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.
Actually it was. It's a common fallacy, but laws actually FOLLOW the social mood, and REFLECT the social mood, they do not create it. Check out Socionomics:
The Civil War was instigated on economic factors, not just racial... Race and slavery happened to define the differences between the economies of the North and South, but civil wars and revolutions happen for all kinds of secondary reasons AFTER economics.
Studies show that blacks were gaining in employment and managerial positions both before and after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There is scant evidence that the government actually helps people, or if it does it is always at the expense of other people. Civil Rights Act of 1964 is in my opinion a good law, but it's not the reason some blacks are doing better economically than they were before. It is an effect, and an encapsulation of the dominant social mood of the day, and not a cause.
So are you arguing that slavery and segregation did not thrive in a free market?
That's an excellent counter-example that proves the rule... The majority of governments are more like the nutbar Hawaiian governor, as that article shows.
If it wasn't obvious, I'm a libertarian and not a Republican. So I actually agree with the authors point how a Republican government would normally force the homeless people to take a drug test and throw up all kinds of obstacles. To me, that's just as bad as raising taxes to pay for boondoggles. If you've decided to give away homes to the homeless, then make it as cost effective with as little red tape as possible.
So it may surprise you to know, most Libertarians are realists and would fight for incremental change like this – reducing red tape on an existing government program is a very good thing. If the government already owns these homes due to property tax foreclosures then I would be pretty much 100% in favour of this program.
That's just it. They don't read the bible which is why they're so ignorant of it.
It has been my experience that arguments like these are made by people who are ignorant of the specifics of what Leviticus actually says and who it is written and applies to.
I didn't ask him (or her) what gave States the right to make laws. I asked him how giving States more freedom to abolish more individual freedoms was consistent with his (or her) otherwise libertarian-sounding rant.
It is not an anti-gay law. That is misinformation.
It is a law for freedom of association. You cannot force people to associate with people they don't want to associate with.
Are you from the US? Because if so, then your understanding of the constitutional reality of this country is seriously messed up. Let's say you own a restaurant. You don't want to "associate" with black people. Do you really think that you can ban black people from your restaurant?
The fact is, the 800 lb. elephant in the room is this: These proposals (and now laws, like in Indiana) talk about "religious" people not wanting to serve "sinners." Well, guess what? A basic tenet of Christianity is that EVERYONE is a sinner. So, in other words, if these merchants really lived up to their "beliefs" then they would serve NO ONE. Adulterer? No way. Alcoholic? Nope. Someone who says, "God damn!" Uh-uh. Anyone who has a tattoo? That's not going to happen.
Go read Leviticus some day.
Tim Cook is not only a good leader of Apple, he's a good man who believes in equality and, more importantly, people being decent to one and other. It's sad that you can't understand that.
He believes in equality as long as it does not interfere with his choice of lifestyle. He most certainly does not believe in the equality of the right to practice your deeply-held beliefs, unless they happen to coincide with his own beliefs. He seems far more interested in using the political leverage of Apple to advance his own beliefs as more appropriate than the beliefs of those that may disagree with him. Homosexuals are a vocal minority currently leveraging political turmoil to their own advantage. This has happened many times throughout history.
Refusing to overtly support homosexuality does not equate to racism; race is not any part of the equation. Besides, for every one bakery that feels strongly against making a cake with two male figurines on the top, there are a dozen that have no problem with it. The type of lowlife that tries to force these people to do something contrary to their personal convictions is just doing so to pick a fight in an environment where the social barometer is still such that no minority member of society can get their feelings hurt, no matter the expense to majority members of society. They could easily take their business elsewhere, but they want the fight, to prove some inexplicable point ("I can FORCE you to do something against your most closely-held beliefs, or you will get shut down by the government. - give up your beliefs or die!").
I personally see the issue a little differently; I do see homosexuality as wrong, just as I do adultery and some of the other examples that were listed. However, I would not refuse to serve any of these people if I had a restaurant. I think to do so is of itself a problem. However, serving someone and endorsing their lifestyle are separate issues - mutually exclusive. While I would do the former, I would not do the latter. I can see why XYZ Bakery feels that if they make a cake celebrating the marriage of two homosexuals, they could feel as if they were endorsing that lifestyle; it's hard to make a cake with the message, "Congratulations John and Butch," with two male figurines standing on the top, and still pretend that you have not celebrated the issue of homosexuality on some real level. I've personally never seen a cake celebrating an adulterous relationship, but perhaps there have been some "Congratulations Bob, for cheating on your wife!" But as with the other issue, I feel that the bakery should continue to have the right to refuse to support this, if it would otherwise mean compromising their deeply-held religious beliefs.
If you don't agree with me, good for you! The right to have different opinions on important issues is one of the foundational tenets of the USA. This isn't North Korea; we have the constitutionally-granted right to differ in opinion. What we do not have, however, is the right to force everyone to abandon their personal beliefs.
So are you arguing that slavery and segregation did not thrive in a free market?
It was hardly a free market. Blacks had no legal right to unionize or fight individually for higher wages, or to switch employers. They had zero rights. A key component of a free market is the free movement of labour.
During segregation, as I understand it even BUSINESSES were restricted on who they could hire for what functions based on the skin colour of the individual, which is totally nuts and the antithesis of "free market".
Do I have to be a socialist to understand how you can conflate SLAVERY with the phrase "free market" ??
Um… Take a good look at the very first topic addressed in the First Amendment.
Establishment means the creation or selection of an official state religion. Exercise means putting something into practice. In other words, the government cannot have an official religion, nor can it prevent anyone from believing or acting on religious beliefs. Therefore, laws are required to be written to make sure they do not interfere with religious beliefs and practices. That is a protected "special right".
You say "... nor can it prevent anyone from believing or acting on religious beliefs ..."
That's absurd. If by my religious beliefs, I deem that you are a heretic, does the First Amendment give me the right to burn you at the stake? The limit of religious freedom - or liberty - is reached when it impinges on the freedom of others. In other words, the "free exercise" of religion is not unlimited. The Constitution and the government established under it has the power - and moreover - the DUTY - to balance all the rights of all its citizens equitably.
You say "... nor can it prevent anyone from believing or acting on religious beliefs ..."
That's absurd. If by my religious beliefs, I deem that you are a heretic, does the First Amendment give me the right to burn you at the stake? The limit of religious freedom - or liberty - is reached when it impinges on the freedom of others. In other words, the "free exercise" of religion is not unlimited. The Constitution and the government established under it has the power - and moreover - the DUTY - to balance all the rights of all its citizens equitably.
Words mean things. In this case, "exercise". You don't get to change the meaning just because you want to.
8. to put (faculties, rights, etc.) into action, practice, or use:
"to exercise freedom of speech."
More specifically, in this case, it means "not being forced to participate in an action a well established religion teaches is wrong." Burning at the stake is not a religious teaching that I am aware of.
Maybe I'd even get put in jail for slapping that passive aggressive silliness out of you if you said it in my face....
BTW, I'm a Canadian who lived in the US for many years. I've seen you're so called liberty up front, including a sexual assault by southern bigots 30 years ago... so you can spare me the American dream speech.
So are you a Canadian advocate of physical violence?
Amazing how inflammatory appeals for FREEDOM can be! But please know that nothing you or anyone else has said in this forum inspire me in any way to seek physical violence on anyone here.
For the record, I made no prior statement that says "freedom is the American Dream." No. I said, in fact, that freedom doesn't always please everyone.
I am very sorry about your experience 3 decades ago, and I am sorry my American forefathers abused the freedoms of others long ago, but it is a mistake to use that wicked past to trash LIBERTY today. The FREEDOM I speak of is nothing I myself have created. It is nothing inherent to America either. It is the very freedom that allows you and I both to express our concerns and heated opinions here in this forum. And that is freedom I myself am thankful for.
Whether one likes it or not, a little old Christian lady who owns a cake shop very well may consider the making of a wedding cake for gay couples "a sin for her." As such, she would be compelled by the state to become an apostate to her own faith if she legally was forced to accept the cake order. It is her freedom being protected by this Indiana law. And that freedom is NOT establishing a religion. Keep in mind it protects Muslims too, who also consider homosexual unions "a sin" in their Good Book. And in the rare case where a gay couple is turned down by such a bakery, in light of the fact America is NOT a "Christian nation" and where genuine "Bible-based" Christians are a distinct MINORITY, finding another cake maker in your same Indiana town should be a rather trivial task. Opponents of the Indiana Law, Tim Cook included, don't fully understand this important point. It doesn't promote hate. It prevents the state from forcing people of faith to basically destroy their faith.
