WMN: t3_2xcu0u_t1_coyyw2v

[TITLE]

CMV: Terrorism can be an awful thing, but if it must exist, in our time, it should be used against corporations rather than government and people.

[The_Church]

Indisputably, terrorism has always been a force for both good and evil. Terrorism here will be defined as the use or threat of violence (i.e. terror) to coerce or subdue a population, government, or other entity for political, economic, religious, and cultural purposes. It was an relatively important factor in the American Revolution, it has mobilized populations and usurped dictators. It complemented the peaceful side of the Civil Rights Movement. Conversely, the use of terrorism has killed many innocent civilians, given international voice to the inherently irrational, espoused rape camps in many conflicts, etc. Obviously, many governments are corrupt, oppressive, etc. However, in corrupt governments such as the U.S.A., where government is more or less an extension of corporate power, it is from said corporate influence that the middle class continues to disappear, the environment continues to be destroyed, entities deemed "too big to fail" remain above the law, the list goes on. (Even if you do not agree entirely to the above, imagine it a hypothetical until you've caught up on current affairs). Note: SONY was not hacked due to their corrupt outreach in oppressive social policy and law, so let us not dwindle on that. Note bene: I do not encourage or support terrorism although in some historical instances I find it a necessary evil. Likewise, participating in this thread is for intellectual and argumentative purposes and comments in the below thread should not be considered in support or against terrorism, either. TL;DR: Corporations hurt the people more than government, and therefore should be the object of terrorism, if it MUST exist, for our time. EDIT*******************: Thanks guys for an interesting discussion. A lot of people had great contributions that really got my wheels turning. I now think corporations do what they can get away with because they legally can, and this is a governmental and regulatory problem above all. Thanks for the hand-holding despite my somewhat asinine arguments. Also, I conclude that terrorism almost invariably causes human casualties and I cannot, in good conscience, say it is justifiable even in it's most innocuous (read: inert) forms. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[bnicoletti82]

Many Corporations are publicly owned and can change management policies if and when the shareholders demand it. It makes no sense to blow up a walmart when you can contribute to [Socially Responsible Investing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_responsible_investing) organizations and drive actual policy changes.

[The_Church]

[STA-CITE]> If you can [END-CITE]By all means, that is the noblest form of investing if you have the capital to go long.

[bnicoletti82]

These are the people you would be terrorizing - the ones trying to make a difference the most noble way.

[The_Church]

I'm not sure about that- why harm a socially responsible corporation, especially with socially-responsible investors? Why would that corporation, by my argument, be a target for terrorism?

[[missing]]

[huadpe]

[STA-CITE]>I'm not sure about that- why harm a socially responsible corporation, especially with socially-responsible investors? Why would that corporation, by my argument, be a target for terrorism? [END-CITE]Because companies are interconnected. So for example, your socially responsible investment firm may invest in a property and casualty insurance company like State Farm, but not a bank like HSBC. But if you blow up HSBC headquarters, and it's insured by State Farm, they're on the hook for hundreds of million dollars in death settlements and property damage.

[The_Church]

One of those instances where State Farm doesn't want to be there. That's a fair point.

[looklistencreate]

This is vague. Can we stop blaming large categories like "government," "corporations" or "people" for our problems and go after the specific actor that is the cause of the issue? If BP does an oil spill, blame BP, not "corporate America." Sometimes a corporation is the problem, but sometimes it's a government or a person. And for the record, terrorism is never OK. By definition it is extrajudicial violence meant to intimidate. That has no place in modern society.

[The_Church]

I agree with your first point, it is vague to the discredit of the argument. Terrorism is also the threat of violence, but is toothless if it won't be met with action. I am still trying to determine if I agree with the second point or not and that may likely take some time.

[HallaOrNot]

While there are both governments and corporations which are corrupt, a corporation could only use its corruption if there is a corrupt government, which accepts (and sometimes even asks for) bribes. On the other hand, a corrupt government could most certainly use its influence without corporations - just look at ISIS (which effectively acts as a government in certain areas) or North Korea.

[DashFerLev]

....I'm going to go ahead and defend terrorism. Wanna know who were terrorists 200 years ago? Muricans. That's right. Except instead of beheading people on twitter, our founding fathers tarred and feathered their enemies. The tar was to burn them alive. The feathers were because TV hadn't been invented yet. Terrorism is, by a wide margin, an awesome strategy when your enemy (Muricans fought the Brits, but we're bro's now so it's cool) so ridiculously outclasses you. Solid choice. You let the enemy know that if you get your hands on them, you will fuck their shit. And maybe they aren't afraid of getting shot, but anyone who's ever put a hand on a stove runs from fire, not to mention molten tar. That, and guerrilla warfare. Which both Muricans and modern terrorists also engage in. murica. And remember when Murica dropped the bomb on those cities? What the hell was that *besides* terrorism? Terrorism isn't really any more awful than any other war tactic.

