The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Free Speech (32 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4..13~14~15 [Next]
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5017 Posts

Profile of landmark
That wasn't meant to be a value judgement, though I disagree; I was genuinely surprised that each scenario was so wholeheartedly approved.

The reason the Gay cake thing is different is because it's pretty clear they would not make the cake for anyone; hence it's a service they don't provide in their business, and not discrimination against any one group. The restaurant example however is the denial of service that is provided to others, and therefore to me actual discrimination. So I would agree that the baker has a right of refusal, but not the restauranteur.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5017 Posts

Profile of landmark
By the way, I have a funny and relevant bakery story to tell, but I will have to wait until tonight when I am at my computer.
Terrible Wizard
View Profile
Inner circle
1973 Posts

Profile of Terrible Wizard
"I was genuinely surprised that each scenario was so wholeheartedly approved."
Makes we wish I was American. I still think the US is the freest nation on earth, and while it remains I have some hope.

So if a baker can refuse to make a gay wedding cake, can a hotel refuse to host a gay wedding reception?
NYCTwister
View Profile
Loyal user
267 Posts

Profile of NYCTwister
Quote:
On Dec 8, 2017, landmark wrote:
That wasn't meant to be a value judgement, though I disagree; I was genuinely surprised that each scenario was so wholeheartedly approved.


I can't speak for the others, but for me it's very simple.

In public areas and government establishments and dealings, it's right to establish laws to prevent and punish discrimination, harassment, etc. since this is supposed to be a secular society; which comes with both freedoms "of", and freedoms "from".

In all private areas where the cost and risk are assumed by an individual, or a group, then there should be no government involvement.

As far as the free market not destroying the businesses in question, I would add...yet.
There may even be short term gains as like minded bigots flock to support them; but in the long run they'll lose the battle of attrition - even in isolated areas.

Your point about the last hundred years is met by my asserting, AGAIN, that crony capitalism and true capitalism are not the same thing. And a market as heavily regulated as ours can hardly be called free; especially since the regulations can be bought.
I'm not saying no regulations, I'm saying the bear minimum.

Quote:
The reason the Gay cake thing is different is because it's pretty clear they would not make the cake for anyone; hence it's a service they don't provide in their business, and not discrimination against any one group. The restaurant example however is the denial of service that is provided to others, and therefore to me actual discrimination. So I would agree that the baker has a right of refusal, but not the restaurateur.


If they didn't make wedding cakes, then it's a non-issue - or a prefabricated one. If they did, then it's discrimination, but that's beside the point.
Since they bear cost and risk, then they have every right to decide what business they want to conduct, and the individuals which comprise the "market" will decide whether or not to do business with them.

I believe that a society of "good" people will choose not to do business with bigots. Maybe not immediately but eventually, and inexorably.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20533 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
I can only say... yep.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27137 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On Dec 8, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
... I believe that a society of "good" people will choose not to do business with bigots. Maybe not immediately but eventually, and inexorably.


That puts a precondition on an entire society of entirely/always "good" people and "eventually". But if you imagine the outcomes of a large number of transactions with "almost good" people you might get pretty much what we have today.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
NYCTwister
View Profile
Loyal user
267 Posts

Profile of NYCTwister
Agreed, but "almost good (enough)" has never been good enough for us.

Whatever the level of ability at the time, we keep trying.

Microscope? Telescope? Smile
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5017 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
Your point about the last hundred years is met by my asserting, AGAIN, that crony capitalism and true capitalism are not the same thing.


1) I find this incomprehensible. The Jim Crow period after the Civil War was the time in American history when both segregation and laissez-faire capitalism were at their peak. To think that laissez-faire capitalism would be the mechanism to end Jim Crow just flies in the face of history.

2) Many of the responses here ignore the fact that "private" businesses that do business with the public get public subsidies and use public resources and utilities; they get protections and tax rates that the ordinary public does not get. Commercial trucks can park on a busy Manhattan street where others may not park. We are not talking about private social clubs here, but businesses which operate to do commerce with the public.

