Even if a racist business owner can find enough like-minded customers to overcome a non-racist boycott, he MUST ALSO overcome the problem of finding suppliers and/or distributors willing to tarnish their brand by doing business with him.
What do you think would happen if Pepsi-Cola's CEO turned on the national evening news and watched a report about a racist diner owner, and it cuts to a shot of the diner front with a big neon Pepsi logo in the window?
Actually, the segregation that took place in the south, in the form of Jim Crow, was not because of free-market forces! The respective southern states enacted the laws of segregation, and not all businesses (black or white owned) were all too keen to follow the law, especially in accomodating racial segregation within one's privately owned establishment. Seeing segregation for what it was, namely, state mandated, does make for a stronger argument against (unconstitutional) statist impositions
Rachael Maddow's "extremism" is not the exception for most liberal statist, it is the rule. This notion, that by allowing private businesses to discriminate, would somehow be socially and politically catastrophic, is steeped in a rather dark and pessimistic view of human nature. Sure, people do damnable things. However, in a very contracting and consenting society, and with America having grown in the meantime, I see no worst-case scenario that Ms. Maddows is so keen to underscore.
No you should say nothing because you argument holds no water. The majority in the south was racist and yes you do have to protect minorities. The free market without regulation doesn't work and won't work... You are living in a fairy land, people are racists still in this area (kentucky). I know I live here (across the whole state) and it would happen here. Yes he is a radical because his views are extreme. The free market is never a solution. At least I know not to click on your bullshit now.
@mightyquinn42437 Ok, maybe where you live in Kentucky is racist, but I also live in Kentucky and in the area where I live nobody I know is racist. I am a christian all of us christians know being racist is wrong, because we know to treat everybody equal, and that's what God would want us to do. In Jesus loves the little children we say "Red, Yellow, Black and White, they are all precious in his site." Now as I said before, maybe your area that you live in Kentucky is racist, but my area is not.
If we took away these regulations we might have a a racist neo-nazi, skin head club form somewhere that doesn't allow blacks. I wouldn't want to go to there low life establishment and niether would the majority of Americans. I would also tell all my friends not to associate with them.
Hmm... we need a comittee to study this, then we need a committee to regulate the committee that is studying racsim. Ultimately, there are universities, that whites are not allowed in. As a white women I would not go to a black or spanish section for my necessities. So am I sterotyping? no being cautious and keeping myself safe. there is alot of reverse discrimination, keep you eyes wide open.
dude, you fail to realize that you talk about pseudolibertarianism.
it is not about hiding behind it and to sell markety-"selfregulatory" ideas, it is more about a movement that sticks to ideals and that is why some stuff doesn`t even come into question whereas you try to pretend that there are to sides of one coin.
one thing though just randomly: at me and mine your acces is denied from now on, cheerio.
@Realizalize And you don't stick to ideals? So you would be for slavery if it were in the right circumstance? Your ideal wouldn't always be happiness and prosperity for everyone on earth? Sometimes you should change that ideal? To what?
Well, some businesses may still have racist policies, but today it would probably be at the margins in only a few select places of the US, and therefore not so horribly significant.
@Breakyerself "its a little more complicated than that isn't it? " Think about it, if a business had guaranteed income, no matter their quality of service, price, etc. They would have no incentive to give good services or goods.
Competition is dead? How? On a free market competition would form much more easily, due to there being no state created barriers to entry, to reduce competition and make it possible for cartels to form.
@Breakyerself The fact that regulatory agencies are corruptible is why we should not have one legally mandated monopolistic regulatory agency. If you have multiple agencies competing with one another, they are incentivized to be honest, and if one becomes corrupted, you can go to others. I don't know how you can be against corporations but for monopolistic regulation.
Oh man, LiberalViewer's video is so fallacious. I wonder if he is just to dumb to realize how fallacious it is or if he actually realizes that it's fallacious and just thinks his audience won't.
Jacob, I strongly believe that the people who are worried about businesses becoming racist without the government are themselves closet racists. If they aren't, then how would they come up with such ridiculously absurd ideas?
@Breakyerself go troll somewhere else. you are not going to convince anyone here with that kind of retarded comment. you are the perfect example of the type of moronic person we anti-statists laugh at and write sarcastic comments imitating. The people in this thread are FAR too smart be convinced by some statist drone like you.
