For his next trick, he will give an interview on the View wearing a white hood, then scold people for misinterpreting his homage to the cultural roots of the south as being some sort of endorsement of racism.

NetRunner,

Why is it wrong for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race?

>> ^bobknight33:

NetRunner,
Why is it wrong for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race?


Bob Knight, if the world discriminated against stupidity, you would never be allowed to leave your house.

^Which is the exception proving the rule. This is enforcing morality, pure and simple. It may be a morality that most hold dear, but it is the same as "in god we trust" on the dollar, unacceptable.

So, I take it you would have voted against the CRA '64, also?
>> ^bobknight33:

NetRunner,
Why is it wrong for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race?

BK's and GSF's comments do raise an interesting point...

To a racist, they see nothing morally wrong with discriminating against a person's race. An action that I find morally offensive. So, people eventually came together, laws were passed and our morality was forced upon the racist.

To a homophobe, they see the actions of a person of homosexual orientation as morally offensive. An action that I do not. People are getting together to get laws passed, etc to reverse the homophobe's morality from being forced upon us.

Now, how do we judge whose morality is right or wrong? By the will of society? The majority, perhaps? History has shown us that both of these can be highly questionable from time to time. What is right or wrong comes down to the person facing the decision before them, I suppose.

And what about the right of the Pedophile?

>> ^longde:

And what about the right of the Pedophile?


You could bring up numerous arguments about such a topic, for and against. Again, referring to the "will of society", the ancient Greeks thought well enough of such things to allow it within their own culture. Times and opinions have changed over the centuries, thankfully.

I forget who stated it, but someone mentioned that any argument taken to the extremes isn't much of an argument. I'm sure I bastardized the quote, but there can and always will be exceptions to the rules. I don't equate racism or homophobia with pedophilia, however, so I'm not sure what you were trying to get at.

It's weird how many white people will intellectualize this issue, and discuss it as an abstract.

It's just racism. That is all that it is.

It was very clearly racism when on Morning Joe, none of the panel could keep their eyes off of Harold Ford.

Rand Paul is a racist, and so is his father. So was William Buckley, the "Grandfather" of the conservative movement. It's not difficult to discover. Lew Rockwell has all the old Ron Paul papers. They're ugly. Most of them are also homophobic, as well as misogynistic. All are clearly classist.

They are all quite hypocritical as well.

For instance, while Rand Paul claims he's a libertarian (when it suits him), he also believes in the drug war and the death penalty. He thinks that abortion is not a states issue. He also believes in subsidizing the coal industry, and %50 of his patients are Medicare recipients and is against any cuts in Medicare funding. So, basically he's just a wingnut racist Republican liar.

His father, the "World's Most Famous Libertarian" lobbied for $96.1million in Federal earmarks last year. But he doesn't want to spend a dime on giving Rosa Parks a medal? Yeah, that's not racism at all, it's just coincidental.

Wow, we must be getting close to election time again, because the anti-popular-Republican smears are out in full force. Go partisanship!

I believe people should have the right to discriminate in the private sector. Why not? Isn't that part of freedom? I don't personally condone racism, but I wouldn't want to police it either.

People can be racist and discriminatory all they want as long as they don't inflict violence on someone. That's the point about that old-timey racism I think some of you are leaving out; the part where people were killed and made into slaves because of their skin color. There's a huge distinction between that and some bigot with a small business.

To me, this is a nonissue. And for the record I don't support Rand Paul.

I guess it goes to the type of society you want to have.

I don't like the idea of banks, HMOs, real estate agents, home owners associations, and other private sector entities being able to create an apartheid society via exclusion of certain racial and ethnic groups.

What you say sounds somewhat good on paper, but where has it actually worked in real life? America has been down that road before; I for one, don't want to go back.>> ^blankfist:

Wow, we must be getting close to election time again, because the anti-popular-Republican smears are out in full force. Go partisanship!
I believe people should have the right to discriminate in the private sector. Why not? Isn't that part of freedom? I don't personally condone racism, but I wouldn't want to police it either.
People can be racist and discriminatory all they want as long as they don't inflict violence on someone. That's the point about that old-timey racism I think some of you are leaving out; the part where people were killed and made into slaves because of their skin color. There's a huge distinction between that and some bigot with a small business.
To me, this is a nonissue. And for the record I don't support Rand Paul.

