well yeah but should Smith and Wesson just be like man the US Gov doesnt align with our corporate values so we are just gonna start selling belt fed machine guns to civilians

absurd yes but same principle. companies have to be subject to government especially in technologies that enable or manage violence. this is because the role of the government is to collectively manage and allocate violence in the manner the people desire

▲

foltik an hour ago | parent [-]

> companies have to be subject to government especially in technologies that enable or manage violence. this is because the role of the government is to collectively manage and allocate violence in the manner the people desire

I don’t know what you’re describing, but it’s not how the US works.

Companies aren’t extensions of the state; they’re private actors that have to follow the law. If Congress wants something prohibited, it passes a law. Otherwise firms are free to choose who they do business with.

	▲	DaedalusII 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		agencies create many regulations which affect companies, with no input from congress. the ATF in 2017 banned 'bump stocks' by reclassifying them as machineguns with zero input from congress. companies and the people who work for them are subject to the state via the law and regulations. if they violate the law, the state will use violence to enforce the law, with a government entity called law enforcement and law enforcement officers. if new technologies are invented, like the internet, missiles, nuclear power, and so on, which represent an ability to manage and allocate violence, or remove the state ability to control violence, the government needs to reassert their monopoly on that violence and take control of it. without this monopoly, how will they collect taxes and enforce the law? without the monopoly on violence the government is little more than an idea