Taking On The Mouse
-
wrote on 25 Apr 2022, 09:56 last edited by jon-nyc
Driving on public roads is a privilege. Maybe they can take licenses away from every Disney employee who publicly opposed the bill.
-
wrote on 25 Apr 2022, 11:52 last edited by
At least if Disney fights the tax issue, it will actually be within their task and purpose as a corporation.
-
wrote on 25 Apr 2022, 11:58 last edited by jon-nyc
I’m curious what’s the broader principle for you.
Is punishing private entities who opposed a bill favored by the party in power a valid act of government in your mind? So, for example, if it were Elizabeth Warren or Gavin Newsome doing it, you might grumble about the particulars but would at least recognize them as exercising a legitimate prerogative of power?
Or is this simply something you think is ok if your side does it but would be government overreach if the other side does it?
-
I’m curious what’s the broader principle for you.
Is punishing private entities who opposed a bill favored by the party in power a valid act of government in your mind? So, for example, if it were Elizabeth Warren or Gavin Newsome doing it, you might grumble about the particulars but would at least recognize them as exercising a legitimate prerogative of power?
Or is this simply something you think is ok if your side does it but would be government overreach if the other side does it?
wrote on 25 Apr 2022, 12:06 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
I’m curious what’s the broader principle for you.
Is punishing private entities who opposed a bill favored by the party in power a valid act of government in your mind? So, for example, if it were Elizabeth Warren or Gavin Newsome doing it, you might grumble about the particulars but would at least recognize them as exercising a legitimate prerogative of power?
Or is this simply something you think is ok if your side does it and government overreach if the other side does it?
If Warren opposed it, it's just another day in politics. If a Disney employee opposed it, without being an official spokesman for the company, it's just another day in politics. If the CEO of Disney personally opposed it, it's just another day in politics.
I think it a very slippery slope that should be avoided, when public companies wade into the lawmaking of social issues.
-
wrote on 25 Apr 2022, 12:31 last edited by
Mask mandates are a social issue.
If the Biden administration punished companies for taking a vocal stance against them that would be legitimate in your mind?
-
Mask mandates are a social issue.
If the Biden administration punished companies for taking a vocal stance against them that would be legitimate in your mind?
wrote on 25 Apr 2022, 14:42 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
Mask mandates are a social issue.
If the Biden administration punished companies for taking a vocal stance against them that would be legitimate in your mind?
Good question, but mask mandates are also a workplace and productivity issue. That's a corporate issue, especially in healthcare.
-
wrote on 25 Apr 2022, 14:49 last edited by
Has the language of “punishment” been conceded? Cessation of special privileges of debatable and impermanent social value is not necessarily “punishment” for the purposes of this discussion. It’s not as if Disney’s decision makers are being arrested.
-
wrote on 25 Apr 2022, 16:10 last edited by
Elections have consequences.
Ask those people that were intimidated by Mr. Obama's IRS.
Some people thought that was over the line. It probably was, but a lot of people thought it was heroic.
-
@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
Yes it’s taking away a privilege but it’s being done as a punishment obviously. As a parent you are surely familiar with taking away a privilege as punishment.
None of the principled reasons to remove the privilege occurred to these guys before the Ed bill. In fact these very same clowns just wrote a new and rather substantial Disney privilege into law a just a few months ago. (Tech reg bill applies to all social media companies ‘unless owned by a company that operates a large amusement park in the state’).
Do you not understand politics or are you being intentionally obtuse because corporate America got gored for coloring outside of the lines?
wrote on 25 Apr 2022, 17:07 last edited byDo you not understand politics or are you being intentionally obtuse because corporate America got gored for coloring outside of the lines?
Coloring outside the lines sounds like acting beyond their corporate charter...
-
Driving on public roads is a privilege. Maybe they can take licenses away from every Disney employee who publicly opposed the bill.
wrote on 25 Apr 2022, 17:08 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
Driving on public roads is a privilege. Maybe they can take licenses away from every Disney employee who publicly opposed the bill.
No, driving on public roads is not a privilege. It is a necessary condition for the commonweal.
