I think so and it’s what I’ve been trying to get at. However, Aristo makes no distinction and this leads to the implications such as the one in which us taxpayers are murderers of children in Afghanistan.
Yes, inadvertnetly, indirectly, etc.
Wait, what’s wrong with drug trafficking?
oh my god. didn’t I already mention the violence that it causes?
And I specified in an earlier post that Chiquita knew knew knew knew
knew
knewknewknew**knew
knewknewknewknewknew
that they were giving money to a violent drug cartel when they hired their guns.
So, it was inadvertent., but not unintentional.
I ma not making “no distinction,” my distinction is on intentions. As I mentioned earlier…
Woah woah woah, who’s to blame for that? Chiquita buying protection services or the government that outlaw illicit drugs?
It doesn’t matter for this line of inquiry.
Maybe I should have said: ‘the violence that it is inherent in illegal market operations’. Besides, Chiquita is only one example (drugs). Think of Dyncorp helping mafias sell women in Kosovo or Afghanistan (or is the government to blame for outlawing slavery?).
Is the government to blame for outlawing rape? rolls eyes
Yeah, because you realize that your trying to change the subject backfired.
EDIT: Is it okay for Dyncorp to contract mafias in Afghanistan for security purposes if they know the mafias are also selling women and children? Or is the motivation for violence in those markets (slavery and forced child labor) due to the government outlawing those practices?
I’m replying to stuff that you wrote.
Are you asking me to answer from an ancap POV or a from POV based on my personal values?
Slavery, forced child labor, and rape violate other peoples rights per se. Making, distributing, and selling drugs do not. However, if the making, distribution, and selling of drugs occured on someone’s property and on which those actions were not allowed, then, those would not be ok from neither an ancap POV nor a from POV based on my personal values.
I don’t necessarily care what perspectives they come from. I was just wondering if people care that seemingly innocuous MNCs knowingly participate in things like that.
Dyncorp, Bechtel, halliburton, JP Morgan, or Chiquita…is it okay for them to transact with illigitimate enterprises for legitimate purposes?
Also, getting people addicted to drugs (by giving it to them for free initially for instance) is a form of corecion. This is why my focus was meant to be on intentions. If people interact with terror groups (secessionists; IRA), mafias (in Eastern Europe), or drug cartels (Chiquita) and know that they participate in illegal things on top of their legal doings, is it wrong?
Would it be wrong, for instance, if the Los Zetas started a shipping or construction company to contract with them even though they use the legitimate business as a front for their money laundering or drug smuggling and the contractor knows it?
Further, is it wrong for the M-N-Banks to accept large cash deposits of money that was made from forced labor or drug smuggling? Obviously, it is against the law, but … new thought … do libertarians care? it seems to me that to say “yes, they can without violating any moral principles” would be to stand up for the MNCs that profit from these things (Wells Fargo comes to mind). to say “no, they cannot” is to side with the state.
I’m familiar with ancap principles (I started there five or six years ago; I’ve just grown up a little) so is the MNC in violation and consequently the state in the right? Are both wrong? Are both right (somehow)?
Who can show damage as a result of the Chiquita corp. hiring guerillas for whatever service? And to whom would the grievance be made?
huh? anyone that the guerillas have wronged?
Hypotheticals aside, in this particular case, it looks like Chiquita did more than conduct business but provided weapons and munitions to a group, even after said group killed numerous of their employees.
As for the vague fairy tale of ‘they just hired them for security’ well, it at least appears that isn’t what happened. Especially if this is also true:
Or you can get into how asinine this collectivizing is. Someone paid these guys. Someone else pulled triggers. Someone else took the money. Someone else helped smuggle the drugs. No government is willing to go after them, so, they just start shotgunning the issue until it goes away. Throw blankets and see if you can’t trap something big enough to take the fall.
All of the killing and extortion that goes on to make it happen?
Why not just say that then?