First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
Post Reply Why I Left the Left
37130 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 2/11/17 , edited 2/11/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I am sure he is arguing against the legality of small business owners not being able to discriminate, but I would argue, in the same vein that he himself offered a dramatized reasoning, in my words, that "the parceling of land for public accommodations and treating them with the same rights as private residents in an otherwise commercial district is likely to end in disaster" with the citation of segregation in businesses in the 20th century. Now it can be argued that blacks made a significant percent of the population versus gays and transgenders, but I think for the sake of moral consistency that the lack of protection for LGBT does not make sense.


Sure he is, and he offered two rationales as to why a business like Masterpiece Cakeshop ought have gotten off the hook:

1. It is a wholly privately-owned business operating without receiving government funding

2. It is inappropriate for the state to impose restrictions on Masterpiece Cakeshop's ability to discriminate via the 13th Amendment

Given an extensive legal history establishing and preserving the state's authority to regulate commerce in this way for businesses open to the general public regardless of whether they're publicly traded or wholly privately-owned it's fair play to set up non-discrimination laws. Furthermore, given obtaining a business licence within a particular jurisdiction is an entirely voluntary act undertaken by actors who are expected to have a clear and sober understanding of the terms for that licence's retention there is little room to argue that merely insisting that a licence holder adhere to those terms constitutes "enslaving" them.

Meanwhile, your reference to very real damages that have been historically inflicted upon minority individuals and communities under conditions where private businesses are left free to discriminate (or worse yet, compelled to by state authority) makes a solid case for why non-discrimination laws ought to exist. Petrol stations, hotels, hospitals, these and more can all be privately held, independently funded operations, but they still open themselves to the general public and offer services of significant public interest. No way in Hell is it "enslaving" their owners to insist that medical treatment be provided, or petrol be sold, or lodging be provided indiscriminately with regard to characteristics such as racial/ethnic background, national origin, religious affiliation, and so forth given that fact. And though cake shops may not offer services of as great importance as these, they nevertheless have still agreed to serve the general public as part of their receiving licences. Expecting business owners to abide by their agreements and respect the laws of the places they decide to set up shop is par for the course.
24142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 2/11/17 , edited 2/11/17

BlueOni wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I am sure he is arguing against the legality of small business owners not being able to discriminate, but I would argue, in the same vein that he himself offered a dramatized reasoning, in my words, that "the parceling of land for public accommodations and treating them with the same rights as private residents in an otherwise commercial district is likely to end in disaster" with the citation of segregation in businesses in the 20th century. Now it can be argued that blacks made a significant percent of the population versus gays and transgenders, but I think for the sake of moral consistency that the lack of protection for LGBT does not make sense.


Sure he is, and he offered two rationales as to why a business like Masterpiece Cakeshop ought have gotten off the hook:

1. It is a wholly privately-owned business operating without receiving government funding

2. It is inappropriate for the state to impose restrictions on Masterpiece Cakeshop's ability to discriminate via the 13th Amendment

Given an extensive legal history establishing and preserving the state's authority to regulate commerce in this way for businesses open to the general public regardless of whether they're publicly traded or wholly privately-owned it's fair play to set up non-discrimination laws. Furthermore, given obtaining a business licence within a particular jurisdiction is an entirely voluntary act undertaken by actors who are expected to have a clear and sober understanding of the terms for that licence's retention there is little room to argue that merely insisting that a licence holder adhere to those terms constitutes "enslaving" them.

Meanwhile, your reference to very real damages that have been historically inflicted upon minority individuals and communities under conditions where private businesses are left free to discriminate (or worse yet, compelled to by state authority) makes a solid case for why non-discrimination laws ought to exist. Petrol stations, hotels, hospitals, these and more can all be privately held, independently funded operations, but they still open themselves to the general public and offer services of significant public interest. No way in Hell is it "enslaving" their owners to insist that medical treatment be provided, or petrol be sold, or lodging be provided indiscriminately with regard to characteristics such as racial/ethnic background, national origin, religious affiliation, and so forth given that fact. And though cake shops may not offer services of as great importance as these, they nevertheless have still agreed to serve the general public as part of their receiving licences. Expecting business owners to abide by their agreements and respect the laws of the places they decide to set up shop is par for the course.


