Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Politics Episode 8: WWF Edition


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
575 replies to this topic

#41
Guard Dog

Guard Dog

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 555 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

Val, specifically what is your beef with the Civil Rights Act? Aside from the one small part I mentioned, I'm not seeing the problem here.



#42
rjshae

rjshae

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 4426 posts
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Now 44 States Have Refused Trump's Commission's Demand For Personal Info on Voters

 

I wonder who's left?



#43
Namutree

Namutree

    Compulsive Double Poster of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1710 posts
  • Location:Michigan
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

 

 

 

 

The 'Civil rights Act' is an abomination to anyone who truly appreciates freedom.

 

I realize that you and pretty much every American, and possibly even those overseas were taught it's an amazing thing, but did you ever actually read it and objectively think about it for yourself?

 

It's got some really good things in it, I'll say that. But it's also got some downright evil things, packaged in seemingly well intentions and certainly advertised as such.

 

Some of the major problems our nation is currently facing have their origins in this legislation, and the rot is only going to go deeper until the problem is recognized.

Tip: If something is downright taboo to question, if some of the masses kneejerk flipout at the questioning of it as they've been conditioned to do, you should seriously take a deep look at it. And from experience, chances are high that if you do, things are not as they are going to be as you were told they were, and probably even believed they were: at least in part, but possibly even in whole.

Primary sources are an amazing thing. The truth to a lot of things are out there if one bothers to look. And the truth isn't always pretty.

 

 

Or that restaurants and other public business could restrict their customers. If it's open to the public it has to be open to all the public.

 

Business' are privately owned. A PRIVATE business has every right to dictate who can and cannot receive their services. If you don't like how they do things; you take your business elsewhere or start your own.

 

As a libertarian I'd expect you to know better. It's social engineering (NOT A LEGITIMATE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT) at the expense of property rights. Val is right; the bill in such respects is an abomination. 



#44
Ben No.3

Ben No.3

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 525 posts
  • Location:Frankfurt a. M., Germany




The 'Civil rights Act' is an abomination to anyone who truly appreciates freedom.

I realize that you and pretty much every American, and possibly even those overseas were taught it's an amazing thing, but did you ever actually read it and objectively think about it for yourself?

It's got some really good things in it, I'll say that. But it's also got some downright evil things, packaged in seemingly well intentions and certainly advertised as such.

Some of the major problems our nation is currently facing have their origins in this legislation, and the rot is only going to go deeper until the problem is recognized.

Tip: If something is downright taboo to question, if some of the masses kneejerk flipout at the questioning of it as they've been conditioned to do, you should seriously take a deep look at it. And from experience, chances are high that if you do, things are not as they are going to be as you were told they were, and probably even believed they were: at least in part, but possibly even in whole.

Primary sources are an amazing thing. The truth to a lot of things are out there if one bothers to look. And the truth isn't always pretty.


Or that restaurants and other public business could restrict their customers. If it's open to the public it has to be open to all the public.
Business' are privately owned. A PRIVATE business has every right to dictate who can and cannot receive their services. If you don't like how they do things; you take your business elsewhere or start your own.

As a libertarian I'd expect you to know better. It's social engineering (NOT A LEGITIMATE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT) at the expense of property rights. Val is right; the bill in such respects is an abomination.
I've said it before and I will say it again: freedom a d equality can only go hand in hand. If I leave one with the ability, or the freedom if you will, to take others freedom through whatever form of, let's be honest, more or less randomly created social hierarchy (race, sex, wealth, inheritance, faith,...), nothing is won.

#45
Namutree

Namutree

    Compulsive Double Poster of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1710 posts
  • Location:Michigan
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

 

 

 



The 'Civil rights Act' is an abomination to anyone who truly appreciates freedom.

I realize that you and pretty much every American, and possibly even those overseas were taught it's an amazing thing, but did you ever actually read it and objectively think about it for yourself?

