14 years and counting...

unsung said:

mrussel1 said:

unsung said:

mrussel1 said:

unsung said:

mrussel1 said:

unsung said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

mace1229 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

LongestRoad said:

brianlux said:

LongestRoad said:

brianlux said:

unsung said:

Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!

Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!

Within limits.  First of all, no one owns land.  Land belongs to the earth.  The earth will reclaim its own in due time.  Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect.  Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk.  Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.

This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint.  An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently.  But as always, earth bats last.

The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time. 

What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak? 

Oh well.  I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.

I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner".
Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?

Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?

Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse.
Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it.
Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare? 
Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with?
Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.

I may have a different opinion than some here. I don't believe my freedom of speech should be impeded by my government, but by my society. The double-edged sword to this is that whether my society becomes progressive and accepting, or a regressive and intolerant one, the citizenry (we) are the architects of our future society.

If I want to treat any group with special treatment, that's my prerogative, and with that act, I accept that there are potentially going to be social ramifications which could include legal protests and boycotting of my business, as are within the rights of the citizenry. I disagree with the government's intervention in such matters, as I believe we need an engaged citizenry to discuss what is just and right, and what is unjust, rather than giving us a free pass while the government mandates ethics (meaning we never truly seek justice, we only seek living within legal boundaries). The baker risked his credibility amongst society, just as the restauranteur did. Society (we) must speak up on which we deem acceptable. 

so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?

Yes.  Is it right to do?  No.  But I don't believe in government forcing people to run their private business how it sees fit.

I also fully support how the market would react.  

Except in this country, we had a little thing called Jim Crow.  It's too bad people's racial beliefs aren't directly affiliated with laissez-faire capitalism, otherwise your suggestion might work.  But unfortunately, in the real world, laissez-faire capitalism fails because of the corruption of man.  This is the same reason why the Civil Rights Act was necessary, along with Brown v Board.  History is a better predictor of events than an economic philosophy.  

Correct me if i am wrong but wasn't that dealing with schooling?

Not Jim Crow, that covered every aspect of life, in particular voting.  It prevented blacks from having a voice in the governed.  Brown did deal with schooling, but throwing out the Plessy v Ferguson "separate but equal" standard was probably the critical hurdle in being able to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the subsequent Voting Rights Act.  The "market" was not able to create an equal society so gov't had to step in.  

Fair enough.  My position was based on the aspect of a private business.  Thanks.

Understood, but what we've learned is that the market needs guardrails.  Before the SEC existed, there was rampant speculation, wild swings and total market manipulation that caused panics, recessions, etc.  Before the prohibition of monopolies, you would have one company corner the market on a necessary product, and create unfair pricing that was not market driven.  You would also have "company towns" where a business forced the employees to live, eat and shop at establishments owned by the mill, factory, etc.  The point is that laissez-faire capitalism is a great idea, but it has never been successful because of man's penchant to corrupt.  Therefore guardrails need to be established.  The same goes for the anti-discrimination laws that were enacted in teh 20th century.  

We've never really had true capitalism though, at least not for a long time.

PJ_Soul said:

rgambs said:

unsung said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

mace1229 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

LongestRoad said:

brianlux said:

LongestRoad said:

brianlux said:

unsung said:

Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!

Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!

Within limits.  First of all, no one owns land.  Land belongs to the earth.  The earth will reclaim its own in due time.  Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect.  Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk.  Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.

This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint.  An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently.  But as always, earth bats last.

The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time. 

What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak? 

Oh well.  I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.

I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner".
Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?

Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?

Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse.
Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it.
Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare? 
Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with?
Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.

I may have a different opinion than some here. I don't believe my freedom of speech should be impeded by my government, but by my society. The double-edged sword to this is that whether my society becomes progressive and accepting, or a regressive and intolerant one, the citizenry (we) are the architects of our future society.

If I want to treat any group with special treatment, that's my prerogative, and with that act, I accept that there are potentially going to be social ramifications which could include legal protests and boycotting of my business, as are within the rights of the citizenry. I disagree with the government's intervention in such matters, as I believe we need an engaged citizenry to discuss what is just and right, and what is unjust, rather than giving us a free pass while the government mandates ethics (meaning we never truly seek justice, we only seek living within legal boundaries). The baker risked his credibility amongst society, just as the restauranteur did. Society (we) must speak up on which we deem acceptable. 

so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?

HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!

In my opinion, yes, that should be legal. If we hate these behaviours, however, we should exert socioeconomic pressure to correct the social direction of the country, rather than expecting it to govern itself. This means that complacent moderates (including myself) need to wake the fuck up, and involve ourselves more in showing our nation what we're willing to tolerate or not, to create the future we want - otherwise, we risk bearing witness to the one we don't. Stop eating at that restaurant. Put flyers around town to showcase the bigotry the restaurant-owners are responsible for. 

