I donâ€™t disagree with anything that youâ€™ve said here. People do have the right to own/operate a business,
I try to avoid the word "right," because it suggests you're adding or taking away from your own personal list of cans and cannots. It alludes to positive rights, as if the state hands them to you not unlike Yahweh granting divine favor to his chosen people.
People should have the freedom to do what they want, provided it does no unwanted harm to other persons or their property. Assault, theft, etc. cannot be said to be thought of as a right or a freedom in the same way that rape and taxation cannot logically be made consensual. The moment rape is consensual is the moment it is no longer rape but a game of bdsm. The moment taxation becomes consensual is the moment it is no longer obligatory; in the historical sense of the word, taxation has never been the likes of a donation or suggestion, but has instead always been imposed -- for that reason, I argue that the moment taxation becomes voluntary is the moment it ceases to be taxation.
nursebenjamin wrote:...provided they follow the laws and statues of the state/local government.
Because your freedom to operate a business should hinge on your compliance to Jim Crow laws
and the Controlled Substances Act
nursebenjamin wrote:You do not have a right to own and operate a factory if it releases to much airborne contaminants and violates the Clean Air Act.
Property damage is a form of unwelcome aggression. Polluting someone else's rivers and someone else's air cannot be thought of as a right, anymore than being a victim of violence can be thought of as a right.
One does not need the EPA, a coercive monopoly on the regulation industry, which wastes taxpayer dollars and who's policies kill Americans
. I always hear progressives complain about monopolies and corporations, but then turn around and praise the institutions that rob them, waste their money, and do a poor job at what they claim to do. Would it not make more sense to elect to contribute to one of many regulatory organizations that would be forced to spend their money wisely to stay in business, and that would be forced to avoid doing anything that would result in the deaths of others (lest their business never recover from such a reputation)?
All you need is a bunch of unhappy people threatening to withhold their dollar from your business if it turns their neighborhood's water supply into radioactive sludge. People will not tolerate unwanted behavior that they voluntarily contribute to.
Unfortunately, when the state doesn't care about pollutants in the water, citizens have no recourse but to be threatened with the silencing label of "terrorist."
nursebenjamin wrote:What I meant to say was that a personâ€™s sense of entitlement should not result in the abandonment of laws that are working well for society.
And what you mean by your vague, non-specific wording is that businesses should be forced to to do business with groups of people that you like. You would never expect a Jewish restaurant owner to serve an individual with a swastika tattoo on his forehead. You would never argue that I am entitled to your hospitality in your own home, even if I was a black Jewish lesbian. How on earth you are able to infer that shop owners must be compelled by law to serve anyone who hasn't already rendered payment is beyond me. You have no natural right to my services, I don't care who you are. Identity politics is an anathema to reason; it has no consistency at all, and for that reason it's utterly mad.
Darias wrote: nursebenjamin wrote:However, people are entitled to basic human rights and freedoms and to dignity and worth as a human person.[/b]
People should possess an innumerable number of liberties (negative rights), provided they do not cause harm to person or property. Unfortunately the state restricts liberties, most often in cases where the activity does not cause harm, â€¦.
And what to do if the rights of one group of people harms the rights of another group of people? What if the harmful group has more power and money than the other group?
<<<â€œUnfortunately the state restricts liberties, most often in cases where the activity does not cause harmâ€¦â€�>>>
Then work to elect better politicians.
Darias wrote: nursebenjamin wrote:This means that people have the right to participate in their culture and participate in the public sphere.
Yes. On public property and in public institutions paid for by everyone, freedom should be demanded because such places are publicly financed.
But someone's house or store are bought and paid for by the individual, and you are not owed anything from that property. You can't set up a gay pride club in my house without my permission. Without my permission, any would-be trespassers, thieves or home invaders forfeit their "right" to life and health. If you're a Mormon missionary, you are not entitled to a warm seat and a coffee; if I wasn't a nice person, I'd be well within my "right" to slam the door in your face. Private property isn't open to the whim of the public, period. It is well within my natural right to be as inclusive or or exclusive as I want if I own a church, a house, or a business. If you have rotten teeth, you are not owed my toothbrush. Your dental entitlements can best be served elsewhere by people willing to help you resolve your tarter-related issues.