This new law is not a return to slavery or segregation. It's not about hate. A baker can refuse a cake order today, without hating anyone, on the grounds of "No Shoes, No Service." So comparisons with Southern Hate are therefore severely out of place. And although bad things did occur in the past, our focus must be on the here and now. We need to put emotion aside and reason this through with wisdom, keeping FREEDOM paramount.
FREEDOM needs to be protected, even in cases where we ourselves are repulsed by how some people use it.
I dont care much for tim cooks personal issue with state laws. As a CEO he needs to keep muted on his opinions and not drag apple into this association with the gay agenda. If not he risks bringing down apple, he needs to back off.
His position is the GOP pseudo-liberterianism (Rand Paul is the current espouser, you can go on Wikiquote to get the full view of what he thinks). In fact, its using the state to enforce my way of life, and everybody else can just go take a hike somewhere; if you don't have somewhere else to go, well that's tough luck on you...
Here's a Rand Paul quote that expresses EXACTLY this kind of thinking (enforced by the state of course, other quotes are there for the taking...). "A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin. It is unenlightened and ill-informed to promote discrimination against individuals based on the color of their skin. It is likewise unwise to forget the distinction between public (taxpayer-financed) and private entities."
Yup, that's what I intended to point out, but I wanted him/her (JDW) to own up to it.
Increasing "States' freedoms" is nothing more than a "dog whistle call" to hard-right supporters of racism and discrimination. Like Rand Paul's quote, it's (politically correct) double-speak for expressing institutionalized discrimination. Very few people today crowing about "States' freedoms" are espousing Anti-Federalism. Most are religious conservatives seeking to use government (at the State level) to enforce their moral sensibilities on a population.
I think the poster was merely pointing out that moving to another state is an option.
No, re-read it. He posted a rant about "States' freedoms". In this context, "Move to another state" = "GTFO out of my state if you don't like being discriminated against."
Has anyone else noticed how detached Tallest Skil has been lately? He is from Indiana and in the past has been very vocal about these types of social issues, but not a peep from him. I checked his page and he was logged on 2 hours ago. I wonder what is up with him.
I was thinking about him as I was updating my blocker script today.
In case you are interested in the script you can find it here:
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.
Yup. I've read earnest libertarian writings that advocate a free-market solution to ending discrimination, but they woefully assume that all economic actors behave out of pure economic self-interest, which is an idealization. In reality people discriminate for all sorts of irrational reasons, including religious prejudice, racial prejudice, etc. We don't have a color-blind egalitarian society.
I'm a middle class Canadian too, and I think that the government is the absolute LAST entity that should be picking my pockets to allegedly "help the unfortunate". I work hard, take care of my two daughters, volunteer at the local food bank. Why in hell do I want the government raising my taxes - for what? They have proven they are in it for the power and the money and they do not spend it as wisely as I spend my own money. Everywhere I turn I am blitzed with taxes, fees and paperwork.
We murder millions of trees to keep accountants and tax lawyers in business, but liberals like you tell me I should be happy about this, because someone was bigoted towards you in the southern US?? Milking the rich and middle class at the threat of gunpoint and jail are going to make Alabamans appreciate your butch haircut? There is a massive logical disconnect with liberal philosophy.
I know a lot of poor people who are selfish and insular. And I know rich people who are beyond generous, volunteering huge piles of time and money to help the less fortunate. Tim Cook is one of those people, although as a small shareholder I do not think he should be pandering to the militant PC crowd (yep, talking to you Foggyhill). Yes he has the right to do so, just as I have the right to criticize him for doing so.
I'm not talking about one lone incident, there's a massive pattern of "incidents" that's just the worse one. Another incident, someone threw bricks at my houses and windows, another one, a guy followed me home and tried breaking my door down (had to treaten him with a my non existing gun...), etc. Had good ol' evangelical litterature about damnation in my mailbox for months despite talking to police... I could go on and on and on. So, please spare me the crap! And that's just staying there less than two years!! I couldn't stand it anymore.
