Reply to post: Re: Responsibility

Re: Responsibility

"You do realise that there are concepts such as "international law" and many countries have treaties where if you commit a crime in one place then flee to another, you can still be arrested and returned to the land where you committed the crime? Especially if your actions are illegal in both places."

Which ONLY applies if said country RATIFIES the treaty. A sovereign business would NOT be party to said treaties. And there ARE countries that will refuse to extradite for various reasons (such as being HOSTILE to the other country).

Sure. Except for the most part these sorts of treaties are ratified. And if a "sovereign business" wished to have any claim to such "sovereignty" they would need to negotiate several such treaties, and they'd need to have somewhere to extradite people to. You seem to forget that even if Zuck decided to declare FB a "sovereign business" not subject to other country's laws, he still has to live somewhere. And oh damn, he's on US soil and subject to the laws of the state he lives in. He could try to fly to another country, or flee to their embassy, but he might find it hard proving FB is a "sovereign business" and he is some sort of "rightful ruler" when he is cowering behind another's walls.

You may claim to rule, but unless you're able to back up that rule with force when necessary, you don't rule anything but your own mind.

"As to companies declaring "their own sovereignty", perhaps you can point us to one having successfully done this?"

Not yet, but I can see it as the next logical step. All it would take is enough power to declare their own self-determination AND defend that self-determination in the face of war. That's how the US came to be over 200 years ago if you'll recall.

Ah yes, a well-armed and well-provisioned land with a decent number of people available beat a perhaps better armed and trained but less well-provisioned and less-peopled force on their home soil. Anyone with an ounce of logic or knowledge of military history will tell you a toddler with a hay fork on his own land beats a tank from a foreign army a great deal of the time (slight exaggeration). People fighting for their homes and their famiies are a lot more motivated to win than soldiers fighting in another land, especially when said soldiers are not fully convinced they're doing the right thing or are not really motivated to fight.

But that still does not cover the issue of this mythical "sovereign business", which has to build a force strong enough to maintain it's position while not giving the government of the land a reason to pay a little more attention to them. Give the government cause to believe you're raising arms that may be used against them, and you'll find out very quickly just how much force they can bring to bear and how little you have. Don't forget you not only have the government but the people of the nation, and any friendly nation to deal with. People who love their country aren't going to let some upstart come in and try to take over.

Even Trump's business has failed the test of sovereignty, and he's the US prez with veto powers available to him! He's considered the "commander in cheif" of the entire US military, and yet he does not have the power to get his desires.

As for the drug, it's called Reality.

I think you'd have a very strong case for taking your dealer to the advertising standards authority.