[The_Church]

I thought the tar just maimed and disfigured them? Aside from that, indeed, this is partly the angle I come from and why I distinguish positive and negative instances (though it is morally grey). IRL, I would probably be like Ed Harris from The Rock and threaten people to enact fair and just retribution for my fallen men and their families who died in unmarked graves. But I couldn't give the order to launch rockets into the Bay Area!

[DashFerLev]

Well even if they survived, thats the equivalent of throwing on acid on girls who have the audacity to hold a book. Our views on what's terrorism and not (or even what acceptable terrorism is and isn't) are completely arbitrary and based on where we were born.

[The_Church]

He once held an opponent's wife's hand in a jar of acid... at a party...

[GnosticGnome]

Given that most terrorists are interested in hurting civilians to gain personal power, why would you expect them to direct their efforts against corrupt corporations? Given their goals, shouldn't we expect them to direct their efforts against the powerless or at least unpopular?

[The_Church]

I suppose I'm specifically talking about positive instances of terrorism. Most terrorists, like budding cults, recruit the powerless and disenfranchised. We have instances now such as the atrocities committed by Isis and Boko Haram that specifically target the defenseless with differing ideologies, and this is undoubtedly the negative brand of terrorism. It is more organized gangsterism and the making and subsequent filling of power vacuums. I suppose I'm thinking of the noble terrorist.

[GnosticGnome]

But who's the noble terrorist? Ted Kaczynski? There are examples of otherwise-good people acting badly in the spur of the moment and committing terrorist acts, murder, rape, child abuse, what have you. There are examples of all those contributing positively to society. On the whole, good people don't do as much of these things. On the whole, these things contribute primarily negatively to society. The "noble terrorist" by and large is someone who screwed up. Most people who set out to be terrorists do so for very selfish reasons, and end up being organized gangsters. I think the percentage of good people who really think about human rights/justice/morality and purposefully decide to engage in terrorism is extremely small. By and large if you thought about it and wanted to be a good person, you'd find the correct answer is to not engage in terrorism at all.

[The_Church]

Kaczynski's violence was used to get his manifesto into public view. I'm familiar with the contents and it's Luddite ideology but have not read it. This is a great example of someone who believed an impending threat to humanity was worth killing over and brings to question: what ideology is it okay to commit atrocities over? Of course, I think there are very few people in the world who can make that decision and none or few of them have been terrorists. I agree with you, you're right in my opinion.

[Ofc_Farva]

What is the scope of this belief? Does this view just apply to the US? To the First World? Globally?

[The_Church]

Great question, I suppose wherever detrimental corporate influence occurs where legal and democratic means cannot curb or stop it.

[Ofc_Farva]

I think the only times democratic means *cannot* curb or stop corporations like that are when the Democracy itself is corrupt, meaning *it* would be the better and more effective target for terrorism. Unless corporations get to the Shadowrun/Sky Net-esque levels of power, I think even the most powerful corporations are small peanuts compared to entire regimes.

[The_Church]

I think this is the answer I was looking for. Corporations largely do what they can because it's still legal. There are exceptions, but it looks like things such as loopholes and lack of prosecution are issues in the democracy and government themselves. And even in acting legally, they can do absolutely devastating stuff. I now believe that, with some exceptions, terrorism would do better at political rather than economic change, and the consequences would be farther-reaching. Also, can I get a liter of cola? ∆

[[missing]]

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Ofc_Farva. [^Ofc_Farva's ^delta ^history](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/ofc_farva) ^| [^Delta ^System ^explained](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)

[scottevil110]

"Corporations" are not evil empires. They're made up of the SAME innocent people that any governmental or civilian building is. What do you think the World Trade Center was full of? Government offices and public parks? It was full of corporations. And 3,000 "corporate slaves" died in them. It's interesting that all of the examples of the times you mention that terrorism has been "useful" (civil rights, dictators, the American Revolution) were all focused at governments, and not corporations. This entire CMV reads like a college intro class. "It's all just the corporations, man! We're all just slaves to the corporate overlords!"

[The_Church]

And this reads like a garbage response that tries to appeal to Reddit's favorite stereotypes. The Boston Tea Party, e.g., attacked the vessels and supply of the East India Company. They didn't start slaughtering personnel, however. Of course, The EIC was targeted to get at the British government. Obviously the situation is not black and white, nor have I spelled it out as such, so why you are so obtuse in your response is beyond me. Why don't you respond in a less lazy fashion and try to CMV?

