Voting: Litmus Tests and other important issues

Traitorfish said:

Violently enforcing copyright claims is an act of aggression. Why the double standard?

Click to expand...

You're talking to someone who hypocritically believes that the state should be able to execute people and choose copyright as an example?

Gah, seriously, every time GW babbles on about non-aggression I roll my eyes so far I need to go see a doctor so he can retrieve my contacts from my eye sockets.

caketastydelish said:

I don't see how you can argue this, when actual scientists (biologists in particular) argue otherwise, at least the vast, vast majority.

Click to expand...

We know that aboriton causes the destruction of a human life.

Actually yes it is. You can't just refuse to sell things to people in your shop for no other reason than you don't like them (and that's presuming they're not racist). It in fact, would be a crime against them, because you are limiting their options to buy goods or otherwise use a service.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, our current laws do not allow you to do this (Actually, I think they do if its just because you don't like them, unless its part of a protected class type thing) but that's a stupid law. If you own something, you should have the right to sell it to whoever you want, or nobody at all. The law should not force you to do business with people who you do not wish to do business with.

It happened plenty of places before the civil rights act (not just in the extreme prejudice, isolated "small towns", which I'm arguing).

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that that was to some extent because of laws requiring discrimination, but it is indeed true that to some extent the 1960's were very different from the current era. I should clarify that discrimination on PUBLIC property should never be happening.

Not necessarily. It could increase sales from people who are of the same ethnicity/religion/political belief/what have you, who are equally prejudice. In fact, when my dad came to America in the 70's, there was lots of anti-Iranian hatred because of the hostage crises (Carter was President). There was a store with a "no Iranians wanted here" sign. Are you saying this should be legal? (before you ask, the store did not go out of business, nor was there any significant boycott against this. And I swear I'm not making this up)

Click to expand...

I would refuse to shop at such a store, and try to persuade others not to shop at that store, but it shouldn't be illegal. Breaking that down to its most basic level, you're proposing arresting people either for posting signs with words written that you dislike, and/or for refusing to associate with Iranians.

Again, were it up to me, people would not be allowed to be prejudice period. That would just be impossible to enforce, unfortunately.

Click to expand...

Hence why we have a massive government that controls every part of our lives.

Leoreth said:

You're talking to someone who hypocritically believes that the state should be able to execute people and choose copyright as an example?

Gah, seriously, every time GW babbles on about non-aggression I roll my eyes so far I need to go see a doctor so he can retrieve my contacts from my eye sockets.

Click to expand...

You aren't understanding the principle. The principle is that you can't use violence against people who have not done the same against you, not that you can't use violence under any circumstance ever.

GhostWriter16 said:

We know that aboriton causes the destruction of a human life.

Click to expand...

Sources from the peer reviewed scientific community?

Unfortunately, our current laws do not allow you to do this (Actually, I think they do if its just because you don't like them, unless its part of a protected class type thing) but that's a stupid law. If you own something, you should have the right to sell it to whoever you want, or nobody at all. The law should not force you to do business with people who you do not wish to do business with.

Click to expand...

In a general sense perhaps, but if it's possible to prevent racial discrimination, why shouldn't we?

I'm pretty sure that that was to some extent because of laws requiring discrimination

Click to expand...

Not in all cases.

, but it is indeed true that to some extent the 1960's were very different from the current era.

Click to expand...

True, but there are still plenty of racist people. Have I not proved this?

I should clarify that discrimination on PUBLIC property should never be happening.

Click to expand...

It is very difficult (if not outright impossible) to prevent someone to prevent racial prejudice in their private home. It is much easier to prevent this from happening in a business. Ergo, we ban it from happening in businesses because it's practical, and it also makes the world a better place.

I would refuse to shop at such a store, and try to persuade others not to shop at that store, but it shouldn't be illegal. Breaking that down to its most basic level, you're proposing arresting people either for posting signs with words written that you dislike, and/or for refusing to associate with Iranians.

Click to expand...

Yes, a business should not get away with that.

Hence why we have a massive government that controls every part of our lives.

Click to expand...

Leoreth said:

You're talking to someone who hypocritically believes that the state should be able to execute people and choose copyright as an example?

Gah, seriously, every time GW babbles on about non-aggression I roll my eyes so far I need to go see a doctor so he can retrieve my contacts from my eye sockets.

