@AndroidPolitician Really? You don't have to take that example. See Westboro Baptist Church using freedom of speech for a case on point of how upset and outraged people can get over what those idiots say.
Well yeah but that's not really my point. My point is we tolerate horrible opinions all the time (holocaust deniers, westboro church, neocons etc.) but their freedom of speech being allowed is nowhere near as bad as someone refusing medical care or refusing to serve someone based on discrimination.
Of course it extends to paying people less based on discrimination etc.
Hell even the UDHR addresses discrimination, it's just a fundemetal protection human beings should have
@AndroidPolitician But I dispute the underlying assumption that any person is entitled to medical care or any similar thing. Medical care is not an abstract thing: it is a service provided by a person. No one should be entitled by law to the labor of another. That's indentured servitude at best or slavery at worst.
There's a flip side too. I don't think gay owners should be forced to allow homophobes on their premises, nor racial minorities forced to allow xenophobes, nor jews to allow Nazis.
So your response to odious discrimination by private firms would be to say to the disfavored group: "Too bad."
Alternatively, we could say, "No way -- if you open a business to the public, you serve every paying customer. Else what you have is a private club, where you can choose (and exclude) whom you wish." Which appears to be what the law says.
When antidiscrimination laws were passed, such discrimination was not hypothetical, like the case of the old lady.
@Dylvente You could argue the law was necessary then but not anymore, with less racism. But yours is an argument from the principle that a business owner should be allowed to discriminate against customers. So it would not allow for an antidiscrimination law then or now. You would have allowed white business owners to continue imposing hardship on nonwhites by excluding them from their businesses -- a fact, not an imagined and unlikely scenario.
"So your response to odious discrimination by private firms would be to say to the disfavored group: 'Too bad.'"
If you want to phrase it that way, yes. I don't think one should make a distinction between "classes" of property ownership, i.e. dwelling versus business. I don't think law should require a person to associate with those who they don't wish to (even if I think it's reprehensible), whatever the characteristics may be (blue eyes, brown hair, big ears, left-handed. etc.)
You just answered your own objection: private club.
Also, to pre-empt the argument that firms use roads and utilities provided by the state and thus must play by the state's rules: these firms never asked to be taxed for the infrastructure. There was never an agreement. So no, it's not "part of the deal" - there was no deal.
@leavesofliberty I don't think it should be legal for a business to discriminate based on customers' race. That has to include everyone. If people are threatening, as in the case you suggest, then they could be asked (or if necessary forced) to leave on those grounds.
Ugh, I checked out that guy's channel. It seems like something you'd hear from a sixteen year old with a camera who's read three pages of Das Kapital, not a turkey tited thirtysomething. All he needs to do is realize one thing: the evil system as it exists only exists because of government contamination. Were, the government involved in business to the extent of prosecuting fraud, etc., and no more, we wouldn't be in a recession, mark my words.
This situation is unrealistic --- how did this person survive in the small town up to that point if prejudice is so serious a problem there? It is an impossible task to solve this kind of thing.
But boycotting is also an aspect of freedom of association. And if such a doctor existed, would you pay for his services? Obviously not. Therefore you can organize and out compete
There is a difference between action and inaction. Action as in actively depriving a persons right and inaction which is indifference that consequentially leads to a persons right being stripped away. But you have no obligations to surrender your liberty in expense for others. Unfortunately socialists cant understand this.
Im sure this is springing from rand paul property BS. I dont think his argument is appeal to outrage/emotion per se, the guy you are responding to is basically saying, hypothetically a person could lose every "right" when you could lose a segment of your "right"(your liberty) and by quantifying and weighing these rights, he believes depriving your right to liberty is justified in this sense..he is basically glorifying slavery which is a typical socialist attitude.
This is beatiful, hope you make more libertarian videos again, they are usually pretty wonderful.
lengthyounarther 1 year ago
So, the solution to this hypothetical scenario would be would? Put a gun to the doctor's head and force him to carry out the operation?
RadioFreeWisconsin 1 year ago
Brilliantly stated.
UnhealthySalad 1 year ago
I would tolerate a person choosing not associate with another person based on race, as long as I can chose not to associate with racists.
BloodiCheeseCake 1 year ago
@BloodiCheeseCake Agreed.
Austrolibertarian 1 year ago
The problem is discrimination would be an actual issue whereas someone being outraged (little old lady dying etc.) probably wouldn't happen as much.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician Really? You don't have to take that example. See Westboro Baptist Church using freedom of speech for a case on point of how upset and outraged people can get over what those idiots say.
Austrolibertarian 1 year ago
@Austrolibertarian
Well yeah but that's not really my point. My point is we tolerate horrible opinions all the time (holocaust deniers, westboro church, neocons etc.) but their freedom of speech being allowed is nowhere near as bad as someone refusing medical care or refusing to serve someone based on discrimination.
Of course it extends to paying people less based on discrimination etc.
Hell even the UDHR addresses discrimination, it's just a fundemetal protection human beings should have
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician But I dispute the underlying assumption that any person is entitled to medical care or any similar thing. Medical care is not an abstract thing: it is a service provided by a person. No one should be entitled by law to the labor of another. That's indentured servitude at best or slavery at worst.