Ah, I see, I guess I can understand it that way, considering the commerce clause itself was used for forcible integration, and has long been an enumerated power since...well, the days the constitution was originally written. It provides real authority for the government to intervene, while the harmful effects are more evidence that the government should do these restrictions in the first place.

At least how I see it. Of course, one can argue rights are rights, and that one does not have a right to the services of others, but it seems rivaling a objectivitst utopia/dystopia to obsess over these "rights", though perhaps I am taking a utility and results>rights sort of thing. Of course, I am not even sure what rights are in all honesty.
67495 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / US
Offline
Posted 2/11/17 , edited 2/11/17




You are referring to one court case - one which was obviously tried with budget lawyers.

I am referring to the CONCEPT of private property rights. I used the bakery example because it is recent in people's minds and it is a good example of a small, privately-owned business. I don't care what one cake shop and one set of lawyers did. I never brought up any names.

Remember, RIGHTS cannot be taken away. If you pick and choose who has rights and who does not, then NO ONE does. If some outside power has the ability to take your property and force you to labor, you don't have any rights.

I want PERSONAL FREEDOM first and foremost. I find the idea that ANY outside force can tell me what to do with MY property absolutely repugnant. If one person can force me to labor, what stops another from doing the same? The precedent opens a floodgate that will never end.

Furthermore, I am NOT required to agree that court findings and traditions established a universal moral code. I described what I BELIEVE to be correct, and emphasized the difference between organization types. You're arguing that law gave an answer - I'm arguing that that law is WRONG.

PERSONALLY, I think not serving customers is a stupid business move. I'm not anti-gay-marriage. But I feel that the MORAL CONCEPT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS is vastly more important than individual feelings.

Try reading some libertarian philosophy.
24142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 2/11/17 , edited 2/11/17

dark_paradox_21 wrote:





You are referring to one court case - one which was obviously tried with budget lawyers.

I am referring to the CONCEPT of private property rights. I used the bakery example because it is recent in people's minds and it is a good example of a small, privately-owned business. I don't care what one cake shop and one set of lawyers did. I never brought up any names.

I want PERSONAL FREEDOM first and foremost. I find the idea that ANY outside force can tell me what to do with MY property absolutely repugnant.


I am not too sure about that. I do like rights, at least I think I do. That being said, what is the point of making business refusal a right, when it has a lot less meaning on the business than involuntary hiring practices which could stymie a business looking for merit? All I see happening is commercial areas being sliced up like gang turfs, first and foremost strangling trade depending on the scale, and lots of hurt feelings happening all around as well as rising tensions. And what do we get in return? A pat on the back for allowing more freedom?

We shouldn't be so obsessed with our rights to the point we are willing to let a society seriously destabilized for our own self satisfaction.

Seems paltry to the very real consequences of what could happen. In any case, I think the imperative thing to do is to separate freedom from rights. They are not the same thing. Rights are things you are entitled to, while freedom is the ability to do said action, free from legal restraint. It sounds pretty and all, but there are some limitations, such as setting your leaves on fire to noise levels.

Of course, this is a pretty complicated scenario. To quote someone, "your rights ends where someone else's begins". To say business decisions like this do not affect anyone is foolish, you are refusing service to someone, of course they are affected.

The question being "What rights do you have to another's establishments?"


Try reading some libertarian philosophy


I did. I agree with some and I disagrees with the rest. So? I could very well say "Read classical liberalism" or some shit. Not supporting an ideology does not mean we are any less educated about it.
2180 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / F
Offline
Posted 2/11/17
I don't vote for a party, but I just hate what the GOP has become to my very core.
37130 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 2/11/17 , edited 2/11/17

dark_paradox_21 wrote:

You are referring to one court case - one which was obviously tried with budget lawyers.