@Breakyerself You cant have a "corporation" without the state granting such legal status. And its beyond obvious that there are well endorsed examples on how corporations set barriers against other companies to eliminate competition through state intervention. Competition is what makes a business behave sensibly, the state hinders competition. I guess you like to get raped from both sides?
Love arguing with you people.... You always say something like "fancy arguments", yep how unfair of us to use that newfangled thing called logic and reason on you. Logically and historically are arguments are sound and valid but of course how dare we interfere with your emotional reactionary position.
@Breakyerself For an atheist you don't seem particularly open minded towards new ways of thinking. It's almost as if being an atheist has nothing to do with open- mindedness, gasp!
@Breakyerself How do you think corporations exist? Do you honestly think the free market is the entity that created this legal shield known as a corporation, with the ability to do whatever it wants and not hold the actual people within it to blame? Do you really think it's the free market that is accepting bribes to use regulatory powers to create barriers to entry so that the corporation can become a monopoly?
@Breakyerself Every single service that the government offers can be offered on the free market. The difference is that on a free market prices usually go down due to competition as opposed to government monopolies that can increase their prices without fear of bankruptcy or competition ( since they'll often just plain illegal to compete with them)
The state is what anti-free marketeers fear, ironically.
@crazypants88 The US has a wonderful example of state-granted monopolies driving up costs that most people have ready access to. It's public transit in any major center. In the US (unlike Canada) the majority of the daily users of public transit have, effectively, no other option, so they keep using it if the price goes up, and there are no other comparable services in cities. (No, taxis are NOT comparable to buses and subways and the odd streetcar system.)
1:02 - That's actually not true. Businesses segregated because of laws forcing them to. And the laws didn't work at first; it was only when they started holding the business owners and employees as criminally liable that they actually started enforcing it on their own.
@Breakyerself Y'know that argument creationists use about how we need Jesus to be moral. Yeah, the same applies to the human authority figures that somehow know how to be better humans than everyone else.
Anarchism is the rejection of the state concept just like how atheism is the rejection of the god concept.
@Breakyerself I'm not under the delusion that people are perfect when they're given freedom either. But unless you find some saints to run the governments, they WILL abuse their power. I just want the baby to actually grow up and be responsible for itself instead of being coddled by the nanny state all its life like some kind of man-child. Also corporations are a product of the state, the reason corporations get so powerful is because they lobby the state for special privileges.
The point is that you trust the government to provide these regulations and they don't even provide them where they're the most necessary. Who cares if the guy running the burger place down the street doesn't allow blacks in? Anyone who doesn't like that rule doesn't have to go there or give them any of our money. Where as with the boy scouts, we all have to pay, including the people who are being discriminated against.
@Breakyerself You live in fairytale land. The state is some loving god that solves all problems. That philosophy failed. Miserably! Why did the economy collapse? State control. Why does shit happen? Because the state god is for sale. You NEO-liberals are nothing more than economic fascists. It's fucking retarded! Those who don't learn at all are doomed to be statists.
Why is it that the same government you think should be in charge of these regulations allows the boy scouts to discriminate against gays and atheists while ACCEPTING GOVERNMENT MONEY?
Lol at your facial expression in the beginning. And to quote winston churchill “If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”
@Breakyerself I am not a conservative. I advocate for the most drastic political change to ever take place in history. I would hardly call that conservative. Perhaps you should look into peoples views more before assigning stereotypes to them.
Oh, and why did the economy collapse? How well does regulation work?
@Breakyerself You should stop getting all of your information from sources that confirm your bigotries and think for yourself. Regulatory agencies are usually headed by people from the very corporations they are supposed to regulate. Regulation and deregulation are two sides of the same coin. They add or remove regulations that will make them the biggest profits. Government regulation is a fascist tool of corporations. It is not there to protect you, and deregulation today is not more freedom.
Populations are not homogeneous. While in total they might be anti-racist, there might be population where majority are racist, and discriminate against minorities.
There are states in U.S. that have laws that deny atheists taking public office. Locally that kind of thinking has a majority, but it is still against the constitution. This is why we need the regulations, like the ones that prevent shops selling alcohol or tobacco to kids.
