The punishment being fines is criminal in and of itself. Everyone involved needs to be locked away for a long, long time, not have to pay pennies as "punishment"
Its a step in the right direction.
Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries
211–220 of 343 posts
Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries
#212Merely a sliver of the total suffering through coups, wars, and corporate exploitation imposed on Central and South American countries in the spirit of America's Monroe Doctrine colonialism project spanning 200 years.
Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
> seems like a blatant abuse of the term person Fictitious personhood is older than childhood personhood (or universal natural personhood, for that matter). To the degree we need a better term, it’s for natural persons. It’s a logical consequence of assembly, tracing back thousands of years to trade guilds and municipalities needing the ability to stand in court as a collective. Anyone who thinks we should end it sho…
Strangely enough, we've ignored that "find-and-replace across the body of law" in the past. Even the new gender laws ignore existing laws. I sometimes wish that we had written a compiler for law. And a statically typed language designed for compiling policy (think Rego + Rust). Politicians and Law makers would have to test their new proposals in code before wasting anyone else's time on it. Lawyers would have to lear…
Your mistake here, imo, is that you think law is something other than an instrument of control. You believe that it is about codifying a set of good behaviours or something. The compilation errors are intentional, rich people are able to get the coder/solicitor to express the law in terms they want. The reality is that anything written down is a metaphor for the internal moral awareness of right and wrong, and as such can be subverted. We are each able to work out right from wrong, but if we believe we have to defer to a law book, we externalise our personal authority to a book.
Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strangely enough, we've ignored that "find-and-replace across the body of law" in the past. Even the new gender laws ignore existing laws. I sometimes wish that we had written a compiler for law. And a statically typed language designed for compiling policy (think Rego + Rust). Politicians and Law makers would have to test their new proposals in code before wasting anyone else's time on it. Lawyers would have to lear…
> Politicians and Law makers would have to test their new proposals in code before wasting anyone else's time on it I look forward to when code can express the richness of natural languages. In the meantime, formally-declared law is a fantasy. (Exhibit A: any court opinion.) > You might have to start off an extremely simplistic set of rules (kinda like RocoCop's prime directives or Moses' 10 commandments) Every civil…
> Murder vs manslaugher vs self defence vs execution vs being stabbed by a soldier is a good lens into law. (Or, to be provocative, eating meat.)
Very good! I think these are all interpretations of the same type of event. Do you know the Russell conjugation?
Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not at all what Supreme Court ruled with regards to the 2nd amendment. They precisely said that contemporary laws related to firearms must be consistent with the centuries of jurisprudence we have on the limits and liberties enabled by the 2nd amendment. In your own words, states must not "throw out precedents from the most recent couple of centuries." This law, by contrast, was enacted in 1789 but only invoke…
The Supreme Court in this case was also not basing their opinion on fact, since there actually was jurisprudence about gun control [1] Also, it doesn't make sense to say laws should perfectly adhere with jurisprudence. Laws are enacted and changed precisely because lawmakers don't like the results the legal framework is giving them up until that point in time. To whit, the Constitution of the United States and the Bi…
You're expressing an extremely common misconception about the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant you e.g. the right to free speech or the right to bear arms. You already naturally have these rights. The way the Constitution works is to instead restrict what laws the government can pass. The government cannot simply say 'times have changed, we're going to pass laws banning speech and guns' because the Constitution expressly prohibits that.
So instead, if they want to do that, then they would need to amend the Constitution. And that's entirely possible - the process for that is well defined, and it has been done many times. It requires a supermajority vote in both the House and Senate, and then 75% of the US states agreeing to it. It's intentionally designed such that the Constitution will only change when there is overwhelming consensus across all affected groups.
The Supreme Court's role in all of those is exclusively to ensure that laws do not violate the Constitution.
Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries
#216[dead]
Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries
#217Merely a sliver of the total suffering through coups, wars, and corporate exploitation imposed on Central and South American countries in the spirit of America's Monroe Doctrine colonialism project spanning 200 years.
[flagged]
Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries
#218I guess it's a sign that the CIA and the US military don't do their dirty jobs for them anymore.
In another 100 years they might actually get a real sentence.
Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Politicians and Law makers would have to test their new proposals in code before wasting anyone else's time on it I look forward to when code can express the richness of natural languages. In the meantime, formally-declared law is a fantasy. (Exhibit A: any court opinion.) > You might have to start off an extremely simplistic set of rules (kinda like RocoCop's prime directives or Moses' 10 commandments) Every civil…
> Murder vs manslaugher vs self defence vs execution vs being stabbed by a soldier is a good lens into law. (Or, to be provocative, eating meat.) Very good! I think these are all interpretations of the same type of event. Do you know the Russell conjugation?
> these are all interpretations of the same type of event
Sure. But legally--and culturally--very different. If someone doesn't see that, they probably shouldn't be commenting on the law. (Practically speaking, they probably aren't.)
Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes because it is a breach to the principle of jurisdiction and it's ultimately based on American imperialism. Mind you, Id gladly have pedos and banana execs shot in public.
The thing that's a bit scary about that Travel Act is: what happens when US laws change? Instead of having sex with minors, suppose the US elected some crazy religious zealots who managed to make it illegal to have sex outside of heterosexual marriage, after getting abortion banned (so, not exactly far-fetched). So does that mean that all "US persons" (citizens, green card holders, residents, etc.) who travel (or liv…
This is the key.
Everyone is happy to give the government extra power for things they don’t like but rarely consider they would use it for things they don’t like