3) How long is "eventually"? Framing this as an issue of freedom seems fishy to me. Where is the freedom for a person to be treated like anyone else? Is it really all right for a group of people to be denied services because of their race? Then what was the whole brouhaha about affirmative action here all about? Yale, a private college should be able to do whatever the heck they want according to that logic.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5017 Posts

Profile of landmark
The bakery story. When may wife and I got married we went to a local bakery to order the wedding cake. We knew they had good cakes, and a good price, so we picked out a cake. The owner was pleased and wished us congratulations. My last name is quite obviously Jewish, and the owner who was a Hasidic Jew (which I'm not) said, "By the way, you're not going to have any mixed dancing at the wedding will you?" I was kind of taken aback. "Because if you do, I can't sell the cake to you." My wife and I looked at each other, and I lied, "Of course not."

Does the owner have the right to scrutinize my religious practice as a condition of sale? Believe me, that didn't feel like freedom to me.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20533 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Yes.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
NYCTwister
View Profile
Loyal user
267 Posts

Profile of NYCTwister
Quote:
On Dec 8, 2017, landmark wrote:
Quote:
Your point about the last hundred years is met by my asserting, AGAIN, that crony capitalism and true capitalism are not the same thing.


1) I find this incomprehensible. The Jim Crow period after the Civil War was the time in American history when both segregation and laissez-faire capitalism were at their peak. To think that laissez-faire capitalism would be the mechanism to end Jim Crow just flies in the face of history.


Except that laissez-faire capitalism didn't exist then.

We may have conflicting definitions here. Define "free market", so I know we're talking about the same thing.

Quote:
2) Many of the responses here ignore the fact that "private" businesses that do business with the public get public subsidies and use public resources and utilities; they get protections and tax rates that the ordinary public does not get. Commercial trucks can park on a busy Manhattan street where others may not park. We are not talking about private social clubs here, but businesses which operate to do commerce with the public.


Sure. Once the free market gets corrupted you get things like that.

Quote:
3) How long is "eventually"? Framing this as an issue of freedom seems fishy to me. Where is the freedom for a person to be treated like anyone else?


There is no inherent right to insist that anyone else treat you the way you want to be treated.

Quote:
Is it really all right for a group of people to be denied services because of their race?


Morally? No, but in order for the correctness of that moral position to become evident, the denial of service needs to be played out.
Then society judges itself.

Quote:
Then what was the whole brouhaha about affirmative action here all about?


A stupid over-reaction which naturally made the problem worse?

Quote:
Yale, a private college should be able to do whatever the heck they want according to that logic.


Yes, as long as they follow objective laws.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5017 Posts

Profile of landmark
Well, if your ideal capitalism never existed and doesn't exist now, then how can you possibly want to act as if it does? If it's only pure virgin capitalism that will save the country from racism, how can you possibly allow racism to grow when that brand of capitalism is nowhere to be found? That "eventually" is then a "never" if we are talking about some kind of ideal that is supposed to set things right.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5017 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
Yes, as long as they follow objective laws.

I don't think you were a part of the affirmative action thread, but it was clear that some of the same people posting here now, thought that it was awful that colleges were allowed to count race as one factor in admissions. There's no way I see that the two positions can be reconciled.

As for defining "free market," I don't. That's why I always use the quotes. I don't believe such a thing exists. It's a unicorn created to justify a system which results in the members of the society acting in a sociopathic manner.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20533 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Hogwash. While a true free market may not exist to say it is to justify sociopathic behavior is ridiculous rehoric.

There are plenty of better examples of sociopaths who are socialists.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Terrible Wizard
View Profile
Inner circle
1973 Posts

Profile of Terrible Wizard
I don't believe positions on affirmative action and allowable free market discrimination are unreconcilable. Here's one harmonisation option:

A) Laws, government bodies, state run and publicly funded institutions cannot enact any discriminatory policies - as I've mentioned before, the sole focus of such bodies is quality for value for money. This necessitates wholesale meritocracy, so that you always get the best person for the position of the best student for the course or whatever. There is a mixed economy of state and private institutions, with it being legitimate for the state to wholly run certain monopolies or bodies (such as military, police etc) if necessary and democratically mandated.

