Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which means you agree with the SD legislator, (Rep. Michael Clark)?
That businesses should be allowed to turn down people based on the color of their skin?
I don't think he understand the rights of the people he represents. It demonstrates he's unfit for the office he holds.
I agree that it shows that he is not fit to be holding public office. What scares me even more are those who support him on this issue. Those persons are saying that they support someone like myself being turned away from a business simply because of my skin color. It is something that should never be tolerated.
Libertarianism posits no such thing. Based on the above quoted text, you know exacty nothing about libertarianism whatsoever.
The first, foundational principle of classic liberalism/individualism/libertarianism is ownership of self and self-determination. You own you, nobody else. You own the fruits of your labor, nobody else. You form associations, engage in trade and make contracts with others based on pure voluntaryism, mutual benefit, and rational self-interest.
If one can sell themselves as a slave to somoene else, then that allows their "owner" to subsequently sell them off to another owner. Also, what about the children of the slave who voluntarily sells him/her self - what if the parent wants to sell their children as slaves - note our system of chattel slavery developed from the indentured servitude system. Owners of "servants" were indeed allowed to sell their "servants" to other people. The children of their servants were also routinely sold to owners. As I noted earlier - Libertarianism in the way you view it cannot be created/maintained without people's right to "freedom" and life itself being ignored. Do you value property more or do you value people? IMO people are more important than "property" and no person should ever be able to sell themselves as slave and no one should be able to own another person (i.e. as a slave to control their freedom of movement - I am not speaking specifically of labor).
Simply put - nobody can make someone else their property, because everyone owns themselves. Slavery is not just anathema to libertarianism, it is the total opposite of all individualism and natural rights theory, which is the entire philosophical basis for libertarianism.
If someone can make themselves a slave under libertarianism then it as an ideology is flawed.
And libertarians absolutely deny powers/rights to the government that are not powers/rights of the individual, because if the individual does not possess the right or power, they have exactly zero capacity to delegate that power/right to a representative or outside agent. That government made slavery "legal" is a failing of government that libertarians have been pointing since the dawn of civilization, except they were called other things back then, like abolitionists, liberals, enlightenment scholars, etc.
People decided that slavery was/is what they want to occur in their society - that other people were their property. As a result - People created the governments and laws to uphold their so-called "property rights" something that I'm sure you support them having and which you believe slaves would be - property - not people.
FFS - libertarians argue that taxes are a form of quasi-slavery. Where do you think they fall on actual chattel, human bondage slavery? Government is the first and most powerful evil because it was the guiding and sanctioning authority for that abominable practice. Don't blame libertarians for that, as they were being marginalized even back then as whackos, since legal slavery was the status quo and who are these weirdo individualists to question it?
I believe that like all people Libertarians such as yourself will allow slavery - you have already admitted that you would.
No, we'll never gain traction because people like you do a 180 degree incorrect misrepresentation of what libertarian means and stands for, and because it helps the two evil heads of the One Party Government rule unopposed, your lie gets more support than the actual truth.
I'd never agree to any sort of Libertarian view and "people like me" are a majority (thankfully) and don't follow to a large degree idiotic ideologies based on valuing property rights more than human rights.
No libertarian EVER supported, posited or in any other way even tangentially suggests that people can or should be property. Slave owners and their apologists have done so, but libertarians are neither slavers nor apologists for them. Never have been.
You stated above that people should be able to sell themselves as slaves....Other libertarian leaning individuals on the thread have said the same thing....
You own you. Therefore, you own that which your body and mind shape, work or add value to, or that you voluntarily trade for with others. Even among the nomadic tribes of early North America, they had land they set up on, items they created for both survival and trade, etc. The internecine warfare between those tribes was based on one party violating the Non Aggression Principle to take by force what the others owned by natural right of self-ownership and life/liberty/property. Even back in the Roman Republic or further back in Athenian Greece, life, liberty and property rights actually mattered.
Again, if you believe a person can sell themselves as a slave - you are fine with a person being considered property.
It's fundamental. If you take some raw material and fashion it into something that has perceived value...you own it. You can sell it, give it away, keep it, whatever...but that is up to you. Same for land and buildings. Notice how nobody cares about land that isn't developed, but the minute it is developed, now everyone says it's unfair that the developer owns it? It became valuable because someone used their body, mind and resources to add value to it, and they did so via contractual ownership, where the person holding the land agreed to sell it to that person under mutually agreeable terms. Government's only role in that entire process is to ensure contracts are honored under terms both parties agree to.
Many slave owners believe that they bred/created a specific sort of slave (i.e. property) by teaching said slave a trade or breeding said slave from certain "stock" of people.....
As to "free access of a society" that is things are that common/public goods paid for by all those in the body called "the public." That has nothing to do with private ownership of property. When anyone creates something of perceived value using their time, labor, skills, etc...they OWN THAT THING. They, and they alone, can decide according to whatever criteria they want whether they will sell, hold or simply give away. Voluntary exchange of goods under the rules of private property rights.
I spoke initially of services provided by a hospital doctor and if a dying person has a right to be treated or if said person can be turned away by the hospital/doctor due to their appearance or some other arbitrary trait of theirs. Do you believe that hospitals should be able to turn away black people. Again, this was common in our country. Many of the laws passed and on the books today were/are a result of people literally dying due to being discriminated agains. So again - what is more important to you (and not even as a Libertarian but as a person) - someone's property rights or someone's right to live.
It's not a hard concept. Price already does this for most goods, but any criteria can be used by the seller to determine who they will and will not trade with. Nobody cares about sellers setting prices that block people from trading for something, but apparently go nuts if any other criteria is used. End of the day, every method, including price, is up to the owner of the good/serviced in question. They own their stuff, and they are not obligated to sell any of it.
Government meddling is why hospitals must do certain things. Nobody has the right to the goods and services of others, including healthcare. To suggest that they do is to suggest that providers/owners of those goods/services are slaves, because people have some imaginary "right" to their labor. I can force the doctor to labor solely for my benefit, and the doctor has no choice. That makes that doctor my slave, no matter how well compensated.
So do you not believe hospitals should be required to treat all people no matter their background or they should see someone who is blonde and because they don't like blondes, the blonde people will just have to die or be untreated....
You will never find any post of mine where I do anything but argue against the abominable concept of "positive rights" where people have a right to something someone else provides, particularly healthcare. Healthcare is a good/service same as any other. The owner can/may trade with buyers according to whatever criteria they wish, as it is their product/service and they own it. It makes no sense to deny buyers on any sort of large or systematic scale, as that kills an individual's profit margin, but everyone should retain their rights of self-ownership, private property, association, etc.
So what do people have a right to according to you? And what "negative rights" do you support. If someone is incapacitated on unconscious, how can they bargain for their healthcare...And again, for many people their personal biases are WAY more important than money. I'll note that I personally do not value money or property as more important than "people" in general. Money/property is not important in the grand scheme of life. The most important "things" in my life are the people I love - not stuff I own. We can differ in this view but I honestly feel that you are the same way. You pushing property and "rights" over people - sorry but for me it is an idiotic concept. That is not to say you are idiotic but the concept is because history shows us that people are not fair. People will enslave each other (we still do to this day) someone's view of what their "rights" are will never be the same as what other people believe. Also the fact that people created government - not the other way around - is always ignored by you Libertarians. If is like you have a wonky way of viewing humanity. You things that people create as godlike thing (i.e. "the state" or "government") that you have no power over. Various failed societies/governments/monarchs show that your view is incorrect about the immortality of "statism" or whatever evil word you'd like to call it.
Final note - again, you may wish to read up on what it is to be libertarian. It will go a long way to stopping you from posting such easily disproved nonsense. Then again, maybe lying in order to marginalize libertarians is your goal, and Lord knows, that's been popular since the dawn of philosophical thought on individualism.
Most responses in blue. I've read enough about Libertarianism to know it is naive and that people who buy into it are not thinking holistically about the human experience and what it means to be a human and the history of our evolution as a species. Your bolded comments below is something that is very telling for me about your ideology - it ignores the human experience - that life is a series of ups and downs and that in a down period - selling yourself as a slave will impact you for the rest of your life. Same way as it did for our American indentured servant ancestors, many of whom (who were black, white, East Indian and indigenous American) meant their lives were never theirs again and they never had any rights based on them being in a desperate situation at one point in time. It is naive to believe that this will not happen again. You think people are nicer than we are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
If both parties agree voluntarily and neither party is coerced in any way, sure. You own you. If you want to sell you, get a good price and have at it. Your life to sell if you so choose.
I agree that it shows that he is not fit to be holding public office. What scares me even more are those who support him on this issue. Those persons are saying that they support someone like myself being turned away from a business simply because of my skin color. It is something that should never be tolerated.
Thank you for responding here, it was just 'Crickets' before (& some de rigeur lame defense of the indefensible). It's likely Mr. Trump's so-called 'leadership' has given some folks the so-called 'courage' of their convictions.
Some of these folks are gonna have to 'man up' one day to realize some convictions make convicts. Some already have come to this realization.
Thank you for responding here, it was just 'Crickets' before (& some de rigeur lame defense of the indefensible). It's likely Mr. Trump's so-called 'leadership' has given some folks the so-called 'courage' of their convictions.
Some of these folks are gonna have to 'man up' one day to realize some convictions make convicts. Some already have come to this realization.
I really cant speak to the motivations of a politician (typically votes, power, control), but people freely trading with each other is the best way to bridge differences.
If Im a racially motivated business person Ive just eliminated everyone outside my own prejudices as a customer. If im forced to do business with the same people, my prejudices must now be hidden but are unchanged, worsened, or validated. What has been accomplished? The ends (disingenuous harmony) dont justify the means (aggression,violence). The participants in a free market can sort out bad actors just fine without a third party and its guns.
Sticking a gun in one party's back and forcing agreements just rubs raw the sores of discontent.
I really cant speak to the motivations of a politician (typically votes, power, control), but people freely trading with each other is the best way to bridge differences.
If Im a racially motivated business person Ive just eliminated everyone outside my own prejudices as a customer. If im forced to do business with the same people, my prejudices must now be hidden but are unchanged, worsened, or validated. What has been accomplished? The ends (disingenuous harmony) dont justify the means (aggression,violence). The participants in a free market can sort out bad actors just fine without a third party and its guns.
Sticking a gun in one party's back and forcing agreements just rubs raw the sores of discontent.
Many people are motivated by things other than race.
Again, if you are a doctor or medical facility and don't like blondes so won't treat a blonde person then that person would suffer/die. What rights do they have for care? Do you value property rights over natural human rights? And what do you think are natural human rights?
I honestly believe many of you never think of these things or what the human experience is about. Everything is not motivated by profit/currency/money. Our history shows us this is true (money is not the primary motivator) over and over and over again yet you all ignore this.
If you are a prejudiced motivated business person, you will have other similarly prejudiced people who will support your business, then you'll have the 90% of the rest of the consumers in your area who just don't care about your prejudice (which is the most common thing - humans don't usually care about the way another person or group of people are treated as long as it isn't them and/or their group - this is also shown over and over again historically). They will use your business to the other peoples detriment. If you are a medical facility they'll believe those people "deserve" that treatment eventually and it won't bother them.
Seriously it is very strange that you all ignore common behavior and actions of humans. We have a herd mentality and will easily follow a prejudiced idea or leader or will use a prejudiced business by making excuses for said owner.
Making the owner have a set of standards for treatment of the public, reduces the risks of discriminatory harm for the public. That is what is accomplished.
I really cant speak to the motivations of a politician (typically votes, power, control), but people freely trading with each other is the best way to bridge differences.
If Im a racially motivated business person Ive just eliminated everyone outside my own prejudices as a customer. If im forced to do business with the same people, my prejudices must now be hidden but are unchanged, worsened, or validated. What has been accomplished? The ends (disingenuous harmony) dont justify the means (aggression,violence). The participants in a free market can sort out bad actors just fine without a third party and its guns.
Sticking a gun in one party's back and forcing agreements just rubs raw the sores of discontent.
I wasn't asking you or anyone else here about your opinion about the "motivations of a politician".
What I had asked was:
If you agree with the SD legislator, (Rep. Michael Clark)?
Recall the OP? When he said that businesses should be allowed to turn down people based on the color of their skin?
I do not agree & do not think Mr. Clark understand the rights of the people he represents. This demonstrates he's unfit for the office he holds.
I really cant speak to the motivations of a politician (typically votes, power, control), but people freely trading with each other is the best way to bridge differences.
If Im a racially motivated business person Ive just eliminated everyone outside my own prejudices as a customer. If im forced to do business with the same people, my prejudices must now be hidden but are unchanged, worsened, or validated. What has been accomplished? The ends (disingenuous harmony) dont justify the means (aggression,violence). The participants in a free market can sort out bad actors just fine without a third party and its guns.
Sticking a gun in one party's back and forcing agreements just rubs raw the sores of discontent.
& let's face it politicians like Ron & Rand Paul have been bs -ing like this ^ for what decades now?
Sheeesh, enough already with the 'Free Market Fundamentalist' proselytizing, it's nonsensical.
I wasn't asking you or anyone else here about your opinion about the "motivations of a politician".
What I had asked was:
If you agree with the SD legislator, (Rep. Michael Clark)?
Recall the OP? When he said that businesses should be allowed to turn down people based on the color of their skin?
I do not agree & do not think Mr. Clark understand the rights of the people he represents. This demonstrates he's unfit for the office he holds.
Then <<Crickets>>
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadTheArticle
Frank is always OK with discrimination, but we know he lives in his own little world in which society will NEVER be a part of
Im in agreement with the premise a business should be able to discriminate on skin color. It does not mean I would or that it is even a good idea. My opinion is based on the rights of private property ownership to have the freedom of association, just as you exercise your property rights as to who you let into your home.
Like so many you think because something is called a business, it magically becomes something else and is suddenly beholden to the whims and dictates of politicians. Forcing a business to serve someone is slavery (as No_Recess has so clearly stated).
Forcing a business to serve someone is slavery (as No_Recess has so clearly stated).
Seriously, that is the most ridiculous statement around. GTFO.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