[GnosticGnome]

[STA-CITE]>The Boston Tea Party, e.g., attacked the vessels and supply of the East India Company. They didn't start slaughtering personnel, however [END-CITE]The Boston Tea Party was not terrorism. Intentionally, nobody was harmed. If you want to look at terrorist actions of the American Revolution you'll need to discuss violence directed at British loyalists (which did undoubtedly occur at times).

[The_Church]

Yes, the tarring and feathering comes to mind. I went with an example with no casualties. The Boston Tea Partiers did dress like Mohawk Warriors, but it was more of a conspiracy and protest than definitive terrorism.

[[missing]]

[scottevil110]

Mostly because I'm annoyed by getting on reddit every day to see another edition of "The corporations are ruining us!", but you're right, I'll try. Corporations do not force. Nothing that any company has ever done to you has been against your will. Any effect they have on you is completely voluntary, and you have the right to completely disassociate with them any time you like. Governments, on the other hand, do not afford you that liberty. When the government says something, you have no choice. You have to do it, or face imprisonment. The reason I said this reads like a college intro class is because you have provided no examples of how you feel that this is the case, that "corporations" are hurting us more than the government is. Perhaps we should start there. Can you provide some instances that you feel this to be the case?

[The_Church]

I think you are right that I should include more references in my CMVs (I have done one or two before). I would say my original prompt was written more like a high school paper but I appreciate you getting on the level and talking this through. Some examples I used in other posts include the mislabeling of toxic stocks in the 2008 crisis and the shark-like interest rates that caused the housing bubble. I also note the facilitation of money laundering for cartels such as the first time HSBC got caught pants-down. Pretty much any incorporated bucket shop from the late 19th and early 20th century to the conspiracies to defunct electric railways in California to the monetized prison-industrial complex, corrupt contractors and backroom dealings in the military-industrial complex we have seen recently. The privatization of rainwater in Bolivia. The resource exploitation in Australia. The list goes on. In some of those cases, such as the privatization of water, people are kept at bay from water supplies by corporate security as well as police assigned there by political leaders in bed with the corporation. My view has been changed in part to your contribution and if I could throw you a half a delta I would. Thanks for putting in time and thought, ScottEvil110!

[scottevil110]

[STA-CITE]> mislabeling of toxic stocks in the 2008 crisis [END-CITE]The stock market is a gamble. You invest at your own risk. [STA-CITE]> shark-like interest rates that caused the housing bubble [END-CITE]Completely harmless unless someone agrees to them. If someone didn't like the rate, they shouldn't have taken the mortgage. [STA-CITE]> monetized prison-industrial complex [END-CITE]Powerless unless the government is sending people to those prisons. [STA-CITE]> backroom dealings in the military-industrial complex [END-CITE]Again, the government. [STA-CITE]> The privatization of rainwater in Bolivia. [END-CITE]Agreed. Serious problem in Bolivia. These all kind of go to my point (except the rainwater thing), that a corporation is only as powerful as consumers or the government allow it to be. There could be no housing bubble if people didn't agree to those rates in the first place. There could be no prison corruption if the government wasn't sending people to for-profit prisons.

[The_Church]

Yes, I now see that much of the 2008 crisis issues are due to the arena of government regulation, or lack thereof. Can I give a second delta? ∆

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/scottevil110. [^scottevil110's ^delta ^history](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/scottevil110) ^| [^Delta ^System ^explained](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)

[bad_jew]

Corporations are people too, my friend. At the end of the day, corporations are legal fictions designed to ease legal and contractual issues. Unless you're restricting your definition of terrorism here to hacktivism like website defacement, property damage, or stealing e-mails, you're essentially calling for attacks on employees of corporations. Violence against corporations inherently involves violence against human beings. But beyond this, you're really overestimating the power of corporations in the historical context. Is the system more corrupt than it was in the 1880s to 1920s [when major corporations had their own towns and police forces](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike)? There were certainly [anarchists committing acts of terrorism during this time](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Organised_labour) (though many of them were minor acts that were trumped up by the police), but their actions were largely ineffective. [Results came through democratic organization and unionization.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act)

[The_Church]