B) Entirely private companies, whether it's a private school or hardware store or hotel or whatever, can have whatever discriminatory polices they wish so long as they are transparent and upfront - and suffer socially and financially accordingly. Should they have such policies? No, they are racist, and this should be pointed out to them loudly. But they can be racist if they wish. If they represent quality plus value for money, of course, then they can be used or obtain contracts from the state, but they couldn't be owned, run or funded by the state. There can be no legitimate private monopolies and there must be a genuine free market.

C) No body, state or private, can fire/discipline employees for any wrong-think, wrong-speech or wrong-affiliation. All individuals have robust free speech/ expression/affiliation/ thought protections. Other health and safety type laws, and employer ethics laws, could still apply if useful in promoting flourishing/ reducing harm and democratically mandated.

D) The state should not have anti-discrimination or hate speech laws and the such like. Circumscribed speech etc should be very narrowly defined in terms of clear and obvious public harm - like libel, credible threats of violence, etc. The state should have no part in defining, running or legislating contentious personal issues - like marriage, abortion or people's sex lives.
NYCTwister
View Profile
Loyal user
267 Posts

Profile of NYCTwister
Quote:
On Dec 8, 2017, landmark wrote:
Well, if your ideal capitalism never existed and doesn't exist now, then how can you possibly want to act as if it does? If it's only pure virgin capitalism that will save the country from racism, how can you possibly allow racism to grow when that brand of capitalism is nowhere to be found? That "eventually" is then a "never" if we are talking about some kind of ideal that is supposed to set things right.


You're mixing two things. I don't think about capitalism "saving" the country from racism, or anything else; and you should know that I'm not defending racists.

To me, in these contexts, "free" is an absolute. When you start from there, any regulation you impose must be based only on objective factors. All these knee-jerk reactions we're seeing these days are the result of trying to legislate by feelings.

Forcing a racist restaurant owner to be silent, and serve those they'd rather not serve, does nothing to stop racism. In fact it only makes it worse by forcing it underground, so to speak.
Look at the white supremacists. For decades we barely heard a word from them, but they obviously didn't disappear. Instead they closed ranks and went to ground. Now that the landscape is fertile they've emerged stronger, and better organized. And they have the internet now, which is a pretty good, cost effective way to spread information.

All the laws enacted didn't change a single mind; except maybe to harden the hate filled ones.

Free systems are obviously subject to abuse, but so are regulated systems.

The first, left alone, will self correct, so that eventually the desires of the majority of the users of those systems is the deciding factor in choosing what to do. There will be a lot of pain during the self correction, but it's better than the codified pain we've got with the current dog's breakfast. If society is, as I believe, comprised of "good" people, then we'll eventually reach what is objectively right.

Regulated systems, which often react to the outrage of the moment, can never self correct.

I want the racist restaurant owners to speak their minds so I can spend my money elsewhere. In your other examples I'd want to know so I could take a different bus, visit a different theater, or ship by FedEx.

Now that we have these anti-discrimination laws I'm spending money and supporting businesses owned by people with a mindset that I abhor...and so are you brother.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20533 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
The solution is not less freedom, it is more. The solution to hate speech is to allow it and let it be seen for what it actually is.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Terrible Wizard
View Profile
Inner circle
1973 Posts

Profile of Terrible Wizard
All speech should be allowed. One person's hate speech is another person's objective facts and truth told in love. Individuals can make their own mind's up.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20533 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
There are exceptions. Fire in the theater sort of thing.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5017 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On Dec 9, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
The solution is not less freedom, it is more. The solution to hate speech is to allow it and let it be seen for what it actually is.


I agree with you on this. And in order for that to happen, people must have equal access to speaking. Money should not be the deciding factor. If some people have access to a nationwide network of television and radio stations as well as a newspaper empire, then it's silly to say that their views are just one more voice in the "free market" of ideas. Some people have way more access to that market than others.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Free Speech (32 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4..13~14~15 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.22 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL