(no subject)

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/313613

Second amendment rights. But only for Christians and McCain voters.

This is really dumb, and I'd like to see everyone in this comm agree that the owner of this store is violating the law and discriminating unjustly. That is my view, if there is another view out there, please, share it with me.

Comments

[prock.livejournal.com]

In the hands of Adam Smith anthropomorphizing markets was an informative metaphor. When you do it, you just sound loony.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Then listen to him if you can stomach his arguments better. Until you're able to address the underlying issue, though, you're not going to be able to get far. A basic understanding of a free market may help you understand the debate better.

[prock.livejournal.com]

Then listen to him if you can stomach his arguments better.

By all means, do quote Adam Smith to support your suggestion that markets which exclude participation are free.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

It's shorthand for "the culmination of all freely made decisions in an economy". It may be a bit too prosaic, but it's handy for cutting down a word-count.

[prock.livejournal.com]

People are "free" to shoot each other. But most libertarians would not agree that harming others to benefit one's self is a fundamental right.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Inherent in freedom, economic or otherwise, is the concept of mutual and equal individual dignity. Violence presupposes one has greater dignity than another. What you describe is taking license.

In the case of economic decisions and exchanges, both parties are equal in dignity and no one has claim over the other. That includes the dignity to assent or decline agreement on the part of either party in a given exchange.

[prock.livejournal.com]

In the case of economic decisions and exchanges, both parties are equal in dignity and no one has claim over the other. That includes the dignity to assent or decline agreement on the part of either party in a given exchange.

You're not making any sense here. This isn't about dignity. The limit of freedom end when you harm someone. Denying someone access to the marketplace harms them. The idea that you should be allowed to harm someone in such a way goes against basic libertarian principles.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

There is no sense in the idea that human dignity and freedom are not inextricably linked.

Only if all sellers refused to sell is harm incurred. The highest likelihood of those conditions arising were in the pre-civil rights south, in this country, and even then it required the state and local governments ignoring the 14th amendment in order to maintain it. Since then, the probability has significantly dropped due to population shift and increased communication technology. Now, if the bigot won't sell to me, there's a Wal-Mart within range that will.

[prock.livejournal.com]

Only if all sellers refused to sell is harm incurred.

Refusal by any seller harms free markets by increasing transaction costs for market participants. Markets with high friction cannot be free markets because supply and demand cannot operate to properly price goods.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

No they're not free to shoot each other. "Free" refers to the freedom to exercise a right. You don't have a right to violate a right.

[prock.livejournal.com]

Yes, you'll note the quotes around the word "free" above.