BF: Rand isn't actually that popular, even in his home state. He got 60% of the GOP vote, but the other 40& said they would never vote for him in the general. That's not good numbers.

And besides, realistically "private" business isn't all that private. You are only licensed to run a business. And you have to follow state/federal rules to keep your license. You can't hire child laborers, you can't sell feces sandwiches, and you can't dump your toxic chemicals into the river out back. Generally, the building you run your business out of is rented. And all your services and utilities are run by local/state government.

And your and Rand's view on racism being OK for private business is wholly unrealistic. If a black guy came into your restaurant, and you didn't want him there, what are you going to do? How do you make him leave without resorting to physical violence? You can't. The only thing you can do is call the police....oh shit. Now you're using local/state resources, and trying to force the state to protect your right to be a racist.

Shit doesn't work that way. And for very good reasons. If you can't see this, I'm very surprised.

@volumptuous said, 'And besides, realistically "private" business isn't all that private.'

I suppose that's the real problem isn't it? Look, I can appreciate the modern liberal position. I really can. It comes from a great place from people with good hearts, and I admire that about my modern liberal friends. I just wished they'd stop socially tinkering and using violence to engineer utopia.

No, I don't think it's a problem at all. The solution isn't a question of rules or no rules. It's the right rules. Unfortunately we operate on an incredibly uneven playing field, and libertarianism nor corporatism addresses any of it.

Your still missing the core argument. Ultimately, AA laws are trying to enforce a meritocracy. That the best person gets the job regardless of creed, color or sex. This is an arbitrary moral position, and one that I personally share. Though, as a business owner I should be able to hire or serve whomever I want for whatever reason, it is my stuff after all. If you are enforcing a meritocracy, and want to hire your friend even though there is a more qualified person for the job you violate this basic understanding. While some people with only money on their mind would see this as a foolish decision on my part, it is mine to make; that is what freedom means.

As for using the police to enforce your morality, they are more realistically enforcing your right over your property; in as much as you would also call the police for someone trespassing. Plus, you are argument in reverse here, IE, since they are regulated they should be regulated. Moreover, if you are saying that by using public utility that you are bound by AA laws, then you are also banned in your home or anywhere and thus installing your moral tyranny over (this ugly) freedom).

Freedom is ugly, the evils it bring are clear and visible. It is human nature to see something evil and think "hey, we should pass a law about that". But the maintainability of a free society requires a self denying mechanistic of the strictest kind. In reality, public pressure and socialite change are more effective means. Look at the drug war for clear evidence that laws don't work like they intend. People are motivated by their personal desires ever more slightly than the laws that govern them.

Racism is nasty, just like abortion is nasty. But they are freedoms we must endure as to remain true to the heart of freedom. Why should a racist respect any one else's freedoms if we don't respect his?

That's the point, racists don't respect people's freedom. Freedom is not just from sanction from the government. As I implied above, much of life resolves around private institutions: banks, HMOs, hospitals, HOAs, grocery stores, hotels, distribution companies, etc. All of this is aside from affirmative action (where did that come from?).

I guess I can see how a white person, living in a society where the majority of the population is white, and the majority of the above institutions are controlled by white people, would think that private-sector racism would have no effect on freedom. It's really the non-whites subject to private sector sanction that would suffer losses of freedom. That's not what America is supposed to be. >> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Your still missing the core argument. Ultimately, AA laws are trying to enforce a meritocracy. That the best person gets the job regardless of creed, color or sex. This is an arbitrary moral position, and one that I personally share. Though, ss a business owner I should be able to hire or serve whomever I want for whatever reason, their are after all mine. If you are enforcing a meritocracy, and want to hire your friend even though there is a more qualified person for the job you violate this basic understanding. While some people with only money on their mind would see this as a foolish decision on my part, it is mine to make; that is what freedom means.
As for using the police to enforce your morality, they are more realistically enforcing your right over your property; in as much as you would also call the police for someone trespassing. Plus, you are argument in reverse here, IE, since they are regulated they should be regulated. Moreover, if you are saying that by using public utility that you are bound by AA laws, then you are also banned in your home or anywhere and thus installing your moral tyranny over (this ugly) freedom).
Freedom is ugly, the evils it bring are clear and visible. It is human nature to see something evil and thing "hey, we should pass a law about that". But the maintainability of a free society requires a self denying mechanistic of the strictest kind. In reality, public pressure and socialite change are more effective means. Look at the drug war for clear evidence that laws don't work like they intend. People are motivated by their personal desires ever more slightly than the laws that govern them.
Racism is nasty, just like abortion is nasty. But they are freedoms we must endure as to remain true to the heart of freedom. Why should a racist respect any one else's freedoms if we don't respect his?

