Does a business owner have a right to say, "Don't come back?"

[Balerion]

Balerion,

You've made it clear, you want to live in a society where the State can force a woman to have sex with someone she doesn't want to as long as her profession is sex worker.

This is a blatant misrepresentation both of what I said, and what anyone here has posited as a potential outcome. As I said before, you're only bringing up sex because it allows you to do what you've done here, which is lie while using disturbing imagery. Yours is a position of intellectual bankruptcy.

Even if sex as a trade was treated just like any other form of trade, a woman would never be forced to have sex with anyone she didn't want to. Just like you aren't forced to sell vacuum cleaners to someone you don't like. You'd be in violation of the law for refusing service based on illegitimate reasons, but no one has a gun to your head telling you to sell that vacuum. You'll pay fines and lose business, but you don't physically have to sell anything to anyone you don't want to.

While I find that utterly repugnant (and of course that means "I'm the nutbag"... yeah, me, not the person who is standing over a poor innocent woman who is scared and doesn't want to have sex with someone and forcing her to either fuck - or lose her business and don't feed her family. Yeah, it's me that's a little off in the head for standing up for the woman's civil liberty and her right to refuse to have sex, her right to protect herself.....no you're not totally insane, it's me).

Why can't you be honest about this? Sex isn't even a legal trade in the vast majority of the country, and even if it were, I imagine there would be different rules applied because everyone (except you, apparently) understands that selling sex is not like selling vacuum cleaners.

Your's is not the society I want to live in.

You're dodging the question, of course, because you lack the integrity to answer it. Sadly, this isn't the first time you've done, nor will it be the last. As for the society you don't want to live in, lucky for you, you don't live in that society. None of us do.

Unfortunate for me and fortunately for you, most people think like you do. Oh sure, they wouldn't soil their hands directly. That's what jack-boots are paid by the State to take care. And yes, we'll just make sex-working illegal altogether. They can get a pimp and work underground. Problem solved.

More absurd imagery. You have no argument, so you resort to talking in extremes, hence the talk of sex trade and jack-boots and violence.

If the States passes a law that says the business owner can't discriminate

It's already happened. It's call the Civil Rights Act and it was passed in the 1960s.

- you little State-bots are first in line to see she's fined, incarcerated, loses her State licence or in some way is punished and made to suffer for the gall of not having sex with someone she chooses not to.

Already debunked this idiocy. Get off the sex bit and move on to practical, real-world examples.

The State decides gay marriage is illegal - you little State-bots are first in line to bash gays. So, don't pretend you're all homo-supportive.

Excuse me? When have I ever bashed gays? Substantiate your claim or retract it.

You've made it clear - it's the Law that will determine morality.

Oops! Michael caught in another lie:

As to your question of whether or not it's the state's job to decide what is or isnt' moral, obviously not. Society decides what is and isn't moral; the state just makes laws.

Post reported.

If the State says abortion is illegal - you little State-bots are right out front denigrating incest rape victims for daring to go against God and State. The State is your Religion the the POTUS your Priest. So of course, if a 7-11 owner doesn't want to serve Asians, we're not going to let the free-market work. No, that doesn't feel as good as watching a jack-boot press down on a carotid. Watching the little bigot squirm and squeal and is made to pay for all the people who slighted us in the least. Now, that sort of retribution feels ... Progressive.

Okay, so you're clearly off on one of your loony rants and not addressing anything I've actually said. Well, if you ever come down off that Mountain Dew Code Red high, feel free to respond to my actual post. If you're not banned for blatantly lying.

And ....why not? I mean *gasp* He uses the roads!

It'll be interesting to watch the damage done when the full weight of the pendulum swings back the other way. Ouch, that's going to hurt. Oh, and yes, I must be one of those nutty anarchists for even daring to question the authority of the State. I'm questioning the in-group. I must be dangerous or nutty.... [/QUOTE]

 

[Bowser]

This thread is degrading into a slug fest. Maybe I should ask the moderator to close it before it gets ugly? :shrug:

 

[Michael]

This is a blatant misrepresentation both of what I said, and what anyone here has posited as a potential outcome. As I said before, you're only bringing up sex because it allows you to do what you've done here, which is lie while using disturbing imagery. Yours is a position of intellectual bankruptcy.