Thanks for a thoughtful response and the additional references! I must politely disagree that anti-corporate terrorism inherently targets humans. One can easily target corporate assets without hurting anyone (physically). For example, destroying a local HSBC branch without anyone inside (kind of like Fight Club, but, you know, plausible; I hope that reference doesn't damage my credibility). Granted, it can cost jobs to locals and hurt families financially, potentially, among other things (it would be a negligible loss to HSBC anyways and would be make for a poor target). Alternatively, one can destroy an integral power supply or hijack a delivery truck or any number of things which would hurt the corporation in question once or in a drawn out conflict of attrition. Desensitization campaigns, such as repeatedly placing a empty box or bag outside of Facebook (e.g.) headquarters would damage output at no cost to civilian lives. In your first reference to the Pullman Strike, under "Local Responses": " Strikers engaged in violence and sabotage; the companies saw it as civil war while the ARU proclaimed it was a crusade for the rights of unskilled workers" (at the California strikes) and "soldiers reached Lockwood, Montana, a small rail center, where the troop train was surrounded by hundreds of angry strikers. Narrowly averting violence, the army opened the lines through Montana" (again, the threat of violence is also terrorism). Also, great that you've referenced the Sherman Anti-trust act, I am reading about the time period in Reminiscences of a Stock Operator. This is a good example of legal means to limit corporate influence, but I find neither democratic organization and unionization compelling enough in the world of today to prevent corporate abuse of the people, environments, etc. If it had to exist, what would be the most effective use of terrorism today, in your view?

[UncleMeat]

[STA-CITE]> Desensitization campaigns, such as repeatedly placing a empty box or bag outside of Facebook (e.g.) headquarters would damage output at no cost to civilian lives. [END-CITE]There have been bomb threats at Facebook in the past. My friend works there and has had to evacuate. In addition to the lost productivity, don't you think you are hurting the people who work there? Some people take bomb threats very seriously. It can be a source of serious stress to think that their lives are in danger.

[The_Church]

Indeed, I have addressed the consequences that reach further than physical death and human casualties in other comments. I have concluded that terrorism proper invariably hurts people and am hardpressed now to find anything noble in it.

[garnteller]

The whole premise of this thread is pretty surreal along the lines of: "Hitler was evil, but if he had to exterminate a group it should have been Mormons". But let's run with it. What exactly does "terrorism against companies" mean? What does it look like? Most political terrorism is designed to make it too costly for a government to continue a certain policy, particular an occupation (Northern Ireland, Israel, the US Revolution, etc). What change are you trying to make here, and how? Comcast is evil. So you do what, blow up their transmission hubs? Kill their technicians? Launch denial of service attacks on their servers? All of those actions harm the consumers who you are trying to help, kill employees who don't set the policy, and still do nothing to say, "stop doing 'x' or else". How about one of those banks that was bailed out at taxpayer expense? Destroy ATM machines? Hack their systems? Blow up their HQ? Again, these hurt their customers. If you "steal" enough of their money, then the FDIC comes in and protects the account holders. Again you've killed many innocent employees. And still, what is the message? How do they know what "changes" need to be made. I'd say (of course not advocating this) if you were to use violence, it would be to, say, kidnap CEO's families, or threaten CEOs. But, besides the morality, CEOs are quite limited in their power to really change what they are doing. If they don't try to make money for their shareholders, they get fired by the Board. And after one or two attacks, you've pretty much just created a lot of work for bodyguard providers and not much else. Sorry, just don't see how this accomplishes any goals.

[The_Church]

I would say that analogy isn't accurate. However, I really appreciate you going into this with so much thought. Let us take the first instance of HSBC getting caught laundering money for illicit organizations and no doubt facilitating some of the worst atrocities one can imagine by drug cartels, et al. Let's imagine the government will do little to punish their CEOs and board members save for upwards of a billion and a half dollars in fines. Terrorism against HSBC with the express purpose ending their facilitation of drug cartels would ultimately help curb the power of said cartels (assuming other companies likewise feared facilitating their illicit behaviors) and save human lives. Terrorism against companies that rate toxic securities as triple-A or companies that facilitated the shark-like interest increases that led to the housing bubble would save unjust hardship, homelessness, and bankruptcies that ensued. Think of all the bad shit in the world that is largely due to either corporations or the politicians and lobbyists on their payroll. The goal of terrorism would be to end that bad shit. That being said there are a variety of ways one can achieve this without human casualties.