>> ^volumptuous:

No, I don't think it's a problem at all. The solution isn't a question of rules or no rules. It's the right rules. Unfortunately we operate on an incredibly uneven playing field, and libertarianism nor corporatism addresses any of it.

Corporatism addresses it quite clearly: if your pockets are deep, the government tips the playing field in your favor. At least with Libertarianism we'd have an answer to that problem, as most Libertarians see corporations being a product of government to begin with, so with less government comes less "crony capitalism" and therefore the playing field is tipped a lot less.

Can you expand upon how Libertarianism prevents powerful, large, private institutions from tipping the playing field.>> ^blankfist:

>> ^volumptuous:
No, I don't think it's a problem at all. The solution isn't a question of rules or no rules. It's the right rules. Unfortunately we operate on an incredibly uneven playing field, and libertarianism nor corporatism addresses any of it.

Corporatism addresses it quite clearly: if your pockets are deep, the government tips the playing field in your favor. At least with Libertarianism we'd have an answer to that problem, as most Libertarians see corporations being a product of government to begin with, so with less government comes less "crony capitalism" and therefore the playing field is tipped a lot less.

^Freedom isn't a right to enter any particular store front you want. For instance, stores close. Once closed, you can't enter them. This is discriminatory against people who like to shop at night. However it is the shop keepers prerogative to not be open during the night. Where is the government action protecting the rights of people whom want to exist at night? What do you have against people of the night? Why is the government not protecting them at all costs? In fact, they are both black, white, brown, and many other colors! You might say, but they represent only a minority of the population; but I say that is why they should be protected more than any other!

Moreover, I also think people who fart in public represent a clear and present danger to my right to no smell poo around town. It is my god given right not to smell farts, and I demand laws to protect against this odorous epidemic!

Your point is spurious, because when has society oppressed people who shop at night or people who fart? You want to speak in hypotheticals, but the issue at hand has very real ramifications, and has in fact been tried in our country.

Aside from stores, what about getting a loan for a business or house? What about shopping for a house? What about getting service at a hospital, or even getting an ambulance (most ambulances are run by private companies)? What if I'm out of gas and need to stop at a service station? Etc.

This issue is much more complex and far reaching than going into a 7-Eleven. People 40-50 years ago literally died to change this, and they weren't just thinking about going into the local 5 and Dime store.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

^Freedom isn't a right to enter any particular store front you want. For instance, stores close. Once closed, you can't enter them. This is discriminatory against people who like to shop at night. However it is the shop keepers prerogative to not be open during the night. Where is the government action protecting the rights of people whom want to exist at night? What do you have against people of the night? Why is the government not protecting them at all costs? In fact, they are both black, white, brown, and many other colors! You might say, but they represent only a minority of the population; but I say that is why they should be protected more than any other!
Moreover, I also think people who fart in public represent a clear and present danger to my right to no smell poo around town. It is my god given right not to smell farts, and I demand laws to protect against this odorous epidemic!

@longde. The first thing to understand is corporations don't want free markets. Competition is the enemy of big business. Competition creates an atmosphere for lower prices on goods and services and typically creates higher competitive salaries because companies want the best people when they have to compete against other companies. And, in order to pay the higher salaries and lower the price of their goods and services, a company's profit tends to be less but sustainable as long as they're providing a great service or good that consumers want. Because of this it would tend to keep the CEO-to-worker pay margin closer if the company is to be profitable at all.

Contrast that with the current CEO-to-worker pay margin where the average CEO makes roughly 300 times the amount of the average worker. Why is that?