Click to expand...

If Ghostwriter16 is a ghost, then Leoreth, Traitorfish and Hobbsyoyo are the Ghostbusters.

caketastydelish said:

Sources from the peer reviewed scientific community?

Click to expand...

It really depends on whether you accept human exceptionalism or not. There's no "Practical" way to resolve this argument.

In a general sense perhaps, but if it's possible to prevent racial discrimination, why shouldn't we?

Click to expand...

Consistent support for freedom demands that you support it even for the most distasteful members of society. That you happen to have the majority on your side now doesn't change the fundamental nature of freedom. Imagine if racists took control and passed laws that say that you MUST discriminate. Now, you may say, that will never happen, but if you can imagine it happening, you would obviously say that that's a fundamental restriction of your rights. You would say that if you want to associate with white people, or black people, or both, or whatever, you should have a right to. You would say that laws requiring you to deal only with Middle Eastern people are unjust, and you'd be right.

In the same way, it is unjust to force people to associate with other people, no matter how much it may "Make the world a better place" (Certainly not for the people your laws are restricting, and "Better Place" is therefore relative, and therefore not relevant). If it is unjust to force people NOT to associate with certain people, it is similarly unjust to force them to associate with people.

True, but there are still plenty of racist people. Have I not proved this?

Click to expand...

Well, no, but I don't really dispute that, depending on how "Plenty" is defined. That said, the vast MAJORITY of Americans are not racist, or at least not overtly enough to discriminate in business, doubly not when profits are on the line, so this is primarily an academic discussion. It is also irrelevant to my argument.

It is very difficult (if not outright impossible) to prevent someone to prevent racial prejudice in their private home. It is much easier to prevent this from happening in a business. Ergo, we ban it from happening in businesses because it's practical, and it also makes the world a better place.

Click to expand...

Just because its "Easier" doesn't change the principle.

Yes, a business should not get away with that.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But force should not be used in response to a legitimate (Although distasteful) use of private property rights. Far better would be to boycott that business and persuade others to do so, punish them economically.

Click to expand...

You've already basically admitted that you would regulate pretty much every action if it were possible to do so.

If Ghostwriter16 is a ghost, then Leoreth, Traitorfish and Hobbsyoyo are the Ghostbusters.

Click to expand...

Flying Pig said:

The pre-Thatcher energy industry: the actual service you got was nothing short of awful, powercuts were unbelievably common (to the point that most people had the means to light their houses by candlelight if needed) and trying to get customer service out of any nationalised industry was an exercise in masochism. Privatisation may have had its downsides, but it massively improved what we get from our services.

Click to expand...

Oddly enough, the experience in the US is the opposite. Government owned power utilities routinely perform better than private ones. And private deregulated utilities function the worst of all.

GhostWriter16 said:

It really depends on whether you accept human exceptionalism or not. There's no "Practical" way to resolve this argument.

Click to expand...

It's not human exceptionalism or not. The scientists are arguing that babies under the first trimester are not human to begin with. Human exceptionalism is saying "it is ok to kill animals for meat, but not humans" which I would agree with.

Consistent support for freedom demands that you support it even for the most distasteful members of society. That you happen to have the majority on your side now doesn't change the fundamental nature of freedom. Imagine if racists took control and passed laws that say that you MUST discriminate.

Click to expand...

They could potentially do that regardless of what current laws are. Yes, if racists took control they could change the laws to whatever they want. Thank god they aren't in charge.

Now, you may say, that will never happen, but if you can imagine it happening, you would obviously say that that's a fundamental restriction of your rights. You would say that if you want to associate with white people, or black people, or both, or whatever, you should have a right to. You would say that laws requiring you to deal only with Middle Eastern people are unjust, and you'd be right.

Click to expand...

I think people that only associate with one race are pure trash. I remember an old woman giving me a ride home one day that when she found out my dad was from Iran, called me a racial slur. Yes, I think these people should not have the right to do that. Sadly, you can not enforce 100% of the population to not be prejudice. What you can do however, is enforce businesses from not doing so.

In the same way, it is unjust to force people to associate with other people, no matter how much it may "Make the world a better place" (Certainly not for the people your laws are restricting, and "Better Place" is therefore relative, and therefore not relevant). If it is unjust to force people NOT to associate with certain people, it is similarly unjust to force them to associate with people.