But I'm just liberal\left leaning European, right?
@Saukko31 Do you also hold the position that it should be illegal for people themselves to have the right to be racist? That people should not be allowed to discriminate on who they invite into their home?
@Saukko31 So let's say I decide to have a home business and I'm a racist. Technically my home is also a business. So would you then force me to do not discriminate, even though it's in my own home?
What if I was being a racist in public and being discriminatory as to who I would like to trade baseball cards with? Would you then revoke my right to discriminate, because I'm technically conducting business?!
@Saukko31 A business is merely an extension of the owners own labor. To say they don't have the right to own that business and decide who they'd like to do business with is to say that they do not have the right to own their own labor. To say that we should not be allowed to own our own labor is to advocate for slavery.
@JacobSpinney Nonsense. All are subjects to the rules of society, business owners do not get special rights. Just because you can't discriminate a race doesn't mean that you don't own your own labour.
@Saukko31 When you say that all are subjects to the rules of society, you are necessarily saying that the individual should be a slave to the collective. I honestly cannot see why you see such a huge distinction between a person deciding who they'd like to be friends with and a person deciding who they'd like to do business with.
A person should have every right to be a racist, but not when they are trading? How blatantly arbitrary that ethic is!
@JacobSpinney Obeying the rules of the society is not slavery, it is a balance between freedoms and responsibilities. This is not a black and white issue.
I have no problem distinguishing between who do you want to be friends with, and saying to a person of certain race that you cannot buy stuff here.
No-one is interfering on who your friends are, but it has been decided, by the people, that you cannot discriminate a race.
@Saukko31 I don't know how to respond other than to say that you are simply making an argument for absolute majoritarianism; that whatever the majority says is right is right. So a few thousand years ago when slavery was commonplace and the majority saw no problem with it, you would have had no problem with slavery either, correct?
@Saukko31 The populations that would discriminate on a free market are protected from the economic consequences by the government. The government has done a hatchet job on individual responsibility, from the corporation down to the meager racist.
You do realize that atheists being denied from public office is not an argument for the state, right?
@Saukko31 You said a private company should be regulated because it engages in bigoted discrimination. You said the state also engages in a bigoted discrimination but you said nothing about regulating the state? So i guess the tyranny of the latter is tolerable to you?
At the end of the video you talk about how haveing a board of regulators opens the door for coruption. Now your saying if there where no regulations we wouldnt have to worry about companys being corupt. company's would always operat to supply consumer demand.
@smithbrass Without a regulator with the power to suppress competition, who could a business then bribe in order to grant themselves a higher market share?
But if a minority of the voters think they should have the right to discriminate, then the majority can stop those people (businesses) from discriminating.
This was the situation in the 50s and 60s. More and more people wanted equal rights for black people, and eventually, businesses couldn't segregate their customers any more because the government stopped them.
Just one question: Doesn't it depend more upon which issues people vote upon? For instance, if a party has a strong social, economic and international policy that is very popular, but has unpopular racial views, as opposed to a party that has weak social, economic and international policy, but popular anti racist politics, what do you think could happen?
Technically there could be wealthy anti-racist lobbyists who bribe politicians to pass anti-racism laws in a racist population, but yeah :-p Not likely, and that would imply advocating an oligarchy, which most socialist types aren't willing to do.
Also, the market will cater to the minority like a democracy will not. So in a free market there would be some racist firms, and in a racist market there would be some anti-racist firms, but unlike a state they'd have trouble imposing their beliefs.
Dude you say alot of information but very little substance! Stop mouthing off and say something of actual value
cinquain0 1 year ago
Amen, thanks.
bdmenne 1 year ago
i think you made a really great point but i think you drug it out a little to much i kinda lost you around 5 minutes
studmuffin234able 1 year ago
Kentucky...please give us Rand Paul!!
boat6868 1 year ago
Even if a racist business owner can find enough like-minded customers to overcome a non-racist boycott, he MUST ALSO overcome the problem of finding suppliers and/or distributors willing to tarnish their brand by doing business with him.
What do you think would happen if Pepsi-Cola's CEO turned on the national evening news and watched a report about a racist diner owner, and it cuts to a shot of the diner front with a big neon Pepsi logo in the window?