Because corporations want to close out the market so they have less competition. They can do this by using government to put stringent regulations on their industry, thus ensuring smaller businesses are unable to compete. By closing out the market they only have to compete against, say, ten different corporations rather than hundreds of smaller businesses, and therefore the competition is artificially lowered and thus there's no incentive to lower prices for goods and services. Also there will be more competition amongst the workers now that there are fewer jobs, and therefore salaries will be considerably less. This means business profit margins are much higher, and therefore they can pay themselves 300 times the average worker in their company.

Even minimum wage and employer healthcare plans ensure smaller businesses cannot compete with big business. They simply cannot afford it, and therefore less jobs are created because of it. And those people who are out of work would probably work for less than $7/hr at the moment, but that would be illegal. So unemployment goes way up. Eventually we'll all work for corporations as there will most likely be no other jobs left.

The libertarian solution is to remove regulations and restrictions from the market that continue to tip the playing field in favor of corporations. It's not a perfect solution, but it's a lot better than the crony capitalist system we currently have. Libertarians understand that things like health care and minimum wage and protective regulations sound really good and necessary, but unfortunately it simply destroys competition and employment opportunities.

>> ^longde:

What about getting a loan for a business or house? What about shopping for a house? What about getting service at a hospital, or even getting an ambulance (most ambulances are run by private companies)? What if I'm out of gas and need to stop at a service station? Etc.
This issue is much more complex and far reaching than going into a 7-Eleven. People 40-50 years ago literally died to change this, and they weren't just thinking about going into the local 5 and Dime store.


Would you be a customer to a bank that wouldn't give a loan to black people? Me neither. This isn't 1950s Alabama. And although some people today would certainly still go to that bank, the overwhelming majority would not. Without customers the business fails.

That's a very questionable assumption.

People are willing to go to businesses that do all kinds of evil shit. Ask Walmart, BP, Denny's and the cigarette companies. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^longde:
What about getting a loan for a business or house? What about shopping for a house? What about getting service at a hospital, or even getting an ambulance (most ambulances are run by private companies)? What if I'm out of gas and need to stop at a service station? Etc.
This issue is much more complex and far reaching than going into a 7-Eleven. People 40-50 years ago literally died to change this, and they weren't just thinking about going into the local 5 and Dime store.

Would you be a customer to a bank that wouldn't give a loan to black people? Me neither. This isn't 1950s Alabama. And although some people today would certainly still go to that bank, the overwhelming majority would not. Without customers the business fails.

Thanks for explanation.

It seems that you only want to acknowledge the bad side of regulation, without looking at its benefits. And, it seems as though you want to ignore the historical context of current law. Shall we go back to the Robber Baron days? Or child labor or sub-human working conditions?

While regulations do restrict entrants into a market, they also restrain companies that would put the public good behind a profit.

>> ^blankfist:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/longde" title="member since April 8th, 2009" class="profilelink">longde. The first thing to understand is corporations don't want free markets. Competition is the enemy of big business. Competition creates an atmosphere for lower prices on goods and services and typically creates higher competitive salaries because companies want the best people when they have to compete against other companies. And, in order to pay the higher salaries and lower the price of their goods and services, a company's profit tends to be less but sustainable as long as they're providing a great service or good that consumers want. Because of this it would tend to keep the CEO-to-worker pay margin closer if the company is to be profitable at all.
Contrast that with the current CEO-to-worker pay margin where the average CEO makes roughly 300 times the amount of the average worker. Why is that?
Because corporations want to close out the market so they have less competition. They can do this by using government to put stringent regulations on their industry, thus ensuring smaller businesses are unable to compete. By closing out the market they only have to compete against, say, ten different corporations rather than hundreds of smaller businesses, and therefore the competition is artificially lowered and thus there's no incentive to lower prices for goods and services. Also there will be more competition amongst the workers now that there are fewer jobs, and therefore salaries will be considerably less. This means business profit margins are much higher, and therefore they can pay themselves 300 times the average worker in their company.
Even minimum wage and employer healthcare plans ensure smaller businesses cannot compete with big business. They simply cannot afford it, and therefore less jobs are created because of it. And those people who are out of work would probably work for less than $7/hr at the moment, but that would be illegal. So unemployment goes way up. Eventually we'll all work for corporations as there will most likely be no other jobs left.
The libertarian solution is to remove regulations and restrictions from the market that continue to tip the playing field in favor of corporations. It's not a perfect solution, but it's a lot better than the crony capitalist system we currently have. Libertarians understand that things like health care and minimum wage and protective regulations sound really good and necessary, but unfortunately it simply destroys competition and employment opportunities.