<<<â€œIt is well within my natural right to be as inclusive or exclusive as I want if I own a church, a house, or a business.â€�>>>
This is where we disagree. Everything else youâ€™ve said is simply a straw man of my argument.
What if your right to exclude people results in the excluded not being secure in their right to life, liberty, and ability to have gainful employment, food and shelter?
Darias wrote: nursebenjamin wrote:Disregard for basic human rights in the past have resulted in the enslavement of groups of humans, genocide, and other barbarous acts.
I believe you will find, without much effort, that states are largely, if not solely responsible for such brutality. It all starts with the children right? Who monopolizes education, and forces support and mandatory access to that indoctrination via extortion? Markets, or the state?
Again, I donâ€™t really disagree with what you are saying, except for the fact that the government currently protects us from these egregious acts of brutality of the past. If there was no government or laws, what would prevent a bunch of strongmen from grabbing you and forcing you into enslavement or forcing your children into sexual slavery?
Darias wrote: nursebenjamin wrote:Each state prohibits discrimination on the bases of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or disabilities. Some states, in addition, prohibit the discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation and perceived sexual orientation.
Well, that's relatively new. States are usually in the "business" of discrimination, and while hypothetical company A
might have the ability to discriminate on its own property, the state has the power to force all to discriminate, whether you're in the public or private sector (see Jim Crow). ...
Governments should not be studied by themselves; but should be studied along with anthropology, history, science, and sociology. Our notion of which sets of discrimination should be allowed and prohibited have changed over time. Women used to be considered property -- to be bought and sold by fathers and husbands. Races of people were enslaved; others groups of people were exterminated. The issue is not the organization of people into a governing body, but the attitudes of people through the ages.
Darias wrote: nursebenjamin wrote:If you feel that your business can not accommodate black people, or the disabled, or a Jew, then donâ€™t have a business. Do something else. If you live in a state that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and you feel that you can not accommodate gay people, then donâ€™t own a business in that state.
I agree with your advice. If you're a bigoted business owner than you probably don't have a strong command for economics, and you probably won't do so well. "Do something else" is merely a suggestion, not an order. I'm not your mom, I can't make you act like a rationally self-interested, decent human being. Stupidity and hatred aren't crimes and they shouldn't be. They're an economic punishment in and of themselves, and because of that, there is a natural drift away from hateful policies towards profitable ones.
I think that you put to much trust in the free market. The assumption that the free market will alleviate harmful/hateful practices can be incorrect, or in some cases will take too long. If not for progressive policies of the federal government, blacks would likely still be enslaved in the Deep South.
Darias wrote: nursebenjamin wrote:Now, a business does not have to accommodate everyone. You donâ€™t have to put up with drunks, threatening, or disruptive people. No business has to accommodate pornography, or gambling or puppies or babies or a million and one other things out there. However, there are a few protected classes of people that you cannot discriminate against. One is entitled to freedom from discriminate on the basis of race, religion, color, nationality, sex, or disability, (and in some state, sexual orientation).
Oh, so businesses are permitted to discriminate against alcoholics, drug addicts, risk takers, promiscuous persons, the age impaired, the financially challenged, and the non-sentient. I'm glad you cleared that up. So to recap, everything you want is a fundamental right and everything you hate should be banned?
Our notions of what discrimination should be allowed and prohibited have changed over time. I think that we are currently on about the right track. However, for example, if photographers start saying, â€œI will not take a picture of your wedding because of your shoe size,â€� and this becomes a problem, then we are free to add shoe size to the list of protected classes of people.
I think that you are missing the forest of the trees. Just because governments in the past have sent gays to concentration camps to die or denied their right to be married, does not mean that everything will now turn out hunky-dory for this class of people if we eliminate their right to be free from discrimination.[/quote]