It's got some really good things in it, I'll say that. But it's also got some downright evil things, packaged in seemingly well intentions and certainly advertised as such.

Some of the major problems our nation is currently facing have their origins in this legislation, and the rot is only going to go deeper until the problem is recognized.

Tip: If something is downright taboo to question, if some of the masses kneejerk flipout at the questioning of it as they've been conditioned to do, you should seriously take a deep look at it. And from experience, chances are high that if you do, things are not as they are going to be as you were told they were, and probably even believed they were: at least in part, but possibly even in whole.

Primary sources are an amazing thing. The truth to a lot of things are out there if one bothers to look. And the truth isn't always pretty.


Or that restaurants and other public business could restrict their customers. If it's open to the public it has to be open to all the public.
Business' are privately owned. A PRIVATE business has every right to dictate who can and cannot receive their services. If you don't like how they do things; you take your business elsewhere or start your own.

As a libertarian I'd expect you to know better. It's social engineering (NOT A LEGITIMATE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT) at the expense of property rights. Val is right; the bill in such respects is an abomination.
I've said it before and I will say it again: freedom a d equality can only go hand in hand. If I leave one with the ability, or the freedom if you will, to take others freedom through whatever form of, let's be honest, more or less randomly created social hierarchy (race, sex, wealth, inheritance, faith,...), nothing is won.

 

Wut? 



#46
Sharp_one

Sharp_one

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 687 posts
  • Location:Poland

 

 

 



The 'Civil rights Act' is an abomination to anyone who truly appreciates freedom.

I realize that you and pretty much every American, and possibly even those overseas were taught it's an amazing thing, but did you ever actually read it and objectively think about it for yourself?

It's got some really good things in it, I'll say that. But it's also got some downright evil things, packaged in seemingly well intentions and certainly advertised as such.

Some of the major problems our nation is currently facing have their origins in this legislation, and the rot is only going to go deeper until the problem is recognized.

Tip: If something is downright taboo to question, if some of the masses kneejerk flipout at the questioning of it as they've been conditioned to do, you should seriously take a deep look at it. And from experience, chances are high that if you do, things are not as they are going to be as you were told they were, and probably even believed they were: at least in part, but possibly even in whole.

Primary sources are an amazing thing. The truth to a lot of things are out there if one bothers to look. And the truth isn't always pretty.


Or that restaurants and other public business could restrict their customers. If it's open to the public it has to be open to all the public.
Business' are privately owned. A PRIVATE business has every right to dictate who can and cannot receive their services. If you don't like how they do things; you take your business elsewhere or start your own.

As a libertarian I'd expect you to know better. It's social engineering (NOT A LEGITIMATE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT) at the expense of property rights. Val is right; the bill in such respects is an abomination.
I've said it before and I will say it again: freedom a d equality can only go hand in hand. If I leave one with the ability, or the freedom if you will, to take others freedom through whatever form of, let's be honest, more or less randomly created social hierarchy (race, sex, wealth, inheritance, faith,...), nothing is won.

 

 

And where is the freedom in forcing a private owner to run their business as government sees fit? 

There is a simple rule: your freedom ends where others freedom begins. 

Business owners have the right to choose whom they provide their service to. It's not taking anyone's freedom, because no one have a right to force someone else to serve them. When you opt for businesses to serve someone they don't agree to serve under the threat of penalty you opt for slavery.



#47
Ben No.3

Ben No.3

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 525 posts
  • Location:Frankfurt a. M., Germany

The 'Civil rights Act' is an abomination to anyone who truly appreciates freedom.

I realize that you and pretty much every American, and possibly even those overseas were taught it's an amazing thing, but did you ever actually read it and objectively think about it for yourself?

It's got some really good things in it, I'll say that. But it's also got some downright evil things, packaged in seemingly well intentions and certainly advertised as such.

Some of the major problems our nation is currently facing have their origins in this legislation, and the rot is only going to go deeper until the problem is recognized.