MrPloppy1 1 year ago
name one thing the free market has solved Jacob. The problem is it never existed.
NationalPopularism 1 year ago
excelent vid, thumbs up !
HectorElCapitan 1 year ago
Actually, the segregation that took place in the south, in the form of Jim Crow, was not because of free-market forces! The respective southern states enacted the laws of segregation, and not all businesses (black or white owned) were all too keen to follow the law, especially in accomodating racial segregation within one's privately owned establishment. Seeing segregation for what it was, namely, state mandated, does make for a stronger argument against (unconstitutional) statist impositions
whiff1962 1 year ago
Rachael Maddow's "extremism" is not the exception for most liberal statist, it is the rule. This notion, that by allowing private businesses to discriminate, would somehow be socially and politically catastrophic, is steeped in a rather dark and pessimistic view of human nature. Sure, people do damnable things. However, in a very contracting and consenting society, and with America having grown in the meantime, I see no worst-case scenario that Ms. Maddows is so keen to underscore.
whiff1962 1 year ago
This is definitely a good reply, from what I understand of our country today, not to mention the world.
LtSurge659 1 year ago
No you should say nothing because you argument holds no water. The majority in the south was racist and yes you do have to protect minorities. The free market without regulation doesn't work and won't work... You are living in a fairy land, people are racists still in this area (kentucky). I know I live here (across the whole state) and it would happen here. Yes he is a radical because his views are extreme. The free market is never a solution. At least I know not to click on your bullshit now.
mightyquinn42437 1 year ago
@mightyquinn42437 Ok, maybe where you live in Kentucky is racist, but I also live in Kentucky and in the area where I live nobody I know is racist. I am a christian all of us christians know being racist is wrong, because we know to treat everybody equal, and that's what God would want us to do. In Jesus loves the little children we say "Red, Yellow, Black and White, they are all precious in his site." Now as I said before, maybe your area that you live in Kentucky is racist, but my area is not.
puttputtking 1 year ago
If we took away these regulations we might have a a racist neo-nazi, skin head club form somewhere that doesn't allow blacks. I wouldn't want to go to there low life establishment and niether would the majority of Americans. I would also tell all my friends not to associate with them.
lexrex3 1 year ago
Good points sir.
joepglass 1 year ago
Hmm... we need a comittee to study this, then we need a committee to regulate the committee that is studying racsim. Ultimately, there are universities, that whites are not allowed in. As a white women I would not go to a black or spanish section for my necessities. So am I sterotyping? no being cautious and keeping myself safe. there is alot of reverse discrimination, keep you eyes wide open.
MsLadyJane1 1 year ago
I take it you drink municipal water and eat toothpaste.
drevenkaine 1 year ago
LiberalViewer is such a dumb ass... Great respons btw, i will put this video on my favorite soon!
Deadleader555 1 year ago
I must say, i don't see the problem with "rolling back" a century's worth of crushing paper and ink off people.
4lifejackhammer 1 year ago
LV is a pure idiot who doesn't understand or believe in property rights.
NoMorFear 1 year ago
@Breakyerself
lol @ you referencing monopolies. Epic Failure.
rockandrock44 1 year ago
@Breakyerself free market monopolies are nearly impossible to sustain.
Caveman135 1 year ago
dude, you fail to realize that you talk about pseudolibertarianism.
it is not about hiding behind it and to sell markety-"selfregulatory" ideas, it is more about a movement that sticks to ideals and that is why some stuff doesn`t even come into question whereas you try to pretend that there are to sides of one coin.
one thing though just randomly: at me and mine your acces is denied from now on, cheerio.
p.s. : rand paul is also blocked.
Realizalize 1 year ago
@Realizalize And you don't stick to ideals? So you would be for slavery if it were in the right circumstance? Your ideal wouldn't always be happiness and prosperity for everyone on earth? Sometimes you should change that ideal? To what?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney
-...get back in time and think of yourself as the guy who is for gaymarriage, for womenvoting, against racism and slavery 100 years ago...
-...guess for you , and your argumentation supplies that notion, it would be a matter of money...
Realizalize 1 year ago
this guy is faggy
bossadl1 1 year ago
Hmmm...
I think that the constitution itself was a bad idea.