There's a flip side too. I don't think gay owners should be forced to allow homophobes on their premises, nor racial minorities forced to allow xenophobes, nor jews to allow Nazis.
Austrolibertarian 1 year ago
So your response to odious discrimination by private firms would be to say to the disfavored group: "Too bad."
Alternatively, we could say, "No way -- if you open a business to the public, you serve every paying customer. Else what you have is a private club, where you can choose (and exclude) whom you wish." Which appears to be what the law says.
When antidiscrimination laws were passed, such discrimination was not hypothetical, like the case of the old lady.
Dylvente 1 year ago
@Dylvente You could argue the law was necessary then but not anymore, with less racism. But yours is an argument from the principle that a business owner should be allowed to discriminate against customers. So it would not allow for an antidiscrimination law then or now. You would have allowed white business owners to continue imposing hardship on nonwhites by excluding them from their businesses -- a fact, not an imagined and unlikely scenario.
Dylvente 1 year ago
@Dylvente
"So your response to odious discrimination by private firms would be to say to the disfavored group: 'Too bad.'"
If you want to phrase it that way, yes. I don't think one should make a distinction between "classes" of property ownership, i.e. dwelling versus business. I don't think law should require a person to associate with those who they don't wish to (even if I think it's reprehensible), whatever the characteristics may be (blue eyes, brown hair, big ears, left-handed. etc.)
Austrolibertarian 1 year ago
@Austrolibertarian
have you done a video on carsonian-style mutualism? I'd like to know your view on that.
ohbobsagetpiss 1 year ago
You just answered your own objection: private club.
Also, to pre-empt the argument that firms use roads and utilities provided by the state and thus must play by the state's rules: these firms never asked to be taxed for the infrastructure. There was never an agreement. So no, it's not "part of the deal" - there was no deal.
fringeelements 1 year ago
@Dylvente Do you suppose a black business owner has the right to discriminate against KKK members?
leavesofliberty 1 year ago
@leavesofliberty No.
Dylvente 1 year ago
@Dylvente OMG OMG how can you force a black business owner to serve people, KKK members, that want to lynch mob him??? You're horrible!
leavesofliberty 1 year ago
@leavesofliberty I don't think it should be legal for a business to discriminate based on customers' race. That has to include everyone. If people are threatening, as in the case you suggest, then they could be asked (or if necessary forced) to leave on those grounds.
Dylvente 1 year ago
@Dylvente RACIST
leavesofliberty 1 year ago
Ugh, I checked out that guy's channel. It seems like something you'd hear from a sixteen year old with a camera who's read three pages of Das Kapital, not a turkey tited thirtysomething. All he needs to do is realize one thing: the evil system as it exists only exists because of government contamination. Were, the government involved in business to the extent of prosecuting fraud, etc., and no more, we wouldn't be in a recession, mark my words.
Garboth 1 year ago
maybe you should wear a sweet capitalist uniform the way maoist wears a communist uniform
imyourgod2 1 year ago
Ah yes, there is hope for the world. :)
woodsofodin 1 year ago
This situation is unrealistic --- how did this person survive in the small town up to that point if prejudice is so serious a problem there? It is an impossible task to solve this kind of thing.
chris3443 1 year ago
How can that guy's channel not be a parody?
chinzzzy 1 year ago
@chinzzzy I actually asked myself the same question.
Austrolibertarian 1 year ago
Peace!
TimothyBragan 1 year ago
MaoistRebelNews haha.... hahahahhah, that guy.
TimothyBragan 1 year ago
But boycotting is also an aspect of freedom of association. And if such a doctor existed, would you pay for his services? Obviously not. Therefore you can organize and out compete
Gettinghitonattheban 1 year ago
LOL, Commies, LOL
Apptendo 1 year ago
This video has Eye Rape in it.
FlowCell 1 year ago 8
@FlowCell Eye rape?
Austrolibertarian 1 year ago
@Austrolibertarian
It means the video effect you used wasn't easy on my eyes.
FlowCell 1 year ago
@Austrolibertarian
Its similar to ear rape, common in YouTubePoop videos.
FlowCell 1 year ago
Good vid!
crazypants88 1 year ago
...a doctor that refuses to help someone...
...is a bad doctor...
...a human that refuses to help another human...
...is a waste of oxygen...
Will224000 1 year ago
@Will224000
That's a nice subjective opinion you got there!
MrHerrIQ 1 year ago
@Will224000 a human that refuses to be my servant is a waste of carbon and water!
chainzdown2dadik 1 year ago
There is a difference between action and inaction. Action as in actively depriving a persons right and inaction which is indifference that consequentially leads to a persons right being stripped away. But you have no obligations to surrender your liberty in expense for others. Unfortunately socialists cant understand this.
idontgiveashit0930 1 year ago
Im sure this is springing from rand paul property BS. I dont think his argument is appeal to outrage/emotion per se, the guy you are responding to is basically saying, hypothetically a person could lose every "right" when you could lose a segment of your "right"(your liberty) and by quantifying and weighing these rights, he believes depriving your right to liberty is justified in this sense..he is basically glorifying slavery which is a typical socialist attitude.
idontgiveashit0930 1 year ago
Good video. I don't like the term "libertarianism" but I do recognize the value of SOME libertarians.
RyanDJamieson 1 year ago