3 ms·

You're assuming that all governments are equally legitimate, which is an awful assumption.

LAC-Tech 5y ago
I'm not assuming anything, I'm just enjoying the frankness. "I support corporations against the governments I don't like" is a really refreshing piece of honesty, and not what most people would be brave enough to say. I'm trying to become less principled and more pragmatic myself when it comes to politics.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  How is it less principled when just about any principle at all will require a variety of actions depending on circumstances? Most notably, that you go about things normally when the principle isn't being violated, (a country isn't authoritarian) and take appropriate action when it is (The country murders journalists and political opponents)
  - buran77 5y ago
    Is the principle strictly "murdered journalists"? What about "Guantanamo"? Or "bombing schools and hospitals"? If you find a "but" in there you can already tell what "less principled" means. Sure, Google doesn't intervene directly in any of this but they would certainly cooperate if asked. And they keep working with that government. What's the common principle besides profit and allegiance?
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      Is the principle strictly "murdered journalists"? Each person decides on their principles. Are you making the argument that it is impossible for anyone to be truly principled, without compromise?
      - buran77 5y ago
        No, I'm arguing that if these "principles" are tied to profit or allegiance (the "who" rather than the "what") [0] then it kind of chips away at their value. All the way down to nothing. [0] https://64.media.tumblr.com/864c839058d5319d8b1333e613cac53c/tumblr_nkdjhspeoX1rwkrdbo1_1280.jpg https://64.media.tumblr.com/864c839058d5319d8b1333e613cac53c...
- kadoban 5y ago
  I don't see it as being less principled then, it's just a less simplistic principle.
  - LAC-Tech 5y ago
    I think strong principles are by their definition simplistic. As soon as you start having multiple clauses and subclauses, they become weak - and sometimes transparent.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
cinquemb 5y ago
> assuming that all governments are equally legitimate Not really directed at you but I wanted to explore this more in general: When a corporation chooses to submit articles of incorporation to any given jurisdiction, notions of "equally legitimate" wrt any particular jurisdiction's leverage over them seems meaningless to me if such corporate operating in any given jurisdiction is not willing to risk being able to operate effectively in such jurisdiction (sure, any given corporation may have different levels of exposure to different jurisdictions, but that to me seems more a risk/reward thing and not really jurisdictional legitimacy thing, even though people may take it as a signal that holding more assets/operational capacity in a particular jurisdiction automatically gives that jurisdiction more legitimacy over another where they hold less or none at all, but that brings up another question: is a jurisdiction any less legitimate if one holds no exposure to it but others orgs do?). If an organization is able to continue to operate within any given (claimed) jurisdiction without putting its assets/operational capacity at significant risk in such jurisdictions from any punitive actions from non compliance, then the legitimacy of any given jurisdiction is zero if we are tying exposure to such jurisdiction to its legitimacy (thus all jurisdictions would be equally legitimate with a weight of zero, which perhaps would be a better assumption than all with a weight of 1 as far as such orgs are concerned [not that all orgs can operate as such]).

I'm not assuming anything, I'm just enjoying the frankness. "I support corporations against the governments I don't like" is a really refreshing piece of honesty, and not what most people would be brave enough to say. I'm trying to become less principled and more pragmatic myself when it comes to politics.

ineedasername 5y ago
How is it less principled when just about any principle at all will require a variety of actions depending on circumstances? Most notably, that you go about things normally when the principle isn't being violated, (a country isn't authoritarian) and take appropriate action when it is (The country murders journalists and political opponents)
- buran77 5y ago
  Is the principle strictly "murdered journalists"? What about "Guantanamo"? Or "bombing schools and hospitals"? If you find a "but" in there you can already tell what "less principled" means. Sure, Google doesn't intervene directly in any of this but they would certainly cooperate if asked. And they keep working with that government. What's the common principle besides profit and allegiance?
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    Is the principle strictly "murdered journalists"? Each person decides on their principles. Are you making the argument that it is impossible for anyone to be truly principled, without compromise?
    - buran77 5y ago
      No, I'm arguing that if these "principles" are tied to profit or allegiance (the "who" rather than the "what") [0] then it kind of chips away at their value. All the way down to nothing. [0] https://64.media.tumblr.com/864c839058d5319d8b1333e613cac53c/tumblr_nkdjhspeoX1rwkrdbo1_1280.jpg https://64.media.tumblr.com/864c839058d5319d8b1333e613cac53c...
kadoban 5y ago
I don't see it as being less principled then, it's just a less simplistic principle.
- LAC-Tech 5y ago
  I think strong principles are by their definition simplistic. As soon as you start having multiple clauses and subclauses, they become weak - and sometimes transparent.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

cinquemb 5y ago

> assuming that all governments are equally legitimate Not really directed at you but I wanted to explore this more in general: When a corporation chooses to submit articles of incorporation to any given jurisdiction, notions of "equally legitimate" wrt any particular jurisdiction's leverage over them seems meaningless to me if such corporate operating in any given jurisdiction is not willing to risk being able to operate effectively in such jurisdiction (sure, any given corporation may have different levels of exposure to different jurisdictions, but that to me seems more a risk/reward thing and not really jurisdictional legitimacy thing, even though people may take it as a signal that holding more assets/operational capacity in a particular jurisdiction automatically gives that jurisdiction more legitimacy over another where they hold less or none at all, but that brings up another question: is a jurisdiction any less legitimate if one holds no exposure to it but others orgs do?). If an organization is able to continue to operate within any given (claimed) jurisdiction without putting its assets/operational capacity at significant risk in such jurisdictions from any punitive actions from non compliance, then the legitimacy of any given jurisdiction is zero if we are tying exposure to such jurisdiction to its legitimacy (thus all jurisdictions would be equally legitimate with a weight of zero, which perhaps would be a better assumption than all with a weight of 1 as far as such orgs are concerned [not that all orgs can operate as such]).