|
| ▲ | orangecat 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I think a private company of any size should be able to offer its products on whatever terms they choose. If the military doesn't like those terms, they're free to do business elsewhere. |
| |
| ▲ | sejje 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Isn't that what happened? | | |
| ▲ | felixgallo an hour ago | parent [-] | | You are obviously being disingenuous, because you are on a thread where the DoD is not just electing not to buy Anthropic's service, but also trying to bully them into submission with the unrealistic threat of the DPA, punitively and disproportionately trying to label them a national security risk, and invoking supply chain issues normally applied to our worst adversaries, for the first time putting an obviously patriotic American country on the same footing as North Korea, Iran, China and Russia. Remember, the Anthropic red line was "no war crimes and no mass surveillance of the US population." You may think that war crimes are cool, and that mass surveillance of the US population by the department of defense would be fine, but consider the natural consequences, both for democracy and for any adversary's conduct in future wars. | | |
| ▲ | hardbass an hour ago | parent [-] | | >obviously patriotic American country Hi, just informing you of the typo. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | nostrademons 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There are already several private companies that have this, eg. Apple has specific exemptions from tariffs on smartphones, computers, and semiconductors that they got by paying off Trump and promising to make their iPhone glass in Kentucky: https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/tariff-exemptions-are-bi... https://www.warren.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/media/doc/l... The correct mental model for the U.S. federal government right now is not an omnipotent democratic overseer for economic activity, but rather as just one firm that negotiates directly with other major firms for legitimization and legal protection. Their power is likely to decline further, as is the value of "legitimization", as technological developments erode the military's monopoly on physical force. Interesting times ahead - historically tech transitions like this lead to a splintering of state legitimacy and then a reorganization under new forms of governance. |
|
| ▲ | cataphract 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You mean like pharmaceutical companies refusing to supply chemicals for lethal injection? |
|
| ▲ | Obscurity4340 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Somebody clearly has to |
|
| ▲ | hardbass 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Its not dictating policy. Any company of any size should be able to set any contract they want with the government or any other party. |