^But that is just the point, even with laws, people can still get away with institutional racism. If I don't want to hire someone because he is black, then I could just fabricate any number or disqualifications for him. The same goes for drugs, anyone that wants drugs can get them. Anyone that wants to engender racist store policies can usually get away with it, for awhile at least. So you turn him into a criminal as the solution, just as the drug user becomes a criminal. You don't fight racism with laws, if anything that emboldens it. You fight it by heros like the people you mentioned standing up and saying they aren't going to take it anymore. I don't question the goal, I question the means.
(and I apologies about my tone earlier, it was meant to add some levity but it could be taken as sarcasm)

@longde. You're right, it doesn't take into account the good things regulations have accomplished. I agree. I'd also add that for every one positive thing a government regulations accomplishes, it has a trove of others it does inefficiently, badly or with corruption. That's at least my perspective, though I'm sure that could require a longer conversation.

"People are willing to go to businesses that do all kinds of evil shit. Ask Walmart, BP, Denny's and the cigarette companies."

I would say you're right, but for 50 years of successful prosecution of civil rights law. I don't think you realize how fucked up it was before both public and private agitation against private sector racism.

No, our society isn't perfect, and racism certainly hasn't been wiped out, but most of us feel its much better than when some slice of property rights were put over racial equality.

By your logic, because some people run stop lights, we should remove the stop light.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

^But that is just the point, even with laws, people can still get away with institutional racism. If I don't want to hire someone because he is black, then I could just fabricate any number or disqualifications for him. The same goes for drugs, anyone that wants drugs can get them. Anyone that wants to engender racist store policies can usually get away with it, for awhile at least. So you turn him into a criminal as the solution, just as the drug user becomes a criminal. You don't fight racism with laws, if anything that emboldens it. You fight it by heros like the people you mentioned standing up and saying they aren't going to take it anymore. I don't question the goal, I question the means.
(and I apologies about my tone earlier, it was meant to add some levity but it could be taken as sarcasm)

Hey guys, we have gotten this far in the thread and haven't evoked Godwins law! Woot!

Hitler liked blacks. Are you Hitler?

The water is godwin's law...

Laws are things we make. Morals are things we have. Our laws are based on the morality at the time it was made. The prevalent morality changes over time (hopefully for the better), thus laws change over time (hopefully for the better). This is the nature of morality - relative, ever-changing, evolving.

It does not necessarily work towards a "better" morality, just like evolution doesn't necessarily make "better" animals, only animals better at reproducing themselves. Which factors affect morality, I don't know, but I would guess that it relies much on factors like upbringing, teachings, personal growth and maturity etc etc. Lots and lots of factors.

As we as a species become more and more advanced, different issues come up and our morals on that issue starts developing. For now, most people are against human cloning, for instance. That will likely change over the next period of time, when we can easily clone bodyparts from our own cells, or even make ourselves a twin brother or sister.

The evolution of morality is a good thing, it shows that we're striving to get better, which in my mind, at least, is the ultimate goal of our race. Be all we can be. Hoohaah.


It also happens to run the faulty notion of absolute morality into the ground, which I'm not averse to either.

Okay, back to Econ 101 with all you libertarians.

Free Markets hinge on the idea of consumer choice as much as anything else.

Part of your usual arguments against government is that it systematically limits consumers' ability to freely make their own choices. This is in fact, why I generally don't contest the orwellian usage of the word "free" in this phrase which you associate with the laissez-faire economic model you guys espouse.

Okay, so aren't other systematic attempts to limit choice also problems?

Isn't the problem with fraud basically that it distorts people's market choices? Isn't discrimination practiced by market actors also an intolerable distortion of the free market?

This is not my normal argument in favor of Civil Rights, it's just one tailored to appeal to people who think freedom means defending a right to limit other people's liberty, and tyranny means defending the right to free market choice and freedom of action.

