The free market, the pros and cons.

[MrWonka]

Well people can be assholes.

True, but if the free market actually worked and made the world a better place then being an asshole would be bad for business. Clearly that is not the case. Thus the free market is very flawed.

 

[CLAX1911]

Yes, it does. That's the compromise. That's how public accommodation laws have operated since the 16th century.

Excuse me, I am arguing that it shouldn't.

If you had bothered to read the Atlantic article I linked, you'd know that rejection of public accommodation laws only really started, wait for it... as a reaction to the idea of blacks, as citizens and non-slaves, being able to patronize businesses after the Civil War. <sarcasm> You're standing on an illustrious and noble history there. </sarcasm>

Im sorry, I am not really concerned with the providence of the idea. The discussion I wish to have is whether it's right or wrong today.

If the business does not want to serve the public, it should not operate as a public accommodation. It has to operate as a private membership organization.

I understand what the law says and that you agree with it. My question is why?

That's exactly what's going on, even if they are not conscious of it. They want to treat a group of people like 2nd class citizens. They are asserting that their right to association is more important than their responsibility to serve all of the public

To them it is. They have the right to association. That's enumerated in the first amendment. Why is it that the personhood of others supersedes that right?

or to avoid causing harm to society as a whole. The need to stop those harms is exactly why we, as a society, had to pass those laws, to balance those divergent needs and rights.

I am of the opinion that these laws sometimes are necessary. But they should only be applied when it's absolutely necessary. If you can show how homosexuals (not a protected group) are indeed 2nd class citizens in places where they aren't protected, I'll gladly support any law that forbids the discrimination of them by businesses.

Yes, I know that's your claim. It's a typical one, which ignores both the laws and the reasons for the laws, as well as broad public support for almost every type of civil rights law, and the vast harms caused by discrimination.

This is a discussing about what law should be. Not what law is. Further public support is never a reason to curb rights. That isn't how a constitutional republic works.

That's why I refuted your objections on numerous grounds, including addressing claims about property rights.

You didn't though. You just said that those rights are secondary to the public. I disagree. The constitution is our supreme law all other laws must be secondary otherwise it isn't supreme law.

Since you aren't bothering to read my posts, I see no reason to continue. I'm out.

I am sorry if I gave you that impression. I simply disagree with you. You're posts are very well thought out and I am glad you have taken this discussion seriously.

I wonder what I said that gave you that impression.

I figured I was being respectful. I took the time to address all of your points, any disrespect I apologize for and assure you that wasn't my intent.

You are the only person that actually attempted to list pros and cons. That I respect.

 

[CLAX1911]

​

True, but if the free market actually worked and made the world a better place then being an asshole would be bad for business. Clearly that is not the case. Thus the free market is very flawed.

Being an asshole is bad for business. Take a car rental agency for example. If business A refused to serve Hindus, and business B said all people are welcome and appreciated, even if you weren't Hindu would you go to business A?

 

[MrWonka]

​

Being an asshole is bad for business. Take a car rental agency for example. If business A refused to serve Hindus, and business B said all people are welcome and appreciated, even if you weren't Hindu would you go to business A?

If I also hated Hindus I would. So let's replace Hindus with Gays, Atheists, or Muslims. If a Rental Car company particularly in a Southern State like Mississippi refused to serve Atheists, gays, blacks, or Muslims that would not cause them to lose business. In fact it would likely gain them business. The other car rental companies in town would soon get the reputation of being the company Atheists use thus driving away christian customers until business B also had no choice, but to refuse business to Atheists in order to stay a float.

Or take a real example. When it was found out that Chick-fil-a was donating money to anti-Gay Marriage causes it instantly became the favorite restaurant of Right Wing assholes everywhere. Many people sympathetic to the gay community have avoid them, that's true, but with 80% of the country considering itself Christian that bigotry can be used as a marketing ploy.

 

[CLAX1911]

If I also hated Hindus I would.

What do you think there is more of? People with backward prejudices or civilized people that don't accept such things?

