Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:There are many difference. For one, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy when conducting business in public. 

 

It's very simple. You cannot discriminate when conducting business. What's abstract about that? 

 

I believe in a society where people stop finding new groups to discriminate against based on beliefs that, IMO, have no place in a modern society. 

 

Sure you do, for example your payment information you expect the company processing and taking that information to protect your privacy. Many contracts are negotiated in privacy, for protection of all parties involved. As a business person you are not required to disclose your purchase price and profit margins because privacy is a big part of business.

 

To say there's no reasonable expectation of privacy when conducting business is just simply inaccurate.

Quote:Sure you do, for example your payment information you expect the company processing and taking that information to protect your privacy. Many contracts are negotiated in privacy, for protection of all parties involved. As a business person you are not required to disclose your purchase price and profit margins because privacy is a big part of business.

 

To say there's no reasonable expectation of privacy when conducting business is just simply inaccurate.

 

 

If you walk to someone's business on your way you have no privacy when you go in you have no privacy and upon being turned away for being a heathen gay liberal you still have no expectation of privacy. 

 

That's the part of my comment you had a problem with? Admit it, I'm winning you over

You keep mentioning the free market, but I'm not sure there is anything in the constitution that speaks about the free market as superior to the good of the nation as opposed to the freedoms of individuals.


I think deferring civil liberties to the whims of free market ideologies is trouble

Quote:You keep mentioning the free market, but I'm not sure there is anything in the constitution that speaks about the free market as superior to the good of the nation as opposed to the freedoms of individuals.


I think deferring civil liberties to the whims of free market ideologies is trouble

Sure I'll clarify I'm not saying free market trumps civil liberties. I'm saying the power of a free market is how you protect civil liberties not by legislating away other civil liberties.

Quote:If you walk to someone's business on your way you have no privacy when you go in you have no privacy and upon being turned away for being a heathen gay liberal you still have no expectation of privacy.


That's the part of my comment you had a problem with? Admit it, I'm winning you over

If you walk into someone's business you still have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That's why businesses have to disclose the use of cameras and recording devices. When you are conducting business there is still a right to privacy which is why you have to sign consent forms and give permission to pull credit. Privacy is as intertwined with commerce as the actual exchange of goods and services.

Quote:Sure I'll clarify I'm not saying free market trumps civil liberties. I'm saying the power of a free market is how you protect civil liberties not by legislating away other civil liberties.

And thus, we come back full circle to the topic of this thread!


Civil liberties are created or taken away based on social contract. In our case either via the constitution or in Indiana by the state government. These laws create civil liberties, or take them away. All this happens outside the free market.


Regulations, like the bill of rights, create liberty. The fee market is merely a space within the society where commerce occurs. Commerce has no grandiose idea of fairness or liberty or freedom. It's merely a space to make money for the things one works to produce.


Without the government, the free market would eventually implode. Without an economy, eventually the society would also be in trouble.


But to think that the do called free market and consumerism is the reason we have laws that protect citizens is false. Businesses don't care about such things. Profit is and always has been the only goal of the free market, nothing else.

Quote:And thus, we come back full circle to the topic of this thread!


Civil liberties are created or taken away based on social contract. In our case either via the constitution or in Indiana by the state government. These laws create civil liberties, or take them away. All this happens outside the free market.


Regulations, like the bill of rights, create liberty. The fee market is merely a space within the society where commerce occurs. Commerce has no grandiose idea of fairness or liberty or freedom. It's merely a space to make money for the things one works to produce.


Without the government, the free market would eventually implode. Without an economy, eventually the society would also be in trouble.


But to think that the do called free market and consumerism is the reason we have laws that protect citizens is false. Businesses don't care about such things. Profit is and always has been the only goal of the free market, nothing else.

 

One the constitution is written as an acknowledgement of natural rights, those rights are not derived from government or they would be subject to government. The Bill of Rights is written to trump any future government trying to impose on those natural rights.

 

Two I'm not saying the free market creates rights, as I stated before rights are natural, but they are influenced by the consumers of the market. For example if a company is practicing a social practice the market finds unacceptable the market will seek a different solution, eventually the social practice that is unacceptable either becomes acceptable, the company practicing it changes to stay in business, or they go out of business.

 

As for civil liberties you are correct these are social contracts beyond natural rights. What we define as a civil liberty is different from what it was defined as 100 years ago and it'll be different from what is defined 100 years in the future. which is why trying to create permanent legislation to defend moving moral standards is absurd. Allow people through the power of the purse to evolve the market with their purchasing power, that is the engine that drives capitalism the buyers power.

 

Capitalism only works when the market is free to pursue choice. You can have Liberty without Capitalism, you can't have Capitalism without Liberty.

It sure is nice how everyone else gets to tell me how to run my business. Would be nice if they had as much share in the risk as they seem to want to take in the operation.

Quote:It sure is nice how everyone else gets to tell me how to run my business. Would be nice if they had as much share in the risk as they seem to want to take in the operation.

 

I thought you where a pastor?

Really good discussion, Eric! There's a lot I wish to say, but heading to work...


I'll leave you with this...


Black folks were not allowed in certain restaurants in the south for decades under the free market... the free market was a ok with segregation. It wasn't until the people decided to regulate the abolishment of segregation did the free market comply with these civil liberties of black people.

Quote:I thought you where a pastor?

 

I'm ordained but I don't work in a church.

Quote:Really good discussion, Eric! There's a lot I wish to say, but heading to work...


I'll leave you with this...


Black folks were not allowed in certain restaurants in the south for decades under the free market... the free market was a ok with segregation. It wasn't until the people decided to regulate the abolishment of segregation to the free market comply with these civil liberties of black people.

 

And if I wanted to open my business to black people I'dve made a killing, but the racists were too entrenched to see it. See, enlightened self interest is the key to progress, not laws and regulation.

Quote:Really good discussion, Eric! There's a lot I wish to say, but heading to work...


I'll leave you with this...


Black folks were not allowed in certain restaurants in the south for decades under the free market... the free market was a ok with segregation. It wasn't until the people decided to regulate the abolishment of segregation did the free market comply with these civil liberties of black people.

 

I understand the argument for the laws, no doubt there was an issue but segregation was government sanctioned no? If the state does not have the power to force  participation they don't have the power to segregate association.

 

As for the racist that where segregating regardless of the legality of it, do you think they would be in business today? I don't, I think boycotts and protest would've either changed their behavior or driven them out of business. Perhaps I put to much faith in individual choice, however I would rather put to much faith in the good will of common man then to much faith in the power of the state to change our actions.

And let's not get so high and mighty about this that we forget that the issue isn't about access to wedding cakes, gay folks can find those anywhere in America. What this is really about is that certain groups will not permit people to disagree with them and will use the force of law to compel agreement when persuasian doesn't work.

You can be fat, thin, short, tall, black, white, chinese, mexican, gay or straight.. Doesn't matter. You will be discriminated against. That's the world we live in. As long as there are differences in individuals, there will be discrimination. It's a sad fact. You can fight it until you're blue in the face, but that won't ever change. It sucks to witness and you can speak your mind all you want, but you can't change what's in people's hearts. Only they can do that and I wouldn't hold my breath on that either.

Quote:I thought you where a pastor?

The two are not the same?

Quote:One the constitution is written as an acknowledgement of natural rights, those rights are not derived from government or they would be subject to government. The Bill of Rights is written to trump any future government trying to impose on those natural rights.

 

Two I'm not saying the free market creates rights, as I stated before rights are natural, but they are influenced by the consumers of the market. For example if a company is practicing a social practice the market finds unacceptable the market will seek a different solution, eventually the social practice that is unacceptable either becomes acceptable, the company practicing it changes to stay in business, or they go out of business.

 

As for civil liberties you are correct these are social contracts beyond natural rights. What we define as a civil liberty is different from what it was defined as 100 years ago and it'll be different from what is defined 100 years in the future. which is why trying to create permanent legislation to defend moving moral standards is absurd. Allow people through the power of the purse to evolve the market with their purchasing power, that is the engine that drives capitalism the buyers power.

 

Capitalism only works when the market is free to pursue choice. You can have Liberty without Capitalism, you can't have Capitalism without Liberty.

While I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that it should be on society first, I do think the government has a role to play in protecting groups that some portions are discriminating against. That is the crux of out debate. You argue that they should play no roll, I agreed they have some roll to play. 

 

Free market was completely fine with the company store type businesses and the people had no say because it was legal and they were stuck in it. 

Quote:And let's not get so high and mighty about this that we forget that the issue isn't about access to wedding cakes, gay folks can find those anywhere in America. What this is really about is that certain groups will not permit people to disagree with them and will use the force of law to compel agreement when persuasian doesn't work.

 That is what it's about. It's about equal access and protection from discrimination. 

Quote:While I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that it should be on society first, I do think the government has a role to play in protecting groups that some portions are discriminating against. That is the crux of out debate. You argue that they should play no roll, I agreed they have some roll to play.


Free market was completely fine with the company store type businesses and the people had no say because it was legal and they were stuck in it.

The problem you had during the pre-civil rights era was still legislating ethics, it was just on the other side where it was state sanctioned or legal discrimination.


What I'm saying is it should be neither legal nor illegal. It's a matter of choice between private parties. I absolutely agree however publicly funded institutions areas and establishments have to be made open to all with equal access.

Quote:The problem you had during the pre-civil rights era was still legislating ethics, it was just on the other side where it was state sanctioned or legal discrimination.


What I'm saying is it should be neither legal nor illegal. It's a matter of choice between private parties. I absolutely agree however publicly funded institutions areas and establishments have to be made open to all with equal access.

I think in a vacuum of society that could work. However, we are well past that. Based on the civil injustices of the past you wont see a return to zero legislation on discrimination for or against. It's a waste of time to argue in favor of striking down all anti-discrimination laws, which is what you are doing. Isn't it more productive to look at what could be done in the current landscape?