-
@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
Mask mandates are a social issue.
If the Biden administration punished companies for taking a vocal stance against them that would be legitimate in your mind?
Good question, but mask mandates are also a workplace and productivity issue. That's a corporate issue, especially in healthcare.
wrote on 25 Apr 2022, 18:20 last edited by@Jolly said in Taking On The Mouse:
@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
Mask mandates are a social issue.
If the Biden administration punished companies for taking a vocal stance against them that would be legitimate in your mind?
Good question, but mask mandates are also a workplace and productivity issue. That's a corporate issue, especially in healthcare.
Recruiting is a corporate issue too.
Social issues affect us in the workplace as well as the home.
-
Has the language of “punishment” been conceded? Cessation of special privileges of debatable and impermanent social value is not necessarily “punishment” for the purposes of this discussion. It’s not as if Disney’s decision makers are being arrested.
wrote on 25 Apr 2022, 18:23 last edited by jon-nyc@Horace said in Taking On The Mouse:
Has the language of “punishment” been conceded?
By DeSantis himself in his fundraising emails.
But it would anyway be obvious to any honest observer. Remember these very same clowns granted Disney yet another big carve-out (with no corresponding state development benefit) literally a single digit number of months ago.
-
@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
Driving on public roads is a privilege. Maybe they can take licenses away from every Disney employee who publicly opposed the bill.
No, driving on public roads is not a privilege. It is a necessary condition for the commonweal.
wrote on 25 Apr 2022, 18:34 last edited by@Ivorythumper said in Taking On The Mouse:
@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
Driving on public roads is a privilege. Maybe they can take licenses away from every Disney employee who publicly opposed the bill.
No, driving on public roads is not a privilege. It is a necessary condition for the commonweal.
Maybe you’re making a normative statement not a positive one? But as a point of law you are incorrect.
(It has real world ramifications, for example the legal standard the state must meet to revoke the privilege)
-
@Ivorythumper said in Taking On The Mouse:
@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
Driving on public roads is a privilege. Maybe they can take licenses away from every Disney employee who publicly opposed the bill.
No, driving on public roads is not a privilege. It is a necessary condition for the commonweal.
Maybe you’re making a normative statement not a positive one? But as a point of law you are incorrect.
(It has real world ramifications, for example the legal standard the state must meet to revoke the privilege)
wrote on 25 Apr 2022, 19:01 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
@Ivorythumper said in Taking On The Mouse:
@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
Driving on public roads is a privilege. Maybe they can take licenses away from every Disney employee who publicly opposed the bill.
No, driving on public roads is not a privilege. It is a necessary condition for the commonweal.
Maybe you’re making a normative statement not a positive one? But as a point of law you are incorrect.
(It has real world ramifications, for example the legal standard the state must meet to revoke the privilege)
The fact that the State must act with due process to deprive someone of the right to drive on public roads tells us it is not a privilege. One has a natural right to access to all the goods of a society -- this is not privilege.
By your legal compass, walking freely on the sidewalk is also a privilege.
A driver's license is not a privilege, it readily must be given to anyone who demonstrates a basic competency and provides proof of legal and financial responsibility to protect the public and other private parties against financial harm. That the State enacts some regulation for the common good does not make it a privilege any more than a marriage license creates a privilege to marry, as distinct from ordering a natural right toward the common good.
-
@Horace said in Taking On The Mouse:
Has the language of “punishment” been conceded?
By DeSantis himself in his fundraising emails.
But it would anyway be obvious to any honest observer. Remember these very same clowns granted Disney yet another big carve-out (with no corresponding state development benefit) literally a single digit number of months ago.
wrote on 25 Apr 2022, 19:11 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
@Horace said in Taking On The Mouse:
Has the language of “punishment” been conceded?
By DeSantis himself in his fundraising emails.
So it served him to use that word at that time to that audience. Rile them and their support up, that makes sense.
But it would anyway be obvious to any honest observer.
What's obvious is that words have rhetorical value to serve an agenda. Just as the word now has rhetorical value to you and your framing.
Remember these very same clowns granted Disney yet another big carve-out (with no corresponding state development benefit) literally a single digit number of months ago.
