They are being accused of paying terrorists for farm security in Colombia although there is some confusion (on my part or theirs; i can’t tell) as to whether they were being extorted. Both the US and Colombian governments appear to be trying to prosecute them (The US gave up already).
is it okay for a private corporation to pay guerillas, who may also be drug smugglers, for security if the government says that they are terrorists? Seems to me that if the guerillas were protecting the farms from bandits that it should be okay, but it does mean that they were funding drug traffickers.
If I pay the neighbor to paint my house and then the neighbor uses the money that I paid him to go buy a gun which he then uses to murder someone, am I funding a murderer?
Yes, but I think the more important matter is what people should do about you. The standard libertarian response would be that you are not legally culpable for your neighbor’s actions, though depending on the circumstances, there could be a case against you as an accomplice.
But they’re not giving the money to the guerillas for the purpose of terrorism. They’re giving it to them in exchange for the proctection. So, it’s incorrect or, at least, misleading to say that they are funding terrorism.
No, it isn’t. That is like saying, “when you buy things at Best buy you are giving them money for a CD not to pay their electric bills…”
Why do libertarians throw themselves at the feet of MNCs? I’m just wonering, as per the OP, if a state-dissenting paramilitary or PMC can function as a security service. It would be like GE paying the KKK for security. And, in another scenario, if a MNC can deal with groups that state’s deem to be terrorists, legally?
Does Chiquita use the money from the sale of the banana to pay off guerilla drug cartel members?
This is why it is crucial that people know what MNCs and governments are up to. Do people fund wars when they pay their taxes? Of course. It is not really different from the US government funding drug cartels inadvertently during Iran Contra (or in the 50s,60s, and 70s).
Also, this is where “intentions” come into play. the buyer of the banana might not know or intend to fund terrorists, but they, in fact, are. Chiquita is intentionally spending money on it, on the other hand.
Do the guerillas use the money that it receives from Chiquita to pay for drug cartel operations?
Then all taxpayers are guilty of murdering children Afghanistan. Likewise, when person gives up his wallet so to not be killed by a thief is funding the theif’s future robberies. Now what?
The assumption in my question was that they did know.
Ok, so does your argument to everyone or only MNCs and governments?
I thought my original question was more nuanced than this.
May private industry transact with known terrorist groups or unrecognized paramilitary forces for legitimate purposes?
Taxes aren’t duress. That is why they are called “taxes” and not “theft.” (we need not discuss this here; most of us are familiar with that principle from Rothbard et al)
Huh? Anyway, I’m simply looking at the implications of your argument.
It’s not; it’s unclear. That’s why I said, “But they’re not giving the money to the guerillas for the purpose of terrorism. They’re giving it to them in exchange for the proctection. So, it’s incorrect or, at least, misleading to say that they are funding terrorism.”
Not according to the law.
You can call anything by any name, but won’t doesn’t change its nature.
It is not misleading. I’m trying to find the fold. If a MNC pays a guerilla network for protection and the guerillas use the money to traffick drugs, then the corporation is funding drugs, inadvertently. but, is this wrong? is this something that can be washed away as “an accident?”; especially if the MNC knows what the guerillas do with the money.