Even if sex as a trade was treated just like any other form of trade, a woman would never be forced to have sex with anyone she didn't want to. Just like you aren't forced to sell vacuum cleaners to someone you don't like. You'd be in violation of the law for refusing service based on illegitimate reasons, but no one has a gun to your head telling you to sell that vacuum. You'll pay fines and lose business, but you don't physically have to sell anything to anyone you don't want to.

Oh, yeah, that's right she'll pay a fine AFTER she loses her business. Nice. And because she doesn't have a job her children starve. And hey, if you have your way, she'll have a class action law suite against her for not having sex with people she didn't want to. Maybe she'll even end up in prison.

Which is why the State LOVES coercion. Because most Citizens, when faced with the full weight of the jackboot hovering above their neck, shut up and prostitute themselves out. The exact opposite of free market voluntary society. This is where our society is now. Right back full circle.



You've made yourselves crystal clear (in blue): You see no moral qualms with using State backed force to coerce a woman to have sex with people she doesn't want to have sex with. You state yourself very clearly right there highlighted in blue.
What?
You don't think most women who have resorted to working as a prostitute haven't been beaten down to the point where she'll acquiesce? You think she's just rolling in money. A fine comes along and sure, just reach over to the money tree and grab a few hundreds.


I'm sorry if you're not happy with the outcome of your own logic. Or maybe you are. If so, then we can agree to disagree. If you can't see that the difference between initiating force against other citizens and freely chose not to conduct a trade, well, then I suppose the coming economic crises will seem as if it just came out of the wide blue yonder. Which makes for really good person who is easy to swayed with demagoguery. Without a solid understanding of what private property is and what is and is not moral - you're just caught in the cross winds of which ever blowhard catches your ear on the day.

 

[pjdude1219]

Yes. A big company nearby (whose commercials you often see on TV) is becoming notorious for finding ways to fire older employees so they can hire younger ones who will work for less. They always wait until the employee does something... anything... that could conceivably be construed as poor performance or inappropriate behavior. Then they coax some of his co-workers into attesting that they observed it and that it was a lot worse than it actually was. They've been getting away with it for years, but the local government is getting wise and has a lot of evidence which, in aggregate, will probably result in millions of dollars in reparations and perhaps even a public apology. A couple of local law firms are just dying to take this case. It would be their equivalent of bringing down Bin Laden.

Talk about an issue one should strive not to be on the wrong side of. We old folks will be the majority in a few years!

well i was refering to business refusing to serve people not them screwing over their employees but yeah i agree.


when I got my pour permit we were told we couldn't refuse to serve a pregnant woman alcohol for being pregnant.( someone in georgia sued over this) so you'd have to refuse service in general to them. though what your talking about is why I support labor power. I dislike the idea that a corporation demands complete loyalty to it but refuses to give any in return.

 

[Balerion]

Oh, yeah, that's right she'll pay a fine AFTER she loses her business. Nice. And because she doesn't have a job her children starve. And hey, if you have your way, she'll have a class action law suite against her for not having sex with people she didn't want to. Maybe she'll even end up in prison.

I said she'd lose business, not that she'd lose her business? Is this failure of comprehension intentional? For your sake, I certainly hope so. And this whole sex scenario is just another red herring you've employed because you have no argument otherwise.

Which is why the State LOVES coercion. Because most Citizens, when faced with the full weight of the jackboot hovering above their neck, shut up and prostitute themselves out. The exact opposite of free market voluntary society. This is where our society is now. Right back full circle.

I just wanted to quote this for everyone who may have missed it the first time around. I mean, that's comedy gold.

You've made yourselves crystal clear (in blue): You see no moral qualms with using State backed force to coerce a woman to have sex with people she doesn't want to have sex with. You state yourself very clearly right there highlighted in blue.

