7 ms·

That's why I said 'ideal', it's not true in practice, but I was responding to the comment about the hypothetical "point of the US".

by guelo 10y ago

brightball 10y ago
What I meant by that was individual liberty and the ability to make your own choices and decisions. Government meddling in that in this case is forcing people to do something they are uncomfortable with simply because they paid money while simultaneously running the risk of legal action if at any point you want to abort the transaction. The most basic example is akin to forcing somebody to sign a contract without knowing who they are signing it with.
- vkou 10y ago
  We've tried allowing this kind of thing, and what we got was redlining, "No colored allowed" and "Dogs and Irish keep off the grass." If complying with anti-discrimination law is a problem for you, you should generally not be in this line of business.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Redlining is an explicit government policy, started by the HOLC (a government sponsored corporation created by FDR as part of the New Deal). Here's one of their maps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#/media/File:Home_Owners%27_Loan_Corporation_Philadelphia_redlining_map.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#/media/File:Home_Own... Separating whites from colored was also explicit government policy. It was called Jim Crow. We never tried "this kind of thing". http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/links/misclink/examples/homepage.htm http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/links/misclink/examples/homepa... The law was actually far more intrusive back then than it is today. For example, you might be shocked to discover that Jim Crow laws actually mandated discrimination in sexual relationships! The closest we've come to trying this kind of thing is the present day, where at least sexual relationships have been deregulated. (This one is a biggie for me, I discriminate pretty strongly against white women and think the government should not restrict my freedom in that way.)
  - brightball 10y ago
    You're conflating personal choice with discrimination. A contractual engagement between two people should ALMOST always be a matter of choice. A business that you can walk into off the street should ALMOST never be able to discriminate. I say almost in both cases because absolutes are the tools by which rules are abused.

That's why I said 'ideal', it's not true in practice, but I was responding to the comment about the hypothetical "point of the US".

by guelo 10y ago

That's why I said 'ideal', it's not true in practice, but I was responding to the comment about the hypothetical "point of the US".

brightball 10y ago

What I meant by that was individual liberty and the ability to make your own choices and decisions. Government meddling in that in this case is forcing people to do something they are uncomfortable with simply because they paid money while simultaneously running the risk of legal action if at any point you want to abort the transaction. The most basic example is akin to forcing somebody to sign a contract without knowing who they are signing it with.

vkou 10y ago
We've tried allowing this kind of thing, and what we got was redlining, "No colored allowed" and "Dogs and Irish keep off the grass." If complying with anti-discrimination law is a problem for you, you should generally not be in this line of business.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Redlining is an explicit government policy, started by the HOLC (a government sponsored corporation created by FDR as part of the New Deal). Here's one of their maps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#/media/File:Home_Owners%27_Loan_Corporation_Philadelphia_redlining_map.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#/media/File:Home_Own... Separating whites from colored was also explicit government policy. It was called Jim Crow. We never tried "this kind of thing". http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/links/misclink/examples/homepage.htm http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/links/misclink/examples/homepa... The law was actually far more intrusive back then than it is today. For example, you might be shocked to discover that Jim Crow laws actually mandated discrimination in sexual relationships! The closest we've come to trying this kind of thing is the present day, where at least sexual relationships have been deregulated. (This one is a biggie for me, I discriminate pretty strongly against white women and think the government should not restrict my freedom in that way.)
- brightball 10y ago
  You're conflating personal choice with discrimination. A contractual engagement between two people should ALMOST always be a matter of choice. A business that you can walk into off the street should ALMOST never be able to discriminate. I say almost in both cases because absolutes are the tools by which rules are abused.