3 ms·

By the same you could say the same cops that are murdering black lives are funded in part by the taxes of Silicon Valley companies. You could say Guantanamo Bay

by dheera 6y ago

By the same you could say the same cops that are murdering black lives are funded in part by the taxes of Silicon Valley companies. You could say Guantanamo Bay was funded in part by your taxes. You could say all the ruckus in Nicaragua was funded by your taxes as well. I personally firmly stand by not punishing civilians and private/mostly-private/mostly-civilian-held companies for the actions of their governments. Also, governments are not monolithic. Would you punish the National Park Service for the actions of the NSA?

badRNG 6y ago
Just to add to this, the US has long held an antagonistic relationship with the International Criminal Court (ICC), and has shielded and acquitted war criminals as recently as last year. Are we going to blame American civilians for this behavior?
- rascul 6y ago
  Regarding the relationship the US has with the ICC, see the American Service-Members' Protection Act. > ASPA authorizes the President of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". This authorization has led the act to be nicknamed the "Hague Invasion Act". > The act prohibits federal, state and local governments and agencies (including courts and law enforcement agencies) from assisting the court. For example, it prohibits the extradition of any person from the U.S. to the Court; it prohibits the transfer of classified national security information and law enforcement information to the court. > The act also prohibits U.S. military aid to countries that are party to the court. However, exceptions are allowed for aid to NATO members, major non-NATO allies, Taiwan, and countries that have entered into "Article 98 agreements", agreeing not to hand over U.S. nationals to the court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
tablespoon 6y ago
> By the same you could say the same cops that are murdering black lives are funded in part by the taxes of Silicon Valley companies. That's nonsensical, and completely ignores the idea of power/control. The Chinese government has direct control over Chinese manufacturers, and derives power from them. Derek Chauvin or the MPD (for example) do not control or derive power from a Bay Area tech company Google, and have only a very tenuous relationship with it (if any). > You could say Guantanamo Bay was funded in part by your taxes. You could say all the ruckus in Nicaragua was funded by your taxes as well. And if you want to boycott American goods over that, be my guest.
- dheera 6y ago
  > The Chinese government has direct control over Chinese manufacturers So does the US government. There entities in the US government that have direct control over US companies, and derive power from US companies. > Derek Chauvin or the MPD (for example) do not control or derive power from a Bay Area tech company Google You're emphasizing my point here. The US government is not a monolithic entity and neither is China's. Just like you mentioned Derek Chauvin, you should rightfully be critical of the Derek Chauvins of China instead of the "Chinese government". Those Derek Chauvins have very little to do with Chinese manufacturers of high-tech goods (other than being tax-funded, which is the same with the Derek Chauvins of USA). > And if you want to boycott American goods over that, be my guest. I boycott neither American nor Chinese goods over government issues.
  - tablespoon 6y ago
    > You're emphasizing my point here. The US government is not a monolithic entity and neither is China's. China's government is actually far more of a monolithic entity than the US's. It doesn't have sovereign subdivisions or separation of powers, and is organization around centralized hierarchical control. The center makes policy, and the periphery implements it. > Just like you mentioned Derek Chauvin, you should rightfully be critical of the Derek Chauvins of China instead of the "Chinese government". Those Derek Chauvins have very little to do with Chinese manufacturers of high-tech goods (other than being tax-funded, which is the same with the Derek Chauvins of USA). The Chinese government is basically a government of Derek Chauvins, and the the point of boycotting is to weaken it or at least slow its growth. Think of it this way: you have a mob boss who owns a legitimate restaurant staffed by honest people, and he uses the profits from it to pay for criminal acts (say hits against his enemies). If you patronize the restaurant because you're concerned that the staff shouldn't have their income reduced on account of their boss's assassination hobby, you also provide the boss with money to enable or increase his assassination activity. Maybe the result of this is the boss grows powerful enough to take over the whole local government, because he could assassinate everyone in his way. On the one hand, you have some people who could make less money or have to find different work. On the other hand, you have murder and a breakdown of honest government. It's a moral dilemma, and you have to weigh the pros and cons. It feels like you're taking a hard stand on relatively minor moral issue in a way that compromises more important ones.

by dheera 6y ago

badRNG 6y ago

Just to add to this, the US has long held an antagonistic relationship with the International Criminal Court (ICC), and has shielded and acquitted war criminals as recently as last year. Are we going to blame American civilians for this behavior?

rascul 6y ago
Regarding the relationship the US has with the ICC, see the American Service-Members' Protection Act. > ASPA authorizes the President of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". This authorization has led the act to be nicknamed the "Hague Invasion Act". > The act prohibits federal, state and local governments and agencies (including courts and law enforcement agencies) from assisting the court. For example, it prohibits the extradition of any person from the U.S. to the Court; it prohibits the transfer of classified national security information and law enforcement information to the court. > The act also prohibits U.S. military aid to countries that are party to the court. However, exceptions are allowed for aid to NATO members, major non-NATO allies, Taiwan, and countries that have entered into "Article 98 agreements", agreeing not to hand over U.S. nationals to the court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

tablespoon 6y ago

> By the same you could say the same cops that are murdering black lives are funded in part by the taxes of Silicon Valley companies. That's nonsensical, and completely ignores the idea of power/control. The Chinese government has direct control over Chinese manufacturers, and derives power from them. Derek Chauvin or the MPD (for example) do not control or derive power from a Bay Area tech company Google, and have only a very tenuous relationship with it (if any). > You could say Guantanamo Bay was funded in part by your taxes. You could say all the ruckus in Nicaragua was funded by your taxes as well. And if you want to boycott American goods over that, be my guest.

dheera 6y ago
> The Chinese government has direct control over Chinese manufacturers So does the US government. There entities in the US government that have direct control over US companies, and derive power from US companies. > Derek Chauvin or the MPD (for example) do not control or derive power from a Bay Area tech company Google You're emphasizing my point here. The US government is not a monolithic entity and neither is China's. Just like you mentioned Derek Chauvin, you should rightfully be critical of the Derek Chauvins of China instead of the "Chinese government". Those Derek Chauvins have very little to do with Chinese manufacturers of high-tech goods (other than being tax-funded, which is the same with the Derek Chauvins of USA). > And if you want to boycott American goods over that, be my guest. I boycott neither American nor Chinese goods over government issues.
- tablespoon 6y ago
  > You're emphasizing my point here. The US government is not a monolithic entity and neither is China's. China's government is actually far more of a monolithic entity than the US's. It doesn't have sovereign subdivisions or separation of powers, and is organization around centralized hierarchical control. The center makes policy, and the periphery implements it. > Just like you mentioned Derek Chauvin, you should rightfully be critical of the Derek Chauvins of China instead of the "Chinese government". Those Derek Chauvins have very little to do with Chinese manufacturers of high-tech goods (other than being tax-funded, which is the same with the Derek Chauvins of USA). The Chinese government is basically a government of Derek Chauvins, and the the point of boycotting is to weaken it or at least slow its growth. Think of it this way: you have a mob boss who owns a legitimate restaurant staffed by honest people, and he uses the profits from it to pay for criminal acts (say hits against his enemies). If you patronize the restaurant because you're concerned that the staff shouldn't have their income reduced on account of their boss's assassination hobby, you also provide the boss with money to enable or increase his assassination activity. Maybe the result of this is the boss grows powerful enough to take over the whole local government, because he could assassinate everyone in his way. On the one hand, you have some people who could make less money or have to find different work. On the other hand, you have murder and a breakdown of honest government. It's a moral dilemma, and you have to weigh the pros and cons. It feels like you're taking a hard stand on relatively minor moral issue in a way that compromises more important ones.