Lies. I said "Even if sex as a trade was treated just like any other form of trade..." then the part in blue. I didn't condone that, nor did I imagine that to be a viable solution for a scenario in which prostitution is legal. I imagine that the law would treat the sex trade differently than regular commerce, allowing women the freedom to choose to whom they provide services. Besides, I'm not entirely sure that "unattractive" is a protected class in this country, so even with laws as they are today (plus legalized prostitution) a prostitute could deny service to anyone based on whether or not she wanted to sleep with them. Even if it were because of race or some other thing, she could always just say it's because she's not attracted, or physically intimidated. I don't know. In any event, you're lying and flailing at straw men.

You don't think most women who have resorted to working as a prostitute haven't been beaten down to the point where she'll acquiesce? You think she's just rolling in money. A fine comes along and sure, just reach over to the money tree and grab a few hundreds.

What the Christ are you talking about? This is like a stream-of-consciousness manifesto written by an eighth grader with Attention Deficit Disorder.

I'm sorry if you're not happy with the outcome of your own logic. Or maybe you are. If so, then we can agree to disagree. If you can't see that the difference between initiating force against other citizens and freely chose not to conduct a trade, well, then I suppose the coming economic crises will seem as if it just came out of the wide blue yonder. Which makes for really good person who is easy to swayed with demagoguery. Without a solid understanding of what private property is and what is and is not moral - you're just caught in the cross winds of which ever blowhard catches your ear on the day.

You haven't argued in favor of private property rights or against the use of force in such situations. If you actually want to state your case about that subject, then I'd be more than willing to read it. All you've done here is make an appeal to emotion regarding state-sanctioned rape. Your argument has been "Civil Rights laws are bad because women shouldn't have to have sex with men they don't want to have sex with." I agree that women shouldn't have to have sex with people they don't want to, and no one's advocating that they should. Now what about the actual topic, which is business owners being "forced" to cater to the public without discrimination based on race or religion? What's your case against that?

 

[Michael]

I said she'd lose business, not that she'd lose her business? Is this failure of comprehension intentional?

You said fine and lose business.

Losing business I'm OK with. That fine is an altogether different situation and that's what I have a problem with. The state has no business sticking it's nose between two adults conducting voluntary trade.

You haven't argued in favor of private property rights or against the use of force in such situations. If you actually want to state your case about that subject, then I'd be more than willing to read it. All you've done here is make an appeal to emotion regarding state-sanctioned rape. Your argument has been "Civil Rights laws are bad because women shouldn't have to have sex with men they don't want to have sex with." I agree that women shouldn't have to have sex with people they don't want to, and no one's advocating that they should. Now what about the actual topic, which is business owners being "forced" to cater to the public without discrimination based on race or religion? What's your case against that?

I'm trying to get you to see that the body IS private property (the most private) and the 7-11 IS ALSO private property.

Once you understand that then you'll clearly see that the business owner most certainly does have the right to discriminate based on race (which is an illusion anyway), religion (a superstition) or creed.... and any other reason they so chose. Then it's up to the free-market to put such a person out of business or not to. If the State reflects the will of the majority, then it MUST be that most people do not want bigotry and this will be evident when they chose not to patronage that business. This is how it works in a free society.

Which is why we don't live in a free society. We think we do, but we don't.

From WIKI:
Markets punish the discriminator

The Nobel prize winning economist Gary Becker showed in his book The Economics of Discrimination (University of Chicago Press, 1957) how the markets automatically punish the companies that discriminate.[57]

The profitability of the company that discriminates is decreased, and the loss is "directly proportional to how much the employer's decision was based on prejudice, rather than on merit." Indeed, choosing a worker with lower performance (in comparison to salary) causes losses proportional to the difference in performance. Similarly, the customers who discriminate against certain kinds of workers in favor of less effective ones have to pay more for their services, on average.[57]

If a company discriminates, it typically loses profitability and market share to the companies that do not discriminate, unless the state limits free competition protecting the discriminators.[58]

We do not need nor want the government in between two consenting adults conducting non-violent trade. The free-market will punish the bigot. This is a much better approach as it doesn't involve a fine. That little fine requires a lot of State and a loss of civil liberty.

