3 ms·

To answer your question breaking laws designed to help people versus laws designed to persecute people are very different things. It’s all very well being in fa

by moomin 4y ago

To answer your question breaking laws designed to help people versus laws designed to persecute people are very different things. It’s all very well being in favour of the rule of law, but unjust laws are tyranny. When companies assist with tyranny, they can and should get bad press, whether that tyrrany happens in China, Russia or America. They choose where to trade, where to be registered and where to employ people.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nathanaldensr 4y ago
Many, many people do not agree with your insinuation that abortion laws are "tyrrany;" that's why laws are passed in states whose populations have determined to various degrees that abortion must not be allowed.
- vkou 4y ago
  Even in those states, abortion enjoys wide popular support (See: The Kansas referendum), it's just that they've been gerrymandered to the point that their governments are not remotely representative of the wishes of most of their constituents.
Dracophoenix 4y ago
Uber provides services at a lower cost to the consumer and lowered barriers of entry for millions of drivers compared to taxi companies entrenched by state monopolies. How is that not helping people? A paternalistic state is as much a tyranny as a persecutory one. The only only difference is in the overt methods. The motives and thinking behind the two are the same. If you're of the view that certain laws are inherently unjust, by whom or by what standards should that distinction be made? Who watches the watchers? Why would you think a country that dictates with whom or how one can form an economic contract would leave alone the right to bodily integrity? Individual human beings, whether representing companies or themselves, choose where to trade, register, and employ (or be employed by) people. Human beings are the ones decide to create companies, governments, and tyrannies. You give companies far too much agency when you want to pin them as enablers of tyranny but deny them any in their contributions to personal liberty, whether political or economic. You can't have it both ways.

by moomin 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

nathanaldensr 4y ago

Many, many people do not agree with your insinuation that abortion laws are "tyrrany;" that's why laws are passed in states whose populations have determined to various degrees that abortion must not be allowed.

vkou 4y ago
Even in those states, abortion enjoys wide popular support (See: The Kansas referendum), it's just that they've been gerrymandered to the point that their governments are not remotely representative of the wishes of most of their constituents.

Dracophoenix 4y ago

Uber provides services at a lower cost to the consumer and lowered barriers of entry for millions of drivers compared to taxi companies entrenched by state monopolies. How is that not helping people? A paternalistic state is as much a tyranny as a persecutory one. The only only difference is in the overt methods. The motives and thinking behind the two are the same. If you're of the view that certain laws are inherently unjust, by whom or by what standards should that distinction be made? Who watches the watchers? Why would you think a country that dictates with whom or how one can form an economic contract would leave alone the right to bodily integrity? Individual human beings, whether representing companies or themselves, choose where to trade, register, and employ (or be employed by) people. Human beings are the ones decide to create companies, governments, and tyrannies. You give companies far too much agency when you want to pin them as enablers of tyranny but deny them any in their contributions to personal liberty, whether political or economic. You can't have it both ways.