5 ms·

I have not been following the story as closely as others, but how is reversing special privileges for a corporate titan (Disney), that give it abilities that no

by daenz 5y ago

I have not been following the story as closely as others, but how is reversing special privileges for a corporate titan (Disney), that give it abilities that nobody else is allowed to have, authoritarianism? That only seems authoritarian relative to anarcho capitalism or extreme libertarianism.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 5y ago
> how is reversing special privileges for a corporate titan (Disney), that give it abilities that nobody else is allowed to have, authoritarianism? Making decisions about public goods explicitly as political retaliation for failing to support unrelated positions of the ruling party is authoritarianism. It's *particularly jarringly authoritarian from a faction that is simultaneously arguing that “free speech” is being violated when private actors choose not to actively relay their speech.
- daenz 5y ago
  From my perspective, Disney should not have had special corporate privileges in the first place, so it's fair game that those special privileges are targeted for any reason since they are not rights, and in fact give them unfair legal advantages that nobody else can have, and therefore shouldn't be protected from infringement in the same way that rights are. I get why people are up in arms about it (the education bill), but it's really bizarre to see people defend special privileges afforded to a corporate giant, as if they are entitled to those privileges.
  - mescaline 5y ago
    The “rights” we are talking about is mostly the right to run their own utility and trash services. That’s about it and whatever else the government usually provides. Street repair. Security. They don’t get a lot of financial breaks and what they do get from it is based off efficiency of their models, not some “sweetheart” deal.
    - codeguro 5y ago
      That's an abhorrent lie. Their independent tax district is absolutely a sweetheart deal. The ability to privately govern the land that it owns (i.e. not pay state/property taxes) outright flies in the face of the first clause in 14th amendment. Their special privileges would not hold up to scrutiny in the court of law.
      - dave5104 5y ago
        Not sure where that idea comes from, but Disney absolutely pays taxes and your claim is false. In fact, the special tax district is allowed to (and does) charge Disney additional taxes over the state maximum to provide services like utilities and infrastructure. Removing the tax district means it is illegal for Orange/Osceola Counties to continue charging the extra taxes to Disney to pay for their infrastruture. If anything, it's a financial sweetheart deal for Florida, not for Disney. The thing Disney gets out of it is being able to maintain their property to the standard of their liking.
        daenz 5y ago
        If it's not beneficial in any way for Disney, then why are they saying they are being retaliated against? You're attempting to paint the removal of these special corporate privileges as a positive thing for Disney. If that's the case, then the State is doing them a favor, and it's not retaliation from Disney's perspective.
        dave5104 5y ago
        It is beneficial, just not from a financial aspect. With Reedy Creek, Disney doesn't need to worry about whether local politicians will approve expansions or meet the needs of the Walt Disney World complex since the local government is purely serving Disney. If you take a look at Disneyland in California, Disney is going up against Anaheim and Orange County councils on a pretty routine basis to get new things built.
        5y ago
  - Volundr 5y ago
    In principle I agree with you that I corporation shouldn't have special privileges. I strongly disagree however with the idea that it's fair those privileges be targeted for any reason. The first amendment specifically prohibits the government punishing free speech. If those special privileges are revoked for expressing an opinion that goes against the establishment, when they would otherwise continue, it's a clear attempt of the government to suppress dissenting speech.
    - daenz 5y ago
      That's where we disagree then: if exclude the political bend of the actions, only Disney views the action as "punishment", while to everyone else, it is "fair." Is it punishment to remove an unfair advantage? Certainly to the entity benefitting from the unfair advantage. To everyone else, no, it's not punishment, it's a return to a level playing field. If Disney got more special privileges as a result of their speech, nobody would say their rights were violated. If Disney had neutral actions taken as a result of their speech, nobody would say their rights were violated. So the "punishment" aspect is key to making it a violation, but I am making the case that it is not actually punishment, when considering the context of the rest of society.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > if exclude the political bend of the actions Yes, if we exclude the thing that people are complaining about, there is no basis for complaint. Let's suppose the federal government adopted 30 percentage point higher tax rates for everyone who registered as a Republican, donated to a Republican party committee or candidate, or voted in a Republican primary. Now, particular tax rates are not themselves a matter of right, so by the same logic that there is no basis to complain about the political retaliation against Disney since it is not via something that is a matter of right, Republicans would have no valid basis for complaint.
        daenz 5y ago
