What does that have to do with the argument? They’re pointing out that the government can restrict where you spend your money but the opposite is not true.
The government can restrict your actions - including where you choose to shop (or don’t shop) - based on your stated intent. That’s always been true. It’s the foundation for discrimination law - hiring and firing based on race, religion, or disability.
If you announce “I’m not hiring you because you’re unqualified” there’s no legal liability. If you announce “I’m not hiring you because you’re black”, that invokes legal liability. Arkansas is extending this line of reasoning to nation-of-origin. You cannot go into a store and say “I’m explicitly refusing to buy Israeli wine”. You cannot operate an investment bank or office that declares “We are explicitly boycotting every business of Israeli origin”. It’s now classified as a form of discrimination and one in which the state DA’s office has a zealous desire to prosecute.
Hiring is a different analogy that still doesnt really fit the situation well. If I work at Acme Corp and get quotes for materials from a company in Israel and one in Brazil and decide to go with Brazil because I dont agree with supporting genocide, how can the government compel me to instead purchase supplies from Israel? Beyond the whole ideological aspect of “free markets” and whether Republicans are major hypocrites or not, what legal mechanism is there for the government to require you to purchase generic items from a specific company solely based on the nation that company is located in regardless of price, quality, volume, etc? There’s zero chance there’s legitimate legal footing for this.
how can the government compel me to instead purchase supplies from Israel?
Just off the top, they can deny you future business with the state or federal government in turn. If you’re a company whose lifeblood is government contracts - Microsoft or Amazon being a couple of big classic examples, although any run-of-the-mill mid-sized construction company would also qualify - then this would be a death sentence.
But more broadly they can issue fines, sue for civil judgement and penalty, prosecute members of the company under whatever statues they’ve erected, or just send in the police/sheriff/national guard to shake you down without ever actually getting the DAs involved.
There’s zero chance there’s legitimate legal footing for this.
The law is what the courts say it is. And we’ve stacked our benches with right-wing assholes. In Arkansas, at least, I doubt you’ll have trouble finding a state supreme court willing to rule in favor of the government.
Unless you have a fiduciary responsibility to investors, which can still be satisfied if you think that business relationship would harm the businesses reputation, there’s nothing anyone can do to force you.
I realize you are regurgitating The preposterous legal arguments of the lawmakers that have passed these laws but that Legal reasoning is laughable as it is for So-Called civil asset forfeiture Where the fifth Amendment against seizure of private property without due process does not apply because they charge your property not you. The State verse your wallet and car.
These are clearly bad faith ad hoc arguments they are making.
that Legal reasoning is laughable as it is for So-Called civil asset forfeiture
Civil Asset Forfeiture is another great example of Government In Practice rather than Government In Theory. Like, we can wax poetic about the Ought, but I’m talking about the Is.
These are clearly bad faith ad hoc arguments they are making.
Arguments they’re winning by stacking the courts with judges predisposed to agree.
At some point, a system is what it does. You can’t just plug your ears and scream “My high school civics teacher told me this is wrong!”
So what is your point? Because we got corrupted politicians that dishonor the highest laws of the land, what? We should not try to see those laws ever enforced? Just give up and accept it?
We should not try to see those laws ever enforced?
We should see things as they really are and stop playing make-believe. Digging in your heels and saying “You can’t do that because the First Amendment stops you!” is akin to some sovereign citizen announcing he can’t be convicted of a crime because the flag has a yellow fringe.
The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. And if you live in denial, insisting that people can’t hurt you because laws protect you, you’re going to have a very bad time when the cops come knocking at your door.
Just give up and accept it?
Not at all. You’ve got to reach out to your neighbors, join community groups, unionize your workforce, and oppose the fascist government at every opportunity. And you’ve got to do it knowing you’ll be breaking the law at some point along the line.
If you want to talk about Israeli BDS, you’ve got to talk about it like a guerrilla fighting an insurgency not like a customer choosing Pepsi over Coca-Cola.
I don’t agree with your analysis of what I am saying here. Wanting a restoration of the Republic is not playing Make-Believe, it is not surrendering.
Obviously we already talked about the rules not being honored, nobody is making believe they are being honored on this thread.
But within the rules of the government we have we could fix the government and Society. It is just a matter of getting good leadership to get us there and organizing behind them.
Wanting a restoration of the Republic is not playing Make-Believe
Clinging to the mythology of the American system is.
But within the rules of the government we have we could fix the government
That’s been disproven repeatedly and categorically going at least back to Nixon. We’ve been repeating the cycle of Conservative Breaks Rules / Liberal Sweeps It Under The Rug for 50 years, easily.
How many more generations plan to get Rope-a-Doped by toothless establishment hacks?
It is just a matter of getting good leadership to get us there and organizing behind them.
Who could you name that would qualify? Are we going to get a big name blue state prosecutor like checks notes Kamala Harris?
