Libertarians who are confronted about property rights and racism can do the following to explain their situation: Simply demonstrate that property rights are analogous to free speech from the libertarian perspective. Everyone believes people have a right to free speech but may think that what people say is immoral (racist speech). Just like free speech the libertarian believes people have property rights but may think that what people do with their property is immoral (racist businesses).
If a property is not a business then the owner should have complete property rights unless he's killing people or something crazy. Like when the cops said I couldn't hunt in city limits I said private property FUCK OFF! and they left. But a klansman would not be allowed to refuse service to a black man so it shouldn't be allowed vice versa.
...and we as consumers have the right to shut their businesses down with a simple free market solution...DON'T DO BUSINESS WITH THEM! Wow...what a radical idea.
...and ask these same people if a white business owner should be able to refuse service to an obnoxious black person and I bet my bottom dollar that they would have the exact opposite reaction. Such is the inherent double standard and hypocrisy of collectivism...but, you know, King Lincoln freed the slaves and was not a racist, Reconstruction made race relations better in the South, and the Civil Rights Act defeated racism. Hooray ignorance! People have the right to be racist idiots...
While I agree with your principal, I think you're making a false analogy. Race is genetic. It can't be chosen or changed. Being a Klansman is a choice, and carries with it certain natural consequences. Refusing service to a Klansman is not the same refusing service to a White man. Discrimination based on nature is not the same as discrimination based on choice. I still agree with the principal of property rights, but this is a weak argument.
@seismicmike Anytime we make a choice regarding any matter, we are discriminating against someone or soemthing else. The nature vs choice point you make is terribly weak.
I used to think it was crazy to disagree with Item 10 but now it makes sense to me. Finally!!! This video has an explanation that can get people to realize - on their own - that Item 10 ironically violates our civil rights. The other 9 items are fantastic but Item 10 is more offensive than it seemed at first glance.
By law of the US if any restaurant owner refuses to serve anyone can have their business taken away and be sued. It's the same if someone were to deny service to a black wussie panther. Stop trying to use to dead race card. Those days are over and we have a black president. The race card is now invalid.
The only Rights we have are our “unalienable Rights.” A deeper understanding of these Rights materializes through the prism of science (see my channel video). As for this restaurant example, a private business owner serving the public has the freedom to operate within the Law. If there are too many Laws to operate freely, move your business to China or elsewhere; where you may pursue your Happiness.
This video is misleading and stupid. In fact the question is stupid or racist itself. Why does the question inject something about the character of the white person? This guy implies the black owner is discriminating based on race and the owner is not. All whites arent klan. So there is a difference between asking is it ok to refuse a white person or is it ok to refuse a klansmen. Its stupid becuz if a white person was a klansmen he wouldnt want to go into a black owner's restaurant anyway.
@rashadkijani "This guy implies the black owner is discriminating based on race and the owner is not."
There's no such implication. All we need to notice is that the black owner who refuses entry to the klansman is discriminating. The question is: should the owners of private property be allowed to discriminate in who they allow to use their property, or not?
@bitbutter You obviously arent watching the same video I am. The guy in this video is too misleading. I explained my view in full. I made a distinction between the idea of not allowing a klansmen into a restaurant as opposed to not allowing a white person. If you cant understand that then you no merit in this conversation.
@rashadkijani "I made a distinction between the idea of not allowing a klansmen into a restaurant as opposed to not allowing a white person."
Sure. I understand that. So should the owners of private property be allowed to discriminate in who they allow to use their property, or not. What do you think?
@bitbutter Did you read my whole comment? I dont understand what I said that you have a problem with. Im not exactly getting what I said you have a problem with. No klansmen would want to go into a restaurant of a black owner. And how would a black owner know that white person is a klansmen any ways. The person who made this video is using a unrealistic scenario.
Personally, I believe than any business owner has the right to refuse service to any one they choose. Legally though, you can not do this because that would be discrimination. I don't think the government has the right to dictate what a person can or can not do with his/her own property or services that they provide. Now when it comes to voting I personally and legally agree that no person can be denied access to the polling booth as it is their right to help shape the future of this country.
im not a racist but i believe the black man has the right to to refuse the clansman on his property and vice versa. if you are black and someone is unwilling to take your money, dont worry cause there are a million other people who will take your money.
in the end who is going to have a bigger profit, the people who take anyone's money or the people who only take some people's money?
@robertwc82 "in the end who is going to have a bigger profit, the people who take anyone's money or the people who only take some people's money?"
That depends on the situation. In a strongly racist community, the one restaurant that serves a minority race may be boycotted by the majority, and suffer financially because of it.
Laws for the protection of diversity are to protect people, not beliefs. A belief is not protected , especially if those holding those beliefs engage in haste speech or hate actions. A black business owner would not have the right to bar someone from their establishment unless those persons were known to engage in hate speech and hate actions. If they kept their hate to themselves they legally would be welcome. The problem is, the KKK is a hate organization, by definition. Being black is not.
I have nothing against anyone hating anyone else as long as they donot hurt them.If hate is a crime then we arein orwellian thought crimecategory.I hateyou forspitting on myfreedom.Should I goto jail?Should all governmentopposition goto jailtoo?What aboutIraqis that hateamericans for invadingtheir country andkilling so manyinnocents?Let them rotin jail too!Theyare allhaters bydefinition! Laws protect nothing-lookat supremelaw ofamerika-constitution,thatwas supposedtoprotect againstbig government
@zbigniewzapora a hate crime isnt hate, its a crime motivated by hate. but yeah its stupid, a murder motivated by hate has the exact same results as a murder motivated by financial gain
@daniel15671 "A black business owner would not have the right to bar someone from their establishment "
Should the owner have the right to bar someone from entering his other building: the one in which he relaxes, eats breakfast, sometimes entertains guests, and sleeps at night?
If he should have this right, why should he not have the right to bar someone from entering the building he owns, where he happens to spend most of the daylight hours trading?
You are responding to a phrase, taken out of context, from my response. The underlying issue is about the rights of hate groups versus the rights of legitimate diversity groups. KKK and other groups like them operate out of hate. People of diversity generally operate out of a need to protect themselves.
@daniel15671 "KKK [...] operate out of hate. People of diversity generally operate out of a need to protect themselves."
Racist groups also believe they need to protect themselves (or their 'race'), and they are a minority who also fit the label 'people of diversity'.
Can we agree that discrimination is inherently subjective, necessary to human existence, and that it's initiation of force or threats of the same that we should be concerned about? (the KKK are certainly guilty).
I would agree that discrimination is a term descriptive of human cognitive function, and necessary to human existence.
I would also agree that violent action or verbal threats ( I include marginalizing speech here, as well) are a form of social discrimination and of great concern. My only point is that if a person is known to habitually engage in hate action or hate speech, that would be grounds for barring entrance to a place of business. I think we are in agreement on that.
holy cow. you guys are so clever for flipping it on its head: 'should a BLACK man have the right to refuse service to a klansman' -- what a great counter-example to illustrate the main point. kudos!
Remove all laws..... I do believe things will be different in the future, but laws today are necessary. And what does laws do? It uses force, not persuasion, to keep you from against the will of your community (commune,state,region,country etc).
Today, if you want people to live in a free democratic society, there is something called limits. Limits that keeps others from robbing you of your freedom.
Want no limits? Will anarchy create perfect freedom? I am not too sure...
If the clans men is peaceful yes,he should get service.
But the question is stupid. If he just said white people it would have made more since. Blacks were not allowed because they were black, not because the disturbed the peace.
I believe everyone should be able to decide who they wish to serve in their own restaurant , but I would advise against refusing them if they have never caused you any trouble. The only way to get through to those people is to talk and interact with them, proving that you can live together in peace despite the obvious differences. Refusing an individual without provocation could result in hideous outcomes. The moment they are offensive towards your employees however, out on their asses they go.
i think you should make another video, and ask people on the street if a white owner has the right to kick out a loud, obnoxious. black panther, or any person being a complete and total clown, of color, out of their establishment, or is that considered racist.
Great to see Young Americans for Liberty taking off. Where this country heads next is up to the young people. There can be no Liberty without a Voluntary society. Google V for Voluntary
if CUSTOMER is paying and not causing (or caused) trouble with the business or its customers, whether you agree with his philosophy, religion, beliefs, ethnicity,and/or what ever else HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DINE WITHOUT HINDERANCE. Maybe they have the best fried chicken, lobster cantonese, chateaubriand, or venus schnitzel. WHATS NEXT DEMOCRAT ONLY RESTAURANTS?
Yep. Although I wonder how long it will stay in business. Which is of course, the point. Your life, your business, your choice, whether anybody else likes it or not?
This is a relatively new idea, it's called freedom.
@UtubeMyAccountName I saw a "liberal only" gym billboard in Houston. The sign read "If you have ever invited anyone to a gun show, this gym isn't for you."
Ridiculous huh. Even more so since it is in Texas. :p
Would you support an effort to pass a State Amendment to stop the illegal use of force and confiscation of peoples's property in your State? This Amendment will allow you to prosecute any Gov agent who violates your rights, period. Contact Burt at propertyrightsnow@yahoo.com
As a store owner, choosing who you want to serve based on color or political beliefs is fascism, plain and simple. If you want to call fascism "liberty", then fine. Just don't expect to fool all the people all the time.
Through picketing the establishment are you not damaging that persons ability to earn a living, simply because of their position on race, religion, whatever...Would their compliance with the wishes of the picketers be a voluntary act, or an effort to stave off the failure of their business. Tom Wood, is full of it. While you wish to preserve the sanctum of private property, you also think others should be allowed to potentially drive it into nonexistence, if it doesnt agree with public opinion.
@yfna1 As long as I don't picket on property without the owner's consent I don't see how force is used against anyone.If I picket against a business all I am doing is persuading customers & potential customers not to patronize that business. Anyone who chooses to withhold the money & patronage which is theirs from another is not using force since no one is entitled to that which belongs to another. If I don't buy from you I am not forcing you & if I persuade others not to buy from you the same.