Click to expand...

It is not unjust to make sure businesses don't have racist policies.

Well, no, but I don't really dispute that, depending on how "Plenty" is defined. That said, the vast MAJORITY of Americans are not racist, or at least not overtly enough to discriminate in business, doubly not when profits are on the line, so this is primarily an academic discussion. It is also irrelevant to my argument.

Click to expand...

In plenty of areas in America this isn't the case. Believe me, New York is exceptionally more open minded than the norm, not the other way around.

Just because its "Easier" doesn't change the principle.

Click to expand...

Exactly. In principle, I would ban everyone from discriminating by race. But we can only enforce what is possible.

Agreed. But force should not be used in response to a legitimate (Although distasteful) use of private property rights. Far better would be to boycott that business and persuade others to do so, punish them economically.

Click to expand...

It is not a legitimate use of private property rights. Especially in the case of a business, when the goods and services are going to be much more needed (or even "wanted") than that of a private home.

You've already basically admitted that you would regulate pretty much every action if it were possible to do so.

Click to expand...

I said if it was possible for the government to make us live in a perfect world, I wouldn't mind allowing them to do it. However it is not possible for the government to do so. On the other hand, I approve of the government doing things when it actually is
making a positive difference, such as this.

WindFish said:

Also, the status quo we have a quasi-cartel.

Click to expand...

Flying Pig said:

The pre-Thatcher energy industry: the actual service you got was nothing short of awful, powercuts were unbelievably common ..........<snip>....... but it massively improved what we get from our services.

Click to expand...

I find the energy market interesting for exactly these two points, which are both true.

The bottom line though is that quasi-cartel privatisation is the lesser of two evils. The price hikes would still have occured had it still been nationalised (or possibly been even worse) and service would likely still be as crap as it was in the 70's/early 80's.

It would be nice if the energy market was as competitive as telecoms, but hey.

caketastydelish said:

If Ghostwriter16 is a ghost, then Leoreth, Traitorfish and Hobbsyoyo are the Ghostbusters.

Click to expand...

Who you're gonna call?

GhostWriter16 said:

You aren't understanding the principle. The principle is that you can't use violence against people who have not done the same against you, not that you can't use violence under any circumstance ever.

Click to expand...

Since when is aggression a transitive property? And by which right?

Exactly. In principle, I would ban everyone from discriminating by race. But we can only enforce what is possible.

Click to expand...

In a free society, sometimes people choose not to associate with other people for whatever reason. It's no longer a free society if you then FORCE these people to do something against their wishes.

If some idiot wants to put up a "no Iranians" sign in his window, then, as stupid as that is, he should be able to. However, he does so at his own expense since he is now losing the business of all Iranians plus a ton of other people who now think he's a racist and choose not to associate with him. AKA, in a free society, that kind of stuff all works out in the end, so there is nothing to be "fixed" or "regulated" here.

Also, you fail to realize that when broad regulations like that are passed, people who disagree with them will find a way around it. The guy you force to take down his "no Iranian" sign is still going to find a way to not do business with Iranians if he believes in it that much. Instead of being blunt about it up front, he'll just end up doing other things to get around it. If his business has something to do with food, maybe he'll serve Iranians stuff that has been sitting out for a few days rather than the fresh stuff. If he runs a mechanic shop then maybe he only half-fixes something an Iranian brings in. How do you regulate stuff like that where he can still claim "hey, I served them didn't I?" - isn't it better to just let him put up his stupid sign and have Iranians avoid him rather than subjecting them to this kind of mistreatment because you want to force him to do business with someone he does not want to do business with?

Flying Pig said:

Alright, I'll give you a slightly better example - in March last year one of my young cadets - a girl of 16 - was diagnosed with cancer. She was treated by extremely well-trained medics, with very specialist knowledge - it's a fundamental truth of employment that specialists never come cheap - and incredibly expensive machinery; that says nothing of the extremely expensive and specialist medication that she was on. She now needs to attend regular check-ups by those same medics and takes pills to help repair the lingering damage. During the vast majority of this time she was unable to attend school, and far from her physical and mental peak. There's simply no way that she or her family would have been able to pay for this, and no way that you can say she 'took the choice' by smoking or drinking to excess; the fact of it is that without the NHS, she would have died, or else her family - who are hardly affluent - been ruined. As it was, they caught her early and treated her effectively, and she's back with us and very nearly back to her old self.

