us as liberators with open arms..." (paraphrased) comes to mind :) I think it is far better to promote your ideas peacefully using other means, rather than by forcing a government to adopt your views because you threaten them with economic consequences by pulling out of the country.

foolmeonce 6y ago
Finance is the peaceful other means if you enforce laws on the people you can in order to keep it peaceful. US companies won't be running Uyghur reeducation camps in China even though that is lawful in China and may be their best way to source the right labor. Is everything happening anyway and with more cost by keeping a separation between US companies/nationals and crimes under US law? Sure. Is it still better? Mercenaries that come back having done "legal" things in foreign countries are a social plague and their connections to groups the US considers criminal are problematic. To not pick only on China, any US national who works with spyware for the Saudi regime is a criminal under US law, and that is important because they need to be watched when they return to the US to prevent them from assisting in assasinations in US/Canada. Does it matter if the crown prince made their actions in Saudi Arabia legal?
- passivate 6y ago
  For a US company to do business in another country, if they are unable to conduct business without breaking US law, then the answer is clear. They simply cannot do business without incorporating separately as a new entity in the foreign country. In the case of a national, they may have to change their citizenship if they wish to take up that job, etc. Yes, it totally sucks that the world cannot agree on certain basic principles, but I believe we must promote change peacefully without threats/force. In any case, I think we're way off topic here, trying to solve the worlds problems in the comment section. The last word is yours :)