Why so many bleeding-hearts?

[Ailedhoo]

I see Dommy is using his own definitions instead of acemic definitions, hence his rejection of the idea of "left liberterians." Such is his... narrow minded approuch.

How can you steal intellectual property?

You can. We academics called it plagerism. It is a very serious issue in universities. Hence the existance of the reference syste.

Also intrested how your definitions of property is with your reguards to intellectual property...

In all seriousness though, I admit you guys did come up with the word first. For whatever reason, in the United States its mainly us who use it.

Define "us." The USA is not this forum. This is a world forum. "Us and them" be your motive?

If I could get everyone else to do it, I could seriously go for "Minimalist" since for the most part right-libertarians are concerned with government authority (Or other forms of compulsory authority against adults) but are not really against voluntary binding contracts the way that left-wingers are.

"We are better than you" screams here. That is all it is to you child: us versus them. Corporative power is of ecomonic left figures like I, not a issue on the contracts but on the power that can be abused. Left-liberterians are also concerned with goverment authority.

I also like the use of "compulsory authority against adults." Clearly your "us versus them" attitude has leaded to levels which you totally demonise the "them." Even though I wish to have restrains on goverment power, the reason I am not a exstreamist like you is because I know that some form of structures are neccessary for the welfare of the communities and its members. Hence public funded school systems and in case of Britian the NHS.

Because I'm not a racist. As I have said thousands of times: I would personally refuse to do business with anyone who discriminated based on race. But if you stop and think about it for a few seconds, forcing people to allow certain people on their property simply becasue they let other people on their property is pretty ridiculous.



I don't agree with that refusal but its absurd that they could be fined for doing it. Fredom of association. Same with the example above.

Dommy: caring more about "property" than people. Your "motivation by property rights" is, even if not racist, is a note by your care of things over people that one be... unempathic need I say? Discrimination is not only a violation of human rights but ecomonically is not good for consumers.

 

[dutchfire]

Because I'm not a racist. As I have said thousands of times: I would personally refuse to do business with anyone who discriminated based on race. But if you stop and think about it for a few seconds, forcing people to allow certain people on their property simply becasue they let other people on their property is pretty ridiculous.

I wasn't necessarily implying that you were racist, I just thought that adding a caveat about that black people may chose to serve only other black people doesn't make it any less racist. It sounds like saying: "Yeah, I'm in favour of exterminating the European Muslims. But I'm not racist, I support the right of the Arabians to exterminate Europeans in their countries too." The second sentence doesn't really make the first one less bad. In the same vein, symmetric racism is still racism.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I wasn't necessarily implying that you were racist, I just thought that adding a caveat about that black people may chose to serve only other black people doesn't make it any less racist. It sounds like saying: "Yeah, I'm in favour of exterminating the European Muslims. But I'm not racist, I support the right of the Arabians to exterminate Europeans in their countries too." The second sentence doesn't really make the first one less bad. In the same vein, symmetric racism is still racism.

Fair point.

In my case, say what you will about my view, its motivated by a support for the Freedom of Association. No more, no less.

 

[Traitorfish]

A pull at the heartstrings has a far greater effect then painstakingly going through the evidence, points of view and coming to your own conclusion. It's why i'm so woefully understocked on hard opinions on anything. I'm not Traitorfish, who, seemingly, reads mountains of books and actually knows quite a lot about what he discusses. I also lack the heart to be drawn into the left propaganda

When you discuss relative poverty, simply hack away the "relative" part and people start imagining a Dickensian scenario - pretend it's widespread "millions suffer from poverty" (when it's like 60% of median household income) -- boom you've made yourself some propaganda soup. In reality, they've got Xbox 360s and flash tellys!

It's difficult for a Briton, coming out of a year that has seen the most enthusiastic bout of patriotic masturbation since the 1950s, to legitimately argue that sentimental irrationalism is uniquely a habit of the left. The only difference seems to be that left-wing sentimentalism is directed towards human beings, while right-wing sentimentalism is directed towards institutions, and it's not immediately apparent that the latter is preferable to the former.

You can. We academics called it plagerism. It is a very serious issue in universities. Hence the existance of the reference syste.

I don't think that plagiarism is really considered "theft". You are, after all, fully entitled to use the content of another person's work, and to a certain to reproduce the work directly; the concern is one of proper attribution, not of actual possession.

 

[JollyRoger]

But if you stop and think about it for a few seconds, forcing people to allow certain people on their property simply becasue they let other people on their property is pretty ridiculous.

No one is forcing them to run a business on that property.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Bolding mine.

Preventing people from discriminating against others because of their race/sex/religion is ridiculous to you?

Yes. Absolutely.

You should be able to do business with whoever you want and refuse to do business with whoever you want.

No one is forcing them to run a business on that property.

And nobody should be forcing them to do business with people they don't want to just because they do business with other people they do want to.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

And since the United States government is a government formed from the consent of its people, it has the right to set and repeal laws, no?

 

[JollyRoger]

And nobody should be forcing them to do business with people they don't want to just because they do business with other people they do want to.

Nope, racism should not be cut a break.

 

[Borachio]

I agree. But on the other hand, can't a trader refuse to trade with someone just because of no reason at all? Is he obliged by law to trade with absolutely anyone at all?

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes. Absolutely.

You should be able to do business with whoever you want and refuse to do business with whoever you want.

Why's that, then?

 

[Quackers]

C'mon lets not get nit picky here. You cannot qualify every single statement you write, it's impossible.

 

[JollyRoger]

I agree. But on the other hand, can't a trader refuse to trade with someone just because of no reason at all? Is he obliged by law to trade with absolutely anyone at all?

Depending on the business, yes, but for public accommodations, that reason can't be based on certain types of discrimination (race, geneder, national origin, etc.).

 

[Borachio]

So all that does is teach people to keep their reasons to themselves? If they are wise.

And we're no further forward.

Though, I suppose, by eliminating overt racist behaviour you make its covert occurrence less likely?

 

[JollyRoger]

So all that does is teach people to keep their reasons to themselves? If they are wise.

Ever met a wise racist? The closest they get to disguising their racism is to pretend to be libertarian.

 

[WindFish]

Ever met a wise racist? The closest they get to disguising their racism to pretend to be libertarian.

The thing is that Dommy is assuming few people will actually ban people from their store cus of their race because FREE MARKET

Its a hopelessly naive position, but slightly racist.

 

[Borachio]

I've met foolish racists certainly. And there's every reason to suppose I've met wise ones too. But they're less easy to distinguish from the truly colour blind.

Are there any truly colour blind people? I suspect that's a rather small group.

 

[Quackers]

It's difficult for a Briton, coming out of a year that has seen the most enthusiastic bout of patriotic masturbation since the 1950s, to legitimately argue that sentimental irrationalism is uniquely a habit of the left. The only difference seems to be that left-wing sentimentalism is directed towards human beings, while right-wing sentimentalism is directed towards institutions, and it's not immediately apparent that the latter is preferable to the former.

Well lets have a look. In 2012 we got patroitic about the Jubilee which I suppose is an institition but it's a family too. I think there is sufficient cross over in that regard. In the Olympics the sentimentalism was focused on real human atheletes achieving things - bettering others - thats quite a positive and right wing thing to do. What else did we do this year? So far, it looks like right-wing sentimentalism also captures humanity too. Plus, whats so wrong about feeling for an instituion? After all, the left is madly, head over heels in love with the NHS, it's absurd - it can do no wrong. So I guess i disagree with your premise. Both the left and right get hard-ons for preferred institutions and people, seems plausible to me.

I don't think that plagiarism is really considered "theft". You are, after all, fully entitled to use the content of another person's work, and to a certain to reproduce the work directly; the concern is one of proper attribution, not of actual possession.

Indeed, how could anybody write an essay at the undergraduate level with original ideas? You could be a genius or just have a....overactive imagination

 

[GhostWriter16]

And since the United States government is a government formed from the consent of its people, it has the right to set and repeal laws, no?

Nope. They don't have a right to use force just because the majority says so.

I agree. But on the other hand, can't a trader refuse to trade with someone just because of no reason at all? Is he obliged by law to trade with absolutely anyone at all?

He should be able to trade with anyone who agrees, or nobody at all.

Why's that, then?

You already know why. If you reject property rights out of hand, as you do, defending my position based on pro-property reasoning is pointless. So I don't really see why I should bother.

The simple answer is, you aren't really free if you can't choose not to associate with people you don't want to associate with.

Ever met a wise racist? The closest they get to disguising their racism to pretend to be libertarian.

The thing is that Dommy is assuming few people will actually ban people from their store cus of their race because FREE MARKET

Its a hopelessly naive position, but slightly racist.

No, I'm assuming they won't because racism is on the decline and even in the deep south isn't all that common anymore. More than half of Mississippians (It may even have been Mississippi Republicans, and there isn't a state more "Southern" than that) support interracial marriage. "Soft racism" is probably still somewhat common, but the people who would flat out say "You're black so you don't get to shop here" are super-rare, and I think far outnumbered by the people who would refuse to do business with such a person out of sheer repulsion.

If you guys would support anti-discrimination laws, but would actually do business with someone you knew was employing racial discrimination, you are massive hypocrites.

If even half the numerous amount of people who support such laws actually boycotted businesses that employed them in a free society, at absolute minimum they'd take a hit in the pocketbook, if they managed to survive at all.

Government is not the solution to every social problem.

I can actually sympathize with the purpose of such laws when they were passed (Even though I disagree) but in the modern day they are really just an excuse for more government regulation and to punish the odd religious person like with that Muslim barber.

The "Free market" is nothing more than the sum of voluntary choices made by individuals. Unless almost everyone is a hypocrite, considering the massive support for such anti-discrimination laws, I doubt the racist businessowners who discriminate will get all that much business.

And then there's the fact that there aren't really that many overt racists anymore.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Nope. They don't have a right to use force just because the majority says so.

So all laws should be gentle suggestions?

 

[Borachio]

And then there's the fact that there aren't really that many overt racists anymore.

But the reason that racism is on the decline is because of laws.

Laws send a clear message that racism is unacceptable.

Without laws against racial prejudice, it would still exist as strong as before.

Laws are what enable a minority, of good people, to drag the majority, who just go along with whatever the status quo is, kicking and screaming into progress and a more equitable society.