The Sarah Palin Thread: 'Controversial Controversy' Edition

[StorminNorman]

You certainly wouldn't be the first.

 

[Hobgoblin]

You certainly wouldn't be the first.

The first nor the last.

 

[StorminNorman]

Would you agree that the difference in philosophy stems to the fact that I place liberty before the perception of equality, while you place the perception of equality before liberty?

 

[Hobgoblin]

No I wouldnt. I put the difference in philosophy as sensible vs insensible. A racist that allows a person of color to eat at their restaurant has a greater value than one that discriminates. The shop owner gets more business and less trouble from outraged customers. This creates a more peaceful community and a more prosperous business. It creates economic and social benefits. The shop owner must appreciate extra business.

 

[StorminNorman]

No I wouldnt. I put the difference in philosophy as sensible vs insensible. A racist that allows a person of color to eat at their restaurant has a greater value than one that discriminates. The shop owner gets more business and less trouble from outraged customers. This creates a more peaceful community and a more prosperous business. It creates economic and social benefits. The shop owner must appreciate extra business.

So should the government have the ability to tell stoners to volunteer for their community? After all, that creates a more peaceful community!

Shouldn't the businesses that benefit from the extra business of reasonable race policies be the businesses who owners aren't so racist that they place racial purity ahead of profits (which is exactly what one does when one refuses to serve anyone of any racist?)

A man's life is HIS/HER OWN, it's not the communities. As such it must be lived according to his/her own self interest, not the communities interest. That's the only rational way a human being can live.

Furthermore, you must understand that the logic and philosophy that allows for the above is not "reactionary" but "revolutionary". You must surely understand that the tribal mentality of collectivism (which is what you are advocating) is the primal political philosophy of man while individualism is the evolved political philosophy.

 

[Hobgoblin]

So should the government have the ability to tell stoners to volunteer for their community? After all, that creates a more peaceful community!

Not the government, but I believe that judges often sentence people to community service for minor offenses. If that punishment is seen as unfair, the individual has the right to an appeal. That is much easier to accomplish in a local community setting than a state or federal arena.

Shouldn't the businesses that benefit from the extra business of reasonable race policies be the businesses who owners aren't so racist that they place racial purity ahead of profits (which is exactly what one does when one refuses to serve anyone of any racist?)

That would be nice, but its not always possible. If you live in a small town and the local grocery owner is a bigot, is it fair for a minority family to have to drive further to go shopping?

A man's life is HIS/HER OWN, it's not the communities. As such it must be lived according to his/her own self interest, not the communities interest. That's the only rational way a human being can live.

The business owner chose to go into business and take on the responsibilities of that business. That sometimes means having to make compromises.

Furthermore, you must understand that the logic and philosophy that allows for the above is not "reactionary" but "revolutionary". You must surely understand that the tribal mentality of collectivism (which is what you are advocating) is the primal political philosophy of man while individualism is the evolved political philosophy.

You are calling for a system that is reminiscent of the Articles of Confederation. They didnt work in the 18th century and they wont work in the 21st. The world is growing smaller and the giant nations are devouring the smaller countries. (Economically.) Do you want a country with a vision or a small, weak governing head that gets taken advantage of by the larger? Think of the US vs a developing nation like a Latin American one. Which nation calls the shots in the policies?

Look, I'm certainly not looking for a dictatorship. As many of us agree, the People need to be able to protect themselves from their government. However, a government these days needs to be strong enough to defend its people from other countries. Its naive to think that a country these days can put too much of its power solely in the Peoples hands. Competition is rough and those that cant defend themselves get trampled over as outsiders take that countries raw natural resources. Africa comes to mind.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Furthermore, the libertarian idea that a "rich class" wants the rest of society to be wealthy as well is naive. You are very economically inclined, Norman so naturally you must have heard of pareto optimality. The workers wages must be kept low to insure that prices are kept low, which is appealing to consumers. This is a natural, necessary aspect of business.

Now imagine a libertarian society in which government regulation of business is weak or non existent. What is there to keep a business from paying its employees an unlivable wage, or even none at all? A government must be able to enforce the laws, even if the law "hurts" a member of society, in this case the business owner, who now has to increase its wages.

 

[AG1973]

Okay, so the GOP did not call for him to fail. Gotcha.



The government has no rights to interfere with the practices of private businesses. I don't what the objective is. An owner, for example, has the right to serve anyone they choose to serve - the government has no right to tell them they must serve a black person or a white person.

Palin and Limbaugh are the GOP.

The government has a duty to keep people from being mistreated. I live in the south and I assure you that severe mistreatment would continue if you and Rand Paul had your way.

Soa racist white guy and other racist white guys get together to prevent black business owners from buying goods to sell in their stores. I want to serve fred chicken in my restaraunt and I am a black guy. Tyson chicken won't sell me chicken or eggs because I am black.

The nearest place I can buy chicken for my restaraunt is 450-miles away. Well I need refrigerated trucks to get the chicken from the Mikes Chicken because they sell to black people. But the problem is International Trucks which is in my home city that sells refrigerated trucks won't sell to black people.

So well maybe my black brother and I decide to buy a car to drive 550 miles to buy a refrigerated truck from National Trucks because they sell to black people. So I go to the area dealerships in my home city but the trouble is none of them sell to black people.

So I walk 10-miles into the next county to buy a car from a dealership that sells to black people so I buy my car and start heading to National Trucks to buy a refrigerated truck because International Trucks in my city does not sell to blacks, and I need chicken to sell in my restaraunt but Tyson Chicken in my city does not sell to blacks so I have to get to Mikes Chicken 350 miles away but first we have to get the truck from National that is 550 miles away and while in my car I get a flat on two tires.

But the problem is I am in an area 200 miles away from my home city that has tire shops but the problem is that the tire shops in the area don't sell to blacks so how am I going to get to the truck center to buy a refrigerated truck from a company that sells to blacks to haul the chicken from the Chicken Plant that sells to blacks to sell in my restaraunt ( that sells to everybody) in my home city that won't sell chicken, trucks, or cars to black people....

You have a very interesting view of what the persuit of happiness, liberty, and what is right is...

 

[Kelly]

Palin and Limbaugh are the GOP.

The government has a duty to keep people from being mistreated. I live in the south and I assure you that severe mistreatment would continue if you and Rand Paul had your way.

Soa racist white guy and other racist white guys get together to prevent black business owners from buying goods to sell in their stores. I want to serve fred chicken in my restaraunt and I am a black guy. Tyson chicken won't sell me chicken or eggs because I am black.

The nearest place I can buy chicken for my restaraunt is 450-miles away. Well I need refrigerated trucks to get the chicken from the Mikes Chicken because they sell to black people. But the problem is International Trucks which is in my home city that sells refrigerated trucks won't sell to black people.

So well maybe my black brother and I decide to buy a car to drive 550 miles to buy a refrigerated truck from National Trucks because they sell to black people. So I go to the area dealerships in my home city but the trouble is none of them sell to black people.

So I walk 10-miles into the next county to buy a car from a dealership that sells to black people so I buy my car and start heading to National Trucks to buy a refrigerated truck because International Trucks in my city does not sell to blacks, and I need chicken to sell in my restaraunt but Tyson Chicken in my city does not sell to blacks so I have to get to Mikes Chicken 350 miles away but first we have to get the truck from National that is 550 miles away and while in my car I get a flat on two tires.

But the problem is I am in an area 200 miles away from my home city that has tire shops but the problem is that the tire shops in the area don't sell to blacks so how am I going to get to the truck center to buy a refrigerated truck from a company that sells to blacks to haul the chicken from the Chicken Plant that sells to blacks to sell in my restaraunt ( that sells to everybody) in my home city that won't sell chicken, trucks, or cars to black people....

You have a very interesting view of what the persuit of happiness, liberty, and what is right is...

They may be the "face" of the Republican Party at the moment.....but they are by no means "the GOP" the people that vote carry that title IMO.

Turn ALL of those businesses into the BBB, call your congressman, and let them know what is happening, call the NAACP, call the ACLU, sitting here on a message board talking about it will get you nowhere....are you willing to be part of the solution, or just the victim? Hell, let me know where you live....I'll get in touch with all of those for you.

 

[StorminNorman]

That would be nice, but its not always possible. If you live in a small town and the local grocery owner is a bigot, is it fair for a minority family to have to drive further to go shopping?

Fair? Of course not. But it's simply immoral to force the grocery owner to allow people he doesn't want in his building, or to give his service to someone he does not wish to serve. Not on HIS property, in HIS store.

The business owner chose to go into business and take on the responsibilities of that business. That sometimes means having to make compromises.

Sometimes (for example, if a racist black man's store is going under, he may have to sell to a white guy), but he shouldn't be expected to make compromises nor forced by the government to make compromises. That's not the purpose of government. That is tyranny.

You are calling for a system that is reminiscent of the Articles of Confederation. They didnt work in the 18th century and they wont work in the 21st. The world is growing smaller and the giant nations are devouring the smaller countries. (Economically.) Do you want a country with a vision or a small, weak governing head that gets taken advantage of by the larger? Think of the US vs a developing nation like a Latin American one. Which nation calls the shots in the policies?

Look, I'm certainly not looking for a dictatorship. As many of us agree, the People need to be able to protect themselves from their government. However, a government these days needs to be strong enough to defend its people from other countries. Its naive to think that a country these days can put too much of its power solely in the Peoples hands. Competition is rough and those that cant defend themselves get trampled over as outsiders take that countries raw natural resources. Africa comes to mind.

The smaller countries typically have more centralized, powerful governments. I am not for a second calling for the Articles of Confederation and I definitely didn't say anything remotely along those lines in the post you quoted.

I am advocating the Federalist Constitution that we have. You know, the Constitution that says the Federal Government only has the ability to regulate INTERSTATE COMMERCE (which would mean that a local racist store that only serves the community would not be under their jurisdiction) (it's also worth mentioning that regulation even had a different meaning in the 18th Century, it's purpose was to maintain free trade amongst states, not control trade).

I am trying to pick out usable points to refute, but I am struggling. For example, I don't understand comparing the US to developing Latin American countries (it's worth noting that the overwelming majority of Latin American countries had anti-liberal (classical liberalism, not modern day 'liberal') governments which stiffled their potential economically by not allowing economic freedom.

Furthermore, the libertarian idea that a "rich class" wants the rest of society to be wealthy as well is naive. You are very economically inclined, Norman so naturally you must have heard of pareto optimality. The workers wages must be kept low to insure that prices are kept low, which is appealing to consumers. This is a natural, necessary aspect of business.

Now imagine a libertarian society in which government regulation of business is weak or non existent. What is there to keep a business from paying its employees an unlivable wage, or even none at all? A government must be able to enforce the laws, even if the law "hurts" a member of society, in this case the business owner, who now has to increase its wages.

It is not in the benefit of a business to have underpaid workers. Underpaid workers are less motivated than well payed workers, less productive than underpaid workers and more likely to quit than well paid workers.

It is also not to the benefit of businesses to kill or poison or in anyway harm their customers.

People want to assume that businessmen are evil idiots who don't seem to understand the way they treat people directly impacts the bottom line (mostly because those who most vehemently rebel against capitalism and economic freedom have never owned a business and thus have no idea what the hell they are talking about).

It's hard to run a business and have it succeed. In order to do it you have to have a good work force.

Do you believe morality is man made or naturally made? I believe morality is naturally made - that morality is simply our recognizing natural law. I believe natural law, for example, dictates that capitalism is the only form of capitalism that will succeed (in order for the principals of socialism, for example, were ever able to be utilized they had to mix it with capitalism in the corporatist/state capitalism that we have seen in the 20th Century. A state capitalism economy will never be able to reach the heights of a pure capitalist economy). Just as capitalism is the only moral form of economics, treating your employees (and customers) is the only moral form of business. If you create dangerous products produced by underpaid workers, your business will fail. (if you create dangerous products by well paid workers, you will also fail. If you create great products with underpaid workers you will likely see your employees go start another competing company).

 

[StorminNorman]

Palin and Limbaugh are the GOP.

Neither Palin nor Limbaugh were apart of the GOP that Obama ever had to work with. You are simply wrong here.

The government has a duty to keep people from being mistreated. I live in the south and I assure you that severe mistreatment would continue if you and Rand Paul had your way.

Doesn't severe mistreatment continue today? You can't legislate racism away. And doing so only creates more racism out of spite.

Soa racist white guy and other racist white guys get together to prevent black business owners from buying goods to sell in their stores. I want to serve fred chicken in my restaraunt and I am a black guy. Tyson chicken won't sell me chicken or eggs because I am black.

See, that is a completely separate issue than one solved by the CRA. I don't care if the motivation is race, religion, sexuality or simply greed - no one should be able to prevent another from opening a business. Now if you want to serve fried chicken in your restaurant and you can't get anyone to sell you chicken - you are going to have to find something else to sell. You can't force someone to sell you anything. That's not right.

 

[Hobgoblin]

It is not in the benefit of a business to have underpaid workers. Underpaid workers are less motivated than well payed workers, less productive than underpaid workers and more likely to quit than well paid workers.

And yet it happens in retail all the time. My co-work talk about how her family is struggling to make ends meet. She works full time and so does her husband, who works in management. Both of them work their butts off.

It is also not to the benefit of businesses to kill or poison or in anyway harm their customers.

Cigarette companies and the Toyota safety scandal come to mind. As dies the BP oil spill. The Mineral Management Service was supposed to be monitoring the oil industry but BP was throwing parties for them. Another example of industry putting itself first.

Do you believe morality is man made or naturally made? I believe morality is naturally made - that morality is simply our recognizing natural law. I believe natural law, for example, dictates that capitalism is the only form of capitalism that will succeed (in order for the principals of socialism, for example, were ever able to be utilized they had to mix it with capitalism in the corporatist/state capitalism that we have seen in the 20th Century. A state capitalism economy will never be able to reach the heights of a pure capitalist economy). Just as capitalism is the only moral form of economics, treating your employees (and customers) is the only moral form of business. If you create dangerous products produced by underpaid workers, your business will fail. (if you create dangerous products by well paid workers, you will also fail. If you create great products with underpaid workers you will likely see your employees go start another competing company).

I believe that some people are naturally more compassionate than others. So no, I dont believe that morality is necessarily natural. Society and upbringing also play a large part in determining a person's views on morality. What is moral to one person is immoral to another. Look at the cultural differences between the US and Middle Eastern countries. We frown on adultery here, but we dont stone people for it.

As for creating dangerous products, look at the lead paint scare in kids toys from three years ago. Yes they came from China but it hasnt stopped parents from buying playthings made in China. Because the toys are cheap.

 

[DACrowe]

Show me where the GOP called for him to fail.

You are also completely wrong about the GOP being in lock step to destroy Obama, I remember meeting with a senior GOP Congressman for a strategy meeting in January of 2008 and he was extremely optimistic about working with Obama (and considering he was meeting with his advisers and not the media it was not a PR comment).

Rand Paul never voiced support for Jim Crow laws. Having reasonable objections to the Civil Rights Act is not being hateful.

Obama entered office with 71% approval rating. He has earned all the hatred he has in his court. It's due to his arrogance, incompetence and hypocrisy - not his skin color. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional and dooming the quality of their opinion.

Publicly? No. Rush Limbaugh said that and every Republican asked "Do you agree with Rush Limbaugh" dodged the question. I think one (I forget who) said no, and then had to go on Rush's show and apologize to him.

But it is well documented that Obama went to House Republicans in Feb 2009 to try to cut a deal on the stimulus and discovered none of the party leadership would support it no matter what. It could have been ideological...but it is much more likely that Boehner and McConnell had agreed to the "Say no" strategy so that all the economic turmoil would be blamed on Dems and they could position themselves to win Congress in 2010.

And for the most part it worked. You cannot deny that despite Obama being very even handed with Republican senators, he suffered the worst filibustering year in US history in 2009 where nearly 80 percent of measures needed 60 votes to do anything.

I've argued this a hundred times. I know you don't believe it. But while Pelosi was incredibly partisan, Obama tried to be bipartisan in 2009. And the Republicans took him to school and took over the Health Care debate by making it about "death panels" and "socialism." He tried to work in good faith with Republicans, because he is a deal maker, a consensus builder. The GOP decided 1-month into the new presidency to not work with him for political reasons. It worked.

Obama is president in the most partisan DC in over a century. With that said, it isn't from lack of trying. He tried to be incredibly bipartisan and the Republicans said, No. But the Fox News narrative is that Obama has been tyrannical and unreasonable. That is a lie. But perception trumps reality in politics, I am afraid.

 

[StorminNorman]

And yet it happens in retail all the time. My co-work talk about how her family is struggling to make ends meet. She works full time and so does her husband, who works in management. Both of them work their butts off.

Having to work their butts off does not necessarily mean they are underpaid. Obviously you must see that no amount of government intervention into wages could remedy this situation (as both are assuredly getting well above any "minimum wage" sort of situation).

Furthermore, and here is where the job of a libertarian is made more difficult, you must realize that the economy we have today is not a capitalist one. Once you understand that, it is easier to comprehend the fact that the sort of economic reform I desire will change the entire game.

For example, your co-worker may have have the ability to choose to go to a better job IF government intervention into the markets hadn't led to rising unemployment and less capital for business creation. Perhaps your co-worker would be able to open up her own school if a true school voucher program existed. Perhaps your friend could use skills that she/he has and is not able to be used commercially due government requirenments require licenses.

The entire economy would be different.

Cigarette companies and the Toyota safety scandal come to mind. As dies the BP oil spill. The Mineral Management Service was supposed to be monitoring the oil industry but BP was throwing parties for them. Another example of industry putting itself first.

The Cigarette company is one that is obviously mentioned, but it doesn't really apply due to the fact anyone who picks up a pack of cigs these days knows they are bad for you. The ability to kill is known in the decision to buy.

BP and Toyota are better examples that PROVE my point. Both BP and Toyota suffered great fiscal damage due to their problems. If BP had not cut corners, they would have saved 20 billion dollars. If Toyota wouldn't have had bad breaks, they would have saved x amount as well. Furthermore, more so with BP than Toyota due to Toyota's fantastic reputation before the brake issue, the negative impact will remain for years, always having an impact on the bottom line.

Again, THESE ARE THE REAL CONSEQUENCES OF NEGLIGENCE. They exist. They don't need government regulation which has proven to be ineffective and costly. (The oil spill happened in spite of government regulation to prevent it. The Toyota break issue happened in spite of government regulation intended to prevent it. Cigarettes are still enjoyed in spite of government regulation to prevent it.)

I believe that some people are naturally more compassionate than others. So no, I dont believe that morality is necessarily natural. Society and upbringing also play a large part in determining a person's views on morality. What is moral to one person is immoral to another. Look at the cultural differences between the US and Middle Eastern countries. We frown on adultery here, but we dont stone people for it.

As for creating dangerous products, look at the lead paint scare in kids toys from three years ago. Yes they came from China but it hasnt stopped parents from buying playthings made in China. Because the toys are cheap.

I don't necessarily view compassion as a necessity in a moral life. If I live by myself with no compassion for anyone, am I immoral? No. If I have no compassion for anyone, yet do not abuse anyone, do not harm anyone and live my life peaceably - do I harm anyone? (Note, as an objectivist I reject altruism).

I do not believe that society and upbringing change morality because that implies that right and wrong do not really exist but are simply superficial creations. I reject that notion entirely. Society and upbringing impact how well you have come to understand morality, but it does not change the morals themselves.

There is no problem with parents buying things made in China. The problem is with lead being in things made with China. It is to the benefit of the companies that sell such toys to make sure that issues are not present. Rarely do you have a frequent repeater of "consumer crime" - at least not with a business that has a future.

 

[StorminNorman]

Publicly? No. Rush Limbaugh said that and every Republican asked "Do you agree with Rush Limbaugh" dodged the question. I think one (I forget who) said no, and then had to go on Rush's show and apologize to him.

But it is well documented that Obama went to House Republicans in Feb 2009 to try to cut a deal on the stimulus and discovered none of the party leadership would support it no matter what. It could have been ideological...but it is much more likely that Boehner and McConnell had agreed to the "Say no" strategy so that all the economic turmoil would be blamed on Dems and they could position themselves to win Congress in 2010.

And for the most part it worked. You cannot deny that despite Obama being very even handed with Republican senators, he suffered the worst filibustering year in US history in 2009 where nearly 80 percent of measures needed 60 votes to do anything.

I've argued this a hundred times. I know you don't believe it. But while Pelosi was incredibly partisan, Obama tried to be bipartisan in 2009. And the Republicans took him to school and took over the Health Care debate by making it about "death panels" and "socialism." He tried to work in good faith with Republicans, because he is a deal maker, a consensus builder. The GOP decided 1-month into the new presidency to not work with him for political reasons. It worked.

Obama is president in the most partisan DC in over a century. With that said, it isn't from lack of trying. He tried to be incredibly bipartisan and the Republicans said, No. But the Fox News narrative is that Obama has been tyrannical and unreasonable. That is a lie. But perception trumps reality in politics, I am afraid.

I disagree with Obama being even handed with Republican Senators. I don't believe you could look at the actions of the Obama administration and for a second sell it as an attempt at bipartisanship. The message Barry brought into Washington was "I won. Get with me or get out of my way".

 

[Hobgoblin]

Personally I think that compassion and altruism are at the very core of morality but we will have to disagree. Self interest without compassion is sociopathy. I'm tired of arguing so I'll just thank you for an interesting debate.

 

[AG1973]

Neither Palin nor Limbaugh were apart of the GOP that Obama ever had to work with. You are simply wrong here.

Doesn't severe mistreatment continue today? You can't legislate racism away. And doing so only creates more racism out of spite.

See, that is a completely separate issue than one solved by the CRA. I don't care if the motivation is race, religion, sexuality or simply greed - no one should be able to prevent another from opening a business. Now if you want to serve fried chicken in your restaurant and you can't get anyone to sell you chicken - you are going to have to find something else to sell. You can't force someone to sell you anything. That's not right.

Libertarian or not not serving someone because of their color is wrong and it should not be allowed. With laws prohibiting such things the country is better for it. The hatemongers had to change their descriminatory practices.

I knew your response would be either don't sell chicken or move. People should be able to open businesses and live where they wish without having circumstances stacked against them because of what they look like or where they worship. The government enable or allow those individuals who have problems with color interfere or hinder them from making a living or residing where they wish.

If you don't like my food don't buy from me but you should not be able to stop me from serving my chicken because you don't want a black person in business in your city.

 

[samsnee]

Sorry StorminNorman. You have good points and I can understand your reasoning, but you're living in a world where if government only regulated at the minimum standards, and people did what they wanted, society would somehow still be able to function properly. You're taking the shared responsibility element out of it and think people exist only to either be a customer or vendor and nothing else, so if you can't sell what you want because some racist person doesn't want to help you, then too bad.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Libertarian or not not serving someone because of their color is wrong and it should not be allowed. With laws prohibiting such things the country is better for it. The hatemongers had to change their descriminatory practices.

I knew your response would be either don't sell chicken or move. People should be able to open businesses and live where they wish without having circumstances stacked against them because of what they look like or where they worship. The government enable or allow those individuals who have problems with color interfere or hinder them from making a living or residing where they wish.

If you don't like my food don't buy from me but you should not be able to stop me from serving my chicken because you don't want a black person in business in your city.

Personally, I think the best way to root out racism is to make them hurt. Racism is still going to thrive when you have laws that force racists to sell their products, if not make it worse.

However, if a racist did discriminate, they would be driven out of business in today's economy. First of all you're completely shutting out a good portion of your potential consumer base. And second, most people have common sense and are going to be disgusted by such a thing. Most of those people are not going to want to give their money to support such a practice. In today's economy where competition is fiercer, it's harder to make up for a lost consumer base, and every dollar counts more and more, a business just cannot afford to be racist in today's economy. In the end, allowing businesses to discriminate would force them to see the error of their ways the hard way.

 

[StorminNorman]

Personally I think that compassion and altruism are at the very core of morality but we will have to disagree. Self interest without compassion is sociopathy. I'm tired of arguing so I'll just thank you for an interesting debate.

You believe that man's morality is based in his selflessness? That in order for a man to truly be "noble" he must be a sacrificial being? I have to reject that belief.

Self interest without compassion may be sociopathy, but it's also foolish - it is in the interest of everyone to have everyone else be successful.

It's important to want your fellow man to succeed, not out of selflessness but selfishness.

Libertarian or not not serving someone because of their color is wrong and it should not be allowed. With laws prohibiting such things the country is better for it. The hatemongers had to change their descriminatory practices.

I knew your response would be either don't sell chicken or move. People should be able to open businesses and live where they wish without having circumstances stacked against them because of what they look like or where they worship. The government enable or allow those individuals who have problems with color interfere or hinder them from making a living or residing where they wish.

If you don't like my food don't buy from me but you should not be able to stop me from serving my chicken because you don't want a black person in business in your city.

I agree, discrimination based on skin color is wrong. It's terrible business practice. But individuals have the right to make mistakes.

Again, you have no rights to the services provided by anyone else. If you agree with that premise, the entire issue ends right there. You cannot force someone at the point of the gun to do charity, you cannot - at the point of a gun - end racism.

Sorry StorminNorman. You have good points and I can understand your reasoning, but you're living in a world where if government only regulated at the minimum standards, and people did what they wanted, society would somehow still be able to function properly. You're taking the shared responsibility element out of it and think people exist only to either be a customer or vendor and nothing else, so if you can't sell what you want because some racist person doesn't want to help you, then too bad.

Correction, I wish I was living in a world where the government only regulated at the minimum standards, and people did what they wanted, and sociey somehow functioned properly. Instead I live in the world where the government believes they can tell me I can't smoke pot, I can't use certain type of lightbulbs, I can't marry my gay lover and I can't opt out of participating in a ponzi scheme (Social Security).

I believe people exist to be people. As such we must give them the freedom to make mistakes. Racism is such a mistake.

 

[Kelly]

The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.

...

 

[StorminNorman]

Rousseau is one of the most dangerous men who ever lived.

 

[Kelly]

And you are young...

 

[StorminNorman]

But knowledgeable. His philosophy was simply scary and most unfortunately it has greatly inspired many of the great minds of the 20th Century.

 

[Kelly]

Knowledge is great, and even powerful when you learn how to use it....that will come with age.