(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

Public and Private Discrimination

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

You can discriminate in your private life to your heart's content on whatever basis you think is appropriate according to one's morality and conscience.

However in the public sphere, and that includes the legal trade of goods and services using legal tender, you cannot.

As it should be, end of story.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

However in the public sphere, and that includes the legal trade of goods and services using legal tender, you cannot.

As it should be, end of story.

I'll say it again - no one has the right to anyone else's goods or services. The private sphere is private for a reason, and to pretend that private transactions exist "in the public sphere" is a distortion of that process.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

It is carried out in accordance to public law, it uses public money and is advertised among the public. It is not a private transaction.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It is carried out in accordance to public law, it uses public money and is advertised among the public. It is not a private transaction.

Well, "public law" is wrong in this instance, that's the problem.

"Public money" is an interesting term. Are you now saying people are not entitled to the money they earn? If the transactions are done without legal tender (i.e, through debt/credit systems as an example), does that pass your test?

"Advertised among the public" doesn't make much sense, either - newspapers are private entities, as are television stations. Those are also private transactions.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[prock.livejournal.com]

Well, "public law" is wrong in this instance, that's the problem.

Quite the contrary, it's you who are wrong. A priori exclusion from the marketplace is unjust and cannot be tolerated in a libertarian marketplace. Your right to freely associate does not trump someone else's right to access markets.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

You're confusing the rights of the 1st party and the 3rd party.

Third parties can not do so without violating free association.

There is no harm done by a first party refusing to associate because by "harm", we mean a "harm to a right" not "harm" in the sense of less than optimal outcome to the individual. You don't have a right to force association.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[prock.livejournal.com]

You don't have a right to force association.

The right you do have, is the right to patronize in the marketplace. Freedom of association does not trump that right. You cannot deny access to your marketplace based on your desire to not associate with a class of people.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

You're using an asymmetrical tautology to create an argument.

Economic harm is itself not the same as harming freedom. If I am precluded from buying the cheapest eggs because a private seller won't give me a discount, then I am "harmed" economically but every one of my rights remains intact.

Saying that it harms the individual... and since we have a right not be harmed... it's a violation of rights is tautology at its worst.

Every example of those talking about the freedom of markets seems to talk about the problems when a third person intervenes. I've never saw anyone say that a private seller refusing to sell to a certain individual is hindering a free market.

But if you got a quote, feel free to post it.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[prock.livejournal.com]

Economic harm is itself not the same as harming freedom.

No one said it was.

If I am precluded from buying the cheapest eggs because a private seller won't give me a discount, then I am "harmed" economically

No you're not.

I've never saw anyone say that a private seller refusing to sell to a certain individual is hindering a free market.

This discussion isn't about refusing to sell to a certain individual. It's about a vendor discriminating against classes of individuals.

Maybe that's where you got confused.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Quite the contrary, it's you who are wrong.

So you say.

A priori exclusion from the marketplace is unjust and cannot be tolerated in a libertarian marketplace.

How do you figure?

Your right to freely associate does not trump someone else's right to access markets.

No one has the right to access private markets.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[prock.livejournal.com]

How do you figure?

Your freedom to act does not include acting to harm others.

No one has the right to access private markets.

We aren't talking about private markets. We are talking about free markets. Private markets are by definition, not free.

BTW, I'm still waiting for your Adam Smith quotes which supports your suggestion that markets which exclude participation are free.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Your freedom to act does not include acting to harm others.

There is no harm in this case. The harm comes from infrigning on people's private property rights, if anything.

We aren't talking about private markets. We are talking about free markets. Private markets are by definition, not free.

Your definition continues to be strange. A free market is a marketplace comprised of private marketplaces - your private bookstores, your private grocers, etc.

BTW, I'm still waiting for your Adam Smith quotes which supports your suggestion that markets which exclude participation are free.

You'll be waiting for a while then. You said you prefer Smith's arguments, so I told you that you can go read those if you prefer. I did not cite Smith at any point.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[prock.livejournal.com]

Your freedom to act does not include acting to harm others.

There is no harm in this case.

Restricting access to markets increases costs for that person to participate in the market.

A free market is a marketplace comprised of private marketplaces - your private bookstores, your private grocers, etc.

Making things up to support your own errors isn't going to advance your argument. You're free to do all the crazy talk you like. In the real world things don't operate the way you pretend they do, and you'll find no one with any credibility on the matter that agrees with you.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Restricting access to markets increases costs for that person to participate in the market.