        I'm not sure I understand the hypothetical. I am against members of any political party receiving unfair privileges. And I would be 100% ok with the removal of those privileges, even if it was an explicit result of that person exercising their free speech. EDIT>> Oh I think I see now, you are comparing the introduction of a special tax hike on a group of people with removing special privileges from Disney. Those aren't the same at all.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > From my perspective, Disney should not have had special corporate privileges in the first place, so it's fair game that those special privileges are targeted for any reason since they are not rights Not being retaliated against government for political speech is, in the US, a right, whether or not the retaliation is via a thing that is itself or right. This is super important, because most interactions with government are not things that are a matter of individual right outside the rights to not being singled out on an impermissible basis, so if you erase that last bit you enable widespread arbitrary government discrimination. > I get why people are up in arms about it (the education bill), but it's really bizarre to see people defend special privileges afforded to a corporate giant Basically no one is defending that, they are defending substantive due process rights, which are what prevent government from making all other rights moot by how they allocate costs and benefits that are not themselves otherwise matters of Constitutional right.
    - daenz 5y ago
      I make this point more thoroughly in another comment, but I don't view it as retaliation, and I think only the people who are fixated on the political motivations view it as retaliation. Retaliation implies harm, and I am making the case that removing an unfair advantage, that shouldn't have ever existed in the first place, is not harm. If it's a neutral action (or neutral-positive), then it's not retaliation.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > I don't view it as retaliation, and I think only the people who are fixated on the political motivations view it as retaliation. Well, yes, nothing looks like retaliation when you ignore motivations. Motivations define retaliation. Starting out with selectively ignoring the facts most relevant for assessing whether a thing fits into a particular category is a singularly bad way of assessing whether that is the case.
        daenz 5y ago
        >Motivations define retaliation. Disagree. Motivation plays a part, but it is ultimately the action that defines if it was retaliation. The action has to be harmful.
  - _moof 4y ago
    There are over 1,800 special districts in Florida. Politicians have explicitly stated that they are punishing Disney for criticizing a law. There is no gray area here.
  - colburnmh 4y ago
    > From my perspective, Disney should not have had special corporate privileges in the first place, so it's fair game that those special privileges are targeted for any reason since they are not rights... Disney's "special rights" are not all that special or uncommon in Florida. There are 1844 active special districts in Florida, 76 of which have ad valorem taxation rights. Other theme parks in Florida, such as Sea World and Universal, also have special districts to manage their properties. The definition of a special district enshrines into law specific rights for the owner(s) of the special district, meaning that those are, in fact, rights, not just privileges to be withdrawn at a whim. And Florida specifically pledged to honor those rights both by writing the law that established the RCID, and further committing to not dissolve the district unless all bond debts were paid--the separate law that is referenced in the original article. I would encourage you to read through the Florida Special District web page: https://floridajobs.org/community-planning-and-development/special-districts/special-district-accountability-program/florida-special-district-handbook-online/introduction-to-special-districts https://floridajobs.org/community-planning-and-development/s... If you want to argue against special districts existing at all, that's fair. But to argue that Disney shouldn't have one, but the rest of the special districts, including those of Disney's competitors, are acceptable is not a good-faith argument.
- codeguro 5y ago
  The idea that a corporate entity gets to have a say, politically speaking, when they don't even pay taxes is abhorrent. Equality looks like oppression to those who are privileged. And make no mistake, Disney is privileged; they don't pay state taxes. What's authoritarian is influencing Florida's policies while not being subject to Florida's policies. "Rules for thee, but not for me." Equalizing the field is fair game. If they want their free speech, they need to pay for it like the rest of us.
  - leereeves 5y ago
    Yeah, the left is making a big mistake here, defending a company town in the 21st century. This special district should never have existed in the first place.
    - somebehemoth 5y ago
      Regardless of whether Disney should have ever gotten this deal, the taking away of the deal is unconstitutional because it is punishing free speech. That's it. This is not a "left" thing. It is a Constitution thing. I can both dislike Disney and believe this move was unconstitutional at the same time.
      - leereeves 5y ago
        It's so strange to see the left concerned about free speech. Is that concern really about the principle, or is it purely partisan?
        jtgeibel 5y ago
        It's almost as if the constitution binds the Florida government while not binding businesses like Twitter. It isn't strange at all when you don't conflate two different concepts. It is strange that the entirely of "the left" takes the blame for private actions taken by business, which is then used as some strange "well they started it" reaction by Republican lawmakers to do a much more egregious version of exactly what they repeatedly claim they are against.
digsy 4y ago
There are 1800+ special districts in Florida. Special priviledges are hardly limited to Disney.
colburnmh 4y ago
> how is reversing special privileges for a corporate titan (Disney), that give it abilities that nobody else is allowed to have, authoritarianism? Because 1844 other special districts exist in Florida, including Sea World, Universal, and other theme parks, HOAs, fire districts, water districts, law libraries, development holdings, etc. So Disney does not have rights that nobody else has, and those rights exist to allow those entities to have control over their property to avoid unnecessary, costly, and unproductive conflicts with county rules.