The Articles of Confederation formed a "perpetual union" that the constitutional convention had no right to dissolve.
Question:
Was racism in the united states greater before or after the, so called, "civil war"?
Did Reconstruction increase racism in the united states?
kevinbenko 1 year ago
Well, some businesses may still have racist policies, but today it would probably be at the margins in only a few select places of the US, and therefore not so horribly significant.
adjohnson916 1 year ago
@Breakyerself "its a little more complicated than that isn't it? " Think about it, if a business had guaranteed income, no matter their quality of service, price, etc. They would have no incentive to give good services or goods.
Competition is dead? How? On a free market competition would form much more easily, due to there being no state created barriers to entry, to reduce competition and make it possible for cartels to form.
crazypants88 1 year ago
@Breakyerself lol your very first comment was filled with unfounded assertions.
return135 1 year ago
@Breakyerself our arguments are actually fresh and original lol its your arguments that aren't.
return135 1 year ago
@Breakyerself we are sometimes smug to people like you because you use the same tired ass arguments that we've heard a thousand times.
return135 1 year ago
@Breakyerself The fact that regulatory agencies are corruptible is why we should not have one legally mandated monopolistic regulatory agency. If you have multiple agencies competing with one another, they are incentivized to be honest, and if one becomes corrupted, you can go to others. I don't know how you can be against corporations but for monopolistic regulation.
Stargazer5781 1 year ago
Oh man, LiberalViewer's video is so fallacious. I wonder if he is just to dumb to realize how fallacious it is or if he actually realizes that it's fallacious and just thinks his audience won't.
Epistemillogical 1 year ago
good points.
wolverine10mm 1 year ago
Jacob, I strongly believe that the people who are worried about businesses becoming racist without the government are themselves closet racists. If they aren't, then how would they come up with such ridiculously absurd ideas?
ajhinfairbanks 1 year ago
great job! agreed.
freethinker3161 1 year ago
It's not about the number of years a piece of legislation should be rolled back, it's if the legislation makes sense or not!
Duh!
LiberalViewer argues on emotion and quite frankly, stupidity.
TimeWarp66 1 year ago
yeah liberalviewer is stupid he doesn't know his ass from his elbow
all he does is post shit videos. as if anyone cares about what fox is saying
Rand Paul isn't radical he is logical.
MirageScience 1 year ago
@Breakyerself go troll somewhere else. you are not going to convince anyone here with that kind of retarded comment. you are the perfect example of the type of moronic person we anti-statists laugh at and write sarcastic comments imitating. The people in this thread are FAR too smart be convinced by some statist drone like you.
return135 1 year ago
@return135 to be**
return135 1 year ago
@Breakyerself
Cool story, bro.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@Breakyerself You cant have a "corporation" without the state granting such legal status. And its beyond obvious that there are well endorsed examples on how corporations set barriers against other companies to eliminate competition through state intervention. Competition is what makes a business behave sensibly, the state hinders competition. I guess you like to get raped from both sides?
idontgiveashit0930 1 year ago
@idontgiveashit0930 corporations are not the only form of shoring up competition
NationalPopularism 1 year ago
@Breakyerself
Love arguing with you people.... You always say something like "fancy arguments", yep how unfair of us to use that newfangled thing called logic and reason on you. Logically and historically are arguments are sound and valid but of course how dare we interfere with your emotional reactionary position.
hahahahaha fail
wizkid2000 1 year ago
RASICT RIGHTWING REPUBLICAN FREE MARKET FASCIST!!!!!11111
Apptendo 1 year ago
@Breakyerself For an atheist you don't seem particularly open minded towards new ways of thinking. It's almost as if being an atheist has nothing to do with open- mindedness, gasp!
crazypants88 1 year ago
@Breakyerself How do you think corporations exist? Do you honestly think the free market is the entity that created this legal shield known as a corporation, with the ability to do whatever it wants and not hold the actual people within it to blame? Do you really think it's the free market that is accepting bribes to use regulatory powers to create barriers to entry so that the corporation can become a monopoly?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@Breakyerself Every single service that the government offers can be offered on the free market. The difference is that on a free market prices usually go down due to competition as opposed to government monopolies that can increase their prices without fear of bankruptcy or competition ( since they'll often just plain illegal to compete with them)
The state is what anti-free marketeers fear, ironically.
