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. 

---