- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 82,074
- Reaction score
- 19,733
- Location
- Houston, in the great state of Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
If you may not already know I'm a free market conservative. And there have been a few things occurring that have really threatened the free market as it stands.
First, I want to define what a free market is and what it should be.
A completely free market carries with it some particular issues that occasionally can cause problems. So I believe very minimal regulations should exist. Such as truth in advertising. (meaning you can't advertise tic tacs as a cure for cancer) Also monopolies are the antithesis of a free market so regulations regarding that should be in place.
We have heard the stories. The bakery that was issued a citation by the city for discriminating. The chapel that was basically put out of business in Idaho for not hosting a wedding. And I'm sure the list goes on. Let's please not make this about religious or sexual orientation Bull****. It never was about that. It's about the free market.
I personally believe that businesses should be allowed to pick their customers. This is a win win scenario. If Business A decides to discriminate against aspect Y of persons, Business B can serve Not only all of the customers that Business A would serve but also group Y leading to a more successful business. Business A may not go out of business, but if Business B does not exist, any customer denied business from Business A can form Business B and have a guaranteed customer base particularly if they advertise that group Y is welcome.
Yes, this will end in some people not getting services and goods at certain places. But freedom isn't free. The freedom of speech allowes people to say things that we don't like, but I have the right to say things others don't like. And isn't that right worth it? Isn't freedom at the price of a few inconveniences worth it?
What do you think?
I take issue with government interference. When the government protects us from discrimination, freedom evaporates.I disagree with you totally.
If a business holds itself open to the public...it should be open to the public. If a business decides it does not want to serve women, blacks, Jews, or any other group of people based on that sort of thinking...I have no problem with the government giving them all sorts of grief.
None at all.
I take issue with government interference. When the government protects us from discrimination, freedom evaporates.
I stand in solidarity with freedom fighters, there were wars fought over this. Freedom sometimes is a pain to deal with, but isn't it better than being told how to run your business?
There are business that discriminate against sex and they have created a wonderful place for some people. One that comes to mind is women only gyms. Brilliant business model, women can go there and not worry about horny muscle bound freaks hitting on them and taking cellphone picks of them. Their customers are loyal. And nothing prevents a gym from being open to both sexes or just men, or children or what not. Would you really destroy that in order to make the public a fair and equal place?
What price do we pay? And what is the reason?
With this, would you include a requirement to post whom the business will not serve, or exclusively serve, as the case may be, to be under the truth in advertising aspect?If you may not already know I'm a free market conservative. And there have been a few things occurring that have really threatened the free market as it stands.
First, I want to define what a free market is and what it should be.
A completely free market carries with it some particular issues that occasionally can cause problems. So I believe very minimal regulations should exist. Such as truth in advertising. (meaning you can't advertise tic tacs as a cure for cancer) Also monopolies are the antithesis of a free market so regulations regarding that should be in place.
We have heard the stories. The bakery that was issued a citation by the city for discriminating. The chapel that was basically put out of business in Idaho for not hosting a wedding. And I'm sure the list goes on. Let's please not make this about religious or sexual orientation Bull****. It never was about that. It's about the free market.
I personally believe that businesses should be allowed to pick their customers. This is a win win scenario. If Business A decides to discriminate against aspect Y of persons, Business B can serve Not only all of the customers that Business A would serve but also group Y leading to a more successful business. Business A may not go out of business, but if Business B does not exist, any customer denied business from Business A can form Business B and have a guaranteed customer base particularly if they advertise that group Y is welcome.
Yes, this will end in some people not getting services and goods at certain places. But freedom isn't free. The freedom of speech allowes people to say things that we don't like, but I have the right to say things others don't like. And isn't that right worth it? Isn't freedom at the price of a few inconveniences worth it?
What do you think?
If I were Hispanic or Arab in a country where a significant portion of the population is nominating a man who thinks all Mexicans are rapists and that all Muslims are terrorists;Yes, this will end in some people not getting services and goods at certain places. But freedom isn't free. The freedom of speech allowes people to say things that we don't like, but I have the right to say things others don't like. And isn't that right worth it? Isn't freedom at the price of a few inconveniences worth it? What do you think?
The only price for a fair public is freedom. The idea that we must force a Jewish painting business to paint swastikas on a wall of a national socialist's wall so that we aren't hypocrites for forcing homophobes to serve pizza to a gay couple, to me is asinine.Pay whatever price you want...or allow to be exacted.
I disagree with the stripping of freedom to make public equal.I disagree with your first post.
You are absolutely right. In a free market, a business that discriminates has limited its own customer base. Will some do it? Sure. But that creates an instant market for those who do no discriminate in a similar fashion. A good business sees one color: green.If you may not already know I'm a free market conservative. And there have been a few things occurring that have really threatened the free market as it stands.
First, I want to define what a free market is and what it should be.
A completely free market carries with it some particular issues that occasionally can cause problems. So I believe very minimal regulations should exist. Such as truth in advertising. (meaning you can't advertise tic tacs as a cure for cancer) Also monopolies are the antithesis of a free market so regulations regarding that should be in place.
We have heard the stories. The bakery that was issued a citation by the city for discriminating. The chapel that was basically put out of business in Idaho for not hosting a wedding. And I'm sure the list goes on. Let's please not make this about religious or sexual orientation Bull****. It never was about that. It's about the free market.
I personally believe that businesses should be allowed to pick their customers. This is a win win scenario. If Business A decides to discriminate against aspect Y of persons, Business B can serve Not only all of the customers that Business A would serve but also group Y leading to a more successful business. Business A may not go out of business, but if Business B does not exist, any customer denied business from Business A can form Business B and have a guaranteed customer base particularly if they advertise that group Y is welcome.
Yes, this will end in some people not getting services and goods at certain places. But freedom isn't free. The freedom of speech allowes people to say things that we don't like, but I have the right to say things others don't like. And isn't that right worth it? Isn't freedom at the price of a few inconveniences worth it?
What do you think?
No. If you go in there and you belong to the exclusion group and they deny you, you don't have to stay there. Your feelings may be hurt, but tell everybody how badly they treat potential customers. Tell all the people in the exclusion group. Protest in front of their business. Or do what I do, put your middle finger in their face walk out and never go back.With this, would you include a requirement to post whom the business will not serve, or exclusively serve, as the case may be, to be under the truth in advertising aspect?
people that will sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.If I were Hispanic or Arab in a country where a significant portion of the population is nominating a man who thinks all Mexicans are rapists and that all Muslims are terrorists;
I am not going to sacrifice my welfare and well-being, which is my ability to safely go to a grocery store, for that idea.
...
So even though I'm a white male. No, absolutely not. I care about my friends more than that.
The only price for a fair public is freedom. The idea that we must force a Jewish painting business to paint swastikas on a wall of a national socialist's wall so that we aren't hypocrites for forcing homophobes to serve pizza to a gay couple, to me is asinine.
I disagree with the stripping of freedom to make public equal.
Exactly.You are absolutely right. In a free market, a business that discriminates has limited its own customer base. Will some do it? Sure. But that creates an instant market for those who do no discriminate in a similar fashion. A good business sees one color: green.
If you may not already know I'm a free market conservative. And there have been a few things occurring that have really threatened the free market as it stands.
First, I want to define what a free market is and what it should be.
A completely free market carries with it some particular issues that occasionally can cause problems. So I believe very minimal regulations should exist. Such as truth in advertising. (meaning you can't advertise tic tacs as a cure for cancer) Also monopolies are the antithesis of a free market so regulations regarding that should be in place.
We have heard the stories. The bakery that was issued a citation by the city for discriminating. The chapel that was basically put out of business in Idaho for not hosting a wedding. And I'm sure the list goes on. Let's please not make this about religious or sexual orientation Bull****. It never was about that. It's about the free market.
I personally believe that businesses should be allowed to pick their customers. This is a win win scenario. If Business A decides to discriminate against aspect Y of persons, Business B can serve Not only all of the customers that Business A would serve but also group Y leading to a more successful business. Business A may not go out of business, but if Business B does not exist, any customer denied business from Business A can form Business B and have a guaranteed customer base particularly if they advertise that group Y is welcome.
Yes, this will end in some people not getting services and goods at certain places. But freedom isn't free. The freedom of speech allowes people to say things that we don't like, but I have the right to say things others don't like. And isn't that right worth it? Isn't freedom at the price of a few inconveniences worth it?
What do you think?
The idea of freedom at a cost of public equality sucks?I get that, Clax.
Naturally, I hope you never get appointed to the Supreme Court.
I tried to say this nicely...but...
Anyway...you idea sucks like a Hoover Vacuum.
A free market can never exist in a world where a government exists.
Your observation sucks. It may escape your notice, but the OP....the guy who advocates that the free market will take care of discrimination, happens to be gay.I always love the hardcore free market types are always the ones who are ridiculously unlikely to get discriminated against. It's never the minorities who, if discrimination is allowed, will quickly find themselves forced out onto the street.
Just an observation.
Ergo, not a free market. You don't get to re-define understood terms.So I believe very minimal regulations should exist.
I am a minority and I have been discriminated against more than once.I always love the hardcore free market types are always the ones who are ridiculously unlikely to get discriminated against.
It's been legal to discriminate against my minority status and always has been. In housing and employment. No law exists against it. I have been discriminated against in employment. But as far as housing I haven't been forced to live on the streets.It's never the minorities who, if discrimination is allowed, will quickly find themselves forced out onto the street.
Just an observation.
Ergo, not a free market. You don't get to re-define understood terms.
Again,m a complete abandoning of understood terms. A "free market" is free of regulation/interference, you never understood the term to begin with, so you created your own definitions.....this is a running trait with libertarians, they free so free that they can re-define existing terms.An absolutely free market, no. A market that only had the most minimal of regulations yes. I outlined in my op what regulations I feel are necessary to preserve a free market.
An absolutely free market is oxymoronic. An absolutely free market would promote monopoly, which if exists a free market cannot.
Again read the op. Or the first post you responded to, or the second one you responded to.Again,m a complete abandoning of understood terms. A "free market" is free of regulation/interference, you never understood the term to begin with, so you created your own definitions.....this is a running trait with libertarians, they free so free that they can re-define existing terms.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?