4 ms·
I mean, doesn't the concept of a free society apply to private corporations as well? The government is not restricting you; the private company is exercising it
by WiSaGaN 4y ago
I mean, doesn't the concept of a free society apply to private corporations as well? The government is not restricting you; the private company is exercising its right to run its business according to its own free will. The principle of a free society suggests that "if you don't like the company's policy, find another one or create your own." Is that wrong?
- pengstrom 4y agoOr course, and their decisions are free to be scrutinized.
- WiSaGaN 4y agoScrutiny is justified. However, it should be within the scope of whether the product fulfills the need and should have nothing to do with "sovereignty" or "free speech rights," don't you think?
- hyperpape 4y agoCan't believe how often I see this sentiment, and how nonsensical it is. We're private citizens, nothing prevents us from criticizing them for a wide variety of reasons. If you want to restrict yourself and ignore everything except the literal function of the product, you're free to do that, but you can't argue everyone else has to do the same. Or is your argument that we have some kind of social responsibility to judge products based on exclusively on what the product does, but the product has no social responsibility whatsoever? That's a double standard that can't have any justification.
- WiSaGaN 4y agoNo one is preventing you from criticizing them. I am just saying that criticism from the standpoint of free speech or sovereignty is inconsistent with the idea that you can satirize whatever or whoever you want.
- krisoft 4y ago> I am just saying that criticism from the standpoint of free speech or sovereignty is inconsistent with the idea that you can satirize whatever or whoever you want. I don't understand what you are saying. Criticising a company on free speech grounds who prevent you from satirising someone is absolutely consistent. What inconsistency are you seeing?
- Teever 4y ago> the private company is exercising its right to run its business according to its own free will. Let's run with that. Should a company be allowed to own slaves? Should a company be allowed to do business with a company that owns slaves?
- WiSaGaN 4y agoI think generally owning slaves goes against the idea of freedom (let's discard the concept one has the freedom to sell themselves for once). Thus company does not have the right to own slaves.
- 411111111111111 4y agoFor the record: pretty much all clothing is still created with effectively slave labour. Either in the harvesting of the cotton, refinement to cloth, sewing to clothing or finally when dyeing. And the second example: apple still has an assembly manned by Uruguay internment slaves and pretty much everyone here fawns over it every chance they get. So from the perspective of HN both of these are seemingly acceptable
- iamerroragent 4y agoAdditionally there is prison labor which is legal in the U.S. to force someone to do. Prison labor allows companies to purchase labor at a rate the non-incarcerated worker can't afford to sell their labor at.
- krapp 4y ago>Should a company be allowed to own slaves? No, because slavery is illegal. >Should a company be allowed to do business with a company that owns slaves? They do, all the time. Manufacturing, mining (particularly of the rare earth metals that go into electronics) and agriculture all depend on slave labor.
- Teever 4y agoShould the second one be illegal as well? What is the functional difference between the two besides more paperwork and another middle man taking a cut?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- madeofpalk 4y agoNo, that is not wrong. Nor is it wrong to dislike what a company does and try to get them to change.