Would'nt the picketing of such a private establishment, for the purpose of either having them change their policy, or drive them into nonexistence, not an example of force, is persuasion at that level and subsequent compliance, really voluntary?
you're just playing words games as in this video is or crap like this, "discriminating against those who discriminate." you're bullshitting yourself & you know it. no one here can deny the historical context of racism in america. the civil rights act did not emerge from a philosophical debate. it came after years of an entrenched brutal & immoral system which kept all black citizens without access to fundamental human and civil rights. no verbal "slight of hand" will ever change that truth.
Good opinion. Very well presented and you are exactly right. Very refreshing to not have the ranting and raving from both sides and discuss the real point of freedom for all.
all good with me, brother. i'm just not interested in hearing the same trendy dogma i.e. "liberty without responsibility for others." my political agenda (if you can could even call it that) is simple "whatever will cause the least amount of harm." i'm a zen buddhist & my experiences in that practice have led me to the conclusion that we should do good for others. sometimes that means stopping others from doing harm and when it does, it should be done with care.
i'm no more interested in trying your version of a political solution than i am interested in rand paul's. i'll stick with the existing delusion, thank you very much.
@halfmonk All that I'm interested is truth and living by it. Truth above family and friends. Doesn't matter if I'm living it in our current quagmire of statism or in an imperfect but free society. And allowing kids to be free to think and reason things out on their own. That's what I care about. I don't strive to change you or others. But if my life shows more happiness & is appealing to others around me, then great. I'm all about the love and I like good debates.
Good things will follow when we start respecting children. That means free of fear and open rationalization without consequences of verbal and physical assaults. Abusing them with religious and statist non-sense is the result of what we have today.
i have no interest in quaint notions like anarchy or any other political solution to the so called tyranny of government. all human political endeavor is flawed but humans have opted for government as a way of dealing with chaos of their own behavior. there is no ideal system. all ideals are like childhood fantasies, they sound great until someone tries to put them into practice, then they become nightmares.the inherent paradoxes of our version of democracy are no worse than others... cont'd.
you're pretty sure guns are headed your way? why, are you starting your own anti-government militia? stockpiling illegal weapons for the onslaught of federal agents who will be pounding down your door? sounds a little paranoid to me, dude. i live in the middle of los angeles and i don't fell threatened by the government, in the least. so where is all these fear of the government coming from? i think americans need to get in touch with reality, not some paranoid teabagger delusion.
I believe in sensible self defense when no other choice is available. It's a requirement to have a "fog of war" society if you want to keep criminals leery & crime levels negligible. They won't know who has a gun. So stockpiling is particularly unnatural & not logical. Like I said, fighting violence with violence will not change a thing about society. It just makes no sense & it's empirically true by looking back throughout history. I have no need to paranoid when I can reason out truth
you know what? you're one person, you have a right to your opinion but so does the the majority of citizens when they vote for a government and decide they want to end injustice. are you black? did you grown up in the entrenched racism of the segregated south? you don't want to pay taxes? don't pay them. you don't the services of the government? don't use them. don't use the highways, the bridges, the tunnels, the airports, unemployment, medicare, social security, etc. i don't give a crap.
@halfmonk I agree. I am one person and I have my opinion and my own preferences. It's important that my preferences don't take anything away from anyone else. I would never dream or imagine of using violence against you for your beliefs & values. And I ask for the same in return from you & everybody else. But that's not what we have today. Voting in a statist doesn't end injustice. Think about it. That's naturally contradictory.
@halfmonk All of those services are monopolized and forced on people. For example: nobody & no company can bid for contracts, through a social mediator, to own, run, or maintain specific roadways and waterways to their business or others. We have no choice. Hence the big price tag, poor quality, outrageous pollution, etc. No competition and no choice. That's why there is so much dissatisfaction from everybody whether they can reason this out or not. It's arguably the biggest injustice going.
Perfect, that is exactly what I am saying too..... I would rather Know You doesn't want to serve my "brown-skin", and happily not give them PROFIT!!! I would rather give PROFIT to someone who welcomes me into their private establishment.
If I don't like how our government debases our currency through inflation and I wanted to come up with a competing currency, I'm pretty sure guns are headed my way. It doesn't matter if I don't agree with the forced monopolization of money. It doesn't matter that I don't agree with the taking away of opportunities from future generations. So what if they don't get to live in peace and with choice and with stability. What matters is I get what I want NOW. Pretty immoral if you ask me.
I don't like genocide. It's being committed over in the middle east. If I don't fork over half my money & time, I'm pretty sure I will have some federal goons with guns yanking me off to jail.
i'm not sure what all the references to guns is about. when was the last time some federal agent came to your house threatening violence against you? but for blacks in the south before the civil rights act and hate laws, it was not uncommon for the KKK to burn a cross on their lawn and threaten them with very real violence. not some imaginary bullshit. i'm one of the those people who thinks that health care should available to everyone, not just the wealthy. imagine that and i pay taxes too.
@halfmonk I don't like the output of public schools. I don't like alot of the so called services, the government has a monopoly over. But I still have the threat or use of violence looming over me to pay up. I don't have a choice unlike everything else in life. If I don't like a store, I go elsewhere. I don't have to take it over to change it.
laws that counteract institutionalized racist laws are not discriminatory. hello? how about remembering historical context or is everyone here too young to actually know how fucked up this country was BEFORE the civil rights act. read some history. and i'm not talking about bullshit libertarian versions of history based on some "just invented last year" tea bag political agenda. in case you've forgotten how ugly that shit actually was for black americans. WTF?
violence, criminal gang? bullshit. as far as using violence, lynchings of black men were commonplace in the south before the civil rights movement, the murder of medgar evers, the murder of 4 little girls in a church bombing, the murder of civil rights workers in mississippi, etc. all lead the federal government to the conclusion that it was necessary to use federal marshals and the fbi to protect black citizens from violence. you want to do stupid immoral shit, then face the consequences.
The real racism is in law. Any law which discriminates based upon "race", gender, or any personal preference, including the supposedly "equal rights" laws, deserve to be abolished.
.
Keep in mind that the truly awful "race" problems were government enforced racism, like city bus systems and public schools.
.
Where are civil rights for the shirtless, with all those "No shirt, no shoes, no service" signs? Or is good and bad discrimination determined only by politicians?
abomination? the state laws and codified institutionalized racism of the segregated south was the abomination, not the civil rights act. the civil rights act was passed to address the fact that every black american living in the south before that law, was a victim of the worst form of injustice. they did not have the basic human right to drink out of the same water fountain as a white person. and you're talking about property rights? property rights do not supersede human or civil rights.
@halfmonk You keep talking about rights. Where do they come from? Are they floating invisibly in the air and you grab it and claim ownership or are you claiming a deity gave them to you at birth? IMO it's a very dangerous culture based concept that has taken humans down the road of decadent entitlement and outright thievery of each other. It's very animalistic where people just take what they can get in their immediate environment by the most expedient means to the detriment of society.
I suppose I started talking about hiring and firing type discrimination but this was really just about patron discrimination. The philosophy goes hand-in-hand nonetheless.
"Discriminating" is even economically detrimental to the businessman; he's taking on a loss by irrationally choosing the worker based on something other than productivity. This combined with customers being able to openly boycott the establishment is how capitalism handles discrimination, without force.
The Pauls are not going to save you constitutionalists. Do you actually think that one can infiltrate the mafia and turn it into a charity? So it stands to reason that turning the state inside out just ain't going to happen. Turning it on its head with violent revolution won't change a thing either. The smallest governments always lead to the biggest & most corrupt. You can fight violence with violence, but it won't bring peace. Growing out of statist societies is a step in the right direction.
You can't legislate morality. It's laughable. And more so when you don't see that these legislators don't give a hoot about following what they enforce on others. The contradictions are endless within state societies.
this is the same specious argument that was used in the jim crow south before the civil rights movement. i.e. separate but equal. bullshit. there is NO equality where discrimination is condoned in any way. property rights are not more important than human rights. this was exactly the purpose of sit-ins at lunch counters during the civil rights movement.
So you are for the use of violence/imprisonment against me if I don't agree with you? And from what Ive read, it was your precious criminal gang called the government that enforced racism in the south. Including coercing bus driving companies to segregate. One would logically think the last thing any business would do is to offend their largest customer base or suffer the consequences of choice.
The law is an abomination & does nothing to make up for past immorality. So what if the schools & restaurants are forced to behave. Blacks are still segregated into prisons & the ghettos at an alarming percentage. Affirmative action, welfare, and the drug war have done much more harm than good. And it's easy to see why, it's all based off of violence.
in reality, a business is not private property because it serves the public. there are many laws concerning how a business should be operated in order to protect the interests of the public. laws against discrimination regarding whether business can refuse to serve someone are no different than laws about hiring the people who work there. don't fall for this bullshit about private property being more important than a citizen's right to use any business which serves the public .
@halfmonk So are you one of those "caring" people that believe that people have the right to free healthcare by having more guns pointed at me? It's ok that I drop nearly have my paycheck & time and walk away quietly for these so called rights? Where do these rights come from by the way? Is it something you buy when you vote in a democratic election? We won so please point your guns in their direction? Are you going to tell a meteor you have a right to life if it's heading in your direction?
Great video. It's an interesting argument. I conpletely agree with your comment regarding overt racism. It makes it easy to spot that way. We can then choose to spend our tax dollars at establishments that don't practice racism. The people today will usually choose whats right....or I don't want to do business with them anyway.
i do feel the owner of the property should have the ultimate discretion concerning who patronizes their establishment but, there should be guidelines, yes, federal and state guidelines to "monitor" and ensure not one person is denied access to an establishment if they are not a potential threat to the customers, the employees, or if they appear to incite such. Niteclubs do this all the time, they discriminate according to dress, looks and the potential to attract or impede customers
the truth is rand paul put his foot in his mouth and now his republican handlers have told him to shut up. that's why he bailed out on his scheduled appearance on "meet the press." they know as well as anybody that rand paul attacking the civil rights act is like a retarded child playing with nitroglycerine. not even republicans are stupid enough to think they're won't be a backlash from saying something so politically naive and ill advised.