crazypants88 1 year ago
@crazypants88 The US has a wonderful example of state-granted monopolies driving up costs that most people have ready access to. It's public transit in any major center. In the US (unlike Canada) the majority of the daily users of public transit have, effectively, no other option, so they keep using it if the price goes up, and there are no other comparable services in cities. (No, taxis are NOT comparable to buses and subways and the odd streetcar system.)
evensgrey 1 year ago
excellent video
LegendaryFLA 1 year ago
I think people often mistakenly think laws dictate general behaviour when general behaviour actually dictates law.
crazypants88 1 year ago
1:02 - That's actually not true. Businesses segregated because of laws forcing them to. And the laws didn't work at first; it was only when they started holding the business owners and employees as criminally liable that they actually started enforcing it on their own.
shanedk 1 year ago 6
@Breakyerself Y'know that argument creationists use about how we need Jesus to be moral. Yeah, the same applies to the human authority figures that somehow know how to be better humans than everyone else.
Anarchism is the rejection of the state concept just like how atheism is the rejection of the god concept.
silentbob36 1 year ago 2
@Breakyerself I'm not under the delusion that people are perfect when they're given freedom either. But unless you find some saints to run the governments, they WILL abuse their power. I just want the baby to actually grow up and be responsible for itself instead of being coddled by the nanny state all its life like some kind of man-child. Also corporations are a product of the state, the reason corporations get so powerful is because they lobby the state for special privileges.
silentbob36 1 year ago
@Breakyerself
The point is that you trust the government to provide these regulations and they don't even provide them where they're the most necessary. Who cares if the guy running the burger place down the street doesn't allow blacks in? Anyone who doesn't like that rule doesn't have to go there or give them any of our money. Where as with the boy scouts, we all have to pay, including the people who are being discriminated against.
mrplow8 1 year ago
Well...the racist LAWS helped that too...
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@Breakyerself You live in fairytale land. The state is some loving god that solves all problems. That philosophy failed. Miserably! Why did the economy collapse? State control. Why does shit happen? Because the state god is for sale. You NEO-liberals are nothing more than economic fascists. It's fucking retarded! Those who don't learn at all are doomed to be statists.
*fixed
silentbob36 1 year ago 4
@Breakyerself
Why is it that the same government you think should be in charge of these regulations allows the boy scouts to discriminate against gays and atheists while ACCEPTING GOVERNMENT MONEY?
mrplow8 1 year ago 2
@Breakyerself
The economy did not collapse because of deregulation. That is a myth. Watch this
watch?v=i06peJfgUqI
Scoforever 1 year ago 2
Too bad that common sense and mankind have a, at best, streneous relationship.
GumbaMasta 1 year ago
Lol at your facial expression in the beginning. And to quote winston churchill “If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”
idontgiveashit0930 1 year ago
@Breakyerself I am not a conservative. I advocate for the most drastic political change to ever take place in history. I would hardly call that conservative. Perhaps you should look into peoples views more before assigning stereotypes to them.
Oh, and why did the economy collapse? How well does regulation work?
watch?v=mDp65Juibes
watch?v=oR0ZXu5brQo
JacobSpinney 1 year ago 12
Comment removed
x0TheJackal0x 1 year ago
@x0TheJackal0x whoops, meant to reply to breakyerself.
x0TheJackal0x 1 year ago
@Breakyerself You should stop getting all of your information from sources that confirm your bigotries and think for yourself. Regulatory agencies are usually headed by people from the very corporations they are supposed to regulate. Regulation and deregulation are two sides of the same coin. They add or remove regulations that will make them the biggest profits. Government regulation is a fascist tool of corporations. It is not there to protect you, and deregulation today is not more freedom.
Stargazer5781 1 year ago 11
LiberalViewer asking a retarded question? Ask fakesagan about that one.
abortabraham 1 year ago
Populations are not homogeneous. While in total they might be anti-racist, there might be population where majority are racist, and discriminate against minorities.
There are states in U.S. that have laws that deny atheists taking public office. Locally that kind of thinking has a majority, but it is still against the constitution. This is why we need the regulations, like the ones that prevent shops selling alcohol or tobacco to kids.
But I'm just liberal\left leaning European, right?