BTW, been in tech and business as engineer, tech manager, CTO, VP since the 1980s and made a mint along the way (as anyone who has seen it all would have...). I've been in close contact with probably an auditorium full of those rich people you talk so glowingly about. They're no better (or worse) than the average. Having money doesn't make you more generous; I'd say the vast majority of people are navel gazing individualists in all income brackets.
BTW, you using Liberal as an insult, makes me think that you are part of the Neo-GOP Harper conservative; which uses the GOP playbook at every turn to transform Canada into a Texas clone.
As for that pseudo milking of the middle class... Do you mean like Harper borrowing money in the name of the state and then give 70-90% of it as tax cuts to the richest (borrowing money for tax cuts, such a "good" ol" economist, he's going full tilt on that for the next 6 years), while giving crumbs to that "middle class" and telling them... Hey, see, you got money too! Bravo, now go spend you $10. And example of this is income splitting that his own finance minister Flaherty opposed (and all economists agreed was a bad idea) and yet Ideologue in chief Harpo is passing anyway. So, again spare me the mumbo jumbo about "caring" for the middle class .
Fact is that the quality of jobs has slipped continuously while the Cons have been in power. They're transforming Canada into Texas like petro-state, with loads and loads of garbage paying jobs.
Harper basically copies EVERYTHING the GOP is doing to a tee and is able to get away with it because the progressive vote is split (Harper never got more than 39%). Eventually people will wake up and put the Neo-GOP out of power for a generation like they deserve to be.
So are you arguing that slavery and segregation did not thrive in a free market?
It was hardly a free market. Blacks had no legal right to unionize or fight individually for higher wages, or to switch employers. They had zero rights. A key component of a free market is the free movement of labour.
During segregation, as I understand it even BUSINESSES were restricted on who they could hire for what functions based on the skin colour of the individual, which is totally nuts and the antithesis of "free market".
Do I have to be a socialist to understand how you can conflate SLAVERY with the phrase "free market" ??
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 that you just thought a random anti-socialist remark might score some points. Sorry - missed, and I'm not a socialist either.
I tend to think of morality as a private thing, something you apply to your own actions rather than something you preach to others, so I'm not super impressed by Tim Cook trumpting "Apple's Values" every chance he gets.
Comments
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.
Actually it was. It's a common fallacy, but laws actually FOLLOW the social mood, and REFLECT the social mood, they do not create it. Check out Socionomics:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomics
The Civil War was instigated on economic factors, not just racial... Race and slavery happened to define the differences between the economies of the North and South, but civil wars and revolutions happen for all kinds of secondary reasons AFTER economics.
Studies show that blacks were gaining in employment and managerial positions both before and after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There is scant evidence that the government actually helps people, or if it does it is always at the expense of other people. Civil Rights Act of 1964 is in my opinion a good law, but it's not the reason some blacks are doing better economically than they were before. It is an effect, and an encapsulation of the dominant social mood of the day, and not a cause.
So are you arguing that slavery and segregation did not thrive in a free market?
http://www.nationofchange.org/utah-ending-homelessness-giving-people-homes-1390056183
That's an excellent counter-example that proves the rule... The majority of governments are more like the nutbar Hawaiian governor, as that article shows.
If it wasn't obvious, I'm a libertarian and not a Republican. So I actually agree with the authors point how a Republican government would normally force the homeless people to take a drug test and throw up all kinds of obstacles. To me, that's just as bad as raising taxes to pay for boondoggles. If you've decided to give away homes to the homeless, then make it as cost effective with as little red tape as possible.
So it may surprise you to know, most Libertarians are realists and would fight for incremental change like this – reducing red tape on an existing government program is a very good thing. If the government already owns these homes due to property tax foreclosures then I would be pretty much 100% in favour of this program.
Go read Leviticus some day.
That's just it. They don't read the bible which is why they're so ignorant of it.
It has been my experience that arguments like these are made by people who are ignorant of the specifics of what Leviticus actually says and who it is written and applies to.
I didn't ask him (or her) what gave States the right to make laws. I asked him how giving States more freedom to abolish more individual freedoms was consistent with his (or her) otherwise libertarian-sounding rant.
You asked for one reason. I gave you two.
It is not an anti-gay law. That is misinformation.
It is a law for freedom of association. You cannot force people to associate with people they don't want to associate with.
Are you from the US? Because if so, then your understanding of the constitutional reality of this country is seriously messed up. Let's say you own a restaurant. You don't want to "associate" with black people. Do you really think that you can ban black people from your restaurant?