I am referring to the CONCEPT of private property rights. I used the bakery example because it is recent in people's minds and it is a good example of a small, privately-owned business. I don't care what one cake shop and one set of lawyers did. I never brought up any names.

I want PERSONAL FREEDOM first and foremost. I find the idea that ANY outside force can tell me what to do with MY property absolutely repugnant.


What the case shows is that Masterpiece Cakeshop, by Phillips' own admission, is simultaneously a privately-held, independent small business and a public accommodation. It shows that these things are not mutually exclusive.

Since small businesses that are privately-held and independently funded can be public accommodations why shouldn't they be regulated as such? Are they not conducting commerce within the jurisdiction of the Colorado state government (or whatever other state you may wish to examine)? If they are, did their owners not freely and voluntarily decide to set up shop there rather than somewhere else? Did they not freely and voluntarily agree to abide by the laws set forth by the state government upon obtaining their licence to do business there? Were the laws of interest not established in a way that comports with the Colorado state constitution, or do they themselves violate a particular provision therein? Were the elected officials that put these laws into place not legitimately elected?

Wherein lies the problem?


Try reading some libertarian philosophy.


I have, and last I checked the state of Colorado isn't an AnCap or Minarchist society, nor is there a particularly strong call for it to become one.
Posted 2/11/17

mxdan wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

Let you in on a little secret, I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and ticked the box for every Democrat on my ballot. I was never a registered Democrat but their platform was better than the Republicans in my view. Now I think differently and it would appear I'm not the only one...

https://youtu.be/hiVQ8vrGA_8

Enjoy.


Interesting -- I agree with most of what he said. I think it's a piece of a bigger picture that he seems to be missing however and perhaps you as well. I think you probably know what I mean when I say that this idea of regressiveness isn't exactly a 'left' thing. Rather it is a systemic problem that is inflicting both parties at the moment.

It comes from this pervasive idea that your party knows whats right for the world. PrinceJudar (SP?) made a thread a while ago called 'Reason' that I suggest you go read. It brings up some ideas that are very intrinsic on the way people think. I think, a large majority of our population has forgotten how to reason.

If you look at both parties holistically what do ideas come down to today? They are boiled down to semantics of right and wrong and good and evil. I can't speak much for both parties because I don't really identify with them much anymore. But the left is making emotional arguments and the right is completely ignoring ethics -- Both are wrong here. You need to have procedural ethics and you need to use reason. What good is a party that makes decision entirely based off of what they think makes money but ignores ramifications? What good is a party that makes decisions entirely based off of emotion and the totality of people when it doesn't stop to see how it is limiting what they collective can actually do.

Both parties need to balance each other out.

They have become to skewed. Too set in their ways of correctness. They are missing the bigger picture. Decorum has been entirely snuffed out and I think it is largely to with a number of factors running against the American people: Unaccountable media, Schools that teach subjects and not how to think, social seclusion between cities and country side, policy that allows big business to rule decisions, lack of ethics IN our decisions, lack of science in our decisions.

These are a few of the many things contributing to a country that has become tribalist.

I'm no longer under the opinion that it can be fixed. I think it will become worse and honestly, maybe I'm stretching here, but this is how civil wars start.


I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Now I wonder if it will ever stretch to a civil war.
67495 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / US
Offline
Posted 2/11/17

BlueOni wrote:


You keep going on and on about what the law says, what so-and-so said and what the court thought. I'M SAYING THAT THE LAW IS BULLSHIT!


You say that private and public aren't mutually exclusive? WTF, seriously? They are POLAR OPPOSITES! You might as well say that deserts are rain forests.

