Mozilla CEO resigns after donation to Prop 8

Bonestorm said:
Libertarians shouldn't have a problem with that. Under a libertarian view, the company has the right to associate with whomever it wishes. Regardless of whether his opinion was private (it wasn't) or public (it was), the company is under no obligation to associate with someone whose opinions it does not share. In fact, one of the major problems I have with libertarianism is the fact that it fails to account for coercion by private parties (like the Compnay here) and is instead only concerned with coercion by the goverment (which I think should be employed in instances like this).
Click to expand...

What would the government do in this instance?
 
Superfreak said:
I will assume that means you admit you created the straw man. Sorry I took away your victory over your creation.


The problem is that he is being forced out for views that he holds in private. Libertarians have a problem with that. Everyone is entitled to express their views, to vote as they choose in private. As long as they are not trying to force someone else to adhere to their views, no problem. But in this case, the company is forcing him to either quit or reject his personal opinion. That is flat out insane. He must either adhere to group think or be forced out? Yeah, libertarians have a problem with that.
Click to expand...


Says who? No, the usual libertarian position would be that Mozilla is free to associate or not associate with him as they choose.

Frankly, in this case, I don't see how they could be prevented from firing him if they choose to without hamstringing their organization, but he resigned. The market or the consumers and employees that are vital to Mozilla's success loudly rejected him. If he was fired or forced out then it was a response to that. They should not have given him the job in the first place. But they apparently misjudged the reaction it would receive.
 
cawacko said:
What would the government do in this instance?
Click to expand...


Nothing in this particular instance, but I support laws against employers firing employees for off-the-job conduct, including participating in political activities, that have no bearing on their work or their employer.
 
Gay militants need to be muzzled. This, alone, will free up those who want to speak their mind without having to look over their shoulder.
 
Superfreak said:
I will assume that means you admit you created the straw man. Sorry I took away your victory over your creation.


The problem is that he is being forced out for views that he holds in private. Libertarians have a problem with that. Everyone is entitled to express their views, to vote as they choose in private. As long as they are not trying to force someone else to adhere to their views, no problem. But in this case, the company is forcing him to either quit or reject his personal opinion. That is flat out insane. He must either adhere to group think or be forced out? Yeah, libertarians have a problem with that.
Click to expand...


If he wanted to make sure his private political views remained PRIVATE, then he never should have donated money to a cause.

It's common knowledge that the media have access to donor names in cases like this...he should have kept his mouth, and his wallet, SHUT.
 
Bonestorm said:
Libertarians shouldn't have a problem with that. Under a libertarian view, the company has the right to associate with whomever it wishes. Regardless of whether his opinion was private (it wasn't) or public (it was), the company is under no obligation to associate with someone whose opinions it does not share. In fact, one of the major problems I have with libertarianism is the fact that it fails to account for coercion by private parties (like the Compnay here) and is instead only concerned with coercion by the goverment (which I think should be employed in instances like this).
Click to expand...

How? He's not a janitor, he is the CEO. They can't jump in and say you must let this guy run your company. The only real intervention that the government could take here would be to force them to pay some sort of penalty. But I am sure they already did. My guess is, Eich is walking away with a boatload of cash.

There is no need for government involvement here. If it's really a concern then the most reasonable response is to stop forcing people to disclose their contributions.
 
Bonestorm said:
Nothing in this particular instance, but I support laws against employers firing employees for off-the-job conduct, including participating in political activities, that have no bearing on their work or their employer.
Click to expand...


The above is to imprecise. I support laws that prohibit employers from disciplining employees for engaging in First Amendment protected activities that have no impact on the employee's ability to do the job or the business of the employer.
 
Bonestorm said:
Libertarians shouldn't have a problem with that. Under a libertarian view, the company has the right to associate with whomever it wishes. Regardless of whether his opinion was private (it wasn't) or public (it was), the company is under no obligation to associate with someone whose opinions it does not share. In fact, one of the major problems I have with libertarianism is the fact that it fails to account for coercion by private parties (like the Compnay here) and is instead only concerned with coercion by the goverment (which I think should be employed in instances like this).
Click to expand...

That is nonsense. Libertarians do not support 'group think'. You are incorrect in what you believe about libertarians. This is not acceptable.
 
Superfreak said:
That is nonsense. Libertarians do not support 'group think'. You are incorrect in what you believe about libertarians. This is not acceptable.
Click to expand...

LOL. Is that the buzzword you're clinging to? Groupthink?

Libertarians support the right to free association, which includes the right to exclude. Mozilla exercised that right. Now, you can disagree with their reasoning all you want and say they shouldn't have done it, but what they did was not contrary to libertarian ideals. And this isn't really an arguable point.
 
Bonestorm said:
LOL. Is that the buzzword you're clinging to? Groupthink?

Libertarians support the right to free association, which includes the right to exclude. Mozilla exercised that right. Now, you can disagree with their reasoning all you want and say they shouldn't have done it, but what they did was not contrary to libertarian ideals. And this isn't really an arguable point.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Libertarians do not support fascist attacks. Which is precisely what this is.

Yes... this is group think. If you do not conform to what they say you must believe then they will attack. Very tolerant liberals we see here. Don't you dare hold a belief or conviction unless they pre-approve your thoughts.
 
Superfreak said:
That is nonsense. Libertarians do not support 'group think'. You are incorrect in what you believe about libertarians. This is not acceptable.
Click to expand...

You are full of shit. DH is correct about the standard libertarian view on this. It has nothing to do with group think. This is a matter of property rights and freedom of association.
 
Bonestorm said:
LOL. Is that the buzzword you're clinging to? Groupthink?

Libertarians support the right to free association, which includes the right to exclude. Mozilla exercised that right. Now, you can disagree with their reasoning all you want and say they shouldn't have done it, but what they did was not contrary to libertarian ideals. And this isn't really an arguable point.
Click to expand...

"Mozilla exercised that right..."

So you also believe he was forced to resign; ie: fired. :good4u:
 
Teflon Don said:
Don't worry. Cawacko has this covered. He will get his bar buddies to march on Mozilla or something. Or maybe he will just sit on the bar stool and swig another beer.

I hope the lefties don't get too mad at him for this thread. He is really out on a ledge
Click to expand...

Cawacko you need to step up your game. Maybe drop a couple of n-bombs, call me the c word, and complain about "the homos". Anything else is so Rino.
 
The irony is that if Mozilla did suddenly fail, and these idiot employees all found themselves unemployed for a while, their lives would become really gay.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
If he wanted to make sure his private political views remained PRIVATE, then he never should have donated money to a cause.

It's common knowledge that the media have access to donor names in cases like this...he should have kept his mouth, and his wallet, SHUT.
Click to expand...

Yeh six fucking years later!
 
straight_pride_3.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top