The fact is, the 800 lb. elephant in the room is this: These proposals (and now laws, like in Indiana) talk about "religious" people not wanting to serve "sinners." Well, guess what? A basic tenet of Christianity is that EVERYONE is a sinner. So, in other words, if these merchants really lived up to their "beliefs" then they would serve NO ONE. Adulterer? No way. Alcoholic? Nope. Someone who says, "God damn!" Uh-uh. Anyone who has a tattoo? That's not going to happen.
Go read Leviticus some day.
Tim Cook is not only a good leader of Apple, he's a good man who believes in equality and, more importantly, people being decent to one and other. It's sad that you can't understand that.
He believes in equality as long as it does not interfere with his choice of lifestyle. He most certainly does not believe in the equality of the right to practice your deeply-held beliefs, unless they happen to coincide with his own beliefs. He seems far more interested in using the political leverage of Apple to advance his own beliefs as more appropriate than the beliefs of those that may disagree with him. Homosexuals are a vocal minority currently leveraging political turmoil to their own advantage. This has happened many times throughout history.
Refusing to overtly support homosexuality does not equate to racism; race is not any part of the equation. Besides, for every one bakery that feels strongly against making a cake with two male figurines on the top, there are a dozen that have no problem with it. The type of lowlife that tries to force these people to do something contrary to their personal convictions is just doing so to pick a fight in an environment where the social barometer is still such that no minority member of society can get their feelings hurt, no matter the expense to majority members of society. They could easily take their business elsewhere, but they want the fight, to prove some inexplicable point ("I can FORCE you to do something against your most closely-held beliefs, or you will get shut down by the government. - give up your beliefs or die!").
I personally see the issue a little differently; I do see homosexuality as wrong, just as I do adultery and some of the other examples that were listed. However, I would not refuse to serve any of these people if I had a restaurant. I think to do so is of itself a problem. However, serving someone and endorsing their lifestyle are separate issues - mutually exclusive. While I would do the former, I would not do the latter. I can see why XYZ Bakery feels that if they make a cake celebrating the marriage of two homosexuals, they could feel as if they were endorsing that lifestyle; it's hard to make a cake with the message, "Congratulations John and Butch," with two male figurines standing on the top, and still pretend that you have not celebrated the issue of homosexuality on some real level. I've personally never seen a cake celebrating an adulterous relationship, but perhaps there have been some "Congratulations Bob, for cheating on your wife!" But as with the other issue, I feel that the bakery should continue to have the right to refuse to support this, if it would otherwise mean compromising their deeply-held religious beliefs.
If you don't agree with me, good for you! The right to have different opinions on important issues is one of the foundational tenets of the USA. This isn't North Korea; we have the constitutionally-granted right to differ in opinion. What we do not have, however, is the right to force everyone to abandon their personal beliefs.
If you don't agree with me, good for you! The right to have different opinions on important issues is one of the foundational tenets of the USA.
And that is the actual definition of "tolerance" in a nutshell.
So are you arguing that slavery and segregation did not thrive in a free market?
It was hardly a free market. Blacks had no legal right to unionize or fight individually for higher wages, or to switch employers. They had zero rights. A key component of a free market is the free movement of labour.
During segregation, as I understand it even BUSINESSES were restricted on who they could hire for what functions based on the skin colour of the individual, which is totally nuts and the antithesis of "free market".
Do I have to be a socialist to understand how you can conflate SLAVERY with the phrase "free market" ??
Um… Take a good look at the very first topic addressed in the First Amendment.
Establishment means the creation or selection of an official state religion. Exercise means putting something into practice. In other words, the government cannot have an official religion, nor can it prevent anyone from believing or acting on religious beliefs. Therefore, laws are required to be written to make sure they do not interfere with religious beliefs and practices. That is a protected "special right".
You say "... nor can it prevent anyone from believing or acting on religious beliefs ..."
That's absurd. If by my religious beliefs, I deem that you are a heretic, does the First Amendment give me the right to burn you at the stake? The limit of religious freedom - or liberty - is reached when it impinges on the freedom of others. In other words, the "free exercise" of religion is not unlimited. The Constitution and the government established under it has the power - and moreover - the DUTY - to balance all the rights of all its citizens equitably.
