4 ms·

> 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

• 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)
    • freejazz 4y ago
      1. too vague for me to agree - what principles? whose principles? even then, I'm not sure that all principles that apply to gov't, apply to private actors. for ex. some might say it's a good principle to be religious, but we don't think that is true for gov't (so we restrict the gov't via the constitution), or the corollary, that it's good for the gov't to not be religious, but not necc. true for the individual. 2. too vague, for me to agree, again. there things the gov't can do that private companies can't. the gov't can, within the confines of the law, put you in jail, private companies cannot, so I don't think your point here makes any sense. sure, there are obviously some circumstances where that is true, just like in example 1, but you aren't offering it in that fashion. 3. you didn't mention any particular principals in the previous 2 points. The constitution isn't a list of principals. It's a list of restrictions on gov't conduct. Full stop. Like anything else in the world made by people, it reflects their principals to one extent or another (like this post, or website, or desk I'm typing on). >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. Okay? That has nothing to do with what people are telling you when they say "it's a private company". They are saying, you can't rely upon the principle of the constitution alone, because the constitution isn't a list of principles (it's not the bible) its literally just a document that describes how the gov't works. >(Such as, for example, a private company putting soldiers in your house, without your permission) But this isn't a principle of society. Society has the principle that people are entitled to control the space they have the rights to, and that's reflected in numerous laws. What you cite isn't a principle, it's just a limitation of what the gov't can do. You are backwards rationalizing the constitution into whatever principal you want to argue for. That's just not a good argument because the constitution doesn't list or even describe principles. The writers of the constitution wrote a lot about principles, and that's reflected in the specific limitations they placed on the gov't. But those authors would never say that the constitution is the basis of those principles, because it isn't. They would point to other writers, or documents, such as the bible, or the declaration of independence (which unlike the constitution, did declare a number of principles to be self evident, you might recall). For example, if you wanted to say that private actors (companies) should not be able to restrict what their customers say because of the principle in the constitution, it's not a good argument. That is because a) the principle reflected in the is specific to gov't, b) because the constitution only addresses what the gov't should do, not what people should do. The constitution doesn't tell us how to behave, it tells the gov't how it cannot behave. So if you want to make an argument about what people should do or not do, there are probably some overlapping inspirational sources that underly the constitution, but the constitution ain't it. So, once again, you are getting it quite backwards! I appreciate you pushing me to really make this clear on your terms, and not just be rude. But it'd be nice if you actually bothered to engage with what I'm saying in my response, which I see you haven't done with the others posters in this thread.