6 ms·

> trespass and private property are not a thing So do you admit that if a private company forces you to have troops in your house, without your permission, thi

by stale2002 4y ago

> trespass and private property are not a thing So do you admit that if a private company forces you to have troops in your house, without your permission, this is still bad even though it is not literally the government doing it? If you answer "yes, this is still bad, even though it's not the government" then congratulations you now understand the argument! The argument is that people saying "well, it's OK because it's not the government doing it, it's a private corporation" are stupid. Now, question for you. Did you read the original comment and really not come to this obvious conclusion/explanation of the argument? It's seems like super obvious that the person was making fun of people who claim that something is OK because a private corporation is doing it. And they are using a funny example of "well what if a corporation forced you to have soldiers in your house". That funny example, makes the point pretty easy to understand.

chowchowchow 4y ago
You have no interest it seems in considering it, but your analogy is flawed. The only institution which _could_ conceivably quarter its soldiers in your house under the law is the US government, as it would be illegal for McDonalds to send its soldiers into your or my house even if there were no 3rd amendment. Hence, the 3rd amendment restricting the government's right to quarter soldiers and not mentioning any other institutions. This applies to due process as well, as the only organization or institution capable of levying criminal punishment is the US government, and thus, the only relevant subject of the limitations outlined in those amendments is also the US government.
- stale2002 4y ago
  > The only institution which _could_ conceivably quarter its soldiers You have misunderstood my post. I said this: "this is still bad even though it is not literally the government doing it" This is not contradicted by you saying that it is illegal for corporations to do it. Yes, it is illegal for a private company to do this. But my point is that "Its bad!". Which has nothing to do with if it is illegal or not. > even if there were no 3rd amendment. But my point, is that regardless if the 3rd amendment exists, it is bad for either the government, or a private company to do this. > Hence, the 3rd amendment restricting the government's right to quarter soldiers and not mentioning any other institutions. I didn't say that the 3rd amendment has to mention other organizations. Instead, I am saying that no matter what the 3rd amendment applies to, or does not apply to, it is still bad if a private company, which is not the government, to put soldiers in your home, without your permission. Now, to get to the argument here, the reason why this is being pointed out, that it is bad if a private company does this, is that the same logic could be applied to other things in the constitution. That it is still bad if a private company does it, and also people saying "Well its OK because a private company is doing it" are making a dumb argument. > This applies to due process as well, as the only organization or institution capable of levying criminal punishment is the US government Wrong. Due process is still important, even for private companies. Because due process is a valuable principle that could apply to non criminal punishment. Yes, people care about non-criminal punishment being fair as well. Just like how private companies putting soldiers in your home, without your permission, would be bad, even if it were legal, and its not the government doing it.
  - chowchowchow 4y ago
    what does the 3rd amendment have to do with anything if we're just agreeing it's bad for private companies to do it? Like, the 3rd amendment specifically exists to specify it's _also_ "bad" (and illegal) for the government to do something you wouldn't let anyone else do.
  - chowchowchow 4y ago
    Due process is a valuable principle yes -- but it is a gap in your argument to say that since the constitution specifies citizens' rights to it under the most exigent circumstance, namely, when facing criminal penalty by the government, that it follows it needs to be applied and provided with the same universality and standards (beyond a reasonable doubt) in non-criminal contexts.
    - stale2002 4y ago
