You are making it intentionally over-complicated. There isn't much to unpack at all. A company becomes political by making a political decision, not by consequence of someone else using its products to make political decisions.
> You are making it intentionally over-complicated. There isn't much to unpack at all. A company becomes political by making a political decision, not by consequence of someone else using its products to make political decisions.
It's not that simple. If a gun store owner sells guns to people he knows are planning to commit a robbery, isn't he also guilty of a crime? Likewise, if a company sells materials for lethal injections to groups they know conduct executions, aren't they tacitly supporting a policy of capital punishment?
Also your comment leans very heavily on the definition of "political," which you leave totally undefined. Once you try to get consensus definition of that, you'll get into the same difficulty of unpacking it's meaning that I was referring to.
That you bring up a robbery example highlights that you don't understand what political is. Facilitating a robbery is illegal. Facilitating actions of a political group, as long as it is within the framework of a law, is called "living in a society." Your second example reduces to the following: "is it legal to sell materials to facilitate lethal injections?" If no, then it is a matter of criminal justice, not politics. If yes, the political actor is the group committing the lethal injections, not the group selling materials.
The kind of extreme "guilt by association" you derive cannot be considered a part of the political in terms of conscious action precisely because "the political" encompasses normal function of the society. Criminal activity, on the other hand, is not considered a part of normal function of a society, hence one can assume that everyone who "knows" a criminal but doesn't turn him in is also a criminal. In other words what you're doing is you are criminalizing normal para-political association---a characteristic of individuals with a totalitarian mindset. As a non-American, I have to say I am stunned to observe this attitude in the US.
> That you bring up a robbery example highlights that you don't understand what political is. Facilitating a robbery is illegal. Facilitating actions of a political group, as long as it is within the framework of a law, is called "living in a society." Your second example reduces to the following: "is it legal to sell materials to facilitate lethal injections?" If no, then it is a matter of criminal justice, not politics. If yes, the political actor is the group committing the lethal injections, not the group selling materials.
Actually, I'm pretty sure it's you who doesn't have a very good definition of politics. My sense is that you understand it to basically be whatever's covered in the politics section of a newspaper, and maybe a few hot-button issues besides.
Also, what you're saying is contradictory. For instance, you're treating "legality" and "politics" as different things, when the law is itself a creature of politics.
You also misunderstood my point. You seem to be thinking that commerce is neutral, and the market transactions somehow insulate the participants from each other, but that's just not the case. A market transaction can facilitate an immoral action, which in some cases may be legal and other cases not. This is well understood, and in the case of illegal immoral actions is even punishable. The only thing that I think could be actually insulating in a transaction is a lack of knowledge by one party of what the other party plans.
> The kind of extreme "guilt by association" you derive cannot be considered a part of the political in terms of conscious action precisely because "the political" encompasses normal function of the society.
Society is political, full stop.
> In other words what you're doing is you are criminalizing normal para-political association---a characteristic of individuals with a totalitarian mindset. As a non-American, I have to say I am stunned to observe this attitude in the US.
Oh please, I wasn't talking about criminalizing anything that wasn't already criminal. I'm kinda stunned that you managed to talk yourself into that bizarre conclusion. My second example is literally this: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/14/us/pfizer-execution-drugs....