Saukko31 1 year ago
@Saukko31 Do you also hold the position that it should be illegal for people themselves to have the right to be racist? That people should not be allowed to discriminate on who they invite into their home?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney No. Where did you get that idea? That is completely different from the topic which would allow shopkeepers make racist policies.
My position is that they can't discriminate minorities, to put a sign that only certain people allowed or not allowed.
Saukko31 1 year ago
@Saukko31 So let's say I decide to have a home business and I'm a racist. Technically my home is also a business. So would you then force me to do not discriminate, even though it's in my own home?
What if I was being a racist in public and being discriminatory as to who I would like to trade baseball cards with? Would you then revoke my right to discriminate, because I'm technically conducting business?!
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@Saukko31 A business is merely an extension of the owners own labor. To say they don't have the right to own that business and decide who they'd like to do business with is to say that they do not have the right to own their own labor. To say that we should not be allowed to own our own labor is to advocate for slavery.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Nonsense. All are subjects to the rules of society, business owners do not get special rights. Just because you can't discriminate a race doesn't mean that you don't own your own labour.
Saukko31 1 year ago
@Saukko31 When you say that all are subjects to the rules of society, you are necessarily saying that the individual should be a slave to the collective. I honestly cannot see why you see such a huge distinction between a person deciding who they'd like to be friends with and a person deciding who they'd like to do business with.
A person should have every right to be a racist, but not when they are trading? How blatantly arbitrary that ethic is!
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Obeying the rules of the society is not slavery, it is a balance between freedoms and responsibilities. This is not a black and white issue.
I have no problem distinguishing between who do you want to be friends with, and saying to a person of certain race that you cannot buy stuff here.
No-one is interfering on who your friends are, but it has been decided, by the people, that you cannot discriminate a race.
Saukko31 1 year ago
@Saukko31 I don't know how to respond other than to say that you are simply making an argument for absolute majoritarianism; that whatever the majority says is right is right. So a few thousand years ago when slavery was commonplace and the majority saw no problem with it, you would have had no problem with slavery either, correct?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@Saukko31 The populations that would discriminate on a free market are protected from the economic consequences by the government. The government has done a hatchet job on individual responsibility, from the corporation down to the meager racist.
You do realize that atheists being denied from public office is not an argument for the state, right?
abortabraham 1 year ago
@Saukko31 You said a private company should be regulated because it engages in bigoted discrimination. You said the state also engages in a bigoted discrimination but you said nothing about regulating the state? So i guess the tyranny of the latter is tolerable to you?
idontgiveashit0930 1 year ago
@idontgiveashit0930 I did say about regulating the state, it is called constitution.
Saukko31 1 year ago
At the end of the video you talk about how haveing a board of regulators opens the door for coruption. Now your saying if there where no regulations we wouldnt have to worry about companys being corupt. company's would always operat to supply consumer demand.
smithbrass 1 year ago
@smithbrass Without a regulator with the power to suppress competition, who could a business then bribe in order to grant themselves a higher market share?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
But if a minority of the voters think they should have the right to discriminate, then the majority can stop those people (businesses) from discriminating.
This was the situation in the 50s and 60s. More and more people wanted equal rights for black people, and eventually, businesses couldn't segregate their customers any more because the government stopped them.
I'm not sure where you're going with this video.
ManicEightBall 1 year ago
Just one question: Doesn't it depend more upon which issues people vote upon? For instance, if a party has a strong social, economic and international policy that is very popular, but has unpopular racial views, as opposed to a party that has weak social, economic and international policy, but popular anti racist politics, what do you think could happen?
BespokeGroupUK 1 year ago
My thoughts exactly. I said the same thing in my answering to his first question.
Normally, I like LV's vids, but he is way off (I think if that was what he was going for).
liknital07 1 year ago
Technically there could be wealthy anti-racist lobbyists who bribe politicians to pass anti-racism laws in a racist population, but yeah :-p Not likely, and that would imply advocating an oligarchy, which most socialist types aren't willing to do.
Also, the market will cater to the minority like a democracy will not. So in a free market there would be some racist firms, and in a racist market there would be some anti-racist firms, but unlike a state they'd have trouble imposing their beliefs.
Stargazer5781 1 year ago 4