[huadpe]

[STA-CITE]>That being said there are a variety of ways one can achieve this without human casualties. [END-CITE]I think this is the exact point /u/garnteller was disputing here, and I am also disputing it. There are not effective ways to do what you want via terrorism. In a society that has public order, you will find yourself quickly imprisoned, and the company will continue apace. Terrorist attacks are taken incredibly seriously, and evoke massive government response, such as [shutting down an entire town to execute a manhunt.](http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/19/nation/la-na-nn-closures-boston-20130419) Terrorist attacks are, if anything, likely to make the things about which you complain worse. There are laws in France which could arguably be used against a paper like Charlie Hebdo for inciting racial hatred. But when a terrorist attack was made against them, the French government and people unified in the defense of their free speech rights. If you engage in totally nonviolent behavior, you're unlikely to have much effect. You can't do mass property damage without getting into violence. Blowing things up is inherently dangerous. What are you gonna say to the widow of the security guard who was making $14 an hour and who got hit in the head with shrapnel?

[The_Church]

I now see that terrorism requires violence and neutered threats of violence have no effect. Well, I wasn't planning on being a terrorist but now even the thought seems rather foul.

[garnteller]

So, I'm still looking for some specifics here. Is your scenario that the terrorists say, "HSBC, if you don't stop laundering money, we'll blow up an unoccupied branch every day"? If so, first, there's no way to do this without some "collateral damage". Second, not sure how you would know when they stopped laundering money. Third, who is really to blame? Was the CEO aware, or did some regional manager in Venezuela think that this would be a good way to boost his numbers. Fourth, you are still hurting the consumers who no longer have a branch to go to. Why use violence, which: a) is wrong and b) tends to alienate you from most people who don't like things in their neighborhood blowing up unexpectedly? Instead, wouldn't your energy be better spent: 1. Organizing boycotts of HSBC? If you get thousands and thousands to pull their money, that will cost them more than your terrorism. 2. Electing people who WILL do something. The power of those who don't bother to vote is enormous, you just need to get them to care. Instead, your terrorism will scare them, which will lead them to vote for the politicians who will play on those fears and further limit civil rights and increase protections for companies.

[The_Church]

My energy would be better spent that way, yes. What of the archetypal terrorist? (Disenfranchised, uneducated, poor, oppressed). These are the factors that often draw people to terrorism. I agree that even terrorist activity that has no casualties does have a far-reaching human cost. What first comes to mind is the ordinary citizens who work as tellers or security at those branches, then the customers. Indeed, there is no way to tell who is to blame nor when blame is necessarily due. Violence would alienate people if it was not supported by populist sentiment. It is not always unwelcome. I wouldn't recommend terrorism that intends to help the people result in their fear, but spin doctors could have a field day with that, of course. So that's a good point. I am not sure whether violence is universally wrong and am unprepared to discuss that. I think your points are awesome but my view is that if terrorism must exist, it should target corporations over government and people- and here you've presented a great case of why it shouldn't target anyone! Thank you for the thought you've put into this and I cannot say I disagree with you.

[garnteller]

[STA-CITE]>My energy would be better spent that way, yes. What of the archetypal terrorist? (Disenfranchised, uneducated, poor, oppressed). These are the factors that often draw people to terrorism. [END-CITE]Teach them to be community organizers. Follow Martin Luther King's example and make them agents of change instead of agents of death. [STA-CITE]>I think your points are awesome but my view is that if terrorism must exist, it should target corporations over government and people- and here you've presented a great case of why it shouldn't target anyone! [END-CITE]This gets back to my original analogy that the premise is absurd. If terrorism needs to exist, then it would be better for it to be against inanimate objects in the Alaskan wilderness, right? You've created a scenario where the time bomb called "terrorism" is going to go off and the question is where to throw it. Sure, better a corporation than a crowded city street, but better to throw it into the ocean. The question of whether terrorism would be effective against corporations is an interesting one. The question of "there has to be a target, then why not corporations" doesn't have much to talk about.

[The_Church]

I honestly began with the premise: We see all these examples of X committing crimes at the expense of common people, why hasn't anyone blown X to bits? Then I began reviewing my own views on violence and the necessity of it and came to the conclusion that X just does what it can at the expense of the people largely because it can, which is a regulatory issue of government. I think there is something to talk about here and the question of whether or not terrorism would be effective against X is naturally part of the dialogue. Very good contributions on your end as well and you've helped me draw most of my conclusions.

[garnteller]

Sorry, I'm a little confused - what is your view now? Has it changed?

[The_Church]

Apparently I can give out more than one. ∆ Thanks.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/garnteller. [^garnteller's ^delta ^history](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/garnteller) ^| [^Delta ^System ^explained](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)

[The_Church]

It has but I already awarded the Delta. Everyone contributed. I wish I can give you a delta but instead I'm tagging you as wise/polemist.

[starlitepony]

For the record though, you are allowed to give multiple people deltas if you feel it's appropriate.

[The_Church]

Oh, well that's awesome. Thanks!