38 ms·

"And that is what is wrong here. Even the smallest nation should be far more powerful than the largest corporation" Since nations can be really small, I don't

by lukan 1y ago

"And that is what is wrong here. Even the smallest nation should be far more powerful than the largest corporation" Since nations can be really small, I don't agree.

pharrington 1y ago
This was my first thought too, but the largest corporations are way too large any healthy society.
cyphar 1y ago
Even the smallest nations have the legal right to permanently incarcerate, strip you of your assets or even murder you if you are in their sphere of influence. I would hope you'd agree those are not powers that we should grant to large corporations... I think it's shocking how many people Google can affect through its search algorithms (more than any nation on Earth) and yet there is no democratic system to hold them accountable.
- yardstick 1y ago
  Kill, not murder. If the country ends your life they are doing it under their authority, not outside their authority.
  - lukan 1y ago
    So for example the Nazis did not murder people? It was under their authority after all ... Point being, also states can do murder.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    Context is everything. There are plenty of instances of countries murdering people. Authority does not define murder, ethics does.
- fluoridation 1y ago
  >Even the smallest nations have the legal right to permanently incarcerate, strip you of your assets or even murder you if you are in their sphere of influence. A nation that did that would be able to do that exactly once before everyone decides to never do business with it ever again, which they can afford to do because it's such a small market. Exercising arbitrary power is not the trump card you think it is. Hell, even a tiny nation with reasonable but annoying (from the point of view of a corporation) laws may not be worth it to deal with.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    Singapore.
  - lukan 1y ago
    Or more. If some small state decides to officially murder a US tourist while he never broke a local law, I do believe the public outcry would make the US government do more than just stop doing buisness.
    - tremon 1y ago
      Are you sure? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashog... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Omar_Assad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Omar_Assad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Sayfollah_Musallet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Sayfollah_Musallet
      - lukan 1y ago
        Well, Saudi Arabia and Israel are not "some small state".
        jacquesm 1y ago
        Ah, the well known true small state fallacy. Should have seen that one coming I guess.

by lukan 1y ago

"And that is what is wrong here. Even the smallest nation should be far more powerful than the largest corporation" Since nations can be really small, I don't agree.

pharrington 1y ago

This was my first thought too, but the largest corporations are way too large any healthy society.

cyphar 1y ago

Even the smallest nations have the legal right to permanently incarcerate, strip you of your assets or even murder you if you are in their sphere of influence. I would hope you'd agree those are not powers that we should grant to large corporations... I think it's shocking how many people Google can affect through its search algorithms (more than any nation on Earth) and yet there is no democratic system to hold them accountable.

yardstick 1y ago
Kill, not murder. If the country ends your life they are doing it under their authority, not outside their authority.
- lukan 1y ago
  So for example the Nazis did not murder people? It was under their authority after all ... Point being, also states can do murder.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  Context is everything. There are plenty of instances of countries murdering people. Authority does not define murder, ethics does.
fluoridation 1y ago
>Even the smallest nations have the legal right to permanently incarcerate, strip you of your assets or even murder you if you are in their sphere of influence. A nation that did that would be able to do that exactly once before everyone decides to never do business with it ever again, which they can afford to do because it's such a small market. Exercising arbitrary power is not the trump card you think it is. Hell, even a tiny nation with reasonable but annoying (from the point of view of a corporation) laws may not be worth it to deal with.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  Singapore.
- lukan 1y ago
  Or more. If some small state decides to officially murder a US tourist while he never broke a local law, I do believe the public outcry would make the US government do more than just stop doing buisness.
  - tremon 1y ago
    Are you sure? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashog... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Omar_Assad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Omar_Assad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Sayfollah_Musallet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Sayfollah_Musallet
    - lukan 1y ago
      Well, Saudi Arabia and Israel are not "some small state".
      - jacquesm 1y ago
        Ah, the well known true small state fallacy. Should have seen that one coming I guess.