Tip: If something is downright taboo to question, if some of the masses kneejerk flipout at the questioning of it as they've been conditioned to do, you should seriously take a deep look at it. And from experience, chances are high that if you do, things are not as they are going to be as you were told they were, and probably even believed they were: at least in part, but possibly even in whole.

Primary sources are an amazing thing. The truth to a lot of things are out there if one bothers to look. And the truth isn't always pretty.

Or that restaurants and other public business could restrict their customers. If it's open to the public it has to be open to all the public.
Business' are privately owned. A PRIVATE business has every right to dictate who can and cannot receive their services. If you don't like how they do things; you take your business elsewhere or start your own.

As a libertarian I'd expect you to know better. It's social engineering (NOT A LEGITIMATE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT) at the expense of property rights. Val is right; the bill in such respects is an abomination.
I've said it before and I will say it again: freedom a d equality can only go hand in hand. If I leave one with the ability, or the freedom if you will, to take others freedom through whatever form of, let's be honest, more or less randomly created social hierarchy (race, sex, wealth, inheritance, faith,...), nothing is won.
And where is the freedom in forcing a private owner to run their business as government sees fit?
There is a simple rule: your freedom ends where others freedom begins.
Business owners have the right to choose whom they provide their service to. It's not taking anyone's freedom, because no one have a right to force someone else to serve them. When you opt for businesses to serve someone they don't agree to serve under the threat of penalty you opt for slavery.
one might say the same thing about actual slavery: I do indeed take away the slavers freedom to own slaves if I prohibit slavery. But doing that is central to the liberation of the slaves. So, we have a conflict between two kinds of freedom: freedom of oppression and freedom to oppress. In this case, the former should always win.

Similarly, the given case is a conflict between the freedom of discrimination and the freedom to discriminate. Because the freedom of discrimination is vital to a persons free life and the freedom to discriminate is not; and because I can choose wether I discriminate, but I can not choose wether I will be discriminated; the former must win.

Edited by Ben No.3, 05 July 2017 - 04:01 AM.

  • Hurlshot and Guard Dog like this

#48
Sharp_one

Sharp_one

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 687 posts
  • Location:Poland

one might say the same thing about actual slavery: I do indeed take away the slavers freedom to own slaves if I prohibit slavery. But doing that is central to the liberation of the slaves. So, we have a conflict between two kinds of freedom: freedom of oppression and freedom to oppress. In this case, the former should always win.


Similarly, the given case is a conflict between the freedom of discrimination and the freedom to discriminate. Because the freedom of discrimination is vital to a persons free life and the freedom to discriminate is not; and because I can choose wether I discriminate, but I can not choose wether I will be discriminated; the former must win.


I disagree. Slavery brakes the rule I mentioned above: Your freedom ends where another freedom begins.
Your definition of discrimination is very broad and nonsensical.
Discrimination is systemic. If based on race, gender, faith etc. you have different laws/rights we are dealing with discrimination. Interaction between two people is not discrimination and shouldn't be governed by the authorities unless there is criminal behavior involved.

Answer me this simple questions:
1. Do I have the right to NOT allow people in my house based on their race, gender, whatever? Yes/No.
2. If yes than why my business should follow different rules?
3. If no than why is it ok for the government to tell who I should allow in my house?

#49
Guard Dog

Guard Dog

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 555 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

 


 

Business' are privately owned. A PRIVATE business has every right to dictate who can and cannot receive their services. If you don't like how they do things; you take your business elsewhere or start your own.

 

As a libertarian I'd expect you to know better. It's social engineering (NOT A LEGITIMATE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT) at the expense of property rights. Val is right; the bill in such respects is an abomination. 

