Mozilla CEO resigns after donation to Prop 8
- Thread starter cawacko
- Start date
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Try reading and comprehending... Libertarians do not believe that people have the right to infringe upon others beliefs. Therefore, as long as the individual does not infringe upon the rights of others, he in turn should not have his rights infringed upon. There is no 'right' to take away... at least according to what Libertarians believe.
What happened here is a clear violation of his rights (according to Libertarian belief... not law). You had a group formulate a mob and attempt to punish the man for his donation six years ago. A donation that they have known about for some time. When appointed CEO, the mob demanded that he recant his former position. He chose not to discuss it. They then pretended that his mere presence was some great force against 'morale'. Again... if he didn't bend to the group think... they punished him.
So when you say that libertarians do not believe that companies should have the right to fire someone for expressing their political opinions, you don't mean that libertarians believe that companies should be restricted from doing it, just that it is a practice that they should refrain from? Do these libertarians give any consideration to the associational rights of the company?
I'm interested in reading about this formulation of libertarianism, do you have a particular libertarian thinker that has written on it? In all honesty, I've never encountered it before and I don't see how it can possibly be squared without infringing on associational rights that, in my experience, all libertarians vigorously protect.
Here's where I run into trouble with your position. Just as Eich has the right to express his political views, the individuals that formulated the "mob" have their own right to (1) formulate a "mob," (2) to express their opinions about Eich and his leadership of the company and (3) to demand that he be fired or recant. In turn, the Company has its own right to associate with whomever it wishes and to demand that Eich step down from the company or fire him. The company didn't have to do that, but its choice to do so was an exercise of its right to association.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
yes, we know... you are a 'government solves all our problems' kind of guy. So of course you can't see anything but government involvement.
maineman
Banned
his point is valid.... if you think that a company should NOT have the right to do something, clearly, you can't expect them to act on the honor system. Who is going to ensure they don't do what you believe they should not have the right to do?
I don't want factories dumping toxic waste into places like Love Canal.... but I certainly don't expect them to simply DO the right thing out of some altruistic corporate sense of citizenship. If that were the case, how did Love Canal happen in the first fucking place? Corporations are, by their very nature, amoral. Barring some form of regulation, they have one purpose: maximizing shareholder wealth. period.
I don't want factories dumping toxic waste into places like Love Canal.... but I certainly don't expect them to simply DO the right thing out of some altruistic corporate sense of citizenship. If that were the case, how did Love Canal happen in the first fucking place? Corporations are, by their very nature, amoral. Barring some form of regulation, they have one purpose: maximizing shareholder wealth. period.
In typical fashion, you ignore the substantive post. But since we are here, I suppose it's worth noting that a "right" that isn't recognized by the government isn't much of a right at all.
Not really. I'd prefer that society would stop being this cowtowing monstrosity it has become, the fear that rules society today is disgusting.
Nobody is arguing against the right of Mozilla to fire him or to ask for his resignation. Your problem is your assumption.
Noticing that this guy is a target while a different powerful man who held the exact same opinion in 2008 isn't is not "not libertarian" it is simply noticing a fact.
Facts aren't "democratic" nor is this particular fact solely republican because Newt mentioned it. It simply is.
Continues? First time I mentioned Newt and I was just repeating what had already been stated. You are just a knee jerk partisan Republican.
No, it does not violate libertarian beliefs, you fucking moron. Your argument implies one has a property right in there job. You don't know the first thing about libertarianism.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Sorry, that was Dung that had repeated that nonsense before... good to see you parroting a fellow liberals nonsense.
Did you point out which of those positions I do not hold to yet?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No moron... it does no such thing. But as a Libertarian, one does not think that it is right to fire someone for beliefs held outside of work that do not affect the work environment. You subscribe to the 'majority rules'/'mob justice'/'group think' bullshit and pretend it is Libertarian. It is not. Not even close.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Still waiting String... care to tell me where it is that I differ as you claim?
Who decides what challenges their ability to be profitable? Image is a part of their product.
You are arguing that firing him violates his rights which implies he has a property right in the job.
You are absolutely full of shit. Libertarians argue that an employer has the right to fire someone for whatever reason they choose. Only some sort of contractual agreement gives the employee any property right in the job.
Murray Rothbard, in For a New Liberty, used the example of a landlord that would only rent to 6ft Swedes. A ridiculous condition but one he argued the landlord had every right to enforce and the same freedom of association rights extend to employment.
Last edited:
You are like a Republican in dropping of context, goalpost moving and intellectual dishonesty.
I did not say you agreed with any of those positions, idiot. I was remarking on the fact that conservatives and libertarians differ on economics.
He was not fired, if he were Mozilla would be discriminating based on religion which is illegal. So they bought him off to resign to avoid the lawsuit. Probably just as expensive but without the PR problems. I wonder how the grumpy employees would react if this buyout was paid for with their raises ? That money has to come from somewhere.
They do. If someone feels they are wrongfully terminated their recourse is to file a complaint and or sek legal recourse.