Current Events

Re: Controversial security payments: Chiquita Brand Security

Jon Irenicus — Mon, 06 May 2013 10:49:34 GMT

All of the killing and extortion that goes on to make it happen?

Why not just say that then?

Re: Controversial security payments: Chiquita Brand Security

HabbaBabba — Mon, 06 May 2013 08:16:50 GMT

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2011/05/30/chiquita-sued-allegedly-funding-colombian-paramilitary-groups/

Hypotheticals aside, in this particular case, it looks like Chiquita did more than conduct business but provided weapons and munitions to a group, even after said group killed numerous of their employees.

As for the vague fairy tale of 'they just hired them for security' well, it at least appears that isn't what happened. Especially if this is also true:

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/06/01/chiquita-the-guns-and-drugs-and-union-killing-cnn-didnt-mention/

Or you can get into how asinine this collectivizing is. Someone paid these guys. Someone else pulled triggers. Someone else took the money. Someone else helped smuggle the drugs. No government is willing to go after them, so, they just start shotgunning the issue until it goes away. Throw blankets and see if you can't trap something big enough to take the fall.

Re: Controversial security payments: Chiquita Brand Security

Aristophanes — Mon, 06 May 2013 05:04:33 GMT

huh? anyone that the guerillas have wronged?

Re: Controversial security payments: Chiquita Brand Security

HabbaBabba — Mon, 06 May 2013 04:10:44 GMT

Who can show damage as a result of the Chiquita corp. hiring guerillas for whatever service? And to whom would the grievance be made?

Re: Controversial security payments: Chiquita Brand Security

Aristophanes — Mon, 06 May 2013 03:37:26 GMT

I don't necessarily care what perspectives they come from. I was just wondering if people care that seemingly innocuous MNCs knowingly participate in things like that.

Dyncorp, Bechtel, halliburton, JP Morgan, or Chiquita...is it okay for them to transact with illigitimate enterprises for legitimate purposes?

Also, getting people addicted to drugs (by giving it to them for free initially for instance) is a form of corecion. This is why my focus was meant to be on intentions. If people interact with terror groups (secessionists; IRA), mafias (in Eastern Europe), or drug cartels (Chiquita) and know that they participate in illegal things on top of their legal doings, is it wrong?

Would it be wrong, for instance, if the Los Zetas started a shipping or construction company to contract with them even though they use the legitimate business as a front for their money laundering or drug smuggling and the contractor knows it?

Further, is it wrong for the M-N-Banks to accept large cash deposits of money that was made from forced labor or drug smuggling? Obviously, it is against the law, but ... new thought ... do libertarians care? it seems to me that to say "yes, they can without violating any moral principles" would be to stand up for the MNCs that profit from these things (Wells Fargo comes to mind). to say "no, they cannot" is to side with the state.

I'm familiar with ancap principles (I started there five or six years ago; I've just grown up a little) so is the MNC in violation and consequently the state in the right? Are both wrong? Are both right (somehow)?

Re: Controversial security payments: Chiquita Brand Security

DanielMuff — Mon, 06 May 2013 03:25:45 GMT

Aristophanes:
EDIT: Is it okay for Dyncorp to contract mafias in Afghanistan for security purposes if they know the mafias are also selling women and children?

Are you asking me to answer from an ancap POV or a from POV based on my personal values?

Or is the motivation for violence in those markets (slavery and forced child labor) due to the government outlawing those practices?

Slavery, forced child labor, and rape violate other peoples rights per se. Making, distributing, and selling drugs do not. However, if the making, distribution, and selling of drugs occured on someone's property and on which those actions were not allowed, then, those would not be ok from neither an ancap POV nor a from POV based on my personal values.

Re: Controversial security payments: Chiquita Brand Security

DanielMuff — Mon, 06 May 2013 03:07:52 GMT

I'm replying to stuff that you wrote.

Re: Controversial security payments: Chiquita Brand Security

Aristophanes — Mon, 06 May 2013 03:02:13 GMT

**rolls eyes**

Yeah, because you realize that your trying to change the subject backfired.

EDIT: Is it okay for Dyncorp to contract mafias in Afghanistan for security purposes if they know the mafias are also selling women and children? Or is the motivation for violence in those markets (slavery and forced child labor) due to the government outlawing those practices?

Re: Controversial security payments: Chiquita Brand Security

DanielMuff — Mon, 06 May 2013 02:55:48 GMT

Aristophanes:
(or is the government to blame for outlawing slavery?).

Is the government to blame for outlawing rape? **rolls eyes**

Re: Controversial security payments: Chiquita Brand Security

Aristophanes — Mon, 06 May 2013 02:21:22 GMT

It doesn't matter for this line of inquiry.

Maybe I should have said: 'the violence that it is inherent in illegal market operations'. Besides, Chiquita is only one example (drugs). Think of Dyncorp helping mafias sell women in Kosovo or Afghanistan (or is the government to blame for outlawing slavery?).

Re: Controversial security payments: Chiquita Brand Security

DanielMuff — Mon, 06 May 2013 01:52:29 GMT

Aristophanes:

what's wrong with drug trafficking?

[...] the violence that it causes?

Woah woah woah, who's to blame for that? Chiquita buying protection services or the government that outlaw illicit drugs?

Re: Controversial security payments: Chiquita Brand Security

Aristophanes — Mon, 06 May 2013 01:32:12 GMT

what's wrong with drug trafficking?

oh my god. didn't I already mention the violence that it causes?

And I specified in an earlier post that Chiquita knew knew knew knew
knew
knewknewknewknew
knewknewknewknewknew

that they were giving money to a violent drug cartel when they hired their guns.

So, it was inadvertent., but not unintentional.

I ma not making "no distinction," my distinction is on intentions. As I mentioned earlier...

Re: Controversial security payments: Chiquita Brand Security

DanielMuff — Mon, 06 May 2013 01:11:11 GMT

Aristophanes:
If a MNC pays a guerilla network for protection and the guerillas use the money to traffick drugs, then the corporation is funding drugs, inadvertently.

Yes, inadvertnetly, indirectly, etc.

but, is this wrong? is this something that can be washed away as "an accident?"; especially if the MNC knows what the guerillas do with the money.

Wait, what's wrong with drug trafficking?

Re: Controversial security payments: Chiquita Brand Security

DanielMuff — Mon, 06 May 2013 01:08:41 GMT

gotlucky:

Maybe there can be a meaningful distinction between directly funding something versus indirectly funding something?

I think so and it's what I've been trying to get at. However, Aristo makes no distinction and this leads to the implications such as the one in which us taxpayers are murderers of children in Afghanistan.

Re: Controversial security payments: Chiquita Brand Security

Aristophanes — Mon, 06 May 2013 01:06:33 GMT

"But they're not giving the money to the guerillas for the purpose of terrorism. They're giving it to them in exchange for the proctection. So, it's incorrect or, at least, misleading to say that they are funding terrorism."

It is not misleading. I'm trying to find the fold. If a MNC pays a guerilla network for protection and the guerillas use the money to traffick drugs, then the corporation is funding drugs, inadvertently. but, is this wrong? is this something that can be washed away as "an accident?"; especially if the MNC knows what the guerillas do with the money.