      > to say that since the constitution I am not saying that because it is in the constitution, it is valuable. Instead, I am saying that the principle is valuable, and that this is why we put it in the constitution. And that this idea of "don't put soldiers in my home without my permission", and "due process", and "free speech" are things that matter, regardless of the constitution. And that therefore, people saying "well, its a private company doing it, therefore its OK" are wrong. They are wrong, because these ideas "are things that matter, regardless of the constitution. " The causation is reversed. We put them in the constitution, because they matter. Therefore, because these things matter, they matter outside of just the government. > Due process is a valuable principle yes Ok, you agree with me completely then, got it. > what does the 3rd amendment have to do with anything Because it is an example of something that matters, that thing being "don't put soldiers in my home, without my permission" And this thing matters, both in the case of a private company, and the government doing it, even though the amendment only applies to the government. It shows an example of this reverse causation. Where yes, the amendment only applies to the government. But the underlying principle also matters. Therefore "Lol, its a private company" is a dumb argument.
      - 4y ago
- prepend 4y ago
  It’s illegal for Stanford to slander you by saying you are a Nazi for reading Mein Kampf due to anonymous accusations. Yet they do that. And it’s bad that Stanford does that, regardless of whether they are tried for slander. Similarly, it’s true that if McDonalds forced you to quarter their private security forces it would be tresspassing (at least). And it’s bad whether or not they are charged with trespassing.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    Yeah, we know those things are bad... that's why they are both illegal. Are you suggesting that before Stanford makes a statement, they have a trial? That seems a bit impractical, no? Like, you are just coming here assuming that slanderous situations are clear, but that's ex post facto logic.
freejazz 4y ago
>So do you admit that if a private company forces you to have troops in your house, without your permission, this is still bad even though it is not literally the government doing it? It's literally trespassing - there is a law against, it need not be a constitutional amendment. Your point actually runs completely against your argument. >Now, question for you. Did you read the original comment and really not come to this obvious conclusion/explanation of the argument? I'm going to be perfectly honest with you and tell you that you think you are discussing something that is interesting, but you aren't. You don't realize this because you are really confused. >It's seems like super obvious that the person was making fun of people who claim that something is OK because a private corporation is doing it. Yeah but they misunderstand what the constitution is and does. We have laws against all sorts of conduct and do not require constitutional amendments as exemplars of the laws- so what's the point? That private individuals should have trials over everything that can be in dispute? have you even thought that through at all? >That funny example, makes the point pretty easy to understand. No it doesn't, it only reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how US law works and what the constitution is and does. The constitution isn't a list of bad things, its a document that describes the gov't's powers and the limitations thereof. I think you are really confused. Trespass law has LONG preceded the constitution, so to whatever point you are making that "trespass is bad", that's like a pretty big NO DUH. The constitution doesn't take us any further in that understanding, I guess unless you are really and needed the third amendment as an example of a trespass? still really struggling to understand the fundamental brilliance of this argument...
- stale2002 4y ago
  > It's literally trespassing - there is a law against So then yes it is bad! Even though a private company is doing it, and it is not the government, it is bad! You agree with me! And therefore someone saying "well a private company is trespassing, and a private company is not the government" would be making a stupid argument. > so what's the point? The point is that the commonly brought up argument of "well it's a private company!" is dumb. > Trespass law has LONG preceded the constitution Indeed they have! And the reason is because there is an underlying principle of something that is bad, even if it isn't literally the government doing it. You agree with me. Therefore someone saying "it's a private company" is making a bad argument. > that's like a pretty big NO DUH Oh it is extremely obvious that just because a private company is doing something, that something can still be bad, due to an underlying principle. You agree with me here as well. And yet despite how extremely obvious this is, people still make this "well it's a private company!" Argument over and over again. I am glad you agree completely with me, and not only that you think my point is obviously true. > still really struggling to understand the fundamental brilliance of this argument... The reason why it is funny is because people legitimately make this "it's a private company!" argument over and over again, which is a really dumb argument. Have you truly never in your life heard someone making this "it's a private company!" argument? That could be the confusion here.

