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.
@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)
@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.
@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.
-
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.
@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.
-
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.
@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.
-
Rewarding friends and punishing enemies are not really the same thing. One is far more insidious.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
Rewarding friends and punishing enemies are not really the same thing. One is far more insidious.
@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
Rewarding friends and punishing enemies are not really the same thing. One is far more insidious.
This was a public and transparent move to reward desantis supporters. It’s how politics is supposed to work, more so than less transparent sweetheart deals that reward far fewer people in more insidious ways.
-
Rewarding friends and punishing enemies are not really the same thing. One is far more insidious.
@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
Rewarding friends and punishing enemies are not really the same thing. One is far more insidious.
Yes. Rewarding friends is far more insidious as it takes a public good and privatizes it. Punishing enemies is only a private harm.
-
You should think this through at some point when the stakes of the debating point de jour are behind us.
As much it seems unfair that cops let their friends off for various offenses, if the local department had it out for me and decided to make me their target it would thousands of times worse.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
You should think this through at some point when the stakes of the debating point de jour are behind us.
As much it seems unfair that cops let their friends off for various offenses, if the local department had it out for me and decided to make me their target it would thousands of times worse.
@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
You should think this through at some point when the stakes of the debating point de jour are behind us.
As much it seems unfair that cops let their friends off for various offenses, if the local department had it out for me and decided to make me their target it would thousands of times worse.
Rewarding friends was your term, not giving them a pass.
-
You should think this through at some point when the stakes of the debating point de jour are behind us.
As much it seems unfair that cops let their friends off for various offenses, if the local department had it out for me and decided to make me their target it would thousands of times worse.
@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
You should think this through at some point when the stakes of the debating point de jour are behind us.
I would recommend you re-think this when your conceit of always being the most objective person in the room has passed, but let's not hold our breath.
As much it seems unfair that cops let their friends off for various offenses, if the local department had it out for me and decided to make me their target it would thousands of times worse.
A much better analogy would be when cop no longer let a friend off for speeding tickets, after that person pissed the cop off for some personal reason. That would be accepted as normal, no hand wringing necessary.
-
@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
You’re the only one who thinks I’m objective. You tell me so at least once a month.
Once a month isn't bad when this thread alone contains at least two conceits about "any honest observer" thinking your way and requests that people wait till their biases have passed before attempting to engage with the subject.
-
Yes absolutely any honest observer can tell this move is retaliation. All you have to do is listen to DeSantis himself and his cheering section.
@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
Yes absolutely any honest observer can tell this move is retaliation. All you have to do is listen to DeSantis himself and his cheering section.
Like a cop, no longer letting an ex-friend off for speeding, is retaliation for whatever the ex-friend did to be ex-friended. Sure, use the word if you want. I only reject the notion that it's a troublesome slippery slope, or not how politics is supposed to work, or remotely novel as far as precedent. That's your framing.
-
It’s not novel.
Remember Trump stopped a federal AWS contract because the WaPo said mean things about him? He also tried to block the ATT Time Warner merger because he didn’t like CNN.
Elizabeth Warren outlined a whole plan to break up five companies she thinks are mean.
I’m sure there are plenty of other examples actually done by democrats too, not just proposed. I’m kind of surprised George hasn’t already posted a list.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
@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.
@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
@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.
So...A mandate that affects everybody vs. less than 5% of possible recruits?
Ain't no way to run a railroad...
-
@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.
@Ivorythumper said in Taking On The Mouse:
A driver's license is not a privilege,
I believe that might depend on the driver's citizenship.
My understanding is that in at least 16 states undocumented immigrants can just get a driver's license.
But a citizen must earn the privilege.
This is changing and, believe it or not, changing to make it slightly more difficult for illegals to get licensed.
Of course it varies by state.