I don’t know what you think you are even arguing here. I know the system can work because it did work. In the post-war years until the 1970s. Only after business started to cooperate on a long game to undo the New Deal did it all go to shit. Piece by piece. In 1972 the business Round Table made a long game and it has since been refined.
What does that have to do with the argument? They’re pointing out that the government can restrict where you spend your money but the opposite is not true.
The government can restrict your actions - including where you choose to shop (or don’t shop) - based on your stated intent. That’s always been true. It’s the foundation for discrimination law - hiring and firing based on race, religion, or disability.
If you announce “I’m not hiring you because you’re unqualified” there’s no legal liability. If you announce “I’m not hiring you because you’re black”, that invokes legal liability. Arkansas is extending this line of reasoning to nation-of-origin. You cannot go into a store and say “I’m explicitly refusing to buy Israeli wine”. You cannot operate an investment bank or office that declares “We are explicitly boycotting every business of Israeli origin”. It’s now classified as a form of discrimination and one in which the state DA’s office has a zealous desire to prosecute.
Hiring is a different analogy that still doesnt really fit the situation well. If I work at Acme Corp and get quotes for materials from a company in Israel and one in Brazil and decide to go with Brazil because I dont agree with supporting genocide, how can the government compel me to instead purchase supplies from Israel? Beyond the whole ideological aspect of “free markets” and whether Republicans are major hypocrites or not, what legal mechanism is there for the government to require you to purchase generic items from a specific company solely based on the nation that company is located in regardless of price, quality, volume, etc? There’s zero chance there’s legitimate legal footing for this.
Just off the top, they can deny you future business with the state or federal government in turn. If you’re a company whose lifeblood is government contracts - Microsoft or Amazon being a couple of big classic examples, although any run-of-the-mill mid-sized construction company would also qualify - then this would be a death sentence.
But more broadly they can issue fines, sue for civil judgement and penalty, prosecute members of the company under whatever statues they’ve erected, or just send in the police/sheriff/national guard to shake you down without ever actually getting the DAs involved.
The law is what the courts say it is. And we’ve stacked our benches with right-wing assholes. In Arkansas, at least, I doubt you’ll have trouble finding a state supreme court willing to rule in favor of the government.
Unless you have a fiduciary responsibility to investors, which can still be satisfied if you think that business relationship would harm the businesses reputation, there’s nothing anyone can do to force you.
The 1st ammendment begs to differ.
I realize you are regurgitating The preposterous legal arguments of the lawmakers that have passed these laws but that Legal reasoning is laughable as it is for So-Called civil asset forfeiture Where the fifth Amendment against seizure of private property without due process does not apply because they charge your property not you. The State verse your wallet and car.
These are clearly bad faith ad hoc arguments they are making.
The First Amendment isn’t self-executing.
Civil Asset Forfeiture is another great example of Government In Practice rather than Government In Theory. Like, we can wax poetic about the Ought, but I’m talking about the Is.
Arguments they’re winning by stacking the courts with judges predisposed to agree.
At some point, a system is what it does. You can’t just plug your ears and scream “My high school civics teacher told me this is wrong!”
So what is your point? Because we got corrupted politicians that dishonor the highest laws of the land, what? We should not try to see those laws ever enforced? Just give up and accept it?
We should see things as they really are and stop playing make-believe. Digging in your heels and saying “You can’t do that because the First Amendment stops you!” is akin to some sovereign citizen announcing he can’t be convicted of a crime because the flag has a yellow fringe.
The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. And if you live in denial, insisting that people can’t hurt you because laws protect you, you’re going to have a very bad time when the cops come knocking at your door.
Not at all. You’ve got to reach out to your neighbors, join community groups, unionize your workforce, and oppose the fascist government at every opportunity. And you’ve got to do it knowing you’ll be breaking the law at some point along the line.
If you want to talk about Israeli BDS, you’ve got to talk about it like a guerrilla fighting an insurgency not like a customer choosing Pepsi over Coca-Cola.
I don’t agree with your analysis of what I am saying here. Wanting a restoration of the Republic is not playing Make-Believe, it is not surrendering.
Obviously we already talked about the rules not being honored, nobody is making believe they are being honored on this thread.
But within the rules of the government we have we could fix the government and Society. It is just a matter of getting good leadership to get us there and organizing behind them.
Clinging to the mythology of the American system is.
That’s been disproven repeatedly and categorically going at least back to Nixon. We’ve been repeating the cycle of Conservative Breaks Rules / Liberal Sweeps It Under The Rug for 50 years, easily.
How many more generations plan to get Rope-a-Doped by toothless establishment hacks?
Who could you name that would qualify? Are we going to get a big name blue state prosecutor like checks notes Kamala Harris?
I don’t know what you think you are even arguing here. I know the system can work because it did work. In the post-war years until the 1970s. Only after business started to cooperate on a long game to undo the New Deal did it all go to shit. Piece by piece. In 1972 the business Round Table made a long game and it has since been refined.