3 ms·

>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 t

>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.
- freejazz 4y ago
  No one ever debated with you whether or not trespassing was bad... so I don't get the big stink you are making here about us agreeing. >The point is that the commonly brought up argument of "well it's a private company!" is dumb. It's not. You misunderstand the argument. That argument applies to the constitution. Not to things that are also paralleled in statute or the common law. That's the difference between the two. You don't call the police and say "someone is violating the third amendment" you call the police and say "someone is trespassing on my property!" they are similar in a vague principal, but not identical at all. The difference, I thought, was pretty obvious, but if you have questions, I'm happy to get into it. >Therefore someone saying "it's a private company" is making a bad argument. It's not, because there are differences between private actors and the gov't. The gov't, for example, is incredibly limited with regards to speech. Private actors aren't. You can't make me say anything. That's a good thing - do you understand that? The difference is, that the gov't is empowered to threaten you with your life and liberty in order to compel speech- except for the constitution. This has nothing to do with private actors. There is no principal that private actors can compel or restrict speech, because we are all free individuals that can choose to partake or not - that isn't the case when the gov't is involved. I'm surprised you don't seem to grasp this basic concept of civics. >And yet despite how extremely obvious this is, people still make this "well it's a private company!" Argument over and over again. Because they are referring to a limit placed upon the federal gov't by the constitution. >I am glad you agree completely with me, and not only that you think my point is obviously true. I don't agree with you completely. This is a bizarre way to conduct yourself. >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. Because those are contexts where the constitution doesn't apply. For example, there is an amendment that gives women the right to vote... what does that have to do with private actors? Nothing. Your argument that the constitution <-therefore-> anything else... is confused at best.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    > It's not, because there are differences between private actors and the gov't I am going to keep my response short to ensure that you cannot possibly misunderstand it. Point 1. There are principles that matter, even if it a private company doing the bad thing. Agree or disagree with this directly. Point 2. Yes, if the government does bad thing X, it could be worse than if a private company does it, but it is still bad if a private company does it. Agree or disagree with this 2nd point, directly. Edit: And point 3. Some of those principles that are mentioned in the previous 2 points are in the constitution. As in people care about things and principles and motivations, of the things in the constitution, even if it isnt literally the government doing the bad thing. (Such as, for example, a private company putting soldiers in your house, without your permission)

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.

freejazz 4y ago
No one ever debated with you whether or not trespassing was bad... so I don't get the big stink you are making here about us agreeing. >The point is that the commonly brought up argument of "well it's a private company!" is dumb. It's not. You misunderstand the argument. That argument applies to the constitution. Not to things that are also paralleled in statute or the common law. That's the difference between the two. You don't call the police and say "someone is violating the third amendment" you call the police and say "someone is trespassing on my property!" they are similar in a vague principal, but not identical at all. The difference, I thought, was pretty obvious, but if you have questions, I'm happy to get into it. >Therefore someone saying "it's a private company" is making a bad argument. It's not, because there are differences between private actors and the gov't. The gov't, for example, is incredibly limited with regards to speech. Private actors aren't. You can't make me say anything. That's a good thing - do you understand that? The difference is, that the gov't is empowered to threaten you with your life and liberty in order to compel speech- except for the constitution. This has nothing to do with private actors. There is no principal that private actors can compel or restrict speech, because we are all free individuals that can choose to partake or not - that isn't the case when the gov't is involved. I'm surprised you don't seem to grasp this basic concept of civics. >And yet despite how extremely obvious this is, people still make this "well it's a private company!" Argument over and over again. Because they are referring to a limit placed upon the federal gov't by the constitution. >I am glad you agree completely with me, and not only that you think my point is obviously true. I don't agree with you completely. This is a bizarre way to conduct yourself. >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. Because those are contexts where the constitution doesn't apply. For example, there is an amendment that gives women the right to vote... what does that have to do with private actors? Nothing. Your argument that the constitution <-therefore-> anything else... is confused at best.
- stale2002 4y ago
  > It's not, because there are differences between private actors and the gov't I am going to keep my response short to ensure that you cannot possibly misunderstand it. Point 1. There are principles that matter, even if it a private company doing the bad thing. Agree or disagree with this directly. Point 2. Yes, if the government does bad thing X, it could be worse than if a private company does it, but it is still bad if a private company does it. Agree or disagree with this 2nd point, directly. Edit: And point 3. Some of those principles that are mentioned in the previous 2 points are in the constitution. As in people care about things and principles and motivations, of the things in the constitution, even if it isnt literally the government doing the bad thing. (Such as, for example, a private company putting soldiers in your house, without your permission)