chowchowchow 4y ago

You have no interest it seems in considering it, but your analogy is flawed. The only institution which _could_ conceivably quarter its soldiers in your house under the law is the US government, as it would be illegal for McDonalds to send its soldiers into your or my house even if there were no 3rd amendment. Hence, the 3rd amendment restricting the government's right to quarter soldiers and not mentioning any other institutions. This applies to due process as well, as the only organization or institution capable of levying criminal punishment is the US government, and thus, the only relevant subject of the limitations outlined in those amendments is also the US government.

stale2002 4y ago
> The only institution which _could_ conceivably quarter its soldiers You have misunderstood my post. I said this: "this is still bad even though it is not literally the government doing it" This is not contradicted by you saying that it is illegal for corporations to do it. Yes, it is illegal for a private company to do this. But my point is that "Its bad!". Which has nothing to do with if it is illegal or not. > even if there were no 3rd amendment. But my point, is that regardless if the 3rd amendment exists, it is bad for either the government, or a private company to do this. > Hence, the 3rd amendment restricting the government's right to quarter soldiers and not mentioning any other institutions. I didn't say that the 3rd amendment has to mention other organizations. Instead, I am saying that no matter what the 3rd amendment applies to, or does not apply to, it is still bad if a private company, which is not the government, to put soldiers in your home, without your permission. Now, to get to the argument here, the reason why this is being pointed out, that it is bad if a private company does this, is that the same logic could be applied to other things in the constitution. That it is still bad if a private company does it, and also people saying "Well its OK because a private company is doing it" are making a dumb argument. > This applies to due process as well, as the only organization or institution capable of levying criminal punishment is the US government Wrong. Due process is still important, even for private companies. Because due process is a valuable principle that could apply to non criminal punishment. Yes, people care about non-criminal punishment being fair as well. Just like how private companies putting soldiers in your home, without your permission, would be bad, even if it were legal, and its not the government doing it.
- chowchowchow 4y ago
  what does the 3rd amendment have to do with anything if we're just agreeing it's bad for private companies to do it? Like, the 3rd amendment specifically exists to specify it's _also_ "bad" (and illegal) for the government to do something you wouldn't let anyone else do.
- chowchowchow 4y ago
  Due process is a valuable principle yes -- but it is a gap in your argument to say that since the constitution specifies citizens' rights to it under the most exigent circumstance, namely, when facing criminal penalty by the government, that it follows it needs to be applied and provided with the same universality and standards (beyond a reasonable doubt) in non-criminal contexts.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    > to say that since the constitution I am not saying that because it is in the constitution, it is valuable. Instead, I am saying that the principle is valuable, and that this is why we put it in the constitution. And that this idea of "don't put soldiers in my home without my permission", and "due process", and "free speech" are things that matter, regardless of the constitution. And that therefore, people saying "well, its a private company doing it, therefore its OK" are wrong. They are wrong, because these ideas "are things that matter, regardless of the constitution. " The causation is reversed. We put them in the constitution, because they matter. Therefore, because these things matter, they matter outside of just the government. > Due process is a valuable principle yes Ok, you agree with me completely then, got it. > what does the 3rd amendment have to do with anything Because it is an example of something that matters, that thing being "don't put soldiers in my home, without my permission" And this thing matters, both in the case of a private company, and the government doing it, even though the amendment only applies to the government. It shows an example of this reverse causation. Where yes, the amendment only applies to the government. But the underlying principle also matters. Therefore "Lol, its a private company" is a dumb argument.
    - 4y ago
prepend 4y ago
It’s illegal for Stanford to slander you by saying you are a Nazi for reading Mein Kampf due to anonymous accusations. Yet they do that. And it’s bad that Stanford does that, regardless of whether they are tried for slander. Similarly, it’s true that if McDonalds forced you to quarter their private security forces it would be tresspassing (at least). And it’s bad whether or not they are charged with trespassing.
- freejazz 4y ago
  Yeah, we know those things are bad... that's why they are both illegal. Are you suggesting that before Stanford makes a statement, they have a trial? That seems a bit impractical, no? Like, you are just coming here assuming that slanderous situations are clear, but that's ex post facto logic.

freejazz 4y ago

>So do you admit that if a private company forces you to have troops in your house, without your permission, this is still bad even though it is not literally the government doing it? It's literally trespassing - there is a law against, it need not be a constitutional amendment. Your point actually runs completely against your argument. >Now, question for you. Did you read the original comment and really not come to this obvious conclusion/explanation of the argument? I'm going to be perfectly honest with you and tell you that you think you are discussing something that is interesting, but you aren't. You don't realize this because you are really confused. >It's seems like super obvious that the person was making fun of people who claim that something is OK because a private corporation is doing it. Yeah but they misunderstand what the constitution is and does. We have laws against all sorts of conduct and do not require constitutional amendments as exemplars of the laws- so what's the point? That private individuals should have trials over everything that can be in dispute? have you even thought that through at all? >That funny example, makes the point pretty easy to understand. No it doesn't, it only reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how US law works and what the constitution is and does. The constitution isn't a list of bad things, its a document that describes the gov't's powers and the limitations thereof. I think you are really confused. Trespass law has LONG preceded the constitution, so to whatever point you are making that "trespass is bad", that's like a pretty big NO DUH. The constitution doesn't take us any further in that understanding, I guess unless you are really and needed the third amendment as an example of a trespass? still really struggling to understand the fundamental brilliance of this argument...

stale2002 4y ago
> It's literally trespassing - there is a law against So then yes it is bad! Even though a private company is doing it, and it is not the government, it is bad! You agree with me! And therefore someone saying "well a private company is trespassing, and a private company is not the government" would be making a stupid argument. > so what's the point? The point is that the commonly brought up argument of "well it's a private company!" is dumb. > Trespass law has LONG preceded the constitution Indeed they have! And the reason is because there is an underlying principle of something that is bad, even if it isn't literally the government doing it. You agree with me. Therefore someone saying "it's a private company" is making a bad argument. > that's like a pretty big NO DUH Oh it is extremely obvious that just because a private company is doing something, that something can still be bad, due to an underlying principle. You agree with me here as well. And yet despite how extremely obvious this is, people still make this "well it's a private company!" Argument over and over again. I am glad you agree completely with me, and not only that you think my point is obviously true. > still really struggling to understand the fundamental brilliance of this argument... The reason why it is funny is because people legitimately make this "it's a private company!" argument over and over again, which is a really dumb argument. Have you truly never in your life heard someone making this "it's a private company!" argument? That could be the confusion here.