 

Privately owned but operate in the public space, serviced by public roads, etc. The Civil Right Act did in fact carve out an exception for private clubs/enterprises. Those being defined as only offering services to members not the public at large. For example, Tiger Woods won his first Masters at Augusta, but he could never join the club whose course he dominated. Well, he could now but not then. If a business operates in the public domain, uses public utilities, is a publicly traded company, if it's open to the public it must be open to all the public.

 

And yes I am a Libertarian because I'm closer to that than anything else. Libertarianisim is not anarchy. Advocating for minimal restraint is not asking for NO restraint on the individual. And I'm not 100% Libertarian. Probably 85% at best. If anyone claims to be 100% in line with any political philosophy I'd advise them to learn how to start thinking on their own before it's too late.


  • Hurlshot, ShadySands, Malcador and 1 other like this

#50
Guard Dog

Guard Dog

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 555 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

 

one might say the same thing about actual slavery: I do indeed take away the slavers freedom to own slaves if I prohibit slavery. But doing that is central to the liberation of the slaves. So, we have a conflict between two kinds of freedom: freedom of oppression and freedom to oppress. In this case, the former should always win.


Similarly, the given case is a conflict between the freedom of discrimination and the freedom to discriminate. Because the freedom of discrimination is vital to a persons free life and the freedom to discriminate is not; and because I can choose wether I discriminate, but I can not choose wether I will be discriminated; the former must win.


I disagree. Slavery brakes the rule I mentioned above: Your freedom ends where another freedom begins.
Your definition of discrimination is very broad and nonsensical.
Discrimination is systemic. If based on race, gender, faith etc. you have different laws/rights we are dealing with discrimination. Interaction between two people is not discrimination and shouldn't be governed by the authorities unless there is criminal behavior involved.

Answer me this simple questions:
1. Do I have the right to NOT allow people in my house based on their race, gender, whatever? Yes/No.
2. If yes than why my business should follow different rules?
3. If no than why is it ok for the government to tell who I should allow in my house?

 

In your house? Yes. See my answer above for the rest.



#51
Ben No.3

Ben No.3

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 525 posts
  • Location:Frankfurt a. M., Germany
[quote name="Sharp_one" post="1922470" timestamp="1499257641"]


one might say the same thing about actual slavery: I do indeed take away the slavers freedom to own slaves if I prohibit slavery. But doing that is central to the liberation of the slaves. So, we have a conflict between two kinds of freedom: freedom of oppression and freedom to oppress. In this case, the former should always win.


Similarly, the given case is a conflict between the freedom of discrimination and the freedom to discriminate. Because the freedom of discrimination is vital to a persons free life and the freedom to discriminate is not; and because I can choose wether I discriminate, but I can not choose wether I will be discriminated; the former must win.
I disagree. Slavery brakes the rule I mentioned above: Your freedom ends where another freedom begins.
Your definition of discrimination is very broad and nonsensical. [/quote]
In my book, discrimination is the exclusion of a group of people based on a shared characteristic of said people, agreed?

Discrimination is systemic. If based on race, gender, faith etc. you have different laws/rights we are dealing with discrimination. Interaction between two people is not discrimination and shouldn't be governed by the authorities unless there is criminal behavior involved.

If we ask wether an action should be legal, starting it's momentary legal status isn't particularly helpful

[/quote]Answer me this simple questions:
1. Do I have the right to NOT allow people in my house based on their race, gender, whatever? Yes/No.[/quote]
Yes, as you have the right to protect your private life from whatever guy conceive as an intrusion. Your space, your matter.

2. If yes than why my business should follow different rules?
because your business is not a private entity, you have severe effects on for example the lives of your employees and, to a lesser extent, to those of your customers.

3. If no than why is it ok for the government to tell who I should allow in my house?
nvm

Edited by Ben No.3, 05 July 2017 - 05:29 AM.


#52
Ben No.3

Ben No.3

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 525 posts
  • Location:Frankfurt a. M., Germany

Business' are privately owned. A PRIVATE business has every right to dictate who can and cannot receive their services. If you don't like how they do things; you take your business elsewhere or start your own.

As a libertarian I'd expect you to know better. It's social engineering (NOT A LEGITIMATE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT) at the expense of property rights. Val is right; the bill in such respects is an abomination.
Privately owned but operate in the public space, serviced by public roads, etc. The Civil Right Act did in fact carve out an exception for private clubs/enterprises. Those being defined as only offering services to members not the public at large. For example, Tiger Woods won his first Masters at Augusta, but he could never join the club whose course he dominated. Well, he could now but not then. If a business operates in the public domain, uses public utilities, is a publicly traded company, if it's open to the public it must be open to all the public.

And yes I am a Libertarian because I'm closer to that than anything else. Libertarianisim is not anarchy. Advocating for minimal restraint is not asking for NO restraint on the individual. And I'm not 100% Libertarian. Probably 85% at best. If anyone claims to be 100% in line with any political philosophy I'd advise them to learn how to start thinking on their own before it's too late.
Who said that about ppl being dead wrong if I agree with either you or sharp? So what happens in these cases? ;)

Edited by Ben No.3, 05 July 2017 - 05:51 AM.

  • Guard Dog likes this

#53
Hurlshot

Hurlshot

    Obsidian Order Hockey Puck

  • Members
  • 8474 posts
  • Location:Gilroy, CA
  • Xbox Gamertag:Hurlshot
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

It's interesting that Namutree mentioned social engineering when that is exactly what you had going on before the Civil Rights Act. I assume you think it is morally reprehensible to not allow black people to sit at the same tables as white people at restaurants, etc. You had a culture of systematic and blatant discrimination in this country. It didn't happen by accident, it was engineered over centuries by one race over another. 

 

I'm not a fan of big government, but I'm not sure what you see as a solution here that doesn't involve the government. Race wars?



#54
Sharp_one

Sharp_one

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 687 posts
  • Location:Poland

Business' are privately owned. A PRIVATE business has every right to dictate who can and cannot receive their services. If you don't like how they do things; you take your business elsewhere or start your own.
 
As a libertarian I'd expect you to know better. It's social engineering (NOT A LEGITIMATE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT) at the expense of property rights. Val is right; the bill in such respects is an abomination.

Privately owned but operate in the public space, serviced by public roads, etc. The Civil Right Act did in fact carve out an exception for private clubs/enterprises. Those being defined as only offering services to members not the public at large. For example, Tiger Woods won his first Masters at Augusta, but he could never join the club whose course he dominated. Well, he could now but not then. If a business operates in the public domain, uses public utilities, is a publicly traded company, if it's open to the public it must be open to all the public.
 
And yes I am a Libertarian because I'm closer to that than anything else. Libertarianisim is not anarchy. Advocating for minimal restraint is not asking for NO restraint on the individual. And I'm not 100% Libertarian. Probably 85% at best. If anyone claims to be 100% in line with any political philosophy I'd advise them to learn how to start thinking on their own before it's too late.

 
Well my house also operates in public space, uses public infrastructure and I use public roads for it to function. So it operates in the same manner as my company, even more so as we use private generators for electricity in the company for technological reasons rather than public electric grid.
 
So the argument, it uses public space therefor it has to be open to all public, is invalid as you have two spaces that qualify yet you only apply the rule to one. And the fact that you can have gay bars and Jewish book clubs and not gay toolsheds and Jewish food stores only add to the nonsense of this law and shows it's just arbitrary way to control people.

The infrastructure is not for free you know I pay for it, so why should it have further attachments? I don't force my clients to support me or pay my kids tuition because they bought my product.
 

In my book, discrimination is the exclusion of a group of people based on a shared characteristic of said people, agreed?


Disagree.
In that case I understand that you oppose gay bars, black clubs etc. as being discriminatory? If not than you are a hypocrite.
As I said if it's not systemic it's not discrimination.
 