by daenz 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 5y ago

> how is reversing special privileges for a corporate titan (Disney), that give it abilities that nobody else is allowed to have, authoritarianism? Making decisions about public goods explicitly as political retaliation for failing to support unrelated positions of the ruling party is authoritarianism. It's *particularly jarringly authoritarian from a faction that is simultaneously arguing that “free speech” is being violated when private actors choose not to actively relay their speech.

daenz 5y ago
From my perspective, Disney should not have had special corporate privileges in the first place, so it's fair game that those special privileges are targeted for any reason since they are not rights, and in fact give them unfair legal advantages that nobody else can have, and therefore shouldn't be protected from infringement in the same way that rights are. I get why people are up in arms about it (the education bill), but it's really bizarre to see people defend special privileges afforded to a corporate giant, as if they are entitled to those privileges.
- mescaline 5y ago
  The “rights” we are talking about is mostly the right to run their own utility and trash services. That’s about it and whatever else the government usually provides. Street repair. Security. They don’t get a lot of financial breaks and what they do get from it is based off efficiency of their models, not some “sweetheart” deal.
  - codeguro 5y ago
    That's an abhorrent lie. Their independent tax district is absolutely a sweetheart deal. The ability to privately govern the land that it owns (i.e. not pay state/property taxes) outright flies in the face of the first clause in 14th amendment. Their special privileges would not hold up to scrutiny in the court of law.
    - dave5104 5y ago
      Not sure where that idea comes from, but Disney absolutely pays taxes and your claim is false. In fact, the special tax district is allowed to (and does) charge Disney additional taxes over the state maximum to provide services like utilities and infrastructure. Removing the tax district means it is illegal for Orange/Osceola Counties to continue charging the extra taxes to Disney to pay for their infrastruture. If anything, it's a financial sweetheart deal for Florida, not for Disney. The thing Disney gets out of it is being able to maintain their property to the standard of their liking.
      - daenz 5y ago
        If it's not beneficial in any way for Disney, then why are they saying they are being retaliated against? You're attempting to paint the removal of these special corporate privileges as a positive thing for Disney. If that's the case, then the State is doing them a favor, and it's not retaliation from Disney's perspective.
        dave5104 5y ago
        It is beneficial, just not from a financial aspect. With Reedy Creek, Disney doesn't need to worry about whether local politicians will approve expansions or meet the needs of the Walt Disney World complex since the local government is purely serving Disney. If you take a look at Disneyland in California, Disney is going up against Anaheim and Orange County councils on a pretty routine basis to get new things built.
        5y ago
- Volundr 5y ago
  In principle I agree with you that I corporation shouldn't have special privileges. I strongly disagree however with the idea that it's fair those privileges be targeted for any reason. The first amendment specifically prohibits the government punishing free speech. If those special privileges are revoked for expressing an opinion that goes against the establishment, when they would otherwise continue, it's a clear attempt of the government to suppress dissenting speech.
  - daenz 5y ago
    That's where we disagree then: if exclude the political bend of the actions, only Disney views the action as "punishment", while to everyone else, it is "fair." Is it punishment to remove an unfair advantage? Certainly to the entity benefitting from the unfair advantage. To everyone else, no, it's not punishment, it's a return to a level playing field. If Disney got more special privileges as a result of their speech, nobody would say their rights were violated. If Disney had neutral actions taken as a result of their speech, nobody would say their rights were violated. So the "punishment" aspect is key to making it a violation, but I am making the case that it is not actually punishment, when considering the context of the rest of society.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > if exclude the political bend of the actions Yes, if we exclude the thing that people are complaining about, there is no basis for complaint. Let's suppose the federal government adopted 30 percentage point higher tax rates for everyone who registered as a Republican, donated to a Republican party committee or candidate, or voted in a Republican primary. Now, particular tax rates are not themselves a matter of right, so by the same logic that there is no basis to complain about the political retaliation against Disney since it is not via something that is a matter of right, Republicans would have no valid basis for complaint.
      - daenz 5y ago