Its evident that even from an economic point of view the bigot will (in a free-market) eventually go bust. So, what we need is a free-market NOT a State regulated market. But, for reasons too numerous, we don't have a free market, we instead live in a semi-fascist highly regulated corporatocracy. This is the whole reason why the State passes these laws. To pit us against one another and then make it appear as if they've solved the problem, they've helped the victim. They make it appear like they're helping minorities, but that's exactly the opposite of what they're doing. Which is clearly evident to most minorities. Black Americans are targeted by the State that supposedly wants to help them... yeah, right into jail. 1 in 4 Black American men will go to jail most for non violent free trade.



Much like the One Ring, the State is a nearly unstoppable power...criminals are drawn to so much power - it's irresistible, but for even the few who think they're doing good, it corrupts them right along with everything else it touches. At a fundamental level you should know, if you're using force - it's wrong. The State is all about using force.

 

[Bowser]

You said fine and lose business.

Losing business I'm OK with. That fine is an altogether different situation and that's what I have a problem with. The state has no business sticking it's nose between two adults conducting voluntary trade.

I'm trying to get you to see that the body IS private property (the most private) and the 7-11 IS ALSO private property.

Once you understand that then you'll clearly see that the business owner most certainly does have the right to discriminate based on race (which is an illusion anyway), religion (a superstition) or creed.... and any other reason they so chose. Then it's up to the free-market to put such a person out of business or not to. If the State reflects the will of the majority, then it MUST be that most people do not want bigotry and this will be evident when they chose not to patronage that business. This is how it works in a free society.

Which is why we don't live in a free society. We think we do, but we don't.

From WIKI:
Markets punish the discriminator
We do not need nor want the government in between two consenting adults conducting non-violent trade. The free-market will punish the bigot. This is a much better approach as it doesn't involve a fine. That little fine requires a lot of State and a loss of civil liberty.

Its evident that even from an economic point of view the bigot will (in a free-market) eventually go bust. So, what we need is a free-market NOT a State regulated market. But, for reasons too numerous, we don't have a free market, we instead live in a semi-fascist highly regulated corporatocracy. This is the whole reason why the State passes these laws. To pit us against one another and then make it appear as if they've solved the problem, they've helped the victim. They make it appear like they're helping minorities, but that's exactly the opposite of what they're doing. Which is clearly evident to most minorities. Black Americans are targeted by the State that supposedly wants to help them... yeah, right into jail. 1 in 4 Black American men will go to jail most for non violent free trade.



Much like the One Ring, the State is a nearly unstoppable power...criminals are drawn to so much power - it's irresistible, but for even the few who think they're doing good, it corrupts them right along with everything else it touches. At a fundamental level you should know, if you're using force - it's wrong. The State is all about using force.

That was a good post. Michael--maybe the best yet. I think we understand your opinion more clearly now. Thank you.

 

[seagypsy]

That was a good post. Michael--maybe the best yet. I think we understand your opinion more clearly now. Thank you.

I second the motion to close the thread. I agree that was Michaels best post yet, by entertainment standards. Really, the One Ring? Sheesh, if the thread isn't closed we should be allowed to call him anything we want. Or at least be allowed to aggressively point and laugh.

 

[Bowser]

I second the motion to close the thread. I agree that was Michaels best post yet, by entertainment standards. Really, the One Ring? Sheesh, if the thread isn't closed we should be allowed to call him anything we want. Or at least be allowed to aggressively point and laugh.

Michael is advocating a free market without government involvement, that such a market would eventually weed out bigotry and discrimination. Judging from the response to this thread, I think there is an argument in that theory. Is my summation of your last post correct, Michael?

 

[seagypsy]

Michael is advocating a free market without government involvement, that such a market would eventually weed out bigotry and discrimination. Judging from the response to this thread, I think there is an argument in that theory. Is my summation of your last post correct, Michael?

His way was tried in the past, it didn't work. I don't see how you are registering any argument for his theory from our responses to this thread.

