You're not working for me. You're conducting a transaction with me.
You're not working for me. You're conducting a transaction with me.
You're just being an absolutist as a result of limited capacity for analysis and understanding. You admitted such.
Um, I hate to tell you this...but even though he did write the Constitution, he did NOT write what he felt was right, but instead, he had to write what was AGREED UPON by those who voted in the majority in the Constitutional Convention. I hope you understand the difference.
I've wondered for a while - that "caebannog" - is that Gaelic?
If you force me into a transaction then I'm forced to provide my labor for your benefit. That is involuntary servitude.
There is no right for a buissness to designate lunch counters as "whites only" or "blacks only".
"Seperate but equal" is unconstitutional.
Guy, it does. not. matter. what YOUR ethical beliefs are. The worst mistake people make is, "well, everything would be better if"...and then they go using whatever rhetoric to back up what they think is eminently logical.
Problem is, there IS such a thing as "too much freedom". Yes, now that your head has stopped exploding, there IS such a thing as "too much freedom". You can't go shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, you can't say the word "bomb" when you're about to go on a plane, and you can't say "My restaurant won't serve you because you're black"...because in all three examples, Very Bad Things happen when you do.
You can have your "right to discriminate" and the Very Bad Things (like riots, lynchings, etc.) that would go along with it...or you can have your "freedom from discrimination" and the relative peaceful society that comes with it. But you CANNOT have both.
i am not?.....so if you enter my hamburger shop, and order a burger, and i say...no, i am not serving you... of coarse you cannot force me by physical means, however you use the power of government to force me by coercion.
the government tells me, make that burger for her.......or we will put you out of business.....what do i do?, serve you a hamburger, or get forced out of business by the government....which is government coercion, and unlawful, because i have not committed a crime, which would be the only way that situation you have there for government coercion.
Business is a transaction. If people want to look at it as liberty then they must realize liberty needs to be for both parties. The only way to do this is to not attach emotions to transactions. If you do, you run the risk of producing an oppressive society.
that makes no sense....what did he not write?
Then you become my slave by serving me in your restaurant and I pay you for that service? That seems pretty far fetched to a reasonable person.
I don't think people can truly be at peace until they are truly free and by extension the society can not truly be at peace until all people are truly free. This cannot be done under a system that relies on government or relies on community or promotes collectivism, but only under one that promotes individuality and voluntary exchange that allows individuals to practice their sovereignty at a cost they decide on. If however, you allow society or government to be the tool that decides the cost people are willing to pay for their lives then people will combat amongst themselves and the society itself will be in a constant state of war due to the individual desire for personal liberty being undermined by hostile forces. This will not only make individuals that wish to maintain their just liberty fight, but people that wish to use the government or society to gain more liberty than they are justly permitted to fight, and thus, as society moves forward conflict and war will only grow until the society itself crumbles at its feet.
It's a skit by Monty Python. I had to cut the 'r' off because your username can only have 15 letters.
Holy Grail - Killer Bunny - YouTube
Ah. The almighty market would drive the racists out of business. Sounds good, doesn't it? Sounds really reasonable, doesn't it?
The problem with your theory - which I've heard espoused many times before - is that it wouldn't work that way because we have something called the Deep South, where racism is still strong. All it takes is ONE racist business to succeed to start the vicious circle. That business which wouldn't allow blacks attracts enough racists (and there ARE enough racists in the Deep South) to succeed...and what happens? Sooner or later the blacks get ticked off, and open their own blacks-only business. THEN the racist whites point to the blacks doing that, and say, "See? It was the blacks who were racist all along" and so the whites-only business gets more business, and more businesses like that open, and more blacks-only businesses open in retaliation...
...and suddenly we're on our way down that vicious circle to a market-enforced Jim Crow era.
Not only that, but when the blacks decide to come in and sit down at the counter in the whites-only business (just like they did in the Civil Rights struggle), the whites would call the police and say, "We don't allow blacks in our business" and so the police are forced to enforce the law...
...and suddenly we have government-enforced racism...and you know as well as I do that this would be all over the media. There would be riots - particularly in the black community - and innocent people would die.
Is this really where you want America to go?
Then you become my slave by serving me in your restaurant and I pay you for that service? That seems pretty far fetched to a reasonable person.
There's a difference between writing what you WANT to write...and writing what is AGREED UPON by a great many men...and there were more than a few shouting matches at the Constitutional Convention over what should be in the Constitution.
I disagree with that. Peace is acceptance. Its an individual decision and not a result of a way of life. Besides, it won't happen anyway, too many differing priorities. If society swings too much in any direct, some group is going to be upset and try to change it to their preferred way. That's just the way it is. If the more libertarian types get their way, then the more typical types are going to fight back as a result. There are specific subtypes that prefer a more libertarian style of things, but that priority is only one of many.
I totally agree that people can endanger others through their words or actions. However, you're comparing apples to oranges. Not trading with someone doesn't endanger them in any way, shape, or form.
involuntary servitude, still exist even if payment is rendered.Then you become my slave by serving me in your restaurant and I pay you for that service? That seems pretty far fetched to a reasonable person.
No, business is a service. A transaction is when money changes hands.
Bold: Seriously? We're talking about human beings here. There is not one single person alive that has no emotions. Not one single action is taken without emotions.
involuntary servitude, still exist even if payment is rendered.
Yeah, like sex trade industry. Um, not the same as ringing up a burger.
everything i said is true, that is how the current way of government force works.
It does when refusal to do so leads to riots. When I refer to black sitting at a "whites-only" counter, that wasn't a government counter - it was a business "open to the public". Do you really, truly think that exact scenario wouldn't play out again? How long do you think it would take before that business was vandalized or worse? Hours, maybe? And then there's likely to be some gun nut in there who decides he's under attack and he kills one or more of the vandals.
How long before the riots begin?
This isn't a "nightmare scenario", guy - this is PRECISELY what would happen.
How many people would have to die, how many businesses would wind up vandalized or firebombed, how many lives would have to be broken before you realized that maybe, just maybe "a right to discriminate" is NOT a path to a peaceful, prosperous society?
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?