        I'm not sure I understand the hypothetical. I am against members of any political party receiving unfair privileges. And I would be 100% ok with the removal of those privileges, even if it was an explicit result of that person exercising their free speech. EDIT>> Oh I think I see now, you are comparing the introduction of a special tax hike on a group of people with removing special privileges from Disney. Those aren't the same at all.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > From my perspective, Disney should not have had special corporate privileges in the first place, so it's fair game that those special privileges are targeted for any reason since they are not rights Not being retaliated against government for political speech is, in the US, a right, whether or not the retaliation is via a thing that is itself or right. This is super important, because most interactions with government are not things that are a matter of individual right outside the rights to not being singled out on an impermissible basis, so if you erase that last bit you enable widespread arbitrary government discrimination. > I get why people are up in arms about it (the education bill), but it's really bizarre to see people defend special privileges afforded to a corporate giant Basically no one is defending that, they are defending substantive due process rights, which are what prevent government from making all other rights moot by how they allocate costs and benefits that are not themselves otherwise matters of Constitutional right.
  - daenz 5y ago
    I make this point more thoroughly in another comment, but I don't view it as retaliation, and I think only the people who are fixated on the political motivations view it as retaliation. Retaliation implies harm, and I am making the case that removing an unfair advantage, that shouldn't have ever existed in the first place, is not harm. If it's a neutral action (or neutral-positive), then it's not retaliation.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > I don't view it as retaliation, and I think only the people who are fixated on the political motivations view it as retaliation. Well, yes, nothing looks like retaliation when you ignore motivations. Motivations define retaliation. Starting out with selectively ignoring the facts most relevant for assessing whether a thing fits into a particular category is a singularly bad way of assessing whether that is the case.
      - daenz 5y ago
        >Motivations define retaliation. Disagree. Motivation plays a part, but it is ultimately the action that defines if it was retaliation. The action has to be harmful.
- _moof 4y ago
  There are over 1,800 special districts in Florida. Politicians have explicitly stated that they are punishing Disney for criticizing a law. There is no gray area here.
- colburnmh 4y ago
  > From my perspective, Disney should not have had special corporate privileges in the first place, so it's fair game that those special privileges are targeted for any reason since they are not rights... Disney's "special rights" are not all that special or uncommon in Florida. There are 1844 active special districts in Florida, 76 of which have ad valorem taxation rights. Other theme parks in Florida, such as Sea World and Universal, also have special districts to manage their properties. The definition of a special district enshrines into law specific rights for the owner(s) of the special district, meaning that those are, in fact, rights, not just privileges to be withdrawn at a whim. And Florida specifically pledged to honor those rights both by writing the law that established the RCID, and further committing to not dissolve the district unless all bond debts were paid--the separate law that is referenced in the original article. I would encourage you to read through the Florida Special District web page: https://floridajobs.org/community-planning-and-development/special-districts/special-district-accountability-program/florida-special-district-handbook-online/introduction-to-special-districts https://floridajobs.org/community-planning-and-development/s... If you want to argue against special districts existing at all, that's fair. But to argue that Disney shouldn't have one, but the rest of the special districts, including those of Disney's competitors, are acceptable is not a good-faith argument.
codeguro 5y ago
The idea that a corporate entity gets to have a say, politically speaking, when they don't even pay taxes is abhorrent. Equality looks like oppression to those who are privileged. And make no mistake, Disney is privileged; they don't pay state taxes. What's authoritarian is influencing Florida's policies while not being subject to Florida's policies. "Rules for thee, but not for me." Equalizing the field is fair game. If they want their free speech, they need to pay for it like the rest of us.
- leereeves 5y ago
  Yeah, the left is making a big mistake here, defending a company town in the 21st century. This special district should never have existed in the first place.
  - somebehemoth 5y ago
    Regardless of whether Disney should have ever gotten this deal, the taking away of the deal is unconstitutional because it is punishing free speech. That's it. This is not a "left" thing. It is a Constitution thing. I can both dislike Disney and believe this move was unconstitutional at the same time.
    - leereeves 5y ago
      It's so strange to see the left concerned about free speech. Is that concern really about the principle, or is it purely partisan?
      - jtgeibel 5y ago
        It's almost as if the constitution binds the Florida government while not binding businesses like Twitter. It isn't strange at all when you don't conflate two different concepts. It is strange that the entirely of "the left" takes the blame for private actions taken by business, which is then used as some strange "well they started it" reaction by Republican lawmakers to do a much more egregious version of exactly what they repeatedly claim they are against.

digsy 4y ago

There are 1800+ special districts in Florida. Special priviledges are hardly limited to Disney.

colburnmh 4y ago

> how is reversing special privileges for a corporate titan (Disney), that give it abilities that nobody else is allowed to have, authoritarianism? Because 1844 other special districts exist in Florida, including Sea World, Universal, and other theme parks, HOAs, fire districts, water districts, law libraries, development holdings, etc. So Disney does not have rights that nobody else has, and those rights exist to allow those entities to have control over their property to avoid unnecessary, costly, and unproductive conflicts with county rules.