 

[Michael]

I second the motion to close the thread. I agree that was Michaels best post yet, by entertainment standards. Really, the One Ring? Sheesh, if the thread isn't closed we should be allowed to call him anything we want. Or at least be allowed to aggressively point and laugh.

Actually one of the first arguments for virtue was made between Plato and Socrates where Plato suggests Slavery should be abolished whereas Socrates makes an argument for the City State. Interestingly, Socrates goes too far and challenges the power behind the State and of course is murdered "for the good of the State".

Formal arguments of what is and is not moral is as old as ethics. It's good they could be of some entertainment to you :shrug:
RE: We tried that once..
Yup, you've really got to tip your hat to the State funded Public Schools.

Michael is advocating a free market without government involvement, that such a market would eventually weed out bigotry and discrimination. Judging from the response to this thread, I think there is an argument in that theory. Is my summation of your last post correct, Michael?

This is exactly what happens too. Which is why free-market capitalistic societies tend to be progressive and liberal. Even so-called Conservative America is pretty liberal.

What I find funny is even when you take this argument to the fundamental aspect of morality - that initiation of force against the innocent is immoral, people just can't seem to accept the logical implications of this line of reasoning.

Take this argument: We've already tried that before. Firstly, not really. Secondly, doesn't that remind you of: Emancipation? Who'll pick up the cotton and tend the crops? We'd all starve to death. No, I can't support that.

My advice, if you're young and have children, raise them peacefully, don't spank them, talk to them logically and teach them to want to be owners not workers, to be moral and not to be superstitious - which includes Gods AND State. That's something you can do. Anything else? Nothing you can really do. People will follow Dear Leader into Hell, they'll send their kids to die in wars in Asia, wars in the Middle East, they'll use force against you too if times are tough and they think you have something they want. There's nothing you can do to stop that. Voting won't help. Arguing won't help. Nothing. Just raise your children to be good humans and try not to have your neck jackbooted by the State. It will collapse under it's own weight and when it does, your kids will help shape the next one - maybe even for the better? Lucky for us, or maybe not so lucky, we just might get to watch some of that collapse happening in real time. Which is pretty interesting if you ask me. I'm not sure if I want to be in the USA when it the money faucet is turned off though. Not when 50% of the public is getting State funded something or other..... soon they'll need more inflation and that means more war.

Which is sad - very sad.

 

[Neverfly]

Micheal, I understand what you're saying. I even argued this out a bit with SeaGypsy. Fact is, I think you're a bit optimistic about people.
She's right.

Without the state mandated actions, people do not care. People are selfish, their interests are in self. If a minority was persecuted before, the public didn't stop buying. It wasn't usually THEM suffering the effect. Business didn't go under.
While I'd like to believe we've grown a bit, that the generation growing up now isn't like the one that came before us- I don't think that we've changed that much. Sure, people will act like they care if it's politically correct. But if it was left up to them, they wouldn't give a damn.

 

[Michael]

His way was tried in the past, it didn't work. I don't see how you are registering any argument for his theory from our responses to this thread.

What did we try in the past? Ethical force-free voluntary society? We certain have not tried this. Greece and Italy don't even have elected leaders. So? Are you saying we tried democracy - that didn't work, on to Technocratocracy run by Banking Oligarchs. You know, because the little people are just a bit too small minded to make their own decisions.


We have not tried currency competition using non commodity money.
We have not tried direct democracy in combination with free market money.
We have not tried all sorts of things.

But, we will. We will try these things. And, we are trying new things. Namely, more force (See: Italy, Greece and Spain). And the USA.... we're in way deeper shit than Europe. We have $5 Trillion in yearly unfunded liabilities and there aren't enough rich Americans if taxed 100% to come up with that sort of money. There's no more bonds to sell on our kids - the Chinese don't really want them anymore. So, let's see where we go from here.

 

[Michael]

Micheal, I understand what you're saying. I even argued this out a bit with SeaGypsy. Fact is, I think you're a bit optimistic about people.
She's right.

