4 ms·
> 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 l
by 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 agowhat 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 agoDue 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.
- chowchowchow 4y agoYour argument demonstrates absolutely no awareness of context and how a principle can be more important, or one might even say urgent to the point of needing to be spelled out in the constitution, in some contexts than others.
- stale2002 4y agoEdit: :( Bad faith arguments make me sad
- chowchowchow 4y agoSo it is a gap in your argument as stated then. Like, you need to do some work to explain why principles which are important in extreme circumstances, dealing with the use of force by and punishment power of the government, apply in less extreme ones like workplace disputes. You don't get to just point at the constitution and go "a ha!" and have everyone applaud your brilliant argumentation.