A lot of the problems we're having are because people spend far to much time trying to seem good, caring, and politically correct and far too little time thinking about the potential consequences, precedents, and side effects of their actions.
12549 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 2/11/17
your choice, but you do know you don' t have to 100% agree with one side. life is made up of grey areas. you don't have to be on the left or right, you can stand in the middle and choose the candidate/party that aligns with your views come the election. that's whats really annoying me, everyone's suddenly got this 'if you're not with us, you're against us' mentality and everyone must pick a side. can we just agree neight group is perfect and leaders will say anything to get into power?
2039 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/11/17
A lobotomy will do that to you.
6921 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / Pacific North West
Offline
Posted 2/11/17
Can I just say the whole public vs private is a VERY grey area. That bakery's case is not the law per say. For instance take when the PGA denied Tiger Woods admission(supposedly because he was black). That I know of no charges could be filed as it was public in that had a business license and in theory anyone could apply for membership... but they stated they were a club and had the right to refuse service to anyone. We don't need the govt to regulate that. Look how quickly the PGA reversed its decision after their PR firm stated the PGA was all but finished if they let things go. Same with a baker. if you dont like it tell your friends to not shop at that location. let your wallets tell the business your beliefs not have the govt. come with a stick.
67495 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / US
Offline
Posted 2/11/17 , edited 2/12/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


dark_paradox_21 wrote:





You are referring to one court case - one which was obviously tried with budget lawyers.

I am referring to the CONCEPT of private property rights. I used the bakery example because it is recent in people's minds and it is a good example of a small, privately-owned business. I don't care what one cake shop and one set of lawyers did. I never brought up any names.

I want PERSONAL FREEDOM first and foremost. I find the idea that ANY outside force can tell me what to do with MY property absolutely repugnant.


I am not too sure about that. I do like rights, at least I think I do. That being said, what is the point of making business refusal a right, when it has a lot less meaning on the business than involuntary hiring practices which could stymie a business looking for merit? All I see happening is commercial areas being sliced up like gang turfs, first and foremost strangling trade depending on the scale, and lots of hurt feelings happening all around as well as rising tensions. And what do we get in return? A pat on the back for allowing more freedom?


Well, I am not arguing about business refusal being a right. I am arguing against forced labor and forced acquisition of privately owned materials. In a privately owned and funded business these things are the same. The right to own property is well established. So is the right to be free from involuntary labor. Why would these rights simply disappear because I decided to sell something I made to someone on occasion?

Publicly traded corporations and tax-funded organizations are publicly owned to begin with, so all the public has the right to access them. Discrimination is irrelevant. This all comes down to property rights.

Plus, I have no idea where you get the idea that commercial areas would be sliced up. Businesses generally want to do business - it's how they live. I think your speculations are rather unfounded.



We shouldn't be so obsessed with our rights to the point we are willing to let a society seriously destabilized for our own self satisfaction.

Seems paltry to the very real consequences of what could happen. In any case, I think the imperative thing to do is to separate freedom from rights. They are not the same thing. Rights are things you are entitled to, while freedom is the ability to do said action, free from legal restraint. It sounds pretty and all, but there are some limitations, such as setting your leaves on fire to noise levels.


You're mistaken in several areas here.

First, freedom is the ability to self-regulate not the absence of regulation. Remember Braveheart, "They can take our lives, but they can never take our FREEEEEDOOOOM!" Remember that they were trying to put a Scottish king in power. They had no problem following rules, so long as it was THEIR PEOPLE making the rules. Liberty is the ability to act without interference. They are tied together because a population with greater freedom can rule in a way to maximize liberty. And yes, I want as much liberty as possible. Anything less is dehumanizing. We are human beings, not animals to be caged and controlled!

Second, rights are the FOUNDATION OF SOCIETY. You have the right to live, I don't have the right to kill you. You have the right to own property, therefore I don't have the right to steal it. You have the right to speak, I don't have the right to silence you. I have the right to differ in my opinions and you have the right to be offended by that and speak against me - but not the right to force me to abandon my beliefs. Without society, none of these things would be important, and without these things society could not exist.