So these "clowns" granted a carve-out with no public benefit, but from your perspective, a reversal of such would be unfair punishment. What if the carve-out wasn't just or for the public good to begin with? At that point, you're hand-wringing about motivations for doing a good thing. I suspect there is room for some hand-wringing about the motivations for granting the carve-out, but that is not the hand-wringing that serves your agenda.
-
wrote on 25 Apr 2022, 19:19 last edited by
This doesn’t seem very hard, Horace.
If they approached this, say, last year and said “these privileges we granted Disney (and something like 1000 other entities) don’t make sense, let’s revoke them” that would be fine and I’d cheer them on.
When they take them away explicitly to retaliate for their having exercised their first amendment rights, that’s a problem and none of us should think that’s a good precedent no matter how much we love or hate Disney or DeSantis or teaching fisting in kindergarten.
-
This doesn’t seem very hard, Horace.
If they approached this, say, last year and said “these privileges we granted Disney (and something like 1000 other entities) don’t make sense, let’s revoke them” that would be fine and I’d cheer them on.
When they take them away explicitly to retaliate for their having exercised their first amendment rights, that’s a problem and none of us should think that’s a good precedent no matter how much we love or hate Disney or DeSantis or teaching fisting in kindergarten.
wrote on 25 Apr 2022, 19:23 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
This doesn’t seem very hard, Horace.
If they approached this, say, last year and said “these privileges we granted Disney (and something like 1000 other entities) don’t make sense, let’s revoke them” that would be fine and I’d cheer them on.
When they take them away explicitly to retaliate for their having exercised their first amendment rights, that’s a problem and none of us should think that’s a good precedent no matter how much we love or hate Disney or DeSantis or teaching fisting in kindergarten.
You accept the existence of politics and its realities when you accept, without hand-wringing, the special favors done by the government for Disney. Your hand-wringing is only special pleading. These special favors are fair game for retaliatory reversals, exactly to the extent they were fair game to be granted to begin with.
-
wrote on 25 Apr 2022, 19:33 last edited by jon-nyc
I have never liked the special carve outs and special deals. It’s the difference between market capitalisms and crony capitalism.
I would love for them the bust the sugar cartel that benefits I think five families in the US (which fund Rubio by the way). I would love to end carried interest exemption to capital gains for hedge funds and private equity. I would love to end the ethanol absurdity. I would love to end the oil depletion allowance.
But motives matter. We should end them because they’re fundamentally corrupt and harm consumers and/or taxpayers. I don’t want one of them ended because the particular interest group opposed the administration on some piece of legislation.
-
I have never liked the special carve outs and special deals. It’s the difference between market capitalisms and crony capitalism.
I would love for them the bust the sugar cartel that benefits I think five families in the US (which fund Rubio by the way). I would love to end carried interest exemption to capital gains for hedge funds and private equity. I would love to end the ethanol absurdity. I would love to end the oil depletion allowance.
But motives matter. We should end them because they’re fundamentally corrupt and harm consumers and/or taxpayers. I don’t want one of them ended because the particular interest group opposed the administration on some piece of legislation.
wrote on 25 Apr 2022, 19:48 last edited by Horace@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
I have never liked the special carve outs and special deals. It’s the difference between market capitalisms and crony capitalism.
I would love for them the bust the sugar cartel that benefits I think five families in the US (which fund Rubio by the way). I would love to end carried interest exemption to capital gains for hedge funds and private equity. I would love to end the ethanol absurdity. I would love to end the oil depletion allowance.
But motives matter. We should end them because they’re fundamentally corrupt and harm consumers and/or taxpayers. I don’t want one of them ended because the particular interest group opposed the administration on some piece of legislation.
And meanwhile the rest of us won’t hand wring about the horrible precedent set, when the real precedent was set by the existence of the favors to begin with. There is no evidence of a lack of principles if people observe that long standing political and cultural realities happen to fall their way once in a while.
-
wrote on 25 Apr 2022, 20:04 last edited by
Rewarding friends and punishing enemies are not really the same thing. One is far more insidious.