You say "... nor can it prevent anyone from believing or acting on religious beliefs ..."
That's absurd. If by my religious beliefs, I deem that you are a heretic, does the First Amendment give me the right to burn you at the stake? The limit of religious freedom - or liberty - is reached when it impinges on the freedom of others. In other words, the "free exercise" of religion is not unlimited. The Constitution and the government established under it has the power - and moreover - the DUTY - to balance all the rights of all its citizens equitably.
Words mean things. In this case, "exercise". You don't get to change the meaning just because you want to.
More specifically, in this case, it means "not being forced to participate in an action a well established religion teaches is wrong." Burning at the stake is not a religious teaching that I am aware of.
So are you a Canadian advocate of physical violence?
Amazing how inflammatory appeals for FREEDOM can be! But please know that nothing you or anyone else has said in this forum inspire me in any way to seek physical violence on anyone here.
For the record, I made no prior statement that says "freedom is the American Dream." No. I said, in fact, that freedom doesn't always please everyone.
I am very sorry about your experience 3 decades ago, and I am sorry my American forefathers abused the freedoms of others long ago, but it is a mistake to use that wicked past to trash LIBERTY today. The FREEDOM I speak of is nothing I myself have created. It is nothing inherent to America either. It is the very freedom that allows you and I both to express our concerns and heated opinions here in this forum. And that is freedom I myself am thankful for.
Whether one likes it or not, a little old Christian lady who owns a cake shop very well may consider the making of a wedding cake for gay couples "a sin for her." As such, she would be compelled by the state to become an apostate to her own faith if she legally was forced to accept the cake order. It is her freedom being protected by this Indiana law. And that freedom is NOT establishing a religion. Keep in mind it protects Muslims too, who also consider homosexual unions "a sin" in their Good Book. And in the rare case where a gay couple is turned down by such a bakery, in light of the fact America is NOT a "Christian nation" and where genuine "Bible-based" Christians are a distinct MINORITY, finding another cake maker in your same Indiana town should be a rather trivial task. Opponents of the Indiana Law, Tim Cook included, don't fully understand this important point. It doesn't promote hate. It prevents the state from forcing people of faith to basically destroy their faith.
This new law is not a return to slavery or segregation. It's not about hate. A baker can refuse a cake order today, without hating anyone, on the grounds of "No Shoes, No Service." So comparisons with Southern Hate are therefore severely out of place. And although bad things did occur in the past, our focus must be on the here and now. We need to put emotion aside and reason this through with wisdom, keeping FREEDOM paramount.
FREEDOM needs to be protected, even in cases where we ourselves are repulsed by how some people use it.
His position is the GOP pseudo-liberterianism (Rand Paul is the current espouser, you can go on Wikiquote to get the full view of what he thinks). In fact, its using the state to enforce my way of life, and everybody else can just go take a hike somewhere; if you don't have somewhere else to go, well that's tough luck on you...
Here's a Rand Paul quote that expresses EXACTLY this kind of thinking (enforced by the state of course, other quotes are there for the taking...). "A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin. It is unenlightened and ill-informed to promote discrimination against individuals based on the color of their skin. It is likewise unwise to forget the distinction between public (taxpayer-financed) and private entities."
Yup, that's what I intended to point out, but I wanted him/her (JDW) to own up to it.
Increasing "States' freedoms" is nothing more than a "dog whistle call" to hard-right supporters of racism and discrimination. Like Rand Paul's quote, it's (politically correct) double-speak for expressing institutionalized discrimination. Very few people today crowing about "States' freedoms" are espousing Anti-Federalism. Most are religious conservatives seeking to use government (at the State level) to enforce their moral sensibilities on a population.
I think the poster was merely pointing out that moving to another state is an option.
No, re-read it. He posted a rant about "States' freedoms". In this context, "Move to another state" = "GTFO out of my state if you don't like being discriminated against."
Has anyone else noticed how detached Tallest Skil has been lately? He is from Indiana and in the past has been very vocal about these types of social issues, but not a peep from him. I checked his page and he was logged on 2 hours ago. I wonder what is up with him.
I was thinking about him as I was updating my blocker script today.
In case you are interested in the script you can find it here:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/185450/apples-tim-cook-plans-to-give-away-all-of-his-money/40#post_2699793
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.