All of this being said, I'm not 100% on this (nor am I on any topic). I just worry that we are refraining from being social warriors, claiming that the government will tell what is "right or wrong" - with full evidence that they can't discern between the two. Forcing our society to think for itself and showing the upside or downside potential of both might take that scapegoat away.

I guess what confuses me a bit about this viewpoint, and I can see your point, in a society-governing-itself-on-its-own kinda way, is that on one hand, you often acknowledge the utter stupidity of the average human, yet you want groups of said average humans to govern themselves. 

what happens if the "whites only" crowd outnumbers the "everyone's welcome" crowd? what then? I think that's where laws had to come in. not just in numbers, but in pure selfish laziness. how many people in the right actually rise up and stand up for what's right? more often than not, the bystander effect happens, and the wrong people run amok. 

I think if you take away the legal consequence of an action, and only have in place a societal one, too often the societal one will not be enough of a detterent, or violence will erupt as a natural consequence of said action, or both. 

Then the everyone's welcome crowd can open their own business and take over an underserved market.

You need to read a history book.  
More than one.

I have a feeling he's more into Ayn Rand's work.

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

rgambs said:

unsung said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

mace1229 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

LongestRoad said:

brianlux said:

LongestRoad said:

brianlux said:

unsung said:

Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!

Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!

Within limits.  First of all, no one owns land.  Land belongs to the earth.  The earth will reclaim its own in due time.  Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect.  Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk.  Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.

This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint.  An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently.  But as always, earth bats last.

The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time. 

What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak? 

Oh well.  I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.

I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner".
Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?

Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?

Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse.
Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it.
Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare? 
Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with?
Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.

I may have a different opinion than some here. I don't believe my freedom of speech should be impeded by my government, but by my society. The double-edged sword to this is that whether my society becomes progressive and accepting, or a regressive and intolerant one, the citizenry (we) are the architects of our future society.

If I want to treat any group with special treatment, that's my prerogative, and with that act, I accept that there are potentially going to be social ramifications which could include legal protests and boycotting of my business, as are within the rights of the citizenry. I disagree with the government's intervention in such matters, as I believe we need an engaged citizenry to discuss what is just and right, and what is unjust, rather than giving us a free pass while the government mandates ethics (meaning we never truly seek justice, we only seek living within legal boundaries). The baker risked his credibility amongst society, just as the restauranteur did. Society (we) must speak up on which we deem acceptable. 

so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?

HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!

In my opinion, yes, that should be legal. If we hate these behaviours, however, we should exert socioeconomic pressure to correct the social direction of the country, rather than expecting it to govern itself. This means that complacent moderates (including myself) need to wake the fuck up, and involve ourselves more in showing our nation what we're willing to tolerate or not, to create the future we want - otherwise, we risk bearing witness to the one we don't. Stop eating at that restaurant. Put flyers around town to showcase the bigotry the restaurant-owners are responsible for. 

All of this being said, I'm not 100% on this (nor am I on any topic). I just worry that we are refraining from being social warriors, claiming that the government will tell what is "right or wrong" - with full evidence that they can't discern between the two. Forcing our society to think for itself and showing the upside or downside potential of both might take that scapegoat away.

I guess what confuses me a bit about this viewpoint, and I can see your point, in a society-governing-itself-on-its-own kinda way, is that on one hand, you often acknowledge the utter stupidity of the average human, yet you want groups of said average humans to govern themselves. 

what happens if the "whites only" crowd outnumbers the "everyone's welcome" crowd? what then? I think that's where laws had to come in. not just in numbers, but in pure selfish laziness. how many people in the right actually rise up and stand up for what's right? more often than not, the bystander effect happens, and the wrong people run amok. 

I think if you take away the legal consequence of an action, and only have in place a societal one, too often the societal one will not be enough of a detterent, or violence will erupt as a natural consequence of said action, or both. 

Then the everyone's welcome crowd can open their own business and take over an underserved market.

You need to read a history book.  
More than one.

I have a feeling he's more into Ayn Rand's work.

I have Atlas Shrugged but haven't read it yet.  I'm more partial to Solzhenitsyn, Hoppe, Mises, and Paul.

PJ_Soul said:

People, laws against posting signs saying "whites only" were made for a reason, and I think it shows a shocking amount of ignorance of the fight for civil and human rights that happened during the Jim Crow years for people to actually again believe that laws against this kind of thing are not absolutely necessary. This is crazy talk, and I can barely believe I'm reading it here (from anyone other than unsung).

unsung said:

rgambs said:

Something messed up in my prior post.

Let's just say I'm laughing out loud at that claim.

I can read!

mrussel1 said:

unsung said:

rgambs said:

Something messed up in my prior post.

Let's just say I'm laughing out loud at that claim.

I can read!

That Friedman book will corrupt your mind 

mrussel1 said:

Don't know that book.  I'll have to check it out.  We could use a book thread

brianlux said:

unsung said:

rgambs said:

Something messed up in my prior post.

Let's just say I'm laughing out loud at that claim.

I can read!

Oh yeah?  Well I can do ya one better, buddy!