That depends, this isn't specific enough to render an informed decision. Did this hypothetical person bust into the place proclaiming his love for the aryan brotherhood and make everyone nervous, then the owner has a right to not serve them because it's a disruption to his commercial endeavor that he or she owns. But, if someone walks in that is only suspected of being a "klansman", but they do not disrupt the peace and are cordial, then it would be wrong to deny them service
That's an excellent distinction, and demonstrates that discrimination is allowed as long as it's not racial, religious, etc., as stated in the civil rights act.
Your word games are a feeble substitute for logic and recognition of the reality about the history of racial discrimination. "Discrimination" isn't even the question; it's racial and religious discrimination. In case you need clarification, that's what people simplify as "discrimination." Choice? Yes, people should be free to choose where they want to shop. All laws are discriminatory? Please enlighten us, for as far as I'm aware that equal protection prevails.
Laws discriminate against those whom they are aimed at i.e. laws against theft target kleptomaniacs, perjury targets liars, drug laws drug addicts etc. Anti discrimination laws go further than race and religion. They include handicapped, sexual orientation, sex. I don't believe in forced associations. If I choose not to shop at a gay owned business isn't that discrimination? Should the gov. force me to shop there? Shouldn't the buyer-seller relationship be consensual?
holmes, i don't care if you're an alien from a different planet or another galaxy. discrimination is discrimination. bend it any way you want with whatever instant political philosophy you came up with this month. it's still discrimination and even if it wasn't against the law, it would still be immoral. and rand paul can kiss my ass.
yeah, only liberals use curse words. what are you? another fucking christian who is offended by foul language? grow up. it's not ok to use profanity but it's perfectly fine to discriminate against someone? welcome to the wonderful world upside down morality. like a give a crap about what someone like you has to say about the language i use. go share your hypocrisy with the jr high school kids. i'm having an adult conversation whether YOU like it or not.
you can twist this bullshit around any way you want to make it sound right for whatever bullshit ideology you've come up with, libertarian or otherwise, frankly, i don't give a shit what you're calling it this week. discrimination is wrong. human and civil rights cancel out property rights. property rights don't mean shit if you are a denying civil or human rights to citizens. no one who is running a business open to the public should have the right to deny service to anyone. period.
@halfmonk Hey I'm a Latino and I agree with Rand Paul 100% Let me ask you a question ? Can A Jew or white business owner deny service to A member of the Nation Of Islam or a member of the The Nation of Yahweh an offshoot of the Black Hebrew Israelites who have for many years called white and jews devils? or can a black owner deny service to a racist white religious group! well according to the civil rights act the answer is no, because it would be discrimination on the grounds of religion.
the law reserves the right for business owners to discriminate against someone who is disruptive, offensive, confrontational, threatening, etc. If such a person walks into the store and does his business in a casual, neutral manner, so be it. If he starts making aggressive postures, insults, etc., that is grounds to refuse service.
@halfmonk If someone is racist (Also dumb , but that goes without saying) enough to want to not accept money because of the color of someone's skin, then that person should pay the price for his racist stupidity by not getting that dollar he was offered. If racism is truly dumb, evil and wrong (and it is), then why subsidize stupidity by using the threat of force that is government to allow racist to get the money that they don't want?
This video REALLY should have asked if a black man has the right to refuse service to a white man and then vice-versa. That would display the philosophy much better, though responses would have been much less consistent.
I don't see why it's so hard to understand that a restaurant is private property. If I let people into my home and charge them for breakfast would that somehow magically turn my home into a "public place" where I can't refuse entry to those whom an arbitrary law protects?
Thanks YAL for taking your own time to explain to people what freedom is. If you believe in freedom, you believe in property rights. Non-aggression is the moral road to take not Force.
@eelzen There's no reason for the Government to mandate morality in the first place. If a business declared they weren't going to serve Minorities 1) they would be bombarded with protests and boycotts, and 2) they would lose business. Who wants to give their money to a racist establishment? I certainly wouldn't but now thanks to the Government I don't know WHO is racist.
When the Government tries to mandate moral behavior it just makes things worse. Take the War on Drugs for example.
Sorry. I understand what you're saying but it's not reality. Government puts limits on business and individuals for all kinds of reasons. To believe we would all do the right thing and don't need laws is kinda stupid.
@eelzen Well, it is a philosophical matter, so we can agree to disagree. I know these laws will never be repealed, and that is fine. Rand Paul knows that too and he has stated multiple times now that it is not his goal to repeal the CRA. That's why I feel like this is such an irrelevant discussion for people in the media and his opponent's campaign to be bringing up. They need to be talking about REAL issues and sadly they currently aren't.
That's cool. I think old Rand Paul learned the hard way that politics ain't a phiosophical endeavor, it's a contact sport. I surprised his daddy didn't clue him in. Old Poppa Paul's been bringing home a nice fat government check for years playing ball.
Something worth considering is that not all nominally "private" establishments are actually legitimately privately owned establishments. Those who rely upon either private criminal aggressions or the organized criminal aggressions of the state for the acquisition and/or maintenance of their property titles, are not legitimate owners. The state has massively distorted the distribution of property titles. This is relevant here; many, perhaps even most/all, segregationists were illegitimate owners.
"If human rights are freedom, liberty, and property, how then can you defend a racist"
Human rights all boil down to freedom from force and fraud, freedom from the forcible imposition of other's will upon your own; it's really just a matter of fundamental equality. Life, liberty and property "rights" all follow logically from this. Racists are idiots, but they're still human, and thus have the same right to be idiots with their own own lives, liberty, and property as everyone else.
@IloveJesusYesId0 how is it not legitimate? they're just simplifying the hypothetical racistness of the white character by having him be an avowed KKK member. if they hadn't done that people would have hemmed and hawed "well, how does the owner know the guy is racist?" and other ancillary questions that have nothing to do with the thought experiment.
... and took credit for being progressive. The same thing happened with child labor laws by the time they passed legislation child labor had decreased to about 6% three quarter of which worked on farms or family businesses that child labor laws didn't effect anyway. But government got all the credit for ending child labor. The work week had already shortened by the time government legislated it. The list goes on and on. Government legislation is often a trailing indicator.
@bullpcp you make an interesting point. for there to even be a 1964 Civil Rights Act, there had to have been an incremental change in society to want a motion like that (i.e. society was already becoming less racist). Because if you look at it the other way, a progressive law foisted on an ignorant public, you would actually have to believe that words on a piece of paper can immediately change the entire inertia of a society.
@JumpinJesuits Exactly. I believe that the law came as the result of an increasingly anti racist public pushing their representatives. If the Jim Crow laws hadn't been in place this change would have almost certainly been swifter in the south. In seems like another case of getting the government out of the way so that it's citizens can prosper. I consider tolerance to be a form of prosperity.
It is dangerous and insidious to think you can legislate morality, even more so when it is done for "your own good". It seldom if ever works as intended and often has the exact opposite effect. Racism was decreasing during the civil rights movement BEFORE these laws where passed. The laws were a RESULT of decreased racism not the cause. Laws were previously used to try to force racism upon the populace and that didn't work either. Government simply jumped on the bandwagon continued...
bullshit. a business is not private property because it serves the public. don't fall for this bullshit about private property being more important than a citizen's right to go where they want, eat where they want, shop where they want, etc. this is the same moronic argument that was used in the jim crow south before the civil rights movement. i.e. separate but equal. bullshit. there is NO equality in any form of discrimination. it's one more attempt to undo the civil rights act.
@halfmonk citizens don't have any fundamental right to go where they want, eat where they want, shop where they want, etc. and Jim crow laws FORCED people to act in a racist manner that is a completely different logic. Private property rights would mean I can serve whomever I want this directly contradicts the Jim Crow laws which mandated certain behavior. Jim Crow laws were anti-private property laws not pro.
Last time I checked, the 1st amendment guarantees the right of freedom of assembly (gathering in one place for a common purpose, like dining or shopping.)
"Jim Crow laws forced behavior"?! Were people forced to own slaves as well? Jim Crow laws were mandated by popularly elected state&local officials to first limit voting, then for segregating public services like schools and buses. If folks were so against JC why didn't they vote out their local officials ho proposed them?!
@radicalsquare "1st amendment guarantees the right of freedom of assembly (gathering in one place for a common purpose, like dining or shopping.)"
I see where you are confused I believe. A business is not public property like a road, courthouse, or police station. It is private property like a home. With permission from the owner you do have the right to walk into someone's home. Government draws an arbitrary line through these two types of property. They are the same.
They are not. Consider even a place of business. There is an agreed public area of commerce, and perhaps a private office in back where the public isn't allowed. By opening up an area to public access it becomes governed by public standards. There are Many Supreme Ct cases that have established this in civil rights cases since '64
@radicalsquare Last time I checked the 1st amendment certainly did but it never said you have the right to assemble on another's private property and it still doesn't. Yes Jim Crow laws legally prohibited both white and black people's actions towards each other. For instance if I wanted an African American in my restaurant to sit at the counter or use my white only restroom I could get in trouble with the law for it.
free assembly is implied in all places of public access, no need to state. Spirit of Bill of Rights is to maximize rights. JC laws were state laws. some discrimination was state/local mandate (so may have varied and hard to generalize), others privately imposed. These cases involve private prop discriminating against blacks after '64, est'ed my point: Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States; Katzenbach v. McClung; Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises; Daniel v. Paul.
@radicalsquare No free assembly was not implied in all places of public access. The bill of rights actually denies infringing on others rights which forcing another to accommodate you against their will does. I'm trying to imply that people weren't racists only that using a state mandated law supporting racism as proof of necessitating a law that limits freedom of association is bizarre. Again the law proves nothing ethically as the JC laws prove.
@radicalsquare No, laws didn't force anyone to own slaves. In fact most white people in the south never owned slaves while some African Americans did. But the law did allow slavery the complete infringement of another's rights. Jim Crow laws segregated schools and buses. No one said the people in the south were so against them. No freedom of assembly does not guaranty dining or shopping privileges. You my friend are confused about the meaning of something I never wrote.
JC laws passed by states w public approval or else they'd lose next election, even if many were against it. Fact: businesses DID discriminate after JC, or else these Supreme Ct rulings wouldn't be needed: Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States: public accommodations section was in fact constitutional.
Katzenbach v. McClung: same, for restaurants
Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises;
Daniel v. Paul: private rec area can't deny admissions to blacks.
@radicalsquare Your whole point seems to be somehow that the law has something to do with ethics. It does not. People voted for a law that infringed upon other rights this was wrong. It was also legal at the time. You could cite a thousand laws that supported the right to public accommodation and I could go back and dig up laws that supported slavery and Jim Crow laws. Laws have nothing to do with ethics and using them as proof of such is just plain silly.
@radicalsquare You have made the point that I was trying to make far better than I did without realizing it. My point is that the vast majority of racism was supported and enforced by laws and that their should never have been and should never again be any law that infringes upon another's right to associate, or not associate, with whomever they chose. Let me bread it down. Slavery super bad, Jim Crow laws very bad, anti discrimination law that disallows freedom of association bad Freedom = Good
Again, JC had support of some of the public, I'm not saying everyone, and some business was against it; but many racially discriminated after. You can't just blame the "law" or "big govt" in a representative gov't. These are state and local ordinances and these folks could have been accountable and have been voted out if there was sufficient will by populace. supreme court cases from the 60s thru the 90s-2000's that showed racial discrim. existed after JC thus set public rights.
@radicalsquare The point of the republic was that it was rule by LAW not by popular opinion or will of the masses. These laws never should have been passed. I'm NOT implying that racism is the fault of government only pointing out that some laws made it worse. Using Jime Crow laws as a prof of the necessity of racial discrimination laws having to do with private properties misses the point. Everyone already agrees gov shouldn't discriminate the only question is do YOU have the right.
Yes, a business that serves the public, though maintaining its private ownership, needs to respect the rights of the public. It's very sad why people here keep insisting on their right for businesses to discriminate based on race, religion, etc.
@radicalsquare "It's very sad why people here keep insisting on their right for businesses to discriminate based on race, religion, etc."
Though I don't advocate these actions, I believe these people should have the right to discriminate based on whatever. The free-market counter is- other people have the right to discriminate against that business. Forcing the business to serve and employ the hated group will create a larger tension than previously existed, resulting in more hatred.
The free market doesn't result in "equal freedoms" for all. Free market gives more freedom to those w more capital. Don't see it--look at BP. More capital, less regulation, so BPs rights are greater than a fisherman's. It's the case with all businesses. What if a guy in a small town goes to a hardware store because contracted to build fence. They don't sell him wood, thus needs to go elsewhere- 50 miles away?(and has no capital to start own store). This isn't "freedom."
Yes, that is freedom. You say BP has more freedom bc of more capital than a fisherman. You are confusing freedom (right to do something) with power (ability to do something). BP has more power than many fisherman, but has the same freedom. The fishermen are fishing in a common area (tragedy of the commons) If they were allowed to homestead the ocean, their freedoms could be protected better.
@radicalsquare Your fence example also confuses power with freedom. The fence builder may be more inconvenienced than he would prefer to be, but he hasn't lost any freedoms. in fact, if the opposite were true, and the store owner were forced to serve him, then indeed the store owners freedom to keep his property (wood) is infringed. if someone wanted sex immediately, and i turned them down to where they had to go elsewhere 50 miles away, surely I shouldnt be forced to give him/her sex. same deal
@radicalsquare I should add, that i am not at all interested in what the U.S. law claims it has the right to do, as you note very well in many of your posts. If the U.S. supreme court says X when i say it should be Y, citing the supreme court won't help, since my point is that curent U.S. law contains grave injustices in reguards to what SHOULD (normative) be legal/illegal.
@radicalsquare Increased gov regulation created incentives for regulatory capture. This is why BP got special privileges. You are confusing freedom with equality. They are not the same thing. You are guaranteed freedom and equality by the goernemtn but not equal resutls.
Your guy doesn't have a "right" to fence materials. Doesn't matter if that's because he lives 100 miles from any other human being or because of stupid racist store owners.
The store owner's right of free association trumps all other concerns. It's a right explicitly recognized by the Constitution and you cannot overcome it with silly "hardluck" hypothetical situations.
One again...people are missing the point. You, like others (and media) only look at this through a perspective of situational politics. It's not a comparison. It's just another example of principle with the coin flipped so some could see another angle of this idea of a business maintaining the choice to deny anyone.
You're still stuck on the whole "he's black, he's white" situational mantra. Get out of it! True equality holds a foundation over every situation, not different scenarios.
@Bulldogstall Stop being so myopic. situations create nuance. Excluding someone from your restaurant because they are a credible threat against your well being is a logical precautionary measure. IE Black guy asking klansmen to leave. Look at the arguments i posed on the previous page.
@dopeskies The point is, "Should the business owner be ALLOWED to discriminate?" The answer is YES. Is it Right to discriminate? No. Regardless of the situation, a Business Owner has the Right to do what he/she wishes with their property. They are providing a service to the public, that doesn't mean that the Business is a Public Place. Huge Difference, it is not paid for with Public Taxes.
People can misuse their free speech, but shouldn't be denied it. People can misuse their property rights, but shouldn't be denied them.
SirTenenbaum 7 months ago
Libertarians who are confronted about property rights and racism can do the following to explain their situation: Simply demonstrate that property rights are analogous to free speech from the libertarian perspective. Everyone believes people have a right to free speech but may think that what people say is immoral (racist speech). Just like free speech the libertarian believes people have property rights but may think that what people do with their property is immoral (racist businesses).
SirTenenbaum 7 months ago 2
If a property is not a business then the owner should have complete property rights unless he's killing people or something crazy. Like when the cops said I couldn't hunt in city limits I said private property FUCK OFF! and they left. But a klansman would not be allowed to refuse service to a black man so it shouldn't be allowed vice versa.
tubevideoguy762 8 months ago
...and we as consumers have the right to shut their businesses down with a simple free market solution...DON'T DO BUSINESS WITH THEM! Wow...what a radical idea.
Keep up the great work YAL
treed86 8 months ago
...and ask these same people if a white business owner should be able to refuse service to an obnoxious black person and I bet my bottom dollar that they would have the exact opposite reaction. Such is the inherent double standard and hypocrisy of collectivism...but, you know, King Lincoln freed the slaves and was not a racist, Reconstruction made race relations better in the South, and the Civil Rights Act defeated racism. Hooray ignorance! People have the right to be racist idiots...
treed86 8 months ago
Great video
josefkesselring 8 months ago
While I agree with your principal, I think you're making a false analogy. Race is genetic. It can't be chosen or changed. Being a Klansman is a choice, and carries with it certain natural consequences. Refusing service to a Klansman is not the same refusing service to a White man. Discrimination based on nature is not the same as discrimination based on choice. I still agree with the principal of property rights, but this is a weak argument.
seismicmike 8 months ago
@seismicmike Anytime we make a choice regarding any matter, we are discriminating against someone or soemthing else. The nature vs choice point you make is terribly weak.
AussieAustrianBlog 8 months ago
great vid
trekkerperson 8 months ago
I used to think it was crazy to disagree with Item 10 but now it makes sense to me. Finally!!! This video has an explanation that can get people to realize - on their own - that Item 10 ironically violates our civil rights. The other 9 items are fantastic but Item 10 is more offensive than it seemed at first glance.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for this video!
jedirhythm 9 months ago
What we know now as "the law" actually takes away free will.
1776bricks 11 months ago
By law of the US if any restaurant owner refuses to serve anyone can have their business taken away and be sued. It's the same if someone were to deny service to a black wussie panther. Stop trying to use to dead race card. Those days are over and we have a black president. The race card is now invalid.
ParanormalGypsie 1 year ago
The only Rights we have are our “unalienable Rights.” A deeper understanding of these Rights materializes through the prism of science (see my channel video). As for this restaurant example, a private business owner serving the public has the freedom to operate within the Law. If there are too many Laws to operate freely, move your business to China or elsewhere; where you may pursue your Happiness.
Mike10four 1 year ago
This video is misleading and stupid. In fact the question is stupid or racist itself. Why does the question inject something about the character of the white person? This guy implies the black owner is discriminating based on race and the owner is not. All whites arent klan. So there is a difference between asking is it ok to refuse a white person or is it ok to refuse a klansmen. Its stupid becuz if a white person was a klansmen he wouldnt want to go into a black owner's restaurant anyway.
rashadkijani 1 year ago
@rashadkijani
Exactly
ParanormalGypsie 1 year ago
@rashadkijani "This guy implies the black owner is discriminating based on race and the owner is not."
There's no such implication. All we need to notice is that the black owner who refuses entry to the klansman is discriminating. The question is: should the owners of private property be allowed to discriminate in who they allow to use their property, or not?
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter You obviously arent watching the same video I am. The guy in this video is too misleading. I explained my view in full. I made a distinction between the idea of not allowing a klansmen into a restaurant as opposed to not allowing a white person. If you cant understand that then you no merit in this conversation.
rashadkijani 11 months ago
@rashadkijani "I made a distinction between the idea of not allowing a klansmen into a restaurant as opposed to not allowing a white person."
Sure. I understand that. So should the owners of private property be allowed to discriminate in who they allow to use their property, or not. What do you think?
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter Did you read my whole comment? I dont understand what I said that you have a problem with. Im not exactly getting what I said you have a problem with. No klansmen would want to go into a restaurant of a black owner. And how would a black owner know that white person is a klansmen any ways. The person who made this video is using a unrealistic scenario.
rashadkijani 11 months ago
Personally, I believe than any business owner has the right to refuse service to any one they choose. Legally though, you can not do this because that would be discrimination. I don't think the government has the right to dictate what a person can or can not do with his/her own property or services that they provide. Now when it comes to voting I personally and legally agree that no person can be denied access to the polling booth as it is their right to help shape the future of this country.
sspate16 1 year ago
im not a racist but i believe the black man has the right to to refuse the clansman on his property and vice versa. if you are black and someone is unwilling to take your money, dont worry cause there are a million other people who will take your money.
in the end who is going to have a bigger profit, the people who take anyone's money or the people who only take some people's money?
robertwc82 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robertwc82 "in the end who is going to have a bigger profit, the people who take anyone's money or the people who only take some people's money?"
That depends on the situation. In a strongly racist community, the one restaurant that serves a minority race may be boycotted by the majority, and suffer financially because of it.
bitbutter 11 months ago
Laws for the protection of diversity are to protect people, not beliefs. A belief is not protected , especially if those holding those beliefs engage in haste speech or hate actions. A black business owner would not have the right to bar someone from their establishment unless those persons were known to engage in hate speech and hate actions. If they kept their hate to themselves they legally would be welcome. The problem is, the KKK is a hate organization, by definition. Being black is not.
daniel15671 1 year ago
I have nothing against anyone hating anyone else as long as they donot hurt them.If hate is a crime then we arein orwellian thought crimecategory.I hateyou forspitting on myfreedom.Should I goto jail?Should all governmentopposition goto jailtoo?What aboutIraqis that hateamericans for invadingtheir country andkilling so manyinnocents?Let them rotin jail too!Theyare allhaters bydefinition! Laws protect nothing-lookat supremelaw ofamerika-constitution,thatwas supposedtoprotect againstbig government
zbigniewzapora 1 year ago
@zbigniewzapora a hate crime isnt hate, its a crime motivated by hate. but yeah its stupid, a murder motivated by hate has the exact same results as a murder motivated by financial gain
robertwc82 1 year ago
@daniel15671 "A black business owner would not have the right to bar someone from their establishment "
Should the owner have the right to bar someone from entering his other building: the one in which he relaxes, eats breakfast, sometimes entertains guests, and sleeps at night?
If he should have this right, why should he not have the right to bar someone from entering the building he owns, where he happens to spend most of the daylight hours trading?
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter
You are responding to a phrase, taken out of context, from my response. The underlying issue is about the rights of hate groups versus the rights of legitimate diversity groups. KKK and other groups like them operate out of hate. People of diversity generally operate out of a need to protect themselves.
daniel15671 11 months ago
@daniel15671 "KKK [...] operate out of hate. People of diversity generally operate out of a need to protect themselves."
Racist groups also believe they need to protect themselves (or their 'race'), and they are a minority who also fit the label 'people of diversity'.
Can we agree that discrimination is inherently subjective, necessary to human existence, and that it's initiation of force or threats of the same that we should be concerned about? (the KKK are certainly guilty).
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter
I would agree that discrimination is a term descriptive of human cognitive function, and necessary to human existence.
I would also agree that violent action or verbal threats ( I include marginalizing speech here, as well) are a form of social discrimination and of great concern. My only point is that if a person is known to habitually engage in hate action or hate speech, that would be grounds for barring entrance to a place of business. I think we are in agreement on that.
daniel15671 11 months ago
holy cow. you guys are so clever for flipping it on its head: 'should a BLACK man have the right to refuse service to a klansman' -- what a great counter-example to illustrate the main point. kudos!
tmac9938 1 year ago
Remove all laws..... I do believe things will be different in the future, but laws today are necessary. And what does laws do? It uses force, not persuasion, to keep you from against the will of your community (commune,state,region,country etc).
Today, if you want people to live in a free democratic society, there is something called limits. Limits that keeps others from robbing you of your freedom.
Want no limits? Will anarchy create perfect freedom? I am not too sure...
Nabo00o 1 year ago
typo
"to keep you from 'acting' against the"
Nabo00o 1 year ago
any smart business owner would agree to serve anyone regardless of race
pollyguns 1 year ago
If the clans men is peaceful yes,he should get service.
But the question is stupid. If he just said white people it would have made more since. Blacks were not allowed because they were black, not because the disturbed the peace.
watchulla 1 year ago
I believe everyone should be able to decide who they wish to serve in their own restaurant , but I would advise against refusing them if they have never caused you any trouble. The only way to get through to those people is to talk and interact with them, proving that you can live together in peace despite the obvious differences. Refusing an individual without provocation could result in hideous outcomes. The moment they are offensive towards your employees however, out on their asses they go.
frostyuk2007 1 year ago
i think you should make another video, and ask people on the street if a white owner has the right to kick out a loud, obnoxious. black panther, or any person being a complete and total clown, of color, out of their establishment, or is that considered racist.
Wyndstarthedruid 1 year ago 4
I don't understand the point.
You are doing a comparison of 2 totally not related whatsoever ideas.
This video compares refusing entry to an individual who makes no choice as to which color he was born with to refusing entry to violent gang members.
strakallah 1 year ago
@strakallah, how are those minor differences important? The point is you have a right to your own property.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter I guess the point is they are far from being minor differences.
strakallah 1 year ago
Dittos Bro!
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
Great to see Young Americans for Liberty taking off. Where this country heads next is up to the young people. There can be no Liberty without a Voluntary society. Google V for Voluntary
VoteLib3rty 1 year ago
Suggestion:
There are some Rachel Maddow vs Rand Paul videos going around. You should link this as a video response.
Nice post.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
wonderful video!
a4finger 1 year ago
Very thought provoking
TheGhostofFJ 1 year ago
if CUSTOMER is paying and not causing (or caused) trouble with the business or its customers, whether you agree with his philosophy, religion, beliefs, ethnicity,and/or what ever else HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DINE WITHOUT HINDERANCE. Maybe they have the best fried chicken, lobster cantonese, chateaubriand, or venus schnitzel. WHATS NEXT DEMOCRAT ONLY RESTAURANTS?
Tekkhan 1 year ago
@Tekkhan
See but your imposing a belief of what is causing a problem. Maybe I think you have a fugly mole on your face that is grossing out my customers.
People should have the right to do what they want, and if I want a democrat or Libertarian only club, I should be able to have it.
BadSwineDOTcom 1 year ago
@Tekkhan "WHATS NEXT DEMOCRAT ONLY RESTAURANTS?"
Yep. Although I wonder how long it will stay in business. Which is of course, the point. Your life, your business, your choice, whether anybody else likes it or not?
This is a relatively new idea, it's called freedom.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName I saw a "liberal only" gym billboard in Houston. The sign read "If you have ever invited anyone to a gun show, this gym isn't for you."
Ridiculous huh. Even more so since it is in Texas. :p
st4ticblu3 1 year ago
@st4ticblu3 HAHAHAHA :-), good one.
Great location planning though, this way they can get subsidies as a minority (special interest) business.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
Excellent video
thinkrevolution 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Would you support an effort to pass a State Amendment to stop the illegal use of force and confiscation of peoples's property in your State? This Amendment will allow you to prosecute any Gov agent who violates your rights, period. Contact Burt at propertyrightsnow@yahoo.com
propertyrightsnow 1 year ago
Nation of Islam won't allow me to Join due to me being white..
mrbunnylamakins 1 year ago
@mrbunnylamakins RACISM.
Wyndstarthedruid 1 year ago
Reposting! Great vid!
mikeshanklin 1 year ago
As a store owner, choosing who you want to serve based on color or political beliefs is fascism, plain and simple. If you want to call fascism "liberty", then fine. Just don't expect to fool all the people all the time.
billburns2 1 year ago
People work for money... they shouldn't think of it as "SERVING PEOPLE".
TheSicilianjess 1 year ago
Through picketing the establishment are you not damaging that persons ability to earn a living, simply because of their position on race, religion, whatever...Would their compliance with the wishes of the picketers be a voluntary act, or an effort to stave off the failure of their business. Tom Wood, is full of it. While you wish to preserve the sanctum of private property, you also think others should be allowed to potentially drive it into nonexistence, if it doesnt agree with public opinion.
yfna1 1 year ago
@yfna1 As long as I don't picket on property without the owner's consent I don't see how force is used against anyone.If I picket against a business all I am doing is persuading customers & potential customers not to patronize that business. Anyone who chooses to withhold the money & patronage which is theirs from another is not using force since no one is entitled to that which belongs to another. If I don't buy from you I am not forcing you & if I persuade others not to buy from you the same.
sleedolfine15 1 year ago
Would'nt the picketing of such a private establishment, for the purpose of either having them change their policy, or drive them into nonexistence, not an example of force, is persuasion at that level and subsequent compliance, really voluntary?
yfna1 1 year ago
Klansman isn't a race.
zomboy2 1 year ago
fantastic video, young libertarians!
TheCapitalistdog 1 year ago
you're just playing words games as in this video is or crap like this, "discriminating against those who discriminate." you're bullshitting yourself & you know it. no one here can deny the historical context of racism in america. the civil rights act did not emerge from a philosophical debate. it came after years of an entrenched brutal & immoral system which kept all black citizens without access to fundamental human and civil rights. no verbal "slight of hand" will ever change that truth.
halfmonk 1 year ago
Good opinion. Very well presented and you are exactly right. Very refreshing to not have the ranting and raving from both sides and discuss the real point of freedom for all.
rk92559 1 year ago
all good with me, brother. i'm just not interested in hearing the same trendy dogma i.e. "liberty without responsibility for others." my political agenda (if you can could even call it that) is simple "whatever will cause the least amount of harm." i'm a zen buddhist & my experiences in that practice have led me to the conclusion that we should do good for others. sometimes that means stopping others from doing harm and when it does, it should be done with care.
halfmonk 1 year ago
i'm no more interested in trying your version of a political solution than i am interested in rand paul's. i'll stick with the existing delusion, thank you very much.
halfmonk 1 year ago
@halfmonk All that I'm interested is truth and living by it. Truth above family and friends. Doesn't matter if I'm living it in our current quagmire of statism or in an imperfect but free society. And allowing kids to be free to think and reason things out on their own. That's what I care about. I don't strive to change you or others. But if my life shows more happiness & is appealing to others around me, then great. I'm all about the love and I like good debates.
nocturnalc 1 year ago 6
Good things will follow when we start respecting children. That means free of fear and open rationalization without consequences of verbal and physical assaults. Abusing them with religious and statist non-sense is the result of what we have today.
nocturnalc 1 year ago 2
i have no interest in quaint notions like anarchy or any other political solution to the so called tyranny of government. all human political endeavor is flawed but humans have opted for government as a way of dealing with chaos of their own behavior. there is no ideal system. all ideals are like childhood fantasies, they sound great until someone tries to put them into practice, then they become nightmares.the inherent paradoxes of our version of democracy are no worse than others... cont'd.
halfmonk 1 year ago
you're pretty sure guns are headed your way? why, are you starting your own anti-government militia? stockpiling illegal weapons for the onslaught of federal agents who will be pounding down your door? sounds a little paranoid to me, dude. i live in the middle of los angeles and i don't fell threatened by the government, in the least. so where is all these fear of the government coming from? i think americans need to get in touch with reality, not some paranoid teabagger delusion.
halfmonk 1 year ago
I believe in sensible self defense when no other choice is available. It's a requirement to have a "fog of war" society if you want to keep criminals leery & crime levels negligible. They won't know who has a gun. So stockpiling is particularly unnatural & not logical. Like I said, fighting violence with violence will not change a thing about society. It just makes no sense & it's empirically true by looking back throughout history. I have no need to paranoid when I can reason out truth
nocturnalc 1 year ago
you know what? you're one person, you have a right to your opinion but so does the the majority of citizens when they vote for a government and decide they want to end injustice. are you black? did you grown up in the entrenched racism of the segregated south? you don't want to pay taxes? don't pay them. you don't the services of the government? don't use them. don't use the highways, the bridges, the tunnels, the airports, unemployment, medicare, social security, etc. i don't give a crap.
halfmonk 1 year ago
@halfmonk I agree. I am one person and I have my opinion and my own preferences. It's important that my preferences don't take anything away from anyone else. I would never dream or imagine of using violence against you for your beliefs & values. And I ask for the same in return from you & everybody else. But that's not what we have today. Voting in a statist doesn't end injustice. Think about it. That's naturally contradictory.
nocturnalc 1 year ago
@halfmonk All of those services are monopolized and forced on people. For example: nobody & no company can bid for contracts, through a social mediator, to own, run, or maintain specific roadways and waterways to their business or others. We have no choice. Hence the big price tag, poor quality, outrageous pollution, etc. No competition and no choice. That's why there is so much dissatisfaction from everybody whether they can reason this out or not. It's arguably the biggest injustice going.
nocturnalc 1 year ago
Perfect, that is exactly what I am saying too..... I would rather Know You doesn't want to serve my "brown-skin", and happily not give them PROFIT!!! I would rather give PROFIT to someone who welcomes me into their private establishment.
Subbing!!! and FAV'd
UnderseaCaveman 1 year ago
If I don't like how our government debases our currency through inflation and I wanted to come up with a competing currency, I'm pretty sure guns are headed my way. It doesn't matter if I don't agree with the forced monopolization of money. It doesn't matter that I don't agree with the taking away of opportunities from future generations. So what if they don't get to live in peace and with choice and with stability. What matters is I get what I want NOW. Pretty immoral if you ask me.
nocturnalc 1 year ago
I don't like genocide. It's being committed over in the middle east. If I don't fork over half my money & time, I'm pretty sure I will have some federal goons with guns yanking me off to jail.
nocturnalc 1 year ago
i'm not sure what all the references to guns is about. when was the last time some federal agent came to your house threatening violence against you? but for blacks in the south before the civil rights act and hate laws, it was not uncommon for the KKK to burn a cross on their lawn and threaten them with very real violence. not some imaginary bullshit. i'm one of the those people who thinks that health care should available to everyone, not just the wealthy. imagine that and i pay taxes too.
halfmonk 1 year ago
@halfmonk I don't like the output of public schools. I don't like alot of the so called services, the government has a monopoly over. But I still have the threat or use of violence looming over me to pay up. I don't have a choice unlike everything else in life. If I don't like a store, I go elsewhere. I don't have to take it over to change it.
nocturnalc 1 year ago
laws that counteract institutionalized racist laws are not discriminatory. hello? how about remembering historical context or is everyone here too young to actually know how fucked up this country was BEFORE the civil rights act. read some history. and i'm not talking about bullshit libertarian versions of history based on some "just invented last year" tea bag political agenda. in case you've forgotten how ugly that shit actually was for black americans. WTF?
halfmonk 1 year ago
violence, criminal gang? bullshit. as far as using violence, lynchings of black men were commonplace in the south before the civil rights movement, the murder of medgar evers, the murder of 4 little girls in a church bombing, the murder of civil rights workers in mississippi, etc. all lead the federal government to the conclusion that it was necessary to use federal marshals and the fbi to protect black citizens from violence. you want to do stupid immoral shit, then face the consequences.
halfmonk 1 year ago
The real racism is in law. Any law which discriminates based upon "race", gender, or any personal preference, including the supposedly "equal rights" laws, deserve to be abolished.
.
Keep in mind that the truly awful "race" problems were government enforced racism, like city bus systems and public schools.
.
Where are civil rights for the shirtless, with all those "No shirt, no shoes, no service" signs? Or is good and bad discrimination determined only by politicians?
CurtHowland 1 year ago
abomination? the state laws and codified institutionalized racism of the segregated south was the abomination, not the civil rights act. the civil rights act was passed to address the fact that every black american living in the south before that law, was a victim of the worst form of injustice. they did not have the basic human right to drink out of the same water fountain as a white person. and you're talking about property rights? property rights do not supersede human or civil rights.
halfmonk 1 year ago
@halfmonk You keep talking about rights. Where do they come from? Are they floating invisibly in the air and you grab it and claim ownership or are you claiming a deity gave them to you at birth? IMO it's a very dangerous culture based concept that has taken humans down the road of decadent entitlement and outright thievery of each other. It's very animalistic where people just take what they can get in their immediate environment by the most expedient means to the detriment of society.
nocturnalc 1 year ago
I suppose I started talking about hiring and firing type discrimination but this was really just about patron discrimination. The philosophy goes hand-in-hand nonetheless.
GKDrew89 1 year ago
"Discriminating" is even economically detrimental to the businessman; he's taking on a loss by irrationally choosing the worker based on something other than productivity. This combined with customers being able to openly boycott the establishment is how capitalism handles discrimination, without force.
GKDrew89 1 year ago
Keep up the great work!
realrockvince 1 year ago
The Pauls are not going to save you constitutionalists. Do you actually think that one can infiltrate the mafia and turn it into a charity? So it stands to reason that turning the state inside out just ain't going to happen. Turning it on its head with violent revolution won't change a thing either. The smallest governments always lead to the biggest & most corrupt. You can fight violence with violence, but it won't bring peace. Growing out of statist societies is a step in the right direction.
nocturnalc 1 year ago
You can't legislate morality. It's laughable. And more so when you don't see that these legislators don't give a hoot about following what they enforce on others. The contradictions are endless within state societies.
nocturnalc 1 year ago
jesus christ get a haircut
Drallop 1 year ago
what the fuck? Refusing service based on race is a lot different than refusing service based on being in a militant anti-black incest group?
Drallop 1 year ago
Comment removed
halfmonk 1 year ago
this is the same specious argument that was used in the jim crow south before the civil rights movement. i.e. separate but equal. bullshit. there is NO equality where discrimination is condoned in any way. property rights are not more important than human rights. this was exactly the purpose of sit-ins at lunch counters during the civil rights movement.
halfmonk 1 year ago
So you are for the use of violence/imprisonment against me if I don't agree with you? And from what Ive read, it was your precious criminal gang called the government that enforced racism in the south. Including coercing bus driving companies to segregate. One would logically think the last thing any business would do is to offend their largest customer base or suffer the consequences of choice.
nocturnalc 1 year ago 12
The law is an abomination & does nothing to make up for past immorality. So what if the schools & restaurants are forced to behave. Blacks are still segregated into prisons & the ghettos at an alarming percentage. Affirmative action, welfare, and the drug war have done much more harm than good. And it's easy to see why, it's all based off of violence.
nocturnalc 1 year ago 2
in reality, a business is not private property because it serves the public. there are many laws concerning how a business should be operated in order to protect the interests of the public. laws against discrimination regarding whether business can refuse to serve someone are no different than laws about hiring the people who work there. don't fall for this bullshit about private property being more important than a citizen's right to use any business which serves the public .
halfmonk 1 year ago
@halfmonk So are you one of those "caring" people that believe that people have the right to free healthcare by having more guns pointed at me? It's ok that I drop nearly have my paycheck & time and walk away quietly for these so called rights? Where do these rights come from by the way? Is it something you buy when you vote in a democratic election? We won so please point your guns in their direction? Are you going to tell a meteor you have a right to life if it's heading in your direction?
nocturnalc 1 year ago 2
Great video. It's an interesting argument. I conpletely agree with your comment regarding overt racism. It makes it easy to spot that way. We can then choose to spend our tax dollars at establishments that don't practice racism. The people today will usually choose whats right....or I don't want to do business with them anyway.
pieceomeat 1 year ago
i do feel the owner of the property should have the ultimate discretion concerning who patronizes their establishment but, there should be guidelines, yes, federal and state guidelines to "monitor" and ensure not one person is denied access to an establishment if they are not a potential threat to the customers, the employees, or if they appear to incite such. Niteclubs do this all the time, they discriminate according to dress, looks and the potential to attract or impede customers
jvforever72 1 year ago
the truth is rand paul put his foot in his mouth and now his republican handlers have told him to shut up. that's why he bailed out on his scheduled appearance on "meet the press." they know as well as anybody that rand paul attacking the civil rights act is like a retarded child playing with nitroglycerine. not even republicans are stupid enough to think they're won't be a backlash from saying something so politically naive and ill advised.
halfmonk 1 year ago
That depends, this isn't specific enough to render an informed decision. Did this hypothetical person bust into the place proclaiming his love for the aryan brotherhood and make everyone nervous, then the owner has a right to not serve them because it's a disruption to his commercial endeavor that he or she owns. But, if someone walks in that is only suspected of being a "klansman", but they do not disrupt the peace and are cordial, then it would be wrong to deny them service
jvforever72 1 year ago
@jvforever72
That's an excellent distinction, and demonstrates that discrimination is allowed as long as it's not racial, religious, etc., as stated in the civil rights act.
radicalsquare 1 year ago
Discrimination is just another word for choice. I thought Libs were for choice. All laws are discriminatory. Should we repeal all the laws?
66605 1 year ago
@66605
Your word games are a feeble substitute for logic and recognition of the reality about the history of racial discrimination. "Discrimination" isn't even the question; it's racial and religious discrimination. In case you need clarification, that's what people simplify as "discrimination." Choice? Yes, people should be free to choose where they want to shop. All laws are discriminatory? Please enlighten us, for as far as I'm aware that equal protection prevails.
radicalsquare 1 year ago
@radicalsquare
Laws discriminate against those whom they are aimed at i.e. laws against theft target kleptomaniacs, perjury targets liars, drug laws drug addicts etc. Anti discrimination laws go further than race and religion. They include handicapped, sexual orientation, sex. I don't believe in forced associations. If I choose not to shop at a gay owned business isn't that discrimination? Should the gov. force me to shop there? Shouldn't the buyer-seller relationship be consensual?
66605 1 year ago
One of the best things I've seen come of the YAL organization. Great job.
sshepard94 1 year ago
'The correct answer is -- NO, HE CAN'T DENY SERVICE SIMPLY BECAUSE SOMEONE IS IN THE KKK
DillonDee1 1 year ago
holmes, i don't care if you're an alien from a different planet or another galaxy. discrimination is discrimination. bend it any way you want with whatever instant political philosophy you came up with this month. it's still discrimination and even if it wasn't against the law, it would still be immoral. and rand paul can kiss my ass.
halfmonk 1 year ago
@halfmonk but wait, wouldn't you being discriminating against those who discriminate? I thought "discrimination is discrimination".
JumpinJesuits 1 year ago
yeah, only liberals use curse words. what are you? another fucking christian who is offended by foul language? grow up. it's not ok to use profanity but it's perfectly fine to discriminate against someone? welcome to the wonderful world upside down morality. like a give a crap about what someone like you has to say about the language i use. go share your hypocrisy with the jr high school kids. i'm having an adult conversation whether YOU like it or not.
halfmonk 1 year ago
you can twist this bullshit around any way you want to make it sound right for whatever bullshit ideology you've come up with, libertarian or otherwise, frankly, i don't give a shit what you're calling it this week. discrimination is wrong. human and civil rights cancel out property rights. property rights don't mean shit if you are a denying civil or human rights to citizens. no one who is running a business open to the public should have the right to deny service to anyone. period.
halfmonk 1 year ago
@halfmonk Hey I'm a Latino and I agree with Rand Paul 100% Let me ask you a question ? Can A Jew or white business owner deny service to A member of the Nation Of Islam or a member of the The Nation of Yahweh an offshoot of the Black Hebrew Israelites who have for many years called white and jews devils? or can a black owner deny service to a racist white religious group! well according to the civil rights act the answer is no, because it would be discrimination on the grounds of religion.
quest2k 1 year ago
@quest2k
the law reserves the right for business owners to discriminate against someone who is disruptive, offensive, confrontational, threatening, etc. If such a person walks into the store and does his business in a casual, neutral manner, so be it. If he starts making aggressive postures, insults, etc., that is grounds to refuse service.
radicalsquare 1 year ago
@halfmonk If someone is racist (Also dumb , but that goes without saying) enough to want to not accept money because of the color of someone's skin, then that person should pay the price for his racist stupidity by not getting that dollar he was offered. If racism is truly dumb, evil and wrong (and it is), then why subsidize stupidity by using the threat of force that is government to allow racist to get the money that they don't want?
yammyspeed13 1 year ago
This video REALLY should have asked if a black man has the right to refuse service to a white man and then vice-versa. That would display the philosophy much better, though responses would have been much less consistent.
I don't see why it's so hard to understand that a restaurant is private property. If I let people into my home and charge them for breakfast would that somehow magically turn my home into a "public place" where I can't refuse entry to those whom an arbitrary law protects?
GKDrew89 1 year ago
Thanks YAL for taking your own time to explain to people what freedom is. If you believe in freedom, you believe in property rights. Non-aggression is the moral road to take not Force.
tokarewich 1 year ago
You can refuse anyone as long as it's not base on race, gender, or religion.
So the issue a klanman is non issue and has nothing to do with civil rights.
eelzen 1 year ago
@eelzen Discrimination is discrimination. Stop making a fool of yourself.
RileyE104 1 year ago
Comment removed
eelzen 1 year ago
@RileyE104
Discrimination against behavior, dress, and age is not illegal like discrimination against race, gender, or religion is in the USA. \
eelzen 1 year ago
@eelzen There's no reason for the Government to mandate morality in the first place. If a business declared they weren't going to serve Minorities 1) they would be bombarded with protests and boycotts, and 2) they would lose business. Who wants to give their money to a racist establishment? I certainly wouldn't but now thanks to the Government I don't know WHO is racist.
When the Government tries to mandate moral behavior it just makes things worse. Take the War on Drugs for example.
RileyE104 1 year ago
@RileyE104
Sorry. I understand what you're saying but it's not reality. Government puts limits on business and individuals for all kinds of reasons. To believe we would all do the right thing and don't need laws is kinda stupid.
eelzen 1 year ago
@eelzen Well, it is a philosophical matter, so we can agree to disagree. I know these laws will never be repealed, and that is fine. Rand Paul knows that too and he has stated multiple times now that it is not his goal to repeal the CRA. That's why I feel like this is such an irrelevant discussion for people in the media and his opponent's campaign to be bringing up. They need to be talking about REAL issues and sadly they currently aren't.
RileyE104 1 year ago
@RileyE104
That's cool. I think old Rand Paul learned the hard way that politics ain't a phiosophical endeavor, it's a contact sport. I surprised his daddy didn't clue him in. Old Poppa Paul's been bringing home a nice fat government check for years playing ball.
eelzen 1 year ago
what an awesome video to stumble upon! I will be sharing!
jonimusprimus 1 year ago
Something worth considering is that not all nominally "private" establishments are actually legitimately privately owned establishments. Those who rely upon either private criminal aggressions or the organized criminal aggressions of the state for the acquisition and/or maintenance of their property titles, are not legitimate owners. The state has massively distorted the distribution of property titles. This is relevant here; many, perhaps even most/all, segregationists were illegitimate owners.
Libertarian333 1 year ago
"If human rights are freedom, liberty, and property, how then can you defend a racist"
Human rights all boil down to freedom from force and fraud, freedom from the forcible imposition of other's will upon your own; it's really just a matter of fundamental equality. Life, liberty and property "rights" all follow logically from this. Racists are idiots, but they're still human, and thus have the same right to be idiots with their own own lives, liberty, and property as everyone else.
Libertarian333 1 year ago
Aw, I thought this was going to be a legitimate point being made..
Sadly you missed it entirely friend..
You need to straight up ask if a black owner should be able to keep out a white, maybe even racist white, but not a KLUX MEMBER in ROBES, WTF>..
DUH, You can be kept out of private businesses for not having shoes on, for having a drink in your hand, etc..
Being discriminatory against assholes is a recognized norm.
This is about race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.. dur dur.
IloveJesusYesId0 1 year ago
@IloveJesusYesId0 how is it not legitimate? they're just simplifying the hypothetical racistness of the white character by having him be an avowed KKK member. if they hadn't done that people would have hemmed and hawed "well, how does the owner know the guy is racist?" and other ancillary questions that have nothing to do with the thought experiment.
JumpinJesuits 1 year ago
... and took credit for being progressive. The same thing happened with child labor laws by the time they passed legislation child labor had decreased to about 6% three quarter of which worked on farms or family businesses that child labor laws didn't effect anyway. But government got all the credit for ending child labor. The work week had already shortened by the time government legislated it. The list goes on and on. Government legislation is often a trailing indicator.
bullpcp 1 year ago 2
@bullpcp you make an interesting point. for there to even be a 1964 Civil Rights Act, there had to have been an incremental change in society to want a motion like that (i.e. society was already becoming less racist). Because if you look at it the other way, a progressive law foisted on an ignorant public, you would actually have to believe that words on a piece of paper can immediately change the entire inertia of a society.
JumpinJesuits 1 year ago
@JumpinJesuits Exactly. I believe that the law came as the result of an increasingly anti racist public pushing their representatives. If the Jim Crow laws hadn't been in place this change would have almost certainly been swifter in the south. In seems like another case of getting the government out of the way so that it's citizens can prosper. I consider tolerance to be a form of prosperity.
bullpcp 1 year ago
It is dangerous and insidious to think you can legislate morality, even more so when it is done for "your own good". It seldom if ever works as intended and often has the exact opposite effect. Racism was decreasing during the civil rights movement BEFORE these laws where passed. The laws were a RESULT of decreased racism not the cause. Laws were previously used to try to force racism upon the populace and that didn't work either. Government simply jumped on the bandwagon continued...
bullpcp 1 year ago 3
well said fella..
CORNandCATTLE 1 year ago
bullshit. a business is not private property because it serves the public. don't fall for this bullshit about private property being more important than a citizen's right to go where they want, eat where they want, shop where they want, etc. this is the same moronic argument that was used in the jim crow south before the civil rights movement. i.e. separate but equal. bullshit. there is NO equality in any form of discrimination. it's one more attempt to undo the civil rights act.
halfmonk 1 year ago
@halfmonk citizens don't have any fundamental right to go where they want, eat where they want, shop where they want, etc. and Jim crow laws FORCED people to act in a racist manner that is a completely different logic. Private property rights would mean I can serve whomever I want this directly contradicts the Jim Crow laws which mandated certain behavior. Jim Crow laws were anti-private property laws not pro.
bullpcp 1 year ago 2
@bullpcp
Last time I checked, the 1st amendment guarantees the right of freedom of assembly (gathering in one place for a common purpose, like dining or shopping.)
"Jim Crow laws forced behavior"?! Were people forced to own slaves as well? Jim Crow laws were mandated by popularly elected state&local officials to first limit voting, then for segregating public services like schools and buses. If folks were so against JC why didn't they vote out their local officials ho proposed them?!
radicalsquare 1 year ago
@radicalsquare "1st amendment guarantees the right of freedom of assembly (gathering in one place for a common purpose, like dining or shopping.)"
I see where you are confused I believe. A business is not public property like a road, courthouse, or police station. It is private property like a home. With permission from the owner you do have the right to walk into someone's home. Government draws an arbitrary line through these two types of property. They are the same.
GKDrew89 1 year ago
@GKDrew89
They are not. Consider even a place of business. There is an agreed public area of commerce, and perhaps a private office in back where the public isn't allowed. By opening up an area to public access it becomes governed by public standards. There are Many Supreme Ct cases that have established this in civil rights cases since '64
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. US;
Katzenbach v. McClung;
Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises;
Daniel v. Paul,
plus cases against Denny's, Marriot..
radicalsquare 1 year ago
@radicalsquare Well money, opportunity costs, loss of talent, role of government? I think we are all big boys now and can behave on our owns. :P
OneCourageous 1 year ago
@radicalsquare Last time I checked the 1st amendment certainly did but it never said you have the right to assemble on another's private property and it still doesn't. Yes Jim Crow laws legally prohibited both white and black people's actions towards each other. For instance if I wanted an African American in my restaurant to sit at the counter or use my white only restroom I could get in trouble with the law for it.
bullpcp 1 year ago
@bullpcp
free assembly is implied in all places of public access, no need to state. Spirit of Bill of Rights is to maximize rights. JC laws were state laws. some discrimination was state/local mandate (so may have varied and hard to generalize), others privately imposed. These cases involve private prop discriminating against blacks after '64, est'ed my point: Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States; Katzenbach v. McClung; Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises; Daniel v. Paul.
radicalsquare 1 year ago
@radicalsquare No free assembly was not implied in all places of public access. The bill of rights actually denies infringing on others rights which forcing another to accommodate you against their will does. I'm trying to imply that people weren't racists only that using a state mandated law supporting racism as proof of necessitating a law that limits freedom of association is bizarre. Again the law proves nothing ethically as the JC laws prove.
bullpcp 1 year ago
@radicalsquare No, laws didn't force anyone to own slaves. In fact most white people in the south never owned slaves while some African Americans did. But the law did allow slavery the complete infringement of another's rights. Jim Crow laws segregated schools and buses. No one said the people in the south were so against them. No freedom of assembly does not guaranty dining or shopping privileges. You my friend are confused about the meaning of something I never wrote.
bullpcp 1 year ago
@bullpcp
JC laws passed by states w public approval or else they'd lose next election, even if many were against it. Fact: businesses DID discriminate after JC, or else these Supreme Ct rulings wouldn't be needed: Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States: public accommodations section was in fact constitutional.
Katzenbach v. McClung: same, for restaurants
Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises;
Daniel v. Paul: private rec area can't deny admissions to blacks.
radicalsquare 1 year ago
@radicalsquare Your whole point seems to be somehow that the law has something to do with ethics. It does not. People voted for a law that infringed upon other rights this was wrong. It was also legal at the time. You could cite a thousand laws that supported the right to public accommodation and I could go back and dig up laws that supported slavery and Jim Crow laws. Laws have nothing to do with ethics and using them as proof of such is just plain silly.
bullpcp 1 year ago
@radicalsquare You have made the point that I was trying to make far better than I did without realizing it. My point is that the vast majority of racism was supported and enforced by laws and that their should never have been and should never again be any law that infringes upon another's right to associate, or not associate, with whomever they chose. Let me bread it down. Slavery super bad, Jim Crow laws very bad, anti discrimination law that disallows freedom of association bad Freedom = Good
bullpcp 1 year ago
@bullpcp
Again, JC had support of some of the public, I'm not saying everyone, and some business was against it; but many racially discriminated after. You can't just blame the "law" or "big govt" in a representative gov't. These are state and local ordinances and these folks could have been accountable and have been voted out if there was sufficient will by populace. supreme court cases from the 60s thru the 90s-2000's that showed racial discrim. existed after JC thus set public rights.
radicalsquare 1 year ago
@radicalsquare The point of the republic was that it was rule by LAW not by popular opinion or will of the masses. These laws never should have been passed. I'm NOT implying that racism is the fault of government only pointing out that some laws made it worse. Using Jime Crow laws as a prof of the necessity of racial discrimination laws having to do with private properties misses the point. Everyone already agrees gov shouldn't discriminate the only question is do YOU have the right.
bullpcp 1 year ago
@halfmonk
Yes, a business that serves the public, though maintaining its private ownership, needs to respect the rights of the public. It's very sad why people here keep insisting on their right for businesses to discriminate based on race, religion, etc.
radicalsquare 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@radicalsquare "It's very sad why people here keep insisting on their right for businesses to discriminate based on race, religion, etc."
Though I don't advocate these actions, I believe these people should have the right to discriminate based on whatever. The free-market counter is- other people have the right to discriminate against that business. Forcing the business to serve and employ the hated group will create a larger tension than previously existed, resulting in more hatred.
GKDrew89 1 year ago
@GKDrew89
The free market doesn't result in "equal freedoms" for all. Free market gives more freedom to those w more capital. Don't see it--look at BP. More capital, less regulation, so BPs rights are greater than a fisherman's. It's the case with all businesses. What if a guy in a small town goes to a hardware store because contracted to build fence. They don't sell him wood, thus needs to go elsewhere- 50 miles away?(and has no capital to start own store). This isn't "freedom."
radicalsquare 1 year ago
@radicalsquare
Yes, that is freedom. You say BP has more freedom bc of more capital than a fisherman. You are confusing freedom (right to do something) with power (ability to do something). BP has more power than many fisherman, but has the same freedom. The fishermen are fishing in a common area (tragedy of the commons) If they were allowed to homestead the ocean, their freedoms could be protected better.
tecmason 1 year ago
@radicalsquare Your fence example also confuses power with freedom. The fence builder may be more inconvenienced than he would prefer to be, but he hasn't lost any freedoms. in fact, if the opposite were true, and the store owner were forced to serve him, then indeed the store owners freedom to keep his property (wood) is infringed. if someone wanted sex immediately, and i turned them down to where they had to go elsewhere 50 miles away, surely I shouldnt be forced to give him/her sex. same deal
tecmason 1 year ago
@radicalsquare I should add, that i am not at all interested in what the U.S. law claims it has the right to do, as you note very well in many of your posts. If the U.S. supreme court says X when i say it should be Y, citing the supreme court won't help, since my point is that curent U.S. law contains grave injustices in reguards to what SHOULD (normative) be legal/illegal.
tecmason 1 year ago
@radicalsquare Increased gov regulation created incentives for regulatory capture. This is why BP got special privileges. You are confusing freedom with equality. They are not the same thing. You are guaranteed freedom and equality by the goernemtn but not equal resutls.
bullpcp 1 year ago
@radicalsquare It absolutely IS freedom.
Your guy doesn't have a "right" to fence materials. Doesn't matter if that's because he lives 100 miles from any other human being or because of stupid racist store owners.
The store owner's right of free association trumps all other concerns. It's a right explicitly recognized by the Constitution and you cannot overcome it with silly "hardluck" hypothetical situations.
mmaier2112 1 year ago
@radicalsquare I agree that public places shouldn't discriminate but shouldn't be forced to not discriminate these are two vastly different concepts.
bullpcp 1 year ago
One again...people are missing the point. You, like others (and media) only look at this through a perspective of situational politics. It's not a comparison. It's just another example of principle with the coin flipped so some could see another angle of this idea of a business maintaining the choice to deny anyone.
You're still stuck on the whole "he's black, he's white" situational mantra. Get out of it! True equality holds a foundation over every situation, not different scenarios.
Bulldogstall 1 year ago 2
@Bulldogstall Stop being so myopic. situations create nuance. Excluding someone from your restaurant because they are a credible threat against your well being is a logical precautionary measure. IE Black guy asking klansmen to leave. Look at the arguments i posed on the previous page.
HawkShark 1 year ago
HORRIBLE false comparison Klansman chooses to be a bigot racist a Black person is born being black wtf is this nonsense
dopeskies 1 year ago
@dopeskies The point is, "Should the business owner be ALLOWED to discriminate?" The answer is YES. Is it Right to discriminate? No. Regardless of the situation, a Business Owner has the Right to do what he/she wishes with their property. They are providing a service to the public, that doesn't mean that the Business is a Public Place. Huge Difference, it is not paid for with Public Taxes.
SlaveTaxPayer 1 year ago