Yup. I've read earnest libertarian writings that advocate a free-market solution to ending discrimination, but they woefully assume that all economic actors behave out of pure economic self-interest, which is an idealization. In reality people discriminate for all sorts of irrational reasons, including religious prejudice, racial prejudice, etc. We don't have a color-blind egalitarian society.
I'm a middle class Canadian too, and I think that the government is the absolute LAST entity that should be picking my pockets to allegedly "help the unfortunate". I work hard, take care of my two daughters, volunteer at the local food bank. Why in hell do I want the government raising my taxes - for what? They have proven they are in it for the power and the money and they do not spend it as wisely as I spend my own money. Everywhere I turn I am blitzed with taxes, fees and paperwork.
We murder millions of trees to keep accountants and tax lawyers in business, but liberals like you tell me I should be happy about this, because someone was bigoted towards you in the southern US?? Milking the rich and middle class at the threat of gunpoint and jail are going to make Alabamans appreciate your butch haircut? There is a massive logical disconnect with liberal philosophy.
I know a lot of poor people who are selfish and insular. And I know rich people who are beyond generous, volunteering huge piles of time and money to help the less fortunate. Tim Cook is one of those people, although as a small shareholder I do not think he should be pandering to the militant PC crowd (yep, talking to you Foggyhill). Yes he has the right to do so, just as I have the right to criticize him for doing so.
I'm not talking about one lone incident, there's a massive pattern of "incidents" that's just the worse one. Another incident, someone threw bricks at my houses and windows, another one, a guy followed me home and tried breaking my door down (had to treaten him with a my non existing gun...), etc. Had good ol' evangelical litterature about damnation in my mailbox for months despite talking to police... I could go on and on and on. So, please spare me the crap! And that's just staying there less than two years!! I couldn't stand it anymore.
BTW, been in tech and business as engineer, tech manager, CTO, VP since the 1980s and made a mint along the way (as anyone who has seen it all would have...). I've been in close contact with probably an auditorium full of those rich people you talk so glowingly about. They're no better (or worse) than the average. Having money doesn't make you more generous; I'd say the vast majority of people are navel gazing individualists in all income brackets.
BTW, you using Liberal as an insult, makes me think that you are part of the Neo-GOP Harper conservative; which uses the GOP playbook at every turn to transform Canada into a Texas clone.
As for that pseudo milking of the middle class... Do you mean like Harper borrowing money in the name of the state and then give 70-90% of it as tax cuts to the richest (borrowing money for tax cuts, such a "good" ol" economist, he's going full tilt on that for the next 6 years), while giving crumbs to that "middle class" and telling them... Hey, see, you got money too! Bravo, now go spend you $10. And example of this is income splitting that his own finance minister Flaherty opposed (and all economists agreed was a bad idea) and yet Ideologue in chief Harpo is passing anyway. So, again spare me the mumbo jumbo about "caring" for the middle class .
Fact is that the quality of jobs has slipped continuously while the Cons have been in power. They're transforming Canada into Texas like petro-state, with loads and loads of garbage paying jobs.
Harper basically copies EVERYTHING the GOP is doing to a tee and is able to get away with it because the progressive vote is split (Harper never got more than 39%). Eventually people will wake up and put the Neo-GOP out of power for a generation like they deserve to be.
So are you arguing that slavery and segregation did not thrive in a free market?
It was hardly a free market. Blacks had no legal right to unionize or fight individually for higher wages, or to switch employers. They had zero rights. A key component of a free market is the free movement of labour.
During segregation, as I understand it even BUSINESSES were restricted on who they could hire for what functions based on the skin colour of the individual, which is totally nuts and the antithesis of "free market".
Do I have to be a socialist to understand how you can conflate SLAVERY with the phrase "free market" ??
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 that you just thought a random anti-socialist remark might score some points. Sorry - missed, and I'm not a socialist either.
Power to individual states and less power to the Fed!
But States rights is not necessarily "the heart" of what I said previously. Please refer to my previous post for that:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/185449/tim-cook-deeply-disappointed-by-new-indiana-anti-gay-law/320#post_2699892
Best wishes.
I tend to think of morality as a private thing, something you apply to your own actions rather than something you preach to others, so I'm not super impressed by Tim Cook trumpting "Apple's Values" every chance he gets.