or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

That's a fine summary - I would not argue with any of it. 
Agreed. But legislation to promote equal rights and prevent discrimination is not intended to change anyone's beliefs, but rather to modify belief-based, discriminatory behavior.
 SECTION 1.IC34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]:Chapter 9. Religious Freedom RestorationSec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.Sec. 2. A...
The problem is not your explanation - it is that you now seem to be addressing a different question. I'm not arguing about the pros and cons of a free market per se, that's a quite separate discussion. My original comment was in response to numerous posts, here and elsewhere, asserting that the simple pressures of a free market will prevent discrimination, even if the law allows it, i.e. gays, blacks, or whoever, will either take their business elsewhere or actually move...
OK - so what stopped it from being a free market? And in the civil war through the 1960s period, how did it differ and become a free market? Both those periods were characterized by significant racial discrimination. And if the latter period was a free market, when segregation was widespread, how do you still maintain the argument that a free market will naturally prevent discrimination. I fail to see how you are furthering your argument in the slightest - in fact you seem...
Ah - so are you saying that they did not have the necessary legal protections to enable them to participate in the free market that the rest of the population enjoyed? And no, you don't have to be a socialist to understand that, because I didn't say it. Do I really need to explain that observing that slavery existed in the free market of that time neither requires, nor even suggests, that slavery and the free market are one and the same. No - I think you knew that, and...
So are you arguing that slavery and segregation did not thrive in a free market?
The free-market argument fails catastrophically anyway, by the simple observation that slavery and segregation thrived in a free-market USA before they were outlawed. Segregation was not ended by blacks taking their business elsewhere. 
I suspect that sustainability stems from cultural maturity. Or maybe I mean that I hope it does.
Interesting that the word has seen such diverse use, so point taken. It was my impression that the "elected representative" meaning did not become widely accepted until the 1800s - with its early connotations of simple public welfare being much more common, although your reference does suggest that it predates that by a century or so.
New Posts  All Forums: