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.
With candidates only spending their own money, you'd essentially set up the system so only rich people would hold office. We kind of already have that system, to an extent, and it's not working very well.
I'm not too sure what is so insane about it? Right now the public essentially already pays for it through costs added into goods, union memberships and even taxes. My county PAYS via my tax dollars to be part of an association that then lobbies and makes political contributions.
BTW, you do realize that we already have federal matching funds for the presidential race?
I'd much rather use tax money and have the transparency and have a more equitable opportunity.
We gladly pay union dues for the benefits we receive. The cost is nothing. And don't you realize, candidates and the presidency are bought and paid for. We are all just puppets
Politics and government affect business, business men and women are going to get involved. Taxation rates, labor policies, environmental policies, new highways, they are major concerns.
Of course it probably isn't a good idea for a businessman in a wide ranging public style business- like Coors, Minute Maid orange juice, McDonalds or Marlboro- to issue opinions one way or another on controversial issues like abortion, gay marriage, school prayer or gun control. Don't want to turn off those with opinions contrary- the hope is to get customers on the both sides of the issue.
Location: The Land Mass Between NOLA and Mobile, AL
1,796 posts, read 1,661,814 times
Reputation: 1411
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMSS
Discrimination is when you refuse service to a particular consumer that you given everyone else. A company's decision of what products they peddle doesn't fall under this catergory.
Why is this basic principle so hard to understand in terms of what is sold? Say I own a Kosher deli. I personally don't believe in selling pork products for a number of reasons, even though bacon is all the rage. Want some imported, hormone-free mortadella on your sub? Sorry, go to another deli down the road a piece.
In contrast, say you are a really good butcher who eats bacon day and night. I wouldn't (and couldn't, I don't believe) hold your bacon-eating ways against you on your own free time in either hiring or serving decisions. You're hired! We just won't sell any pork products at my business, and you are free to scarf down all the BLTs you want on your lunch break and carefully-crafted bacon, goat cheese, leek, and endive frittatas at breakfast and dinner, for that matter. That's none of my business.
To beat this analogy perhaps to death, the discrimination argument against businesses refusing to sell an item misses this salient point: declining to sell an item does not constitute discrimination because the business in question is not selling the item to anyone. No one is being discriminated against. Now, if the business in question would hypothetically sell the item to some people but not to others, then that would be discrimination.
If, for example, I owned a little bodega somewhere and I chose not to sell Budweiser for some reason, perhaps because it is made from rice resulting from farming practices that I believe cause the exploitation of workers in developing countries, fine. Guess what, you can't buy Bud from me, but no one else can either. No discrimination. You and everyone else are free to go buy your beer somewhere else. All my customers are being treated exactly the same because I am not selling Bud to anyone. No harm, no foul. Bitching about stuff like this is like me bitching about the fact that my local and provincial grocer does not sell farm-raised, hormone-free, mountain-raised emmenthaler produced by hand-tended Swiss goats just because I'm one of the few who wants it. Why would they? They'd be crazy to do so because within a few months, they'd have a lot of rotting, expensive, and stinky cheese on their hands.
Location: The Land Mass Between NOLA and Mobile, AL
1,796 posts, read 1,661,814 times
Reputation: 1411
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
I understand that. I am asking whether or not this should be allowed. Like I said, businesses should not be forcing us to conform to their political ideology.
But in what way are you being forced to do anything? I mean, there are a plethora of buying choices online, and, even in the relatively small southern town where I live, there are a lot of places where I can choose to shop or not shop with varying levels of publicly displayed political beliefs. Just don't give your money to the businesses whose choices of what to sell or not to you don't agree with. I do that all the time, and, while I wish there were more choices where I live, it's pretty easy to make do. I really don't get why this is such a problem. I mean, if the only place you could get groceries in 40 miles was Walmart, I could see the concern, but since that is a pretty conservative corporation and since most of the people who seem to be bit*ching about this problem are also conservative, I don't see why that would be such a problem. I guess I'm pretty curious about why and how, exactly, those complaining seem to feel so oppressed. What are the things, exactly, that you feel you can't buy anymore that you used to be able to without compunction? Specific examples would be greatly appreciated.
Businesses, and especially large businesses, will find a way to support their politics when it counts whether they express those politics to the public or not. It's better to allow them to be openly political, and know where they stand, so that you can choose to support them with your business or not. As an added bonus, you can run your business how you like and avoid supporting politics that you disagree with by avoiding trade that supports them.
Businesses, and especially large businesses, will find a way to support their politics when it counts whether they express those politics to the public or not. It's better to allow them to be openly political, and know where they stand, so that you can choose to support them with your business or not. As an added bonus, you can run your business how you like and avoid supporting politics that you disagree with by avoiding trade that supports them.
Again, not when they have a virtual monopoly.
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.