 

1. Do I have the right to NOT allow people in my house based on their race, gender, whatever? Yes/No.

Yes, as you have the right to protect your private life from whatever guy conceive as an intrusion. Your space, your matter.


If my space my matter why it doesn't apply to my company?
 

2. If yes than why my business should follow different rules?

because your business is not a private entity, you have severe effects on for example the lives of your employees and, to a lesser extent, to those of your customers.


Actually my business is a private entity. And as there are only private and public entities claiming that all companies are public entities is a communist idea and should be discarded with it on the trash of history.

I also have effect on people in my house also. Why does it matter?

Funny thing that it only apply to my success and when it comes to "sharings" the spoils of my hard work. If for example I have a loss in a month or a quarter then the "socialists" don't come and offer to "participate" in the costs. I cannot say that we have 30% loss so employees will get 30% less payment, I would pay a fine or go to jail. If I go bancrupt than it's "my business", "my responsibility" and "my loss".
So I will never agree that I as an owner have any obligation to the public or my employees, because:

1. I pay for public infrastructure just like anybody else and in accordance to the usage (I use more, I pay more).
2. I put on the line my life, lives savings, my family future etc. My employees risk... loosing a job, well boo hoo.

So putting any restriction on my decisions to how I should run business are inherently immoral in my view.

#55
Ben No.3

Ben No.3

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 525 posts
  • Location:Frankfurt a. M., Germany
I will answer more elaborately but let me say that I do oppose gay clubs who only let in gays; but it's totally fine if their target is to attract gays.... it isn't that complicated

#56
Hurlshot

Hurlshot

    Obsidian Order Hockey Puck

  • Members
  • 8474 posts
  • Location:Gilroy, CA
  • Xbox Gamertag:Hurlshot
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
Gay bars don't only serve gay people. Anyone can go in and order a drink. I mean, it is one of the few bars where I get better sevice than my wife, but it isn't open discrimination.
  • Azdeus and Ben No.3 like this

#57
Sharp_one

Sharp_one

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 687 posts
  • Location:Poland

Gay bars don't only serve gay people. Anyone can go in and order a drink. I mean, it is one of the few bars where I get better sevice than my wife, but it isn't open discrimination.


There are gay only establishments, there are other establishments that only cater and let in a specific groups. Let's not nitpick.

#58
Sharp_one

Sharp_one

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 687 posts
  • Location:Poland

I will answer more elaborately but let me say that I do oppose gay clubs who only let in gays; but it's totally fine if their target is to attract gays.... it isn't that complicated


No one said it's complicated. You are just a communist ideology believer.
You oppose personal liberties and would like to control people and how they live.
"Been there done that, got the scars."

#59
Guard Dog

Guard Dog

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 555 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

@Sharp One: Your home is not open to the public. If it were, for example if you operated a restaurant from you home then it becomes open to the public if you advertise and invite the public in. Then you don't get to discriminate who comes in, unless they violate a reasonable rule of your establishment (dress code for example). If your restaurant were not open to the general public, say it were invitation only, then it would qualify for the private club exception. 

 

You see the difference here?


  • Hurlshot, Azdeus and Ben No.3 like this

#60
Hurlshot

Hurlshot

    Obsidian Order Hockey Puck

  • Members
  • 8474 posts
  • Location:Gilroy, CA
  • Xbox Gamertag:Hurlshot
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

 

Gay bars don't only serve gay people. Anyone can go in and order a drink. I mean, it is one of the few bars where I get better sevice than my wife, but it isn't open discrimination.


There are gay only establishments, there are other establishments that only cater and let in a specific groups. Let's not nitpick.

 

 

Not in the US. It is hardly nitpicking. I live in the Bay Area and I've never heard of a gay only establishment, and we have a pretty large gay community.

 

Of course there are businesses that cater to certain crowds. My running shop sells shoes for runners. That doesn't mean they will turn away people who are out of shape.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users