[identity profile] enders-shadow.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] talkpolitics
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.

(no subject)

Date: 31/10/11 05:11 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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.

(no subject)

Date: 31/10/11 05:36 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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.

(no subject)

Date: 31/10/11 06:27 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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.

(no subject)

Date: 31/10/11 14:18 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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.

(no subject)

Date: 31/10/11 15:48 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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.

(no subject)

Date: 31/10/11 17:40 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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.

(no subject)

Date: 31/10/11 11:33 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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.

(no subject)

Date: 31/10/11 14:14 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] prock.livejournal.com
Yes, you'll note the quotes around the word "free" above.

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods


MONTHLY TOPIC:

Failed States

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

June 2025

M T W T F S S
       1
2 34 5 678
910 1112 131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30