Without respect for rights, there would BE NO SOCIETY.
If I didn't respect your rights, I'd just rape you, kill you and take your shit! Without respecting each other's rights, people would never cooperate. We never would have cities or governments. There would be no such things as roads or schools or the internet. You can't "destabilize" society by respecting rights, you can only improve it.


Of course, this is a pretty complicated scenario. To quote someone, "your rights ends where someone else's begins". To say business decisions like this do not affect anyone is foolish,

The question being "What rights do you have to another's establishments?"


Try reading some libertarian philosophy


I did. I agree with some and I disagrees with the rest. So? I could very well say "Read classical liberalism" or some shit. Not supporting an ideology does not mean we are any less educated about it.
Well, You've obviously not read Locke, or you'd know my property rights arguments already (since they are really mostly his to begin with). I never said people had to agree. I just want people to THINK and the classic philosophers are great at inspiring thought.

"Your rights end where mine begin" is the correct concept. You seem to be applying it incorrectly.

I argue that the difference between private and public is where the money comes from. Those organizations which rely on public funding (stock market) or are tax funded (through public taxes) should be available to ALL the public.

What I have worked for, earned, and built myself is MINE TO DO WITH WHAT I CHOOSE. I can sell it. I can give it away. I can burn it (so long as I don't do it in a way that endangers what YOU'VE worked for, built, or earned- or excessively damage common resources we all need to live like water and air).


you are refusing service to someone, of course they are affected.


When you covet what is rightfully and wholly mine and I refuse to give it to you, YOU are in the wrong if you try to force my hand. It is asinine to claim that people have the right to what another person has worked for. People have the right to own property - NOT to forcefully take it from others.

Sure, in a case like that the one who coveted becomes disappointed - it is his right to be disappointed. It was NEVER his right to take or buy what rightfully belonged to another.

Likewise, it is a person's right to be offenSIVE. It is a person's right to be offendED, No one has the right to silence another.

Welcome to real life, where rights come with responsibility and people can get disappointed and hurt. It is much better than being inoffensive cattle unable to think or move without permission.
1018 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/11/17
21428 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Leanbox, Gameindu...
Offline
Posted 2/11/17 , edited 2/12/17

Quarlo wrote:

Unfortunately what we have here in this country are the Corporate Party and the Other Corporate Party. Each party now (with a few exceptions in each camp) now do what is in the best interest of their donors and the large corporations with very little interest in helping those they claim to be their constituents.

Example. Studies have looked at laws that have been passed in the last 20 years. Laws that the general population (regardless of party affiliation) are heavily in favor of are passes less than 30% of the time. While laws that are heavily favored by businesses are passed well over 70% of the time.

So why do we still have the Left and the Right? Votes. You can't get into power (and by extension become ungodly wealthy) without the votes of the people. If you campaigned on the platform of "I'm gonna make myself and corporations richer", no one would vote for you. So your turn to one of the two parties and their Three Legged Stool that props up their party. For the Right it's Religion, Abortion and Guns. For the Left it's the Environment, Gay Rights and the Social Safety Net. So if one party is in favor something, you are automatically opposed to it. So, as long as politicians can keep hammering at the Big 3 of their party they can always whip up the base to keep them in power.

Some of the old talking points that used to be leaning one side or another were Military Spending, Taxes and Big vs Small Government (and by extension States Rights) among many others. Now both sides are in favor of military spending. Both sides raise and lower taxes (the important part is to examine who's getting the tax breaks and who has to make up for the short fall in revenue). Big vs Small Government is a total myth now as both side will ignore it when it suits their purposes.

So when people argue any of the three legs of their parties corporate prop up stool, realize that they are buying into the propaganda. Sure those points may be important to you on a personal level, but what you should be looking at is what politicians are doing when they aren't proselytizing about the Big 3.