>> ^NetRunner:

Part of your usual arguments against government is that it systematically limits consumers' ability to freely make their own choices.


Wrong. Never said that.

Words. Out. Of. My. Mouth. Ptooey!

Morality should never drive laws. Ever. That is what we call theocracy. There is no reason that people in the south could then force atheists to pray or some such non-sense. I repeat, laws and morality should never meat, ever. You can form laws based chiefly on reason, a language that a person of any morality can speak. People of differing moralities trying to establish a legal framework around their personal beliefs means that it comes at the direct cost of freedom of the other man. One mans God is the other mans devil, one mans life lone dream is the others weakness. In reality, the system has turned into what you have said, and that is the main problem with it.

I, for one, want the continuing evolution of human morality to be an issue for culture to decide, not men with guns. If we can agree that we don't know if we are "necessarily work[ing] towards a "better" morality", and further that we might not be operating in a good morality, then does it make since to make criminals out of people for operating on their own morality? That is what we are doing here. We are making people criminals for what they believe. What they believe is ugly. But you have now made it the responsibility of the state to punish those who's morality becomes objectionable, and that one can come and bite you in the ass in the worst kind of way. Is it horrible to be so close minded and bigoted as to not want to hire/do business with someone because of color? Yes. Should we send him to jail? No. If he beats up a person because they are of color? Duh.

>> ^gwiz665:

Laws are things we make. Morals are things we have. Our laws are based on the morality at the time it was made. The prevalent morality changes over time (hopefully for the better), thus laws change over time (hopefully for the better). This is the nature of morality - relative, ever-changing, evolving.
It does not necessarily work towards a "better" morality, just like evolution doesn't necessarily make "better" animals, only animals better at reproducing themselves. Which factors affect morality, I don't know, but I would guess that it relies much on factors like upbringing, teachings, personal growth and maturity etc etc. Lots and lots of factors.
As we as a species become more and more advanced, different issues come up and our morals on that issue starts developing. For now, most people are against human cloning, for instance. That will likely change over the next period of time, when we can easily clone bodyparts from our own cells, or even make ourselves a twin brother or sister.
The evolution of morality is a good thing, it shows that we're striving to get better, which in my mind, at least, is the ultimate goal of our race. Be all we can be. Hoohaah.

It also happens to run the faulty notion of absolute morality into the ground, which I'm not averse to either.

@GeeSussFreeK
Well, I think you're narrowing the term morality somewhat. Morality is based on reason as well, just as laws should be. I base my personal "beliefs" and morality on reason and that's what I mean by morality - values. Values change when new impressions are made.

Laws and morality are intermixed. It's not like religion vs. science. Our laws are based on the prevalent morality, values, judgment and reason of the judges and politicians who enact them.

Morals are not only beliefs, it's a judgment based on many factors.

Theocracy has nothing to do with this, theocracy is a government form.

@gwiz665, you know Hitler thought morals not ethics should effect laws... awwwwwww, godwin.

Ethics is just the morals of smart people.

>> ^blankfist:

@gwiz665, you know Hitler thought morals not ethics should effect laws... awwwwwww, godwin.

You people realize that the proprietor of the market place reserves the right to deny services to anyone for just about any reason they decide? Usually that reason is because you have a big backpack, something happened in the store, or they just don't want to serve you.

This whole Idea that a private merchant has to serve a person is ridiculous. With that said; if they happen to be denied service and they think it is because they had been discriminated against then you can take up a litigious stance; boycott.

Edit: I realize this may not be the right video.

Show me an institution in this country that doesn't have racism in its history and I'll show you an institution that's less than 70 years old.
>> ^volumptuous:
Rand Paul is a racist, and so is his father. So was William Buckley, the "Grandfather" of the conservative movement.

Any man, woman, or asshole who wants to make a living off of my tax dollars better well fucking appreciate the Civil Rights Act. Unless, of course, they think that my tax dollars are worth less than a white mans tax dollars.

What an asshole.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
Part of your usual arguments against government is that it systematically limits consumers' ability to freely make their own choices.

Wrong. Never said that.
Words. Out. Of. My. Mouth. Ptooey!


Umm, really?

Libertarianism isn't about the ability to make your own choices? The complaint about government isn't that it takes that choice away from individuals?