So let's replace Hindus with Gays, Atheists, or Muslims. If a Rental Car company particularly in a Southern State like Mississippi refused to serve Atheists, gays, blacks, or Muslims that would not cause them to lose business. In fact it would likely gain them business. The other car rental companies in town would soon get the reputation of being the company Atheists use thus driving away christian customers until business B also had no choice, but to refuse business to Atheists in order to stay a float.

Not if they didn't seem out that reputation. If they claimed to be a Christian car rental company that caters to everybody they certainly wouldn't get that reputation.

And you're also assuming that the majority of southern Mississippi residents are not just Christian but prejudiced against atheists Muslims and gays. It may not and likely isn't that way.

It seems you're being a little prejudiced against people from southern Mississippi? Until you go there and get to know the people, that logic won't follow.

Or take a real example. When it was found out that Chick-fil-a was donating money to anti-Gay Marriage causes it instantly became the favorite restaurant of Right Wing assholes everywhere.

So? They didn't say they wouldn't serve anybody. That's different.

Many people sympathetic to the gay community have avoid them, that's true, but with 80% of the country considering itself Christian that bigotry can be used as a marketing ploy.

Some people also thought that the CEO has the right to his opinion, and the right to give money to whom he wishes. And thought they simply didn't deserve any more of their money.

It was perfectly legal, and if it was such a brilliant idea that caused a huge business increase, why did no other fast food joint do it?

I think in the long run it hurt chick fil a. It may have caused a boom at first, but that may just be because chick fil a was being advertised on television nation wide.

We haven't heard a word since. I'm going by events that actually occurred, the lack of any other business doing this and the silence from chick fil a hence tells me it's not good for business.

 

[MrWonka]

What do you think there is more of? People with backward prejudices or civilized people that don't accept such things?

Depends on where and when you're talking about. That's the problem. If you're talking about Mississippi or North Carolina clearly there are clearly more backward people. Up until about a decade ago the vast majority of people in this country still thought there was something wrong with being gay. Even to this day there are laws preventing atheists from serving on a jury in some states. We have seen all throughout history instances of majorities oppressing minorities. Anybody who believes that we are beyond that type of ignorance is a great fool. Just look at what is going on in places like your "great state" of Texas right now where they are trying to organize boycotts of Target for allowing trans-gendered people to use the bathroom of their choice. The free market favors majorities. It favors the powerful. The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to recognize that majorities are not always correct. In fact more often than not the majority of people in the world are actually quite ignorant.

 

[Cephus]

Of course, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be consequences. I'm just wondering the implications behind the government creating new consequences. I don't think it's their job to punish and reward behavior they dislike or like. And that is the implication. It really becomes a question of whether this is a republic or a monarchy.

It's their job to do whatever the voters want them to do. That's what a representative government does. Just because you don't personally like what the representatives sent to Washington do doesn't mean that the American people doesn't.

Sigh, the government is the people. If the people want to enslave everybody whose name behind with R do they then get to? Or is this a constitutional republic where rights are guaranteed by the supreme law, and the government is subject to it rather than the object of it?

Then why do you keep complaining about what the government does? It does the will of the people. Just because you don't like that will doesn't change anything.

 

[Cephus]

True, but if the free market actually worked and made the world a better place then being an asshole would be bad for business. Clearly that is not the case. Thus the free market is very flawed.

It is bad for business, unless you're in an area where assholery is accepted and expected, as a lot of these Deep South idiots are. When you're surrounded by racist, sexist and homophobic asshats who will ride you around on their shoulders for sticking it to those evil sinners, you're not going to suffer the same kind of negative consequences that you would almost anywhere else in the country.

 

[Geoist]

Ideally, I am a freeD market advocate. In a perfect world, I believe in free association, voluntary contract, and reciprocity. I believe in the recognition and respect of both the commons and property in the fruits of labor ("private possessions" as some leftists call them). I believe a truly freed market would be something much like what Proudhon advocated: a "third form of society, the synthesis of communism and property."

However, I oppose what we currently refer to as "free market capitalism." The reality is much like a global game of Monopoly. Inherently unfair and fixed to benefit just a few.

 

[Moot]

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 think if a business is open to the public that it should it should treat all of it's customers equally.

 

[CLAX1911]

I think if a business is open to the public that it should it should treat all of it's customers equally.

Okay, why?