Great points, sadly all too true.


AlastorCrow wrote:

"[Leaving] the left" because of these reasons is fine but voting against the left because of these is a misled decission. I agree with a lot of what he mentioned in the video but those reasons are only a fraction of what "the left" is consist of. Furthermore, these generalizations have little to do with what you're voting for (or in this case, against).

You don't have to be a Trump supporter / anti-Democrat to even agree with these. These issues have nothing to do with Trump's incompetent/dangerous cabinet picks, his plan to engage the US in a pointless trade war to appease the whining Nationalists, the effort to rollback the United States to the age of Industrial Revolution (under the guise of "job creation"), his promise to waste billions of dollars to build (and then some to maintain) a useless wall and then lie to the American people that "Mexico will pay for the wall". Sadly, it seems like half this country's population can't tell the difference between a situation where Mexico pays for the wall and an import tax increase that has the word "Mexico" on it (which will be paid for by citizens/residents of the US).

So this man has decided to help doom our economy because of a few whining liberals that were too busy being offended for other people? Dumb move.



Trump's victory might not be so bad for the Democratic Party long term, might finally help motivate a left wing tea-party equivalent to help rid party leadership of the corporate puppet faction that cost them the election in the first place.

Whining Nationalists? So that is the new label the Democratic Elite is throwing at the former middle class these days. These so called whining nationalists are mostly former middle class blue collar workers (mostly Democrats or Dem leaning too) who have had their economic well-being destroyed by incompetent national leadership.

The Dems had decades to help come up with a plan to replace those factory jobs with jobs lost by free trade with something that actually paid a living wage, but instead doubled down on failed policies and told those of us outside of the blessed regions/the areas that actually greatly benefited from free trade (NYC, Silicon Valley, DC metro areas, and perhaps certain farming districts) to suck it up and deal with it.
Telling people to trade in $25 factory jobs for $10/hr Walmart jobs and then telling them that their standard of living is now better (which is obviously a lie) isn't a way to win an election. To add more to the insult, they spend 99% of their time talking about social issues while completely ignoring economic ones so that their base doesn't wise up to the fact they have more in common with Republicans that they want to admit.

My upper middle class Liberal friends in major metropolitan areas are confused why their suburban and rural Democratic brothers and sisters abandoned them on election day, they have no idea how bad the economy is doing outside of their little bubbles. Also, I know quite a few Dems in the manufacturing sector who crossed over for Trump, but will never publicly admit it over TPP, because everyone knew (including Clinton supporters) that she was going to flip-flop on the issue immediately after getting elected.

Trump was a protest vote for enough people to flip the election, a gamble at the roulette table with the player going all in out of desperation. I think quite a few people who crossed over knew the status quo was falling them so taking a gamble for a better future, no matter how small the chance of success one was the better option. I'd hope the Democrats will step back a minute and start to think why they lost this faction of the party this time around and adjust accordingly before they lose them permanently to a Trump era populist Republican party. The Democratic party is strongest when they are seen as the party of the worker, but as some liberal talk show hosts are starting to point out, now the party has a growing stench of elitism.

Considering they are already floating more of the corporate puppet wing empty suits for the 2020 election as their potential nominees I won't hold my breath.

runec 
36337 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/12/17

Nekoshema wrote:
your choice, but you do know you don' t have to 100% agree with one side. life is made up of grey areas.


I would honestly be wary of anyone that agrees 100% with either side of the US political superbowl.



dark_paradox_21 wrote:

First, freedom is the ability to self-regulate not the absence of regulation. Remember Braveheart, "They can take our lives, but they can never take our FREEEEEDOOOOM!" Remember that they were trying to put a Scottish king in power.


Citing Mel Gibson in the midst of your philosophical discussion on the nature of freedom is like citing Kevin Costner to support your opinion on wolf social behaviour. >.>




First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.