You'll forgive me for being anecdotal, but I think the point is clear: health isn't fair, some people are bowled some awful balls in life, and I cannot imagine that society would believe itself justified in leaving those people to deal with what they've been given by saying it's 'upholding freedom' by keeping the government out of healthcare.

Click to expand...

You are assuming that the government would be the only option to help these kind of people. That's not true though. In lieu of government, private charities would take on causes like this and the girl would still get her treatment while the rest of us would not be forced to pay for it via taxes (although some of us still would by virtue of donations to the private charity).

caketastydelish said:

Should it be illegal to speed or run a red light? After all, they're not necessarily hurting anyone. Not unless they hit another car. You can't just say "nothing should be illegal unless they're directly hurting others".

Click to expand...

No, it shouldn't be illegal to do either of those things.

Why does it matter how fast I am traveling to get from Point A to Point B? Why is it okay to travel at 70 or even 75 mph but a criminal offense to travel at 85 mph? That's a pretty ridiculous and arbitrary threshold, especially since almost all of our vehicles are capable of traveling at over 100 mph in the first place.

Same with red lights. The point of the lights is to direct traffic, but if there is no traffic, then why should you have to waste your time sitting at a light? If you go through it and hit someone, then obviously you should be held accountable, but if it's completely clear to go, why should you have to wait? You can see this is already partially in practice because it IS legal to turn right on a red (or even to turn left onto a one-way on a red), so clearly there is no justification to make people sit through an entire red light if there is no traffic, the laws just haven't caught up with common sense yet.

First, for the love of your choice of deity, stop triple posting. Use multi-quote.

Second, make sure you aren't just recycling Ghostwriters arguments, which I've already throughly addressed.

caketastydelish said:

First, for the love of your choice of deity, stop triple posting. Use multi-quote.

Second, make sure you aren't just recycling Ghostwriters arguments, which I've already throughly addressed.

Click to expand...

The guy's been here since 2002 - if he's not doing it, it's intentionally.

I give him the benefit of the doubt because of his low post count.

Owen Glyndwr said:

The guy's been here since 2002 - if he's not doing it, it's intentionally.

Click to expand...

The guy has 56 posts since 2002. He may have missed that rule.

So many Lolberterians......why do they come here?

ace99 said:

So many Lolberterians......why do they come here?

Click to expand...

To be fair, he's not a self confessed one, at least as far as I know. (That said, I think he's quite misinformed)

ZeekLTK said:

You are assuming that the government would be the only option to help these kind of people. That's not true though. In lieu of government, private charities would take on causes like this and the girl would still get her treatment while the rest of us would not be forced to pay for it via taxes (although some of us still would by virtue of donations to the private charity).

Click to expand...

How do you know this?

Also, you fail to realize that when broad regulations like that are passed, people who disagree with them will find a way around it. The guy you force to take down his "no Iranian" sign is still going to find a way to not do business with Iranians if he believes in it that much. Instead of being blunt about it up front, he'll just end up doing other things to get around it. If his business has something to do with food, maybe he'll serve Iranians stuff that has been sitting out for a few days rather than the fresh stuff. If he runs a mechanic shop then maybe he only half-fixes something an Iranian brings in. How do you regulate stuff like that where he can still claim "hey, I served them didn't I?" - isn't it better to just let him put up his stupid sign and have Iranians avoid him rather than subjecting them to this kind of mistreatment because you want to force him to do business with someone he does not want to do business with?

Click to expand...

Wouldn't they be able to get sued for that though, under US law? And in this case it sounds like fraud, which actually should be illegal.

On the other hand, putting up a stupid "No Iranians" sign is not fraud, it is simply a refusal to associate with Iranians, which is immoral but should not be illegal.

ZeekLTK said:

You are assuming that the government would be the only option to help these kind of people. That's not true though. In lieu of government, private charities would take on causes like this and the girl would still get her treatment while the rest of us would not be forced to pay for it via taxes (although some of us still would by virtue of donations to the private charity).

Click to expand...

No, they would not. They never have before, and they never will in the future. Relying on private charity is the same thing as sentencing the girl to death.