The Repeal Amendment

[say1988]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the first group I described (and an absolutist who think only his opinion is right and unquestionable). I shan't debate him here because it's really besides the point of the thread, and he seems more interested in spreading falsehoods than useful discussion. Consider my point made.

How can Quebec's language laws be anything other than discriminatory?
What other province dictates what language a child can be educated in? They may require a certain proficiency in English, but otherwise everyone is free to educate their children in French, Chinese, Hebrew, or any other language they see fit.
Or threaten to remove a company's business licence because their sign consists solely of an internationally famous trademark?

Justify it however you wish (and I do believe discrimination can be justified at times), but there can be no doubt the Quebec government is discriminatory in its language laws.

 

[Evie]

What other province dictates what language a child can be educated in?

And here is what I meant by "falsehood".

Quebec does not "dictate" a language of education: it dictates what languages it provide public education in, and who has access to the constitutionally mandated minority-language public school network.

Which it limits to...the people who are constitutionally entitled to that right. Which Quebec is not alone in doing. See...

Alberta:

Under the law, parents whose first language is French have a constitutional right to have their child educated in French where there are enough students to warrant it.

http://www.education.alberta.ca/parents/choice/francophone.aspx

BC:

To be eligible for the Francophone program you (parent/guardian) must meet at least one of the following conditions:

If your first language learned and still understood is French
If you received your primary school instruction in Canada in French (excluding French Immersion)
If one of your children has received primary or secondary school instruction in Canada in French (excluding French Immersion)
If you have a child who is receiving primary or secondary school instruction in Canada in French (excluding French Immersion)

http://www.csf.bc.ca/english/eligibility_registration.php

The BC one, especially, is pretty much a carbon copy of the Quebec restrictions with the languages swapped around.

 

[Berzerker]

So even though no government did it, and there was no government involvement, and the profit motives of private citizens was the only driving motivation, it was not a market result because you don't like the result.

That's crap reasoning at best.

The Spanish crown outlawed that. But lacked the will and ability to actually stop it.

How is that even relevant? It is still private actors taking private actions for private profits. No government made a decision to make that happen.

Genocide and slavery are not private actions, what does the word private mean to you? And a free market is not a slave market

what is worse than crap?

 

[say1988]

And a free market is not a slave market

How come?
In economic terms, slaves are just a commodity, like cows, or lumber. And allowing slaves to be sold, if anything, creates a freer labour market as it removes restrictions imposed by the government.

 

[Leoreth]

Genocide and slavery are not private actions

So you are saying that slave trade has always been a government monopoly?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

And a free market is not a slave market

orly?

This is the Market House of Fayetteville North Carolina, where I used to live.

It used to be a free market for slaves. Care to explain that?

 

[Crezth]

Genocide and slavery are not private actions, what does the word private mean to you? And a free market is not a slave market

What? This post is senseless posturing. Explain how slaves can't be owned in a free market?

 

[Berzerker]

in a slave market your labor - should you be the slave - is bought and sold by others, in a free market you sell your own labor

and no Leo, you quoted what I said - genocide and slavery are not "private actions", they involve people whose privacy - their freedom - has been violated. It doesn't matter if government exists or not and what is says about it.

 

[say1988]

in a slave market your labor - should you be the slave - is bought and sold by others, in a free market you sell your own labor

And if I want to sell myself into slavery?

 

[Berzerker]

go ahead, but it aint a private action

 

[Antilogic]

An agreement where person S decides to become a slave of person M, and the two parties sign a contract to make it so, with no outside interference, is not a private action?

 

[GhostWriter16]

What? This post is senseless posturing. Explain how slaves can't be owned in a free market?

Theoretically slavery where every slave consents in some way for some reason is compataible with a free market. I don't think the government should recognize such a contract (Which would make permanent slavery mostly irrelevant) but its theoretically reconcilable with a free market.

The kind of slavery that happened in the 1800's was involuntary, both for the captured slaves and their children, and the slaves never consented to be enslaved. Therefore, the trading of such slaves is incompatible with the free market.

A truly free market has to respect the NAP.

An agreement where person S decides to become a slave of person M, and the two parties sign a contract to make it so, with no outside interference, is not a private action?

I posted before you said this, but that's basically what I said.

Person S could not possibly, however, contract for his children to also be slaves in any free market.

 

[Farm Boy]

An agreement where person S decides to become a slave of person M, and the two parties sign a contract to make it so, with no outside interference, is not a private action?

Sure, it's a private action. But it's never an entirely private action when there are laws that pertain to recognition of and enforcement of that private contract.

 

[Berzerker]

An agreement where person S decides to become a slave of person M, and the two parties sign a contract to make it so, with no outside interference, is not a private action?

no, slavery is not a private action

it aint slavery if you sell your own labor