The complaint about, say, public education isn't that it takes choices out of the hands of individuals?

Not all libertarians agree wholeheartedly with this philosophy though. Regulation (if not overburdened by politics) can have a positive effect in restricting businesses from hurting the consumers. Regulation is obviously required.

Blankfist:The libertarian solution is to remove regulations and restrictions from the market that continue to tip the playing field in favor of corporations. It's not a perfect solution, but it's a lot better than the crony capitalist system we currently have. Libertarians understand that things like health care and minimum wage and protective regulations sound really good and necessary, but unfortunately it simply destroys competition and employment opportunities.

I wouldn't say "regulation is OBVIOUSLY required". I think courts used to settle civil cases would be our best bet, but it's hard to say that when we have such large corporations*. I say get government out of business aside from civil cases, and you'd see corporations disappearing.

*government created the corporations of today thanks to their corporate welfare, subsidies, and limited liability. It was government that legitimized them and tipped the playing field in their favor, so I cannot understand why anyone would want government to further intervene.

@blankfist because we don't think the way to deal with bad government is to have no government.

I support some types of subsidies, but not others. The way things are now, way too many subsidies exist for people that don't need them, and that there's no compelling reason for us to subsidize.

I've said to you before, I think most liberals would take the compromise of "no corporate subsidies", though I think a lot of us think things like the R&D tax credit is still a good idea.

Why don't you pay for what you want, @NetRunner? I mean, if you agree with some subsidies, then pay for those and leave those of us who do not alone. Why is that such a bad idea? I don't want to subsidize corporations, thank you. They can make it on their own steam or fail.

That's the problem I have with the majority of your philosophy. You want the majority to dictate what the rest of us must be forced to pay for, and what we're left with is imperialism, wars and domestic overspending.

@blankfist I know I've told you numerous times about market externalities. Mostly I mention them when we're talking about taxing negative ones, like pollution, but in the case of R&D subsidy, we're talking about subsidizing a positive externality.

R&D doesn't just benefit the company that does the research, it makes us all wealthier, and as such, there should be some sort of offset for a portion of the price.

As for the rest, you're welcome to go start your own country somewhere, but where you live now already has a social contract on how things work. If liberal democracy sounds like tyranny to you, I'm sure you could get asylum in some other more freedom-loving nation. Somalia, say.

@NetRunner, translation of what you wrote: "If you don't like it, get out of my country, boy!"

The social contract idea is lunacy. A contract is an agreement. An agreement means there has to be a meeting of the minds between two parties (without coercion), in your example between the government and me. I never agreed to this "social contract", so it doesn't exist.

It certainly exists because the government will use their men with guns to enforce it upon me, but it doesn't morally or philosophically exist. It exists only because of coercion. Only because of violence.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, translation of what you wrote: "If you don't like it, get out of my country, boy!"

I don't quite get why you think this is wrong, but saying "If you don't like it, get out of my store, boy!" is not only right, but that using violence in order to uphold it is perfectly morally sound.

@NetRunner, because one is the property of the sovereign individual, the other is a collection of properties where claim is laid by the collective. That's point number one.

Point number two is the sovereign individual who owns the store, whether bigoted or not, should have a natural right to his own labor, and therefore shouldn't be forced at the threat of violence to do what he does not wish to do whether or not the majority condones it.

If you do not understand the difference between telling someone to get off your property vs. telling someone to get out of the country, then I'll just chock this up to another failing of our public school system.

Ahh, but what property do you own, and according to who? You live in California -- land seized from Mexico at gunpoint by the US army, if I recall correctly. Mexico of course took it when they declared independence from Spain, and Spain "colonized" it, which means they took it from a bunch of so-called savages who thought the very idea of humans owning the land was alien and immoral.

As for what happened after the US army took it, it belonged to the US government. What did they do with it? Well, they sold (or granted) deeds of "fee simple" to people. What's a fee simple deed? Well, it's the legal document you get from the government that establishes your ownership of a piece of property...limited by the four government powers of taxation, police power, eminent domain and escheat.

So, again, I fail to see the difference. If the shop owner's deed gives him unlimited authority over the aspects ceded to him by that deed, then the government that owns the true title to the land gets unlimited authority over its property as well.