But participation in a market is not a right, especially a market managed by a private entity.

Making things up to support your own errors isn't going to advance your argument. You're free to do all the crazy talk you like. In the real world things don't operate the way you pretend they do, and you'll find no one with any credibility on the matter that agrees with you.

And your evidence to support your claim is what, exactly? The marketplace is clearly comprised mostly by private players with private interests. I don't see you refuting this very well, arguably at all.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[prock.livejournal.com]

You're the one making the extraordinary claims here not I:

BJ: "Well, "public law" is wrong in this instance, that's the problem."
BJ: "A free market is a marketplace comprised of private marketplaces"

If you wish to do business with the general public, then you are not operating in a private marketplace. The idea that "public law" is wrong about this stuff, and that you are correct seems quite dubious.

I'll wager the side of public law over your meandering musings any day.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If you wish to do business with the general public, then you are not operating in a private marketplace.

I don't see how that squares. Opening to the public does not somehow many a private entity public. A private school is open to the public to "purchase" education from - that doesn't make it a public school.

The idea that "public law" is wrong about this stuff, and that you are correct seems quite dubious.

Well, let's run with the public/private school situation for a moment. Private schools can discriminate based on gender. Private schools are not subject to state/national testing. And yet they're "open to the public" the same way a supermarket can be.

I'll wager the side of public law over your meandering musings any day.

I hope you put some thought into it first as opposed to assuming might equals right.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Are you now saying people are not entitled to the money they earn?

Not automatically. They are only entitled to the money they earn as long it is in accordance to law. This is why, for example, you can't sell property that legally belongs to another person, or contraband.

If the transactions are done without legal tender (i.e, through debt/credit systems as an example), does that pass your test?

No, of course not. Credit and debit cards still are referents to legal tender and legal transactions.

"Advertised among the public" doesn't make much sense

It doesn't matter if newspapers or televisions stations are privately owned. Their broadcast is public.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Not automatically. They are only entitled to the money they earn as long it is in accordance to law. This is why, for example, you can't sell property that legally belongs to another person, or contraband.

Right, but both of those things are actual violations of property rights, which is why the government has an interest. In that money, legally obtained and used in private transactions that do not otherwise violate actual rights, can be used, there shouldn't be an issue here.

No, of course not. Credit and debit cards still are referents to legal tender and legal transactions.

They "refer" to it, sure. Trade and barter does, too, after all, as everything has a monetary price.

It doesn't matter if newspapers or televisions stations are privately owned. Their broadcast is public.

A cable network is not a "public" broadcast. A newspaper certainly is not.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Right, but both of those things are actual violations of property rights, which is why the government has an interest.

... and discrimination is an actual violation of exchange rights. See?

A cable network is not a "public" broadcast. A newspaper certainly is not.

Can a member of the public purchase a cable network? In a public environment? etc.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'Can a member of the public purchase a cable network? In a public environment? etc'

Actually all cable systems were privately owned or privately incorporated when they started up. Literally some systems were owned and managed by one guy or his family.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

So what?

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

... and discrimination is an actual violation of exchange rights. See?

No, because there are no "exchange rights" between private entities, as it stands.

Can a member of the public purchase a cable network? In a public environment? etc.

A cable network in a private environment, sure. Publicly-traded networks (with all the lunacy that entails) aside, cable networks can be bought and purchased freely.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

No, because there are no "exchange rights" between private entities, as it stands.

Actually there are. Apparently you'd prefer that there wasn't, but there is.

Publicly-traded networks (with all the lunacy that entails) aside, cable networks can be bought and purchased freely.

Right. So they're public transactions. Thanks.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Actually there are. Apparently you'd prefer that there wasn't, but there is.

Okay, where? Where are these rights, what specifically are they?

Right. So they're public transactions. Thanks.

....no. They're distinctly private transactions. If TCPIP-TV is up for sale, and I purchase it, this wasn't a public transaction.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Okay, where? Where are these rights, what specifically are they?

For example (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Consumerrights/Yourconsumerrightswhenbuyinggoodsandservices/DG_182935).

If TCPIP-TV is up for sale, and I purchase it, this wasn't a public transaction.

Er, yes it is. This a very good example of the conceptual difficulty you're having in this discussion.