Without the state mandated actions, people do not care. People are selfish, their interests are in self. If a minority was persecuted before, the public didn't stop buying. It wasn't usually THEM suffering the effect. Business didn't go under.
While I'd like to believe we've grown a bit, that the generation growing up now isn't like the one that came before us- I don't think that we've changed that much. Sure, people will act like they care if it's politically correct. But if it was left up to them, they wouldn't give a damn.

Which is why I think community based money will make things more evident to people. People do care when they feel connected to one another. With the USD there's no connection. But, with community based money together with other types of commodity money, I think people will HAVE to work together.

Well, selling 30 year bonds is coming to an end, so, we're going to have to try something new - why not try ethics? That's new


It's either that or endless war. Which, I have to say, I am shocked people fall for the same ole bait and switch time and time again.

 

[Neverfly]

Which is why I think community based money will make things more evident to people. People do care when they feel connected to one another. With the USD there's no connection. But, with community based money together with other types of commodity money, I think people will HAVE to work together.

Well, selling 30 year bonds is coming to an end, so, we're going to have to try something new - why not try ethics? That's new

It would be nice, wouldn't it?
But I don't have that optimism. I'm near libertarian, politically. And for a while there, I was thinking about strong points you made.
But then S.G. gave me a reality check upside my head. Set me straight.
Cracked has this article: MonkeySphere
It's a fun read- really. It's a bit long, but you're almost sad to finish it.
It's our nature to not be able to handle a community larger than a hundred and fifty people. Past that, it's too much for our little monkey brains.
I agree with you if it's a small group- a small community. But we don't have those, do we? And until our brains develop a bit more capacity... We're stuck being jerks to anyone outside of our sphere.

Read- take a moment to really think about how people are... This is not politics- it's psychology.

 

[pjdude1219]

We have not tried currency competition using non commodity money.
We have not tried direct democracy in combination with free market money.
We have not tried all sorts of things.

lets see tried the first one it failed. the second one is unfeasible and the idea of "free market money" is unsettling as for the third is vague. we haven't tried a society where we choose leaders by who can eat the most ice cream but we don't have to try it to know it won't work.

 

[seagypsy]

But then S.G. gave me a reality check upside my head. Set me straight.

Since he hasn't clarified how exactly how I set him straight. and I am not entirely sure how I did either. but we discussed human nature and the fact that people generally behave well because they have to. Even my daughter, who is black, displays a strong dislike for black people. Even though her boyfriend is black. She developed this dislike of black people after living with her father, who is black, in Atlanta GA for one summer. Before that she never displayed any generalized opinion of black people at all and skin color was mostly a non-issue to her. I don't know what exactly happened in Ga to change her attitude but it happened whatever it was and I seem powerless to do anything about it. We have new neighbors who are black and they are often outside playing basketball. She used to love basketball but she absolutely refuses to go talk to them or join in the game.

But like you insist society should be, I don't force her to mingle with people she doesn't want to mingle with. If I did, maybe she would get to know them and realize that they aren't what she assumes they are, whatever that is.

If I had followed the raising I received at the hands of my greatgrandmother, my daughter wouldn't exist today. None of my kids would. And I would likely be a racist christian fundy. My childhood raising was countered by the standards in force by society and our laws today. I am open minded and more highly educated today because I am forced to be. If things stayed as they were I wouldn't need an education to get a job because I would know that as a white person, the only competition I would have for a job would be other white people. A black person with a masters degree would not be hired over my 10th grade educated white self. But that's not the case now is it. Now I have to earn my credentials and prove I am worthy of the job.

Actually, I wouldn't be working at all because all the white men would be working and I'd be "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen where I belong" because no one would have forced our society to grow past that.

While most people will brag that they are not bigots one only needs to observe the statements of people who believe they are anonymously posting on the internet to see just how rampant bigotry in our country really runs. My daughter would never discriminate against black people in business, but she does have negative views of them. She wont discriminate because she knows it's illegal and wrong. But her feelings contradict what she logically knows to be morally correct. I imagine we all go against our initial emotional responses on a regular basis and opt for what is morally correct out of habit now, but the habit was created by fear of prosecution.

 

[Bowser]

I come from a background where race was never discussed. Honestly, there was never any hint of bigotry in my family, but the social structure was different back then. We didn't have the same issues on the table back then that we have today.

Can't say what changed your daughter's feelings about blacks. Maybe she witnessed something negative that she associates with black culture. Who knows. I commend you for allowing her to be her own person. I do much the same with my children. I give them my opinion and let them decide for themselves, from their own life experiences. They are relatively liberal thinkers, and that is okay, just so they derived those opinions from their own convictions.

Regardless of what the law commands, people are going to hold their own opinions, and they will despise the law that dictates morality--just like any law that tells you which religion is acceptable. What you consider morally correct and justified, others might condemn as being oppressive and controlling. I'm sure there are many in the middle-east who agree with the laws that hang homosexuals and stone adulteresses. I suppose it depends on your notion of freedom and freewill.

 

[Neverfly]

Regardless of what the law commands, people are going to hold their own opinions, and they will despise the law that dictates morality--just like any law that tells you which religion is acceptable. What you consider morally correct and justified, others might condemn as being oppressive and controlling. I'm sure there are many in the middle-east who agree with the laws that hang homosexuals and stone adulteresses. I suppose it depends on your notion of freedom and freewill.

It begs the question of who gets the freedom?

Are seat belt laws oppressive? I believe that they are. I believe it's my responsibility, my choice to wear one (I always buckle up) and not up to the law to tell me to wear one.
I believe I have the right to eat nothing but chocolate ice cream all day, every day.
I believe I have the right to own a firearm and I don't believe the government should tell me I cannot own that which may save my families lives.
I believe I have the right to let my grass grow tall. It's my yard and if I want belt buckle high grass, it's my grass.
I believe I have the right to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that I must dress up like a pirate for religious ceremonies and say, "Arh! We do be givin' thanks for that food and rum (RUM!) which the FSM did saw fit to be providin."

I believe in Freedom.

But how much freedom can I take away from others for my freedom?

I think that line gets drawn if my freedom causes them suffering and misery. I don't mean inconveniences them- I mean suffering. I don't mean that they might have to be tolerant that there's a cigarette being smoked in my backyard. Or that they don't like the height of my lawn. Or that they may have to pay taxes.

I mean that minorities have been made to suffer, be miserable under oppression, assault, rape, abuse, unjust trials, as well as just plain being treated indecently and without dignity.
Without the freedom to choose where to get educated or to sit where they choose on the bus or the right to get married or the right to vote.

How can I take comfort in my freedom to vote for officials if a woman cannot?
How can I take comfort in my freedom to get married when a gay couple must tolerate financial disruption, social stigmas, inability to visit eachother in the hospital?
How much freedom can I enjoy when others don't even have the freedom to walk down the street without harassment, bigotry, abuse? I can shop at Macy's but if blacks cannot, then why am I free to, when others are not free to?
And read the MonkeySphere article.
Take a moment to think about how people really are.

We cannot, we are physically not capable of really caring about people outside of our community. I hear that a black man is forbidden from visiting his commonlaw husband of 35 years in the hospital before he dies, and afteward, the estate they shared is taken away from the living and given to the estate and I say, "That's sad."
And I go on about my business.
But if that was My Son in the hospital- No one would have stopped me from getting to his side. If Jesus Christ popped out of heaven and stood in my way, he'd be pummeled into the pavement.
"Sorry, dude, but you were in my way and I got my own son to attend to."

So who will really stand up- fight for them? A few might- the few... and most would say, "That's sad" and go on about their business. The business would go on about its business and the sufferers would go on suffering.

I find I'm ok with giving up a little bit of freedom if it means freedom is something everyone can enjoy, not just the few.

 

[Bowser]

It begs the question of who gets the freedom?

I find I'm ok with giving up a little bit of freedom if it means freedom is something everyone can enjoy, not just the few.

That all sounds very profound; however, nobody is suggesting we start hanging blacks from the nearest tree. No, this focus is on the property rights of a business owner, and whether or not his/her business is public domain.