What's wrong with protecting a private businesses rights?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BobBarkersSoup
  • Start date Start date
Based on your interpretation. A rather nasty one, I might add.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Well I sure doubt the denial of service is something construed from the constitution.
 
So you're saying that this problem would effect less than 1% of the population?

Typical of the government to see a small problem and create a huge blanket law that effects everyone.
 
I'm surprised that they haven't made a smoker's bar in California. One that only allows smokers. That was one plan that I had when they passed the smoking ban.

Simply make a bar with a sign posted outside that in the establishment there are people smoking and you accept that fact when you enter.
 
sure if it's physically impossible. that's not discrimination based on race. it's reality.
 
It's interesting that you're positing the existence of a business that could only survive because of racism (and seemingly, expressing support for it), while the rest of us are claiming that racism is poisonous to business.

Sometimes people die of asthma, in unanticipated, even unpreventable ways. It's tragic. For someone to die of asthma because of someone's bigotry, that's criminal.
 
Wirelessly posted via wap.offtopic.com (crackberry 9000: BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.304 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102)



Not a single refute to his or my point, just "LOL UR DUMB" bullshit

Congrats conservatrds, you win again
 
can someone please tell me, did they recently open the floodgates on Lake Moron and let this place fill up? because almost daily i'm astounded at how stupid some of these answers are.
 
That would be the logical thing to do. But then again, government just loves fucking with business, even when it makes no sense what so ever .... which is why i relayed this story on this thread.
 
Nobody has (or should have) any right to force a person to engage in commerce. If someone declines to do business with someone else, that someone else hasn't lost any freedom. One person's freedom ends where another's begins. Commerce has to be mutually agreed to; a violation of one's right to property means forcing him to dispose of his property some specific way... not declining to trade.

If what you said were true, then I could argue that you're taking away my freedoms by not selling me your car for the handful of pennies sitting on my desk. That, of course, is absurdly silly.
 
Siding with big business huh? You mean the businesses that would be far less likely to discriminate than small business?

Yeah I'm sure it'll be Walmart and McDonald's that choose to not allow minorities, and not "Grandpa Bob's General Store" that gets 5 customers a day
 
I wouldn't say so, ever. You and I (we?) certainly have the right to help them, but an obligation is an absolute, and the logical conclusion of obligation of this sort is Comte's altruism (i.e. self-immolation).

As for competition... I view it as a pleasant byproduct of, rather than the purpose for, Capitalist economics. Competition is neither a premise nor a conclusion, simply an observable phenomenon that happens to benefit just about everyone. The primaries in arguments for Capitalism are the ethics of rational self-interest; the freedom from such obligation is fundamental to a free market. Thus, policies designed to protect competition are anti-ideological, they're designed as means to a desired end. (I realize that's probably a bit tangential.)



I have no problem with that. I'm sure you're right in saying it's largely irrelevant, I intended only to allude to the infinitely-long list of questions neglected when a dilemma is posed along the lines of, "we have to take care of these people, or they'll die" (or whatever). Not that I'm accusing you of proposing such a dilemma.

What, specifically, do you find to be relevant to the discussion? I should like to weigh your premises, if you'll share them. (That's assuming you've reached a conclusion on this matter, which may not be a safe assumption.)



I don't know either. I'm not entirely sure that racially-motivated violence has really decreased at all, I suppose it would depend into what proportion we squeeze the figures. (I'm thinking Jena Six here.) It's also worth mentioning, I suppose, that racial violence may not be the best metric for grading intolerance. It's certainly true that actions are of primary concern, but a quick trip to the Main (or worse, 4chan) leads one quickly to the conclusion that racism is by no means dead. The internet is an interesting phenomenon. The anonymity is emboldening. Now I wonder what the consequences are in there being a venue for those who feel hatred to let their flag fly freely. Digression again, maybe.
 
Like you said, intolerance is bad for business, and flat out unworkable in a market where competition exists. I'm no economist, but my understanding is that on small scales like the one I mentioned, perfect competition is unlikely or impossible. For example, there might not be a big barrier to getting into the business of groceries, but it just doesn't seem feasible to build a new hospital (or infrastructure for a water utility) and hire new staff to compete for the business of one more family. Do we have any obligation to help that family?

Forgive me for saying so, but I think the questions of how minorities arrive in towns or why they stay are largely irrelevant to the discussion. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think that your position that forced tolerance begets intolerance is legitimate, but I might add the qualifier "at least for awhile." I'm not aware of a lot of examples to draw from here, I have every impression that when US public schools were forcibly desegregated, racially motivated violence in schools increased for some years, then decreased. Is that decrease (assuming my impression is correct) in violence the result of forced integration from a young age, or did the older generation just fail to engender intolerance among their children? I don't know.
 
Indeed. If someone didn't have an issue with skin color, they probably wouldn't be arguing tooth and nail about a possible repeal. It just wouldn't be an issue, because it really doesn't affect business in an adverse way.
 
Yes, absurd. If the guy has the right amount of money to purchase the vehicle, and you are willing to sell it, then what's the problem?
 
Back
Top