- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Doesn't that always seem to be the way they argue? "Oh if you're against this then you must be supporting that."
Ok given this statement You've brought to mind a different set of conditions. Do you hold this to be true only in the realm of this country or is this a universal stance. IOW, if the US were to impose sanctions (I believe this is the word I'm looking for but correct me if I'm wrong) and ban the sale of goods to say China for labor sweat shop issues, or Saudi Arabia for nuclear weapon issues, is the government allowed to say that you can't sell to business and individuals in those countries? I realize that in a way it is opposite to the current thread in that the government is saying you can't sell instead of you must sell, but it still runs upon the same principle of the government telling you what to do with your property where that action does not invoke direct harm.
Given that we have riots when sports teams lose, is this really a point? Maybe we should be banning sporting events. The four cops beating up the black man were in direct violation of his rights and freedoms. But declared innocent was a travesty of justice. It is not a reason to violate other rights. You don't fix a wrong with a wrong. The King incident and riots would not be changed in anyway by allowing business owners to choose who they do and do not sell to for any reason.
As if slave labor doesn't invoke direct harm. Oh, but by gosh a private owner treating people like slaves is perfectly his right.
As if slave labor doesn't invoke direct harm. Oh, but by gosh a private owner treating people like slaves is perfectly his right.
How can a business owner denying to sell them his/her property be considered slavery? Or even treating them as such?
The simple fact is these people believe in equality By law not equality under the law. they want force of goverment to make everyone the same.Wow! Way to move to goal posts. Try to actually respond to what was said and not what you want it to mean. Let's reword since you seem incapable of comprehension.
The US has imposed sanctions upon China over sweat shop issues. I want to sell to a person in China, who for sake of argument does not use such practices nor agrees with them. He's a minority in the country but still I am choosing to deal with him because of those practices. Does the government have that right to tell me I cannot sell my property to said individual?
Your false analogy of a private owner not selling to an individual is akin to slave-hood is pitiful. They are of course not a slave and they are perfectly free to go to another business owner who has the same good or service who does not discriminate. Isn't it amazing how simple that is and fully within the realm of rights and freedom?
Your false analogy of a private owner not selling to an individual is akin to slave-hood is pitiful. They are of course not a slave and they are perfectly free to go to another business owner who has the same good or service who does not discriminate. Isn't it amazing how simple that is and fully within the realm of rights and freedom?
Wow! Way to move to goal posts. Try to actually respond to what was said and not what you want it to mean. Let's reword since you seem incapable of comprehension.
The simple fact is these people believe in equality By law not equality under the law. they want force of goverment to make everyone the same.
I was referring to the right that a business owner has the right to treat his workers as slave laborers. Re-read my post.
Um, where did a I say this so called analogy of a private owner not selling to an individual is akin to slave-hood? Um, I didn't. You made that up. I was responding to your post about putting sanctions because of sweat shops.
There is absolutely nothing in your post which indicates that you were talking about employees. Since the topic is not about employees I had no reason to think that you were talking about them without some sort of indication that you were talking about them.
That said, Lets stick to the topic OK? That is a different issue that deserves its own thread.
I shall explain..you wish to use government and its power to force one person, to treat another with respect and dignity , fairly, and if they don't you will use government power on them. But what you fail to realize is ,in having liberty people don't have to treat other people that way, unless a persons rights have been violated ,the government has no authority to act.Nah, I don't want to make everyone the same because they are not. I just want them to be treated the same when conducting any kind of business transaction.
I shall explain..you wish to use government and its power to force one person, to treat another with respect and dignity , fairly, and if they don't you will use government power on them. But what you fail to realize is ,in having liberty people don't have to treat other people that way, unless a persons rights have been violated ,the government has no authority to act.
Because you have no exercisable Rights on my property..... the right of commerce is an exercisable right.How is a person's right NOT being violated because someone refuses services due to the color of his skin or his heritage?
How is a person's right NOT being violated because someone refuses services due to the color of his skin or his heritage?
Because you have no exercisable Rights on my property..... the right of commerce is an exercisable right.
To what "right/s" are you refering to? To not be discriminated against? Such a right does not exist.
His right to make a business transaction following business ethic because he is of another race, creed, etc....
His right to make a business transaction following business ethic because he is of another race, creed, etc....
And you continue to refuse to state whether you think you have the right to violate the body or property of your fellow man in order to coerce him to trade with someone against his will. Fascinating, and very, very telling.
Not a right.
Given that we have riots when sports teams lose, is this really a point? Maybe we should be banning sporting events. The four cops beating up the black man were in direct violation of his rights and freedoms. But declared innocent was a travesty of justice. It is not a reason to violate other rights. You don't fix a wrong with a wrong. The King incident and riots would not be changed in anyway by allowing business owners to choose who they do and do not sell to for any reason.
There is no such right. :shrug: It is however a priviledge.
So, free market really is selective market based on the property owners discretion. Basically, using your premise, we can never have a truly free market because people who don't own property are at the will of property owners. Now that is liberty at its best
I think Maquistcat answered this fairly well. :shrug: I would just like to add that there is a difference between denying a priviledge (me letting you buy my property) and that of cops beating up someone which violates thier rights...and getting away with it. As I have said countless times in this thread. As long as a person does not violate another persons rights then they can do what they want with their property.
One thing that I have noticed through out my talking in this thread is that I have given proof as to why people have the right to discriminate based on the Rights that we currently have and are upheld by SCOTUS as Rights. Yet no one has given proof as to why people have a right to not be discriminated against. They've given opinions. But no proof.
This may come as a shock to you, but government-enforced racism isn't the same thing as a sports game.
Yes, the cops were beating the black man in direct violation of his rights and freedoms...and those of you who want a "right" to discriminate would be - in the eyes of most Americans and particularly in the eyes of minorities - would be taking away rights and freedoms that took minorities (especially blacks) centuries to win.
And you think they wouldn't riot about that? Do you really?
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?