4 ms·

Companies try not to break laws in general. If they think doing business with you will create a liability for them, they have a freedom of association right to

Companies try not to break laws in general. If they think doing business with you will create a liability for them, they have a freedom of association right to deny you service.

mananaysiempre 4y ago
Giving a legal answer to a moral question is backwards, I think. I understand the mechanics of how it works, but I’m asking how it should, not whether it does. (Franklin’s opinions on how trials ought to go are also hardly representative of the legal practices of the late 18th century.) It is not at all a universal opinion that non-natural persons should have freedom of association at all or in this manner. I’m not trying to directly argue that they shouldn’t, though (as long as we allow that there is no moral principle that a non-natural person’s rights follow a natural one’s). I’m saying that it’s generally accepted to be a good thing that a (branch of) government can’t directly take away your livelihood without a good reason, and if you think the reason was not good there are reasonably unbiased ways to have your disagreement considered. For the most part, this applies to a government doing it by prohibiting a private party to deal with you. On the other hand, if the same state of affairs is reached by that government merely making it potentially very expensive for a private party to deal with you, somehow none of these standards apply anymore (or maybe they nominally do but nobody’s ever succeeded at enforcing them, which amounts to the same thing). That is what gives me the chills here.
- WoahNoun 4y ago
  >government can’t directly take away your livelihood without a good reason, and if you think the reason was not good there are reasonably unbiased ways to have your disagreement considered OFAC sanctions can be appealed.

4 ms·

Companies try not to break laws in general. If they think doing business with you will create a liability for them, they have a freedom of association right to

by WoahNoun 4y ago

Companies try not to break laws in general. If they think doing business with you will create a liability for them, they have a freedom of association right to deny you service.

mananaysiempre 4y ago
Giving a legal answer to a moral question is backwards, I think. I understand the mechanics of how it works, but I’m asking how it should, not whether it does. (Franklin’s opinions on how trials ought to go are also hardly representative of the legal practices of the late 18th century.) It is not at all a universal opinion that non-natural persons should have freedom of association at all or in this manner. I’m not trying to directly argue that they shouldn’t, though (as long as we allow that there is no moral principle that a non-natural person’s rights follow a natural one’s). I’m saying that it’s generally accepted to be a good thing that a (branch of) government can’t directly take away your livelihood without a good reason, and if you think the reason was not good there are reasonably unbiased ways to have your disagreement considered. For the most part, this applies to a government doing it by prohibiting a private party to deal with you. On the other hand, if the same state of affairs is reached by that government merely making it potentially very expensive for a private party to deal with you, somehow none of these standards apply anymore (or maybe they nominally do but nobody’s ever succeeded at enforcing them, which amounts to the same thing). That is what gives me the chills here.
- WoahNoun 4y ago
  >government can’t directly take away your livelihood without a good reason, and if you think the reason was not good there are reasonably unbiased